SECRETARY OF EDUCATION William J. Bennett was correct last week when he accused Harvard of failing to meet its educational obligations to its students, even though his argument failed, as President Derek C. Bok claimed, to meet "high intellectual standards." It is unfortunate that Bennett's sloppy, unacademic approach and his arrogant manner obscured what could have been a convincing presentation.

Nevertheless, most undergraduates and faculty at Harvard would agree that there exists little to no advising from professors. Admittedly, there are exceptions to this situation, but they result from student initiative rather than University policy.

A Harvard senior who only associates Robespierre with a popular rock band on campus is hardly an educated individual, and an upperclassman who can't integrate a function is hardly differentiable from a sophisticated high school graduate. This inconsistency between the expectations of a Harvard student and reality stems from an insufficient advising system and a Core Curriculum which does not make enough demands on students.

In a complex institution like Harvard--a university which offers so many attractive courses--students cannot always be expected to know what is in their best academic interest. The school must be responsible for offering a more stable support network.

Advisors all too often do little more than sign students' study cards, providing little substantive academic advice. Surveys attest to the fact that the majority of students rarely take advantage of professors' office hours. The Bureau of Study Council, while laudable in its work, only attracts those students who perceive a problem with their study habits and are willing to work towards change.

With 570 members on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, it does not seem unreasonable to require each of them to spend one hour a week advising an upperclassman. With 550 of the faculty members participating, non-freshman would meet with a designated faculty member four times per year. This advisor would then submit a brief summary of every meeting.

Another system could require students' advisors--those who currently sign study cards--to meet with advisees for one half-hour every four weeks to discuss the students' academic progress. These casual meetings would be mandatory, forcing students to report their academic activities to some authority figure.

It should no longer be the student's responsibility to seek out what the University shouldn't take for granted.

WHILE BOK CORRECTLY asserts that contemporary education should teach thought processes, Bennett is also correct in his claim that this approach must not be substituted for essential bodies of knowledge. The following system would help combine the "two curricular philosophies," as Bok labeled them.

Harvard could require students to attend a series of lectures where professors present the basic elements of their fields. After each mandatory lecture, students would be required to summarize the information that had just been presented. There would be no out-of-class assignments. With one lecture a week for four years, Harvard could easily provide its students with the knowledge which the Core Curriculum allows them to avoid.

In response to Bennett, Bok asserted that the secretary had failed to understand the problems of higher education in America, and that his solutions were simplistic. The president pointed to surveys, studies and workshops which attempt to address serious problems in education. Yet despite his efforts, our administrative leader has yet to remedy the educational gaps here at Harvard.