"REMEMBER, however weak your own background, the students know even less...If a student is clearly not satisfied and wants more depth, refer him/her to either another graduate student or to a good biographical reference. `That sounds like a good paper topic' is a good answer to questions raised on more specific/detailed points that you don't or can't get into and one you can use repeatedly to humorous effect."

The above is an excerpt from a memo distributed to the section leaders of Anthropology 10 this fall. Whether indicative of the policy of that course alone, or of a wider cross section of courses at Harvard, the memo raises serious questions about the wisdom of an already controversial policy.

In the face of tuition increases that are fast outpacing inflation, prestigious universities such as Harvard are being asked to justify the exorbitant costs of higher education. In the propaganda the College releases (in the form of an admissions guide to prospective applicants), the presence of what is "by common consent" one of the world's finest faculties is prominently cited. "Almost every member of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is both a teacher and a scholar," it goes on to say.

Unfortunately, as the admissions guide, to its credit, mentions, standing between you and that Nobel Laureate is your teaching fellow. What the guide neglects to elaborate upon, however, is the extent to which you must depend on your section leader: he/she interprets the word from on high, answers your questions, and perhaps most importantly, grades your papers. If a teaching system which gives disproportionate weight to section leaders than to full professors is accepted on face value (which is, of course, debatable), for $20,000, competent section leaders does not seem like too much to ask for.

What is so alarming about the implications of the Anthropology 10 memo is that a faculty member might condone the hiring of graduate students whose knowledge of the subject in question suspect. This is, after all, Harvard, which has traditionally been able to attract the nation's brightest undergraduates, graduate students, and professors to its hallowed halls. It is beyond my ability to conceive that Harvard would have the least bit of trouble hiring stellar, much less competent, teaching fellows (the same might be said about minority and women faculty); it is a question of initiative and not of feasibility.

STUDENTS have a right to section leaders whose teaching ability is commensurate with their effervescent resumes. Advertising big name professors without supplying competent section leaders borders on fraud. If the number of competent teaching fellows available within a discipline was indeed in question, which I doubt strongly, the ability to teach courses in that department would be undermined. Serious consideration should be given as to whether or not that course should be taught at all without a change in the teaching system.

Ultimately, it is the students who are paying the salaries of Harvard professors, while it is the stated goal of the College to educate said students. Therefore, the Faculty has an equal obligation and responsibility to teach their own sections or to hire a TF who can do just as well in their stead. Instructing section leaders to "[laugh] at one's self admitting ignorance (but not too often!" because it is one of the methods [the professor has] found effective," is hardly the way to go about continuing the Harvard tradition of of educating students.