Are Harvard's senior faculty members outstanding scholars, setting a tone of appropriately cerebral discourse? Or are they insensitive, remote professors, isolated from the realm of the undergraduate?

They're both, according to a rare external review of undergraduate education at Harvard prepared by nine prominent educators. While "senior faculty set a tone of scholarly erudition," on the one hand, they are also "disengaged" and uninvolved with student issues, the report finds. In addition, the report criticizes the Faculty for its lack of organized input into University-wide educational issues.

But the more than 350 senior members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) will have a chance to respond at next week's full faculty meeting. FAS sent copies of the nine-page report this week's to each faculty member and the conclusions of the report are the major item on meeting's agenda.

Presumably, the Faculty will arrive at the proper description of a Harvard faculty member--erudite scholar versus sensitive adviser.

But according to Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education David Pilbeam the Faculty will not make substantive changes in the curriculum as a response to this single report--rather the discussion at the Faculty meeting will be the first step in continuing dialogue on the subject.

The report itself is the result of a three-day visit to Harvard last spring, part of Harvard's reaccreditation by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges conducted once every 10 years. The panel was chaired by Wesleyan President Colin G. Campbell.

The reaccreditation report, offers a rare outside critique of the Harvard undergraduate experience. In particular, the report singles out several weaknesses in University education: the minimal student-faculty contact, the superficiality of Quantitative Reasoning Requirement (QRR), the absense of mathematics teaching in the Core and the little academic advising students receive.

On a broader level, the report says the decentralized decision-making process of FAS prevents any coherent discussion of educational policy.

But even with these criticisms, many professors and administrators say that the report was substantially accurate and that they will address the concerns contained in it.

"I thought it really identified one of the real defects of decentralization," says Pierce Professor of Psychology Richard J. Herrnstein, who is chairman of the Core Curriculum subcommittee on Social Analysis. "Except for the Core, there isn't very much communal discussion of academic matters."

Top FAS administrators, however, say the report is a vindication of Harvard's strengths, and that the criticisms are all very minor. "The results of the inquiry were gratifying," reads a memo sent to all faculty members from Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence in preparation for next week's meeting. "Our institutional strengths, thoughtfully observed by the evaluators, can be a source of pride to faculty, students, and administrators."

Spence's letter downplays the criticisms: "The group also identified what it found to be the defects of our virtues." Spence refused to comment further yesterday.

Other administrators, however, say that the evaluators' criticisms were well-founded, although limited by their short stay at Harvard.

"I didn't think there was very much I disagreed with," says Pilbeam. He says many of the problems with the faculty that the report identifies are the result of Harvard's relatively small number of faculty as compared with other research institutions.

Susan W. Lewis, director of the Core Curriculum, says the report was "very flattering," despite its criticisms. "Of course I think it's right," she says.