The position taken by Martin, who is the van Vleck professor of pure and applied physics and an ex-officio Core committee member, remains closely aligned to that taken by Harvard science professors 11 years ago. In a DAS straw-poll two months before the Core was approved in May, 1978, science faculty voted against the Core 23-3. The professors charged that the plan downplayed the importance of science and technology.

The computer and analytical requirement QRR--dismissed by several generations of Harvard students--has also been attacked for its shallow treatment in comparison with the computer revolution in industry and research in the 1980s.

"One of the possibilities is that there should be a whole different Core area devoted to QRR," says Hollis Professor of Mathematics Andrew M. Gleason, head of the QRR subcommittee. "We could have a larger mandate, a situation under which we are not operating under an extracurricular basis, as we are now."

The QRR will be one area covered by the review, says Core director Susan W. Lewis.

Another problem that might surface, Lewis says, is of more immediate concern to students: class size. While new courses are always being developed and new faculty recruited to the Core, getting professors to teach is often difficult.

"For many faculty members, to teach in the Core is to commit an unnatural act," says Professor of Government Jorge I. Dominguez, who heads the Foreign Cultures subcommittee, one of eight that make up the Core Committee.

"It is a lot easier to teach concentrators. You do not have to worry about the motivational aspect. You do not have to explain the subject matter."

The Subject of Review

In this year's review, faculty and administrator subcommittees will survey Core professors and section leaders. Professors' satisfaction with teaching, their problem issues in handling Core courses and adequate section education of students in what are frequently large lecture classes will also be studied. And section leaders will be asked to review their courses and professors.

Students will be surveyed through old CUE reviews and through the two undergraduate members on each committee.

"It is an attempt to stand back and review whether the Core is accomplishing what it was supposed to do and how well it is doing it," says Lewis.

Underlying Issues of Philosophy

But members of the Core Committee say that, despite criticism from some educators nationwide, they believe the underlying philosophy of the Core will not likely be changed.

"We are not about to recommend that the Core be abandoned," says Dominguez. "It is not because we forgot to consider the question, but that we decided that [although] it is not a perfect system, [it is] better than the alternatives."

Former Education Secretary William J. Bennett in 1986 tagged the program "Core lite," comparing the curriculum to its Gen Ed predecessor and assailing it for not being academically rigid.