"In the Core, we have a pretty good record of recruiting teaching fellows from outside the Faculty of Arts and Sciences," says Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education David Pilbeam, a member of the Core Committee. Teaching fellows and assistants, he says, get similar performance ratings from students.

But while recruiting faculty and staff for Core courses cuts across the various areas of the Core, most of the other academic concerns remain specifically tied to individual fields.

For example, the Moral Reasoning component of the Core faces a particularly severe shortage of courses, largely because its definition is interdisciplinary and requires innovation from standard departmental courses. In fact, the subcommittee report says that when courses, such as the ever-popular Moral Reasoning 22, "Justice," need to be replaced, the Core area will face difficulty in finding adequate substitutes.

The Science A and B requirements of the Core are another instance of the localized problems of the Harvard curriculum. Because of what many scientists feel is inadequate preparation of students, the Science Core courses may not be meeting the expectations set up by the faculty.

To that end, subcommittee members are considering proposing a change in the requirements.

Since there is a "justified concern" that one term each of Science A and B does not provide an adequate introduction to science, the review says, the subcommittee will consider allowing two related Science A courses to fulfill the science requirement.

"The question we are considering is: Is it not better to spend more time learning less, but at greater depth?" asks Ehrenreich.

And although Ehrenreich says he believes the current science program is sufficient, he says the proposed changes will be considered in the fall by the Science subcommittee.

"The present system we have is working pretty well," concludes Ehrenreich. "But you can always ask if we can do better."