Why do so many student conferences with expository writing teachers end in confrontation--while conference with professors more often end with a meaningful exchanges of ideas? Why do alumni and students so often discuss Expos with mutual loathing?

The Expository Writing Department has no reason to be responsive to students' needs. Many students have no desire to learn the skills Expos tries to impart. All because Expos is forced upon us, not offered to us.

Plenty of students already know how to write well by the time they reach Harvard. The few who do require more training should certainly have the opportunity to seek the help they need. But the current expository writing program, which forces all first-years to participate in the same writing course regardless of the students' individual needs and desires, is fundamentally flawed.

The concept of a mandatory expository writing program at a university like Harvard invites disaster. An optional expository writing program would eliminate the current deficiencies of the current program and would better serve the interests of students.

The ability to write well is certainly valuable, for college and beyond. And it would be wonderful if all graduates of Harvard could meet high literary standards.

But what about other skills such as mathematics, natural and computer sciences, philosophy and public speaking? Are these not all valuable as well? One must ask why the University does not have requirements in these areas. Training in these crucial skills is certainly not the goal of the core program.

The reason is simple: not only should liberal-arts students be exposed to a wide variety of disciplines, but they should also have the freedom to tailor plans of study best suited to their individual interests and needs.

What if an entering first-year is an expert writer but lacks similar training in math or history, or would simply like to begin the study of writing at a higher level? Under the current system, this student has absolutely no freedom to do so. In fact, even if the student studied expository writing at Harvard Summer School, one of the basic expository writing classes is still mandatory.

Arguably, continued training in a field of one's own expertise is still helpful. But taking courses that are redundant is not a very efficient use of limited and valuable time as an undergraduate.

The mandatory nature of Expos also engenders a lack of accountability. Since the administrators of the expository writing program know they have the power to dictate their own guidelines, they have little incentive to create a flexible program that accommodates the needs of most students.

Admittedly, the department currently allows some flexibility. Students can choose which specific sort of writing course to take. Course offerings range from writing about poetry to writing about disease.

But over recent years these options have fallen in number. Courses devoted to more rigorous forms of scientific writing and to writing about economics have disappeared as teachers have reached their four year appointment limits.

Under the current program, administrators' lack of interest in vigorously adapting to the constantly changing needs of incoming classes can result in serious flaws in the curriculum. Though accommodating everyone is probably impossible, there are ways to make most students happier with the writing program.

If Harvard made expository writing optional--like every other program at the University--administrators and teachers would need to be more responsive to their students' desires and needs.

Poor administration of the Expos program would result in few students opting for the course, while enthusiastic leadership that presents frequent new offerings and innovations in teaching methods would translate into a large enrollment. Clearly, both students and teachers of the department would be better served.

Similarly, abolishing the expository writing requirement would lower discontent among students enrolled in these courses. Students would take expository writing classes based on interest, not coercion, This change in the nature of the program would decrease friction between students and teachers, enabling Expos to better meet its goal of improving the writing ability of its students.

No one is better aware of the needs of students than the students themselves. Certainly they will make mistakes along their educational paths, but making mistakes is an integral part of the learning process.

Uniform requirements do nothing but foster discontent among students and lack of vigor in administration of the programs that are required. Regardless of the intrinsic value of a course, students cannot--and should not--be forced to take it.