Fifteen years ago, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted to implement an ambitious new vision for undergraduate education.

They created a core curriculum designed to provide Harvard students with a broad education in "approaches to knowledge" in the different disciplines.

"Knowledge is growing very rapidly and facts are changing a lot," says Geyser University Professor Henry Rosovsky, one of the core's principal architects. "Teaching people what the major approaches are makes people better prepared to deal with a rapidly changing world, to be an educated person."

But a two-month Crimson investigation shows that in many ways the vision has failed: professors and teaching fellows say "approaches" is little more than a cloak for classes that are watered-down versions of those offered in departments.

"In theory it's a great idea," Marten B. Duncan '94 says. "You need to take other courses, that's the beauty of this college, that you can take liberal arts courses and still be a science major."

Interviews with more than 75 students, 80 teaching fellows and 40 professors and administrators show that Harvard is not giving its students the broad liberal arts back ground the core curriculum is responsible for providing.

Duncan, for one, says the core has taught him "a lot of neat little facts." But it does not provide an understanding of the methodologies of various disciplines, he says.

Many say the time has come for a reexamination of the core--which was last comprehensively evaluated in 1989. Even Rosovsky, the core's founder, says the curriculum should be periodically re-evaluated.

"I do not believe there is a perfect system. These are not the Ten Commandments," Rosovsky says. "Every ten years, we should take a look and make changes."

But despite the numerous problems that burden the core--over-crowded sections, unchallenging course material, underqualified TFs and bored students--Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles says he will not reexamine it anytime soon.

"I do not foresee a major reviews in the immediate future," Knowles says.

Courses the Same

Many professors say their core classes are taught the same way as low-level department offerings, with no special effort to introduce an "approach to knowledge."

"I teach it no differently than I would introductory psychology," says Starch Professor of Psychology Jerome Kagan of his Social Analysis 42 class.

Harvard-Yenching Professor of History Albert M. Craig, who teaches Historical Study A-14, says he "uses the core course as an introduc- tion to the history of Japan," not necessarilyan "approach" to historical methodology.

"Many students use it that way," he says.

Director of the Core Program Susan W. Lewisadmits that not all professors in the coreunderstand its mission of "teaching approaches toknowledge."

"Some number of professors do not understandit," Lewis says. "It is very hard to apply."

Some professors who teach in the core evenquestion whether "approaches to knowledge" is avalid way of structuring a course.

The idea of teaching courses specifically togive students an "approach" is "problematic," saysKrupp Foundation of European Studies ProfessorCharles S. Maier, who teaches Historical StudyB-70.

"When I teach a history course, I try to beself-conscious about what a historian is doing,"he says. "I don't think that I personally would domuch different in a core course than a departmentcourse."

"If I knew what [approaches to knowledge] was,I would be very wise," says Higginson Professor ofEnglish Literature Larry D. Benson, who teachesLiterature and Arts A-13. "Like all ideals, it isvery vague. I do not think it actually happens."

The section leaders who do most of theday-to-day teaching in the core also say they haveno sense of a special "core" approach to teaching.

Many, in fact, did not know what the corecurriculum is supposed to be teaching students.

"I'm not exactly sure what the goals of thecore are," says Christina Gomez, who teaches inSocial Analysis 38.

Lecturer on History and Literature Jeffrey J.Cohen, head section leader in Literature and ArtsA-13, says he does not know what an "approach toknowledge" is.

"I think I would have to figure out what themission of the core is," he says.

Most teaching fellows say the have received noguidance as to how to teach differently in a coreclass.

"I do not really know a whole lot about thecore," says Foreign Cultures 40 teaching fellowMatthias Henze. "We talked about why foreigncultures are being taught. Beyond that we werenever told anything about the program."

The core office distributes a handbook to coreteaching fellows which provides a "pragmaticoutline" of how to run a large core class andteach a section. But many TFs say they haven'teven read the book.

"I was never told anything about the mission ofthe core," says Science B-29 TF Gilbert Tostevin.

And students say they see no difference inteaching style between basic department classesand core courses.

"I do not really see any difference in the waythe cores are taught," says Antony R. Garcia'93-'94, a biology concentrator.

"I really do not know what the 'approaches toknowledge' means," says William M. Jones '95.

Christopher Basaldu '94 says he thinks thewhole idea is a farce.

"The famed 'approaches to knowledge' is eithera. a smokescreen: b. a myth; or c. a pipe dreamthat the Faculty has," he says.

Rather then a broad education in"approaches," what most students get from theircore classes is knowledge of the specific topicsof the course.

"I think it is bullshit," says Trey Grayson '94about the "approaches to knowledge" teachingmethod. "In 'Beethoven' [Literature and Arts B-69]all they teach is Beethoven."

"Last semester in Historical Study B-40,Basically all I had to do was memorize tons ofdates and facts," says one student, who spoke oncondition of anonymity.

In some ways, the core is like a weakdistributional requirement that makes studentstake classes in different disciplines.

But the Core's limited offerings do not ensureany kind of broad distribution, students say.Instead, narrow, specific courses give themesoteric knowledge in useless topics.

"My roommate took a his torical studies classon the white plague," says Laura M. Brew '95, areligion concentrator. "I think it is sad thatwhen she graduates her entire knowledge of historywill be confined to tuberculosis."

"I think the core exists so the teachers canteach what they want everyone else to know that noone else wants to take," says Robert E. Jordan'94.

Student input on what topics are included inthe core comes mainly form members of theUndergraduate Council who sit on the standing corefaculty committee and subcommittees.

The professors on these committees do listen tostudent members, says Hassen A. Sayeed '96, who ison the standing committee. But Sayeed is one ofonly two undergraduates on the standing committee,which must approve all core classes.

Areas Left Out

Some professors and students also say thatimportant areas of study are left out of thecore's distribution.

"It would not be bad if there was some sort ofsimple math or science or statistic or computerscience course required," says Ali Partovi '94."It is really going to be a big thing in thefuture. People form much shittier schools will getjobs because they know more about computers.

"Computers teach a way of thinking that isapplicable to many intellectual pursuits," saysAssistant Professor of Computer Science Margo. ISeltzer '83. "They teach problem solving.

Even more shocking, some argue, is the absenceof math form the core curriculum.

"My own personal feeling is that math should betaken by undergraduates," says Putnam Professor ofPure and Applied Mathematics Shlomo Z. Sternberg."It is a part of general education."

And some students have also called for anethnic studies core requirement. Last year, acoalition of minority student groups listed such arequirement in the demands it issued at a Juniorparents Weekend protest.

What students want instead of the corecurriculum is a truly broad liberal artseducation.

"A lot of us miss out on a chance to get abroad background," says Benjamin J. Vilhauer '95."Without having a background it's like having afew little shards of a timeline withoutunderstanding how they fit together."

But students and professors disagree about whata good general education should include.

Many say the core is simply an effort to avoidthat question: in offering "approaches," notspecific knowledge, Harvard doesn't have to judgewhat knowledge is worth having.

"The idea of teaching modes of thought is anobvious dodge. It is patently false," says oneScience A teaching fellow speaking on condition ofanonymity.

The core is "a beautiful bureaucratic solutionthe unsolvable problem" of deciding what to teach,Professor of History James Hankins says. "TheUniversity ought to decide what people ought toknow and take a stand on that, rather than saythey're teaching approaches to knowledge.

Hankins, like many professors andstudents, would like Harvard to offer broad surveyclasses designed to introduce students to the"classics" of Western civilization.

A general education should include "the greatbooks, European history and American, a survey ofmusic and fine arts, and some venture into anon-western culture that would be serious and notjust a sample of the cuisine," says KenanProfessor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr.'53.

Many students say they would like to see thecore offer broad survey classes in a variety ofsubjects.

Davis J. Wang '97 says he wants to take surveysin art history and European history.

"They should have civic courses that givepeople a basic foundation," Wang says.

Columbia University has a system of "greatbooks" classes similar to what many studentsvisualize.

Students at Columbia take year-long surveyclasses in "Literature Humanities," "ContemporaryCivilization," "Art Humanities" and "MusicHumanities."

Unlike the Harvard core's large lectures, allColumbia core classes are limited to 25 students,says Eileen Gillooly, adjunct administrativedirector of the Columbia core curriculum.

The small size is the "secret of theirsuccess," she says, though many of the courses areled by graduate students.

Student emerge from the Columbia core with acommon "understanding of what informs ourculture," she says.

Hankins, who taught in Columbia's core, says itoffers many features Harvard should emulate.

"Having a common body of knowledge benefitseverything that's taught...because there's acommon set of cultural reference points," he says.

At Harvard, Hankins says, he feels like he's"wearing a straitjacket" in teaching some classesbecause he can't assume students have any basiccommon knowledge.

"I can't take any kind of cultural referencefor granted," Hankins says.

Another alternative to Harvard's presentcore curriculum is distribution requirements,which would allow students freedom to pick anyclass form the different departments.

Since many students find core classes nodifferent form those in departments, many say adistribution requirement would simply widen thecore's field while not changing its basicapproach.

"It would give students more leeway while stillspecifying things they should know," says Alex J.Kim '96, a history and science concentrator."Sometimes in an area of the core, you'rehard-pressed to find something you're reallyinterested in."

"If we have to have requirements, I'd preferdistribution requirements," says Kimberly L.Pedersen '96. "There are many interesting coursesin departments."

The system these students endorse could besomething like what Rice University offers now.

Rice combines a core curriculum with adistributional requirement, says Patricia S.Martin, Rice's associate dean of students affairs.

The university is in the process of revampingits core, but the distributional requirement willnot change, Martin says.

Half of each Rice student's required classescome form its core. The other half come form core.The other half come form three divisions--socialsciences, natural sciences and humanities.

Rice's approximately 2,400 students can choosefrom a total of 200 courses in order to fulfilltheir requirements in the three divisions.

This semester, Harvard's core offers just 49classes for approximately 6,500 undergraduates.

The result of Rice's broad selection, saysMartin, is that students get smaller classes andcan take higher-level course whenever they wish.

And a system which, like Rice's, emphasizesvariety and choice could help alleviate some ofthe problems in Harvard's core.

"With distributional requirements, I thinkstudents could get more in-depth study into thingsthey're interested in," says Samuel A. Hilton '94.

Another alternative to Harvard's corecurriculum is simply to do away with generaleducation requirements altogether.

Many students also endorse this options. Theysay that even without coercion, undergraduateswould choose to take widely distributed classes.

"We would do it ourselves," says Brian J. Hunt'95. "They should just abolish the core. Withoutthose requirements, the natural process is thatpeople would venture out and take differentcourses. That is the nature of people who come toHarvard."

At Brown University, which has no generaleducation requirement, dean of the college SheilaE. Blumstein says students still take classes in avariety of areas.

Brown provides an "educational framework" ofgoals for students, she says, but students canchoose not to fulfill them.

"The students understand the principles [of thedistributional framework] and are using themresponsibly for the most part," she says.

Students often opt for higher-level coursesrather than the basic departmental classes,Blumstein says.

"They absolutely go for variety--if anything,they avoid the introductory courses for the moreexciting courses," she says.

But administrators say they arebasically happy with the core curriculum. Knowlessays core classes are better designed and moreclosely scrutinized than any other courses in thecurriculum.

And Dean for Undergraduate Education LawrenceBuell says he feels the present Harvard coresystem is "functioning very well."

But two-thirds of all students aren't happywith the status quo. In a Crimson poll of 341students, 51 percent said they would preferdistributional requirements to the corecurriculum, and 16 percent more said they wouldlike to have no requirements. Only 33 percentwould choose the core Harvard has now

"I have to say the core classes I've taken havebeen the biggest waste classes I've taken here,"says John W. O'Bell '94. They have been either"incredibly easy or incredibly irrelevant," hesays.

Hunt, a supporter of abolishing allrequirements says that when he came to Harvard, hethought the core was "a good idea."

"Since then," he says, "my opinion hasdegenerated."

What changed is mind?

"Taking the classes."Series at a Glance

MONDAY

The core curriculum, charged with making everyundergraduate a member of "the company of educatedmen and women," often fails in its missionstudents do little work for watered-down classesthat many feel need to be taught better.

YESTERDAY

The core's structure makes it difficult formany students to learn. Crowded sections and largelectures alienate undergraduates. And because ofthe limited number of classes available, studentssay it's hard to find a core they want to take.

TODAY

The core curriculum is supposed to offer"approaches to knowledge." But many teachers saytheir classes are not taught differently in thecore. The result is a patchwork education inspecific topics that most students find useless. CrimsonJennifer J. BaikHASSEN A. SAYEED '96Eugene Y ChangCore Poll Would you prefer A) requiredcourses distributed through different departments,B) the core we have now, or C) no requirements?Crimson File PhotoLAWRENCE BUELL