One credit. That is what each student here receives for taking a "class." The well-known secret around here is that the University's definition of "class" can encompass just about anything. Consider the Freshman Seminar you took last year with no final, little reading, and only one paper graded Pass/Fail. On the other hand, consider the nail-pulling, sadistic excesses of Organic Chemistry which generate horror stories rivaling only the required reading lists given to Social Studies concentrators.

But everyone chooses their concentration, and it is no secret that one can choose several different flavors here--ranging from Harvard Lite to Harvard Lager (Extra Dark). Responsible students still pick classes based on their interests, so maybe it's okay that science majors have to work just a little harder.

Recently I had an argument with my roommates that set me thinking. They suggested that perhaps those who take time-demanding classes should be compensated with higher grades. Are grades the way to reward those students who take more labor-intensive classes?

Grades as a measure of effort would be the greatest of absurdities, and I don't think that many responsible students would seriously contend this. I think that such a contention is basically antithetical to Harvard's (debatably maniacal) dedication to veritas and excellence. I think that there is a consensus among faculty, administration and students, that grades are meant to measure excellence in thought and expression.

But my roommates may have a reasonable point when they (both science majors) contend that Organic Chemistry students do deserve some recognition of the fact that their course is, for the average student, more taxing and demanding than many others in terms of time required to master the material. The material itself may not be more intellectually demanding, but the time required for labs, problem sets and the like undeniably demands more time than other classes. One can point out that any corporate hiring officer or graduate school admissions committee member worth a bit of salt probably knows this as well. Nevertheless, the University has the obligation to reward and recognize the efforts of its most hardworking students.

So perhaps it would be nothing more than fair to give some official indication that certain courses are more difficult than others. This plan would run into the obvious problem of how to decide upon which classes are excruciating, and which are more humane. Asking professors whether their courses are the most challenging and demanding would be rather like asking a New Yorker whether New York or Los Angeles is a nicer city. Judging by the CUE guide ratings would be to codify and memorialize the hurried, and often vindictive, comments and evaluations dashed off on the way out of a crowded lecture hall.

Some schools award extra credit for classes which take up extra class time, such as language classes and those requiring labs. This seems a little unfair to the social sciences, however, and besides, classroom time is no proxy for total time required.

Actually, the best solution may be the good old status quo--which surprisingly has a good deal of planning and thinking behind it. Trying to put the University's imprimutaur on what is only a rough sense of unfairness among undergraduates would be a practical disaster. There is no reason to believe that a necessarily imprecise attempt to identify which classes are most labor intensive would be an advance for justice.

The current system of concentration requirements, core requirements and electives is quite an elegant system. The University decides upon the general education element of your course of study (the Core); you decide upon a component of your education (electives); and the department which you choose to specialize in determines which courses are required for a basic grounding in that discipline.

Almost no one can legitimately call Core classes too demanding, and of course electives can be chosen to be as easy or as difficult as you wish.

Students who feel that the expectations of the department they are in are too demanding may have a legitimate beef with their Head Tutor. However, the department's professors who have designed a course of study have the advantage of being at the end of their education, while the student is only at the beginning.

Nonetheless, it is to be expected that different departments will have different standards of what undergraduates should know and how hard they must work. It is the diversity of approaches to knowledge and learning that make Harvard such fecund ground, and it is only through the diversity and independence of departments that Harvard can (through time) develop standards of educational excellence.