When the Government Department last year decided to eliminate general exams as a requirement for an honors degree, we sighed but thought it was an aberration. When the History Department followed suit last month, however, we realized that this was no isolated incident but an unfortunate trend. General exams, while they can be onerous, are an integral part of the well-educated undergraduate's experience. For an honors candidate to graduate without an assurance that he or she knows the field is to corrupt the entire idea of graduating with honors.

We certainly sympathize with the seniors who have had to cope with both writing a thesis and taking a general exam. But there is a distinct difference between the research skills that a thesis requires and the breadth of knowledge that a general exam demands. They test two different aspects of the field: the thesis, one's ability to probe into a topic in depth and formulate an original argument, and the general exam, one's ability to synthesize three or four years of classes into cogent and intelligent essays.

In departments such as history and government, a broad knowledge of the field is crucial, because one must understand what happened long ago or in another system of government in order to understand today's world. Removing the general exam could encourage many students to avoid taking more than the required range of courses, causing them to cultivate only a narrow body of knowledge and then perhaps to think narrow-mindedly. It is bad enough that one can fulfill most of one's Core requirements with classes entirely about China; concentrations should not encourage a parochial focus as well. Requiring a wide range of classes alone does not ensure a breadth of knowledge and certainly does not guarantee a unified view of the field.

We regret that two of Harvard's largest departments, in trying to make their requirements more palatable to students, are diluting their curricula. In order to retain its academic reputation, Harvard should encourage its departments to retain their rigor. We encourage the Educational Policy Committee, headed by Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, to consider these decisions seriously and make recommendations in the future to preserve Harvard's academic integrity.