Entering the Core requires a rigorous examination process and continual monitoring, supervision which can deter professors from seeking Core certification.

Dominguez says that the process of submitting a syllabus for Core committee review is often an unpleasant one for professors.

"The Committee does the unthinkable: it says that syllabus isn't good enough. Most Harvard Faculty have never heard that in their lives," he says. "Most professors just don't want to be told how to teach their courses."

The Director of the Core program admits that the process for admitting courses into the Core is not pleasant for the professor.

"There's a strong feeling that courses in the Core be vetted and monitored, which isn't really possible outside of the program," Lewis says. "There's no reason why a professor would want to subject himself to the kind of scrutiny that a Core course requires."

Under the current system, a few departmental classes have been absorbed into the Core--Historical Studies A-12: "International Conflicts in the Modern World," also an introductory government class, is a prominent example.

While the CRC opposes replacing the Core with a system of departmental bypasses, the working paper does recommend that "Core subcommittees expand their mechanisms for reviewing requests (petitions) from qualified students who wish to meet Core requirments with department courses which specifically require advanced background and skills."

"Departmental courses are not designed to fulfill the same purposes as Core courses," the CRC paper asserts, citing a lack of historical and literary background in non-Core departmental classes.

"In this sense, the substitution undercuts the basic philosophy and purpose of the Core," it concludes, predicting that a wide-open departmental bypass system would offer no incentive for professors to submit to Core scrutiny.

"Basically, a system of departmental bypasses would gradually destroy the Core," Dominguez said. "There would be no reason for faculty to bring their courses into the Core, and we'd wind up with departmental courses and aging Core courses, and the interests of non-concentrators would get lost."

What next?

Verba says informal and formal discussions of both proposals will continue through the April faculty meeting, and that he hopes to have legislation prepared for a May vote.

"I think the initial reaction has been very good. The Faculty has a variety of views, but in general they've been favorable," Verba says. "The next stage is talking to a lot of people, and these discussions will be the basis for converting those proposals into legislation."

He adds that several forums for undergraduate input will be held in the weeks following Spring Recess.

Rudenstine says he is looking forward to the Faculty meeting debates.

"As far as I can see the committee has done an extremely thorough, thoughtful job, and the directions they pointed in are very thoughtful directions," Rudenstine says. "I'll certainly want to listen to the discussion and debate. . .and who knows what ideas will emerge from that."

Knowles says the heart of the Core must be remembered in the debate.

"Our Core is not about a single body of facts, but rather an education in areas remote from your concentration, about how to think," he says.

"I should like to think that a physics concentrator picks up Trollope with excitement at 40," he adds. "And at 40 a philosophy concentrator wonders about what causes the tides.