In a stinging report released yesterday, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching became the latest voice in a chorus criticizing research universities like Harvard for treating undergraduates like "second-class citizens."

The report, a survey of the state of undergraduate teaching at 125 "research universities" around the country, singled out several major failings of such schools--including huge and impersonal lecture classes and a failure to engage students with opportunities for research-and discussion-centered learning.

Harvard administrators said yesterday that they are reserving judgment until they review the report's research methods. They also pointed to recent reforms in the Core curriculum and efforts to train graduate students to be better instructors as proof that Harvard is already addressing some of the report's concerns.

But Harvard observers and Carnegie Foundation committee members say Harvard is not above the report's rebuke.

"Although Harvard looks better than most [research institutions], in its exploitation of undergraduates it ranks right up there with the rest of them," said Wayne Booth, a professor at the University of Chicago and a member of the committee that issued the report.

The committee says research institutions like Harvard are "guilty of an advertising practice they would condemn in the real world."

These include using a bait and switch tactic whereby they lure students in with high-profile faculty and then allow students to graduate "without seeing the world-famous professors or tasting genuine research."

The report goes on to say that it does not expect research institutions to provide undergraduate instruction on the model of a small liberal-arts college, but rather to bring undergraduates "into the big tent," allowing for more participatory research and learning opportunities.

As a remedy, the report recommended smaller, more interactive classes and less undergraduate instruction by gradu- ate students.

This recommendation echoes a plan put forwardby Marquand Professor of English Lawrence A.Buell, who called for smaller courses in the Corecurriculum during the Faculty's discussions ofCore reform last spring. Buell's plan was shotdown by concerns that it would require anexpensive increase in the number of Facultymembers.

"My special concern was to try to ensurethat...within the requirements for students tograduate be some possibility for small-groupinteractive learning," Buell said. "I thought[last spring] was an opportunity...which it willbe hard to get back again."

The Carnegie Foundation report's furtherrecommendations include the expansion ofinquiry-based learning for first-years. The reportlauds a Duke University program, which usesbig-name faculty in small discussiongroups--somewhat like the Freshman Seminar programat Harvard.

Sarah K. Hurwitz '99, a student member of theCommittee on Undergraduate Education (CUE), saidshe has seen large introductory courses stifle theenthusiasm of Harvard first-years.

"There's a tremendous problem with freshmencoming here with a lot of passions and wanderinginto big classes," Hurwitz said. "They don't finda mentor who encourages them...and there's atremendous loss of potential."

Buell agreed with Hurwitz, saying "everyonerecognizes the courses [students take] duringtheir first two years to be sub-optimal."

Another highlight of the report is a call formore undergraduate involvement in facultyresearch. Hurwitz said such opportunities areoften not widely advertised at Harvard.