I always find that shopping period scrubs away the cynicism and the fatigue that build up over the course of the year. For a few days, we are once again brand new first-years: eager, passionate, curious and hopeful. There are hundreds of courses to choose from, and anything is possible. With our course catalog in one hand and the CUE Guide in the other, we set out on our academic journey.

Before shopping period has even ended, however, we are struck by the less exciting realities of undergraduate academic life: rigid requirements, a confusing and sometimes inadequate advising system and a want of meaningful faculty contact. We're reminded that Harvard is not a small liberal arts college. The great passion and sincere curiosity with which we had set out on our trip subside, and in their place we find a general indifference.

This year, my colleagues on the Undergraduate Council and I will be working with students, administrators and members of the faculty to address some of Harvard's academic shortcomings, to foster a vibrant intellectual community and to help each of us rediscover that great passion more often throughout the year.

The Harvard academic culture is deeply entrenched, and changes will take a long time. While some reforms can be achieved through revising policies and creating new programs, all of us--students and faculty alike--must take an active role in building the dynamic and interactive academic community that Harvard College has the potential to be.

Too often, Harvard allows curricular requirements to act as a substitute for serious advising and personal contact with faculty. Of the 26,873 undergraduate course enrollments last semester, 13,407 of them (almost exactly 50 percent) were in just the 60 largest courses. Of those classes, 20 were Cores and many others were required introductory-level courses. One of our goals must be to create as much flexibility in the curriculum as possible, to foster intellectual exploration and to give students the freedom to pursue their academic passions.

Progress has already been made in reducing concentration requirements thanks to the efforts of former Dean of Undergraduate Education William M. Todd III, and others. Those of us studying Computer Science just earned two more electives this past fall, and many other concentrations have implemented similar requirement reductions. Moving forward, we need to continue to explore ways to create flexibility in concentration requirements, particularly for students who choose to pursue joint concentrations.

As for the Core, the modest goal of offering 12 courses per year in each Core area, set by the Faculty in 1997, has not yet been met. Increasing the number--and especially the diversity--of courses offered in each Core area must be a top academic priority for the council, and we must urge the Faculty to maintain it as a top priority as well. In addition, we must work to eliminate bureaucratic barriers to students' receiving Core exemptions for equivalent work in non-Core courses. We have to pay special attention to the way Core and concentration requirements affect transfer students and students who take time off to study abroad.

A vibrant academic community requires more than just the flexibility to pursue one's passions; it requires meaningful student-faculty interaction, both inside and outside the classroom.