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.

Many first-years choose to start off their careers making "safe" course choices, usually large lecture classes with little to no personal contact with a member of the faculty. Freshman Seminars offer a way to draw first-years into small classes where they can have direct contact with professors. The courses are dynamic and academically rigorous, but they are packaged in a way that makes them comfortable choices for first-years (notably though admission being limited to first-years only and through their pass-fail grading). Unfortunately, the number of seminars offered today is inadequate: two thirds of the 700 or so first-years who applied to be in a seminar this past fall found that there was no space for them. Dean of Undergraduate Education Susan H. Pedersen '82 and Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education Jeffrey Wolcowitz have brought this discussion to the floor of the Faculty; the council must let every professor know that this is a priority for undergraduates.

Outside of the classroom, there are measures the council can take to promote student-faculty interaction, such as sponsoring concentration dinners and creating programs that encourage faculty to attend student performances and athletic events. We've already had success with the student-faculty dining program that allows professors to swipe into the dining halls and eat with students. The program was created last spring with the support of Dean of Harvard College Harry R. Lewis '68. We should all commit to eating at least one meal with a professor over the course of this semester.

Yet the most important interactions that occur between students and faculty outside of the classroom are in the advising process. Advising at Harvard happens--or fails to happen--in three tiers: first-year advising, house advising and concentration advising. Today, first-years must seek advice from either a proctor who knows them personally but knows nothing about their field, or an outside advisor who knows about their field but absolutely nothing about them. We need to consider creating a support network of advising for first-years, involving faculty members who will interact with first-years more regularly and who also have the knowledge to advise them.

As for advising in the houses, it is time that we seriously review of the role of the Senior Common Room (SCR), particularly the role of faculty members affiliated with the houses through the SCRs. SCR members, especially those who are not resident tutors, need to play a more active role in house life. The part they currently play is incompatible with the type of lively academic communities one envisions at Harvard. The Houses and the College must not shirk away from a scrutiny of the role of the SCR.

Concentration advising has been criticized often, but it is difficult to affect broad changes because each concentration is so autonomous and the advising needs of students across concentrations differ so much. The council must urge Harvard to create an annual guide that evaluates concentrations in a manner similar to the CUE Guide. To address the inadequacies of concentration advising, we need to bring to the public forum honest information about each concentration. This will foster an exchange of ideas, put pressure on concentrations to shape up, and may also help first-years make informed decisions about which concentration is the best place for each of them to pursue their passions.

Improving advising, increasing student-faculty interaction and adding more courses all require the addition of faculty. Unfortunately, the size of the faculty has remained largely unchanged over the past decade, despite the creation of more faculty posts. Harvard must redouble its efforts to recruit faculty. To succeed, Harvard may have to reconsider its tenure process and the lack of a tenure-track for junior faculty. As new faculty members are recruited and tenured, the council must emphasize the importance of developing a faculty with the diversity of knowledge and background to fully engage Harvard's increasingly diverse student body--and that means making every effort to recognize potential women and minority candidates.

Hiring more professors and reforming curricular policies can provide an infrastructure that is conducive to a dynamic and vibrant academic community. Achieving that community, however, requires all of us to reach out with our minds and our efforts. As we set out on our spring academic journey, let us vow to ourselves to engage one another and to follow our passions. If we do this, our journey will be a worthwhile one indeed.

Paul A. Gusmorino III '02 is a computer science concentrator in Lowell House. He is president of the Undergraduate Council.