“It is very important for Harvard to move away from requirements and generate more choice for students,” said Committee of Undergraduate Education member Omolola Kassim ’04.

And while the speakers emphasized that ultimately no one curriculum is superior to another, they all criticized Harvard’s.

Brodhead noted that Yale’s current system of distribution requirements was implemented after Harvard’s Core was adopted, and that Yale administrators blatantly dismissed the Harvard model, saying, “No, not that!”

And Stanislawski said he thought Harvard’s “super-sized lecture courses” should be reconsidered.

“Classes should be about pedagogy not theater. Save Sanders for a musical performance,” he said.

Further criticism called into doubt Harvard’s ability to enact meaningful reform through the present curricular review.

“This is a historical moment in which Harvard is actually listening to other people,” Stanislawski said.

But all speakers admitted that intransigence is not unique to Harvard.

“Universities excel at finding was to change themselves and yet remain unchanged,” Brodhead said. “Every time they think that they are doing something really important, they are just reinventing themselves.”

And others warned lest Harvard change too much.

“I wouldn’t want Harvard to adopt Brown’s curriculum,” Armstrong said. “Harvard bashing is a popular sport at Brown and I wouldn’t want it to retire.”

—Staff writer Jessica E. Vascellaro can be reached at vascell@fas.harvard.edu.