Today, the curriculum that has served as the model of education for a generation faces its most intense scrutiny to date.

But the scene could have been set 30 years earlier.

In the first of two symposia designed to foster discussion on the first widescale review of Harvard’s curriculum since the 1974, Dean of Undergraduate Benedict H. Gross ’71 will preside over a panel addressing the traditional arguments for and against the Core.

Broadcast on the web from the FAS home page, the symposium will feature four “long-term servants of the Core”— Harvard College Professor Jorge I. Dominguez, Gurney Professor of English Literature James Engell, Ford Professor of Social Sciences David Pilbeam and Harvard College Professor Maria M. Tatar.

Chosen for their variety of perspectives of the Core, they will speak on subjects such as “my love-hate relationship with the Core” and “the virtues of the defects.”

After each 15 minute speech, Gross will challenge each viewpoint and then allow for general comments at the end of the evening.

Gross says that the symposium—a forum aiming to see which ideas can survive criticism—is the ideal way to inform students and faculty about the myriad issues surrounding the Core.

And according to Gross, the discussion phase is necessary before the formation of a task force on “general education” in January and eventual policy changes.

While Gross emphasizes the need to educate the audience, several professors say it is unlikely audience members will hear anything new tonight.

“I find this idea of reviewing the Core every four or five years idiotic. Ultimately these reviews are repetitive and we hear the same arguments each time,” said Buttenweser University Professor Stanley H. Hoffmann.

Dominguez, who served on the Faculty Council during the original implementation of the Core, agrees that the issues are not new ones.

“I have heard no suggestion that I have not heard 20-odd years ago,” he says. “It is not that at the moment of the foundation of the Core these issues were overlooked.”

But unlike Hoffman, Dominguez says he is “perfectly comfortable revisiting these questions” given the new generation of students and faculty.

“The main point is to ask whether faculty believe in the Core or not,” he says.

Others support the current review, concerned that the Core’s value has diminished since its inception.