Past reviews of the Core, which have been held every five years since 1974, have most often maintained the status quo.

Indeed after 30 years, many believe that the Core has remained fundamentally unchanged despite the increased concern of faculty and students about its effectiveness.

Fifteen years ago the Faculty abolished the practice of allowing a course to “double count” for historical studies and foreign cultures credit.

And the largest change came after the most recent review, held in 1997, in which a quantitative reasoning subsection was added.

Since then, reform has centered around “reducing the burden of the Core” not changing the philosophy behind it.

In 1999, Professor of German Peter J. Burgard advocated for departmental alternates in the humanities, to match those that already existed in the natural sciences. However, he says, this push was largely ineffectual.

“There was very minimal response. It has not been as successful as I had hoped,” he says.

Burgard says professors have been reluctant to offer their classes for Core credit, because of the increases in enrollment and greater scrutiny of content that Core status brings.

And in seeking to reduce the Core’s burden, a second major change came only last year with the number of total requirements reduced by one.

“This was an almost hidden, but substantial change” Burgard says.

Many say that it is this tinkering that has exposed the major flaws that mandate reform.

In his letter to the Faculty, Kirby says the “number of recent changes alone suggests the need for a holistic curricular review.”

And some say it is the support of Kirby and University President Lawrence H. Summers, that will bring substantial change.

“In the last review it would have been possible to get rid of [the Core], but the mandate suggested that was not the path that the Dean of the Faculty preferred.” Dominguez says.

While Kirby also says there should be a “core” to the Harvard educational experience, he has expressed that all options are on the table.