It will be this group especially, chaired by Carswell Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Peter K. Bol and Emery Professor of Chemistry Eric N. Jacobsen, that will discuss another of the questions put forth in Kirby’s letter:

“If, as I believe, there is to be a shared foundation, or ‘core,’ to a Harvard undergraduate education, how should it be conceived and how might it be best be taught?”

And the job of looking at how it all comes together will fall to the Overall Academic Experience committee, which will examine the Harvard education as a whole and how it fits within the framework of life at the College, taking into account such concepts as the first year and the way extracurricular activities fit into the academic experience. At the helm of that group are Martin and Wolfson Professor of Jewish Studies Jay M. Harris.

One thing is certain—the committees have their work cut out for them.

The Core of the Review

The central concern of this curricular review, as with its predecessors, will be Harvard’s effectiveness in providing general education for its students—and whether the Core succeeds in doing so.

Though there is a consensus among professors and administrators that the Core is broken and needs to be fixed, how to mend the system—or whether to scrap it completely—is a controversial issue on which faculty have a diverse array of opinions.

“Obviously, we need to have some sort of Gen Ed requirements,” says Martin, though she adds, “I’m not sure we have the balance now.”

“The Core is where the students get breadth, get common intellectual experiences,” says Harris. However, he characterizes it as “in need of rethinking.”

The two major questions facing the General Education committee are whether the structure of the Core is the most efficient one for providing a foundation to the Harvard curriculum and whether the theory of a general body of knowledge—on which the Core is based—is a sound one.

On structure, students complain the Core adds too much rigidity to their academic schedules. To reserve seven spaces in their plans of study for requirements is too great a restriction, many say. Also, many resent the relative difficulty, under the current system, of counting departmental courses for Core credit.

Faculty, on the other hand, seem more concerned that Core courses are not taken seriously.

The Core as it now stands represents both potential good and potential waste for students, according to Jacobsen.

“The vast majority of students are really interested in learning,” he says. “Then, when I hear those same people say, ‘I got the Core out of the way,’ it’s an enormously wasted opportunity.”

On philosophy, professors point to a need to bring students’ education in line with the issues of the day.