But Wolfson Professor of Jewish Studies Jay M. Harris said that the two arguments for Harvard College Courses—that study has become increasingly interdisciplinary and that the College must pull professors out of their disciplines—are contradictory.

Harris called criticisms of the “narrowness” of professional inquiry “increasingly anarchronistic.”

While professors will not vote formally on the curricular recommendations until early this spring, two Harvard College Courses are already in the planning stages—full-year introductory courses to the life sciences and physical sciences designed for concentrators and non-concentrators alike.

But Harris doubted that the Courses have the pedagogical value to make them central to general education.

“They sound like the books we want to write,” he said. “All too often we tend to think of students as people who will absorb our wisdom rather than as co-authors.”

Harris said the complex and interdisciplinary Courses might work better as “culminating experiences” for seniors rather than a requirement for first-years.

HOW TO BREAK IT DOWN

Professors also disagreed on how the distributional requirements should be shaped. Sandel said that the committee may recommend that students take classes in the humanities and arts, the social sciences and the natural sciences, along with separate requirements in history, moral reasoning and quantitative reasoning.

Porter University Professor Helen Vendler drew applause when she said that Sandel’s suggested areas omit important areas of study—particularly a “foreign cultures” requirement.

“I would send a Harvard graduate out into the world with more international understanding and less quantitative reasoning, if I had the choice,” Vendler said.

Baird Professor of Science Gary Feldman, who called today’s Core categories “not so bad,” took issue with the broad nature of the three principal areas of study defined by Sandel, arguing that they encompassed just about everything.

“We might as well have no requirements at all,” he said.

But other professors supported the distributional requirement because they would increase the Faculty’s ability to offer the kinds of courses they want to teach.

“As I see it, a division distribution helps return agency to the departments and I think that’s to the good,” said Irene J. Winter, Boardman professor of fine arts.

English Department Chair James Engell also praised distributional requirements on the grounds that they allow students greater flexibility and the chance to explore new areas of inquiry.