Underlying Friday’s debate were not only disagreements over requirements but also about the broader purpose of general education. And faculty members said that the last must come first.

“Unless we know what the purpose of general education is, then we won’t know what qualifies as general education,” said Feldman of the early tone of the discussion.

Professor of Psychology Philip Stone suggested the purpose of general education should be to prepare students for an unknown future—”the kind of world we can only begin to see” and that “opens their minds to alternatives...rather than the ubiquitous given.”

Meanwhile, Engell said general education should focus on unsolved academic questions. The best system is one that “gets students to address questions to which society has no pat answers,” he said.

After the meeting, Classics Department Chair Richard F. Thomas said that though he was pleased to have broad discussion begin, more debate among the entire Faculty—not just the Review committees—will be necessary to reach a consensus.

“There is the question of whether [the] function [of general education] has been sufficiently discussed,” Thomas said. “There’s been very little dialogue.”

He said he was pleased with Friday’s meeting, and said he hopes more will be organized to address the specific issue of general education.

There are already plans to hold two more discussions to address other Review recommendations—one in January to look at concentrations and advising and one in February to look at science education, the international experience and a proposed January Term.

There are also plans to hold a forum exclusively for students.

—Staff writer William C. Marra can be reached at wmarra@fas.harvard.edu.