Well, the big day is almost upon us. Next week Associate Dean of the College Jeffrey Wolcowitz will publish the proposals developed by the four working group that have spent the past year diligently working on the curricular review. And while some of the proposals initially sound very woolly—abolishing the Core but keeping Core classes, for example—others appear to be a definite step in the right direction. Nothing seemed more sensible than the suggestion that students will in future have almost another full year before having to declare their concentrations. Yet nothing, I fear, will be harder to get approved by the Faculty when the time comes for them to vote on the curricular review.

As things stand, Harvard is the only Ivy League college that requires students to choose a concentration during their first year. And while it is not always advisable to follow the herd, allowing students to delay announcing their concentrations would give first years the chance to explore a broad range of subjects without being shoe-horned immediately into a particular discipline. As Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby told The Crimson last week, “If you have to declare your concentration in the spring of your freshman year, you basically have one semester of unfettered choice and even that semester’s not entirely unfettered.” Kirby is entirely correct. A system which requires incoming students to have such a specific direction from the moment they arrive at college fatally undermines any claim that Harvard encourages broad academic exploration.

All that now looks set to change. Jay M. Harris, Wolfson professor of Jewish studies and co-chair of the Working Group on Students’ Overall Academic Experience told The Crimson, “I think the strong consensus in the Steering Committee is to have concentration declarations be sometime in the sophomore year.” Getting the Faculty to vote in favor of the proposal—which is necessary for the changes to be adopted—is, alas, another matter entirely.

It’s very understandable why Faculty members might be hesitant to endorse the recommendations. After all, you do not get to be a voting member of the Harvard Faculty without having a strong commitment to your chosen academic discipline. Many professors complain that, as it is, Harvard students graduate after four years with patchy knowledge in their fields. Cutting back on the number of credits required in one’s concentration would only further reduce that knowledge, they will say. Yet the damaging effects of cutting down on tutorials can be minimized by increasing the merit of the tutorials which remain. The history department, for example, eliminated one of its two junior tutorials this year, a class which, in spite of the spin put on it by the senior professors in charge, was nothing more than banal busywork dressed up as vital grounding in the science of research. And I have no doubt that many other departments would benefit from similar addition by subtraction.

Still, some pruning of concentration requirements would necessarily have to accompany the extended declaration deadline. And, of course, that reduction would mean that students would graduate with a little less knowledge of their chosen fields. Nevertheless, one of the strengths of a liberal arts education, which Harvard purports to offer, is that graduates are supposed to be informed on a broad range of subjects. Right now, it seems that Harvard is too concerned with churning out, say, budding economists, rather than producing thoughtful, well-rounded young men and women. The vast majority of Harvard students who choose to leave academics after their four years in college will be infinitely better served by a couple more opportunities for intellectual exploration (perhaps leading to a more satisfying choice of concentration) rather than being forced to take an extra couple of esoteric classes in their chosen fields. And for those who do decide to remain in academia, graduate school should give them plenty of time to explore the complexities of their particular disciplines.

Summing up the proposed changes, Harris said, “I think the benefits are substantial for those students who don’t come in with a clear sense of what it is they want to do.” Moreover, even those students who do arrive at Harvard—and perhaps those peculiarly driven individuals most of all—would be well served by an additional opportunity to experiment. Faculty members should recognize the tremendous advantages that such a move would offer to undergraduates and, when the time comes, put their misgivings aside and approve the delayed deadline. On this issue, at least, the curricular review has got it absolutely right.

Anthony S.A. Freinberg ’04 is a history concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.