“Everything we got, we got from the working groups,” Gross said. “Some of the things we got from the working groups, we couldn’t include in this report because we couldn’t fit everything in. That doesn’t mean we are not aware of it.”

Podolsky said he felt that despite the challenges, the report did give voice to the broad range of opinions coming from the members of the curricular review.

“I know I can speak for myself when I say we felt that given the circumstances of the report, it did an admirable job of representing the great variety of opinions to the greatest extent that is humanly possible,” he said.

But Faculty and students also expressed concern over the structure of the deliberation process.

Green said administrators set a tone for the review from the beginning which has remained essentially unchanged to this day.

“Fortunately, and in many ways unfortunately, you could see the way the review was going from the beginning,” he said.

He added that the overall timing of discussion didn’t help to shift the review in other, new directions.

“The fact that it was only a one-year process made things inherently a bit rushed,” he said. “I know there are some Faculty members and students who are frustrated about that.”

Wolfson Professor of Jewish Studies Jay M. Harris also said that the tremendous scope of the review has made it inevitable that the process would be hurried.

“Everything was so quick. Everybody would want more time,” he said. “We were working with quick turnarounds because we have the pressure of the Faculty Council meeting this week and the Faculty meeting next week. I don’t think anyone’s thrilled at the deadlines, but these things happen.”

He added, “I knew that it was impossible to do everything we had been asked to do in a year. Yale did a much more modest review...and it took them two or three years.”

Baird Professor of Science Gary J. Feldman, who is also a member of the Working Group on General Education, said that he wished he had more time to review the report before it went public and that the four days allotted were simply not enough to make meaningful suggestions.

“It gave sufficient time to read it,” he said. “I think the problem was, at that late date, there were not going to be major revisions. The only things that one could comment on were minor points.”

Another aspect of concern was coordination and communication between committees.

Professors said individual issues were for the most part discussed in particular committees, meaning members of other working groups were not necessarily caught up with what was being discussed outside their own areas.