Despite professors’ mixed reactions to the curricular review’s interim report, Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby outlined at yesterday’s Faculty meeting the tasks of four new committees that will direct the next stage of the review.

The review, he said, is ending its brainstorming phase and will move on to make more concrete suggestions.

“We are at the end of the beginning,” Kirby said.

The four new committees, Kirby said, will focus on specific themes out of 57 recommendations put forth in the curricular review’s interim report, written by Associate Dean of the College Jeffrey Wolcowitz and released at the end of April.

Kirby said yesterday that one group will be charged with continuing to examine and organize general education at Harvard. It will consider how best to implement the report’s recommendation that Harvard establish a distribution requirement supplemented by broad “foundational and integrational” classes called the Harvard College Courses.

Another committee will address science education, focusing on revamping introductory science courses and revising the recommended pre-med curriculum. Kirby said before the curricular review report was released that pre-med students should be able to take introductory courses specifically designed to meet medical school requirements, leaving those studying pure science to take courses intended to match their interests.

The third committee will examine the Expository Writing Program, fulfilling the report’s recommendation that such a committee be established.

The committee will also examine writing across the curriculum and ways to integrate public speaking and expression into Expos classes.

Lastly, Kirby said, Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 will convene a committee to discuss the review’s controversial proposal that students be assigned to a House before arriving at Harvard and live in groups affiliated with those Houses during their first year.

The new committees replace four wide-ranging working groups that deliberated throughout the first stage of the curricular review and were disbanded when the interim report was issued.

It is still unclear how the vast majority of the review’s recommendations are to be implemented, much to the displeasure of Joseph K. Green ’05, who served on the Working Group on Pedagogy.

Green said he was concerned that the other investigations might be pushed through without further student input.

Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 said the specific focus of these four committees could be problematic, but that he is pleased Gross is taking student input into account.

“I don’t think all the recommendations can fall under the purview of those four committees,” Mahan said.

He added that including a reexamination of the housing proposal in the new committee structure demonstrates that the College is taking students’ views seriously.