With most first-years shuffled into large introductory courses—where personal attention and writing instruction are virtually nonexistent—Expos 20 is a welcome aberration. Since its 1872 inception, the course has allowed first-years to polish their writing skills in a relatively intimate environment; however, more recently, the time-honored program has been met with mixed reviews. Despite its general favorability, many students agree that Expos falls short in several significant ways. The curricular review hopes to fix that, and indeed, the report contains some encouraging proposals. We are optimistic that the next iteration of Harvard’s Expository Writing Program will be the best yet.

The most unequivocal curricular review recommendation is to incorporate oral communication into the Expos curriculum. We fully support this recommendation because we believe public speaking and persuasive argumentation are vital skills for success in today’s competitive world—as well as attributes worthy of inclusion in any broad liberal arts curriculum. Oratorical skills are invaluable for all students regardless of their career tracks—a scientist or engineer needs to communicate and voice arguments just as much as a politician.

We also believe that feedback and formal instruction in oral communication are effective ways to help students become more confident and compelling speakers. Admittedly, many students have the chance to practice their oratory in section discussions and extracurricular activities. But without specific focus on these skills within the curriculum, practice does not necessarily translate into progress. Those students who are already comfortable speaking tend to speak up while those who are uncomfortable stay silent. By formally integrating the oral component, Expos would help more students learn an essential life skill.

Apart from the addition of oral communication skills, the report rightfully recommends that the College find ways to incorporate writing and oral instruction into students’ education beyond the first year. Indeed, one of the most common complaints about Expos (after lack of consistency in workload, teaching quality and range of options) is that there is little continuity between the writing techniques learned in Expos and the writing techniques required in most courses. The report’s recommended solutions to this problem are vague—emphasizing the end while leaving the means up for discussion. Some proposed solutions include: linking Expos to the new Harvard College Courses, using writing-intensive introductory courses as alternatives to Expos or creating specialized sections within larger courses that emphasize writing—an option that, according to Associate Dean of the College Jeffrey Wolcowitz, the College is also considering. These ideas are promising; however, the College should not replace the first-year Expos course entirely through modifying other general education courses. We believe there is a significant pedagogical benefit in providing first-years a shared, small-class experience devoted exclusively to writing—and potentially speaking—skills.

One of the more effective ways to engender curricular continuity could be achieved through better coordination with concentrations—although we believe the onus should be on the writing program to adapt more so than the concentrations. The report recommends that “concentrations make instruction and feedback on written and oral communication an integral part of the concentration program”—a worthy objective, especially since tutorials, which tend to focus on written and oral instruction, are among students’ premier academic experiences. But not all concentrations, especially engineering and hard sciences, can afford to create tutorials that focus exclusively on writing and speaking. Although concentrations should be encouraged to incorporate oral and written components, they should also be free to decide on the degree of integration.

Instead of forcing all concentrations to dramatically restructure their curricula, the College should make Expos more useful for concentrations. As it stands, many Expos preceptors force students to write in particularly narrow and formulaic styles, which are typically inapplicable to assignments in other courses. The program could be much improved if it focused on writing skills more generally, using a variety of concentrations’ writing assignments as guides. Expos should emphasize the fundamentals of good writing rather than the nitty-gritty elements of style, making later tutorials better able to build on those skills in the sophomore and junior year.

Expos is a tradition worth keeping, but it also badly in need of reform. The College is right to envision an oral communication component and to focus on making the program more relevant to the rest of the curriculum. We eagerly await more details about how it intends to complete these tasks.