While some of the report’s recommendations were predictable, a proposal to adopt Yale’s practice of assigning first-year students to upperclass Houses came as a surprise to several involved in the review, including the students.

Some committee members said that they were not aware of the proposal until they reviewed a draft copy of the report four days before it became available to the general public.

Joseph K. Green ’05, who served on the working group on pedagogy, said that he and the seven other students on the review working groups wrote to Harvard’s dean that they “were surprised by the freshman housing thing.”

Professor of Latin Kathleen M. Coleman, who served on the working group on concentrations, said that the recommendation of the report to cap concentration requirements at 12 came as a surprise despite a year of discussion.

“We did not discuss the issue of capping concentration requirements, although such a suggestion found its way into the report,” Coleman said at a faculty meeting in May.

And students say the review seemed to move of its own accord, whether for good or ill.

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

Still, last month’s 67-page report, penned by Associate Dean of the College Jeffrey Wolcowitz, is far from a final version of a new curriculum.

“I think we have a good report that outlines some clear directions,” said Dean of Harvard College Benedict H. Gross ’71. But he was quick to add, “it’s a discussion document.”

The report is heavy with recommendations but light on specific prescriptions.

It does not suggest how the Harvard College Courses should be organized or delve into detail on the kinds of subjects they would cover.

Instead, the report asks that “the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty, set out the specific criteria for Harvard College Courses, and define the structure of requirements for general education.”

Emery Professor of Chemistry Eric N. Jacobsen said the makeup of the four working groups, and the short timeframe in which they operated, made it infeasible to formulate more specific recommendations.

“I realize fully that the recommendation for the Harvard College Courses lacks any sort of detail,” he said.

Other faculty members have criticized the report for its absence of a “guiding” philosophy akin to those of the reviews of the 1950s and 1970s.