After the much-anticipated, though less than visionary, Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR) report was released last year, we had our doubts about the College’s resolve to implement substantive changes. To be sure, the report contained many good reforms long in the waiting, such as replacing the Core curriculum and better incorporating international study into the broader curriculum. But the report seemed lackluster when it came to many areas of college life, and those areas that were not overlooked, the suggested solutions were sometimes deeply misguided. But this week, after it was revealed that Dean of Freshmen Elizabeth Studley Nathans was being forced from her office due to conflicting visions for first-year advising, our concerns about Harvard’s resolve seem misplaced. The personnel change sends a clear message: This administration is serious about implementing its blueprint. Let’s just hope Harvard has chosen the right design.

While it might appear tactless to condone a Dean’s dismissal—particularly one who has resided in office for a loyal 12 years—the fact is, Nathans’ tenure in the Freshman Dean’s Office (FDO) was often marked with ineffectual and out-of-touch policies for first-year life. Of course, Nathan’s service to Harvard is to be appreciated, and for that she has our gratitude. But, her departure should be viewed as an opportunity to improve several key failings of the first-year experience—issues which have been overlooked for far too long. Chief among these concerns is advising. Suggestions for reforming first-year advising have run the gamut. The HCCR instigated a renewed discussion of switching to a Yale-style housing system, in which first-years would be randomly assigned to Houses upon arrival and assigned to live with their future House-mates. This suggested solution to better integrating first-years into the broader College is ill-conceived. The freedom to choose blockmates is crucial to preserving the kind of House community we currently enjoy. Moreover, as a potential answer to the first-year advising crisis—and this word is not used lightly—the Yale-style system is only a recipe for disaster.

The current House advising system is poorly executed and overburdened; Nathans is right when she insists that saddling the Houses with an additional 100 first-years each will only exacerbate problems. But the answer is not sticking with the status quo, which leaves many first-years deeply dissatisfied. The current system, which is drastically inconsistent and at times downright unfair, often provides first-years with little beyond impersonal study card signings and, if lucky, a couple of superficial sessions of stock questions and answers. Many first-years are advised by proctors who tend to be too far removed from the Harvard undergraduate experience to be of any help. The best way to improve advising is to focus on procuring committed and interest individuals with an intimate understanding of undergraduate life. Everything else is a sideshow.

So what should be done? We advocate expanding the role of prefects and upperclass students, who know far more about the academic life of the College than anyone else. These students are the most informed regarding practical issues of course selection, and they can often direct students to key faculty members and departmental tutors. Upperclassmen are most aware of competent TFs, manageable course loads and disappointing courses—issues of utmost importance to first-years, but which are often overlooked by uninvolved proctors and academic advisers. This kind of advising in no way alleviates the need for making the Faculty more accessible to students, but it will enhance the first-year experience in far more substantive ways. Nathans’ departure may be a sign that Harvard is picking up its feet and moving again in a way that has not happened for years. But as the College examines the role of the FDO and appoints a new dean of freshman, it is crucial that these issues of student advising are addressed, particularly the role of upperclassmen. If the central administration arrogantly appoints a new dean who simply toes the party line and does not speak to the concerns of first-years, the changes implemented will be steps in the wrong direction. After years of standing in place, Harvard cannot afford to move backwards.