Earning a round of applause rarely heard recently in the Faculty Room, two students presented a collection of 13 essays at yesterday’s full Faculty meeting in hopes of adding student opinions to the Harvard College Curricular Review discussions and addressing criticism that Review reports lacked a coherent vision.

Originally conceived in early April by Educational Policy Committee (EPC) member Michael A. Schachter ’05, “Student Essays On the Purpose and Structure of a Harvard Education” was written by a diverse pool of students, from mathematicians to special concentrators.

The project team was rounded out by fellow EPC member Emily R. Riehl ’06, former Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05, a member of the Committee on General Education, and Committee on Advising and Counseling member Danny F. Yagan ’06.

The four students approached Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 late in April and eventually received funding from the Dean’s Office, Yagan said.

The book was initially scheduled to be released in June, but essays were not submitted until Commencement. Riehl and Yagan spent the summer at Harvard editing via e-mail with the authors, Yagan said.

“Our goal was to fill in the gaps,” Riehl said of the editing process. “Authors would come up with great ideas, and we’d play devil’s advocate.”

The 18 initial student submissions were put through several rounds of editing, and 13 authors followed the editing process to its finish, Yagan said. The compilation, geared towards providing a broad student assessment of the Harvard education, is meant to complement the suggestions already offered by students sitting on the Curricular Review committees.

“The essays challenge the rationale for our Core Curriculum, while praising individual Core classes; offer a defense of classical learning and the pursuit of veritas; and contain excellent advice on advising, among other areas,” Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby wrote in an e-mail.

Contributor Paul B. Davis ’07 was inspired by last fall’s “Essays on General Education in Harvard College,” which was written by faculty members.

“In reading the faculty essays, I thought they hit very well on major issues, but there were a couple smaller things that were unresolved,” Davis said. “So I thought, why not grind my axe?”

Davis, whose essay targets sections for Core classes, the lack of a thorough education in the classics, the need to provide practical knowledge, and expanding Harvard’s teaching resources to a wider audience, said that he hopes these problems will be discussed by faculty.

“It’s not that I have any answers,” he said, “but I have these four problems, and I’d like them to be solved.”

Ryan A. Thorpe ’08 found fault with the mission of the current Core curriculum. He said he believes the Core presents students with a particular discipline’s view of an issue without providing an overall understanding of the complexities.

“A laundry list of facts is not the same as understanding with a capital ‘U,’” Thorpe said.

Riehl and Yagan both said they felt faculty reaction had been very positive and hope that students will mirror that enthusiasm when they receive their copies of the book in their mailboxes next Friday.

“I have a vision in my mind of students discussing competing curricular revisions over dinner, staying up at night pondering the purpose of their own Harvard educations,” Yagan said.

—Staff writer Lulu Zhou can be reached at luluzhou@fas.harvard.edu.