For all the talk about the future of general education, the Classes of 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 appear to be stuck with the antiquated and constraining cocktail-party training program known as the Core. The Core, however, can easily be patched up for the benefit of current students. Faculty discussions in the coming weeks should certainly focus on developing the new general education system, but we hope the Faculty will also take quick action to expand the Core in the interim.

Though many particulars of the new general education system need to be worked out, there seems to be a strong consensus that the current system offers students too small of a menu and that the new system should offer a substantially expanded array of departmental courses. Indeed, under the Core, students are too often forced to take classes that are poorly taught, that do not interest them, and that are overly large and impersonal. There is no reason why the bedrock principle that a more open system is preferable should not be applied to the Core while the Faculty considers, votes on, and fully implements the new system, a project that will likely take years.

Part of the reason the Core is so limited is that the Core Standing Committee (CSC) requires that courses that count for Core credit meet basic requirements, which vary amongst Core areas. All categories, however, require a final exam, and most require a midterm and/or a paper. This needn’t be the case.

Take, for instance, Historical Studies B, which is meant to teach students how to closely analyze small and focused historical events. Most history department conference courses are disqualified from counting for Core credit simply because they require a lengthy paper in lieu of a final. These courses, however, are better suited than Core courses to teach students how to analyze particular historical events. The term paper forces students to engage in the practice of historical analysis, something with which students merely flirt in a Core.

If a student wants to take a conference course or seminar for Core credit, he or she should be able to; a final exam adds almost no value over a term paper. This small change would open up whole departments to students. For instance, nearly every English course would count for Literature and Arts A or C. Being more liberal with syllabus requirements and actively seeking out departmental courses would add still more departments. Such a broad expansion of the Core, for which this page has consistently petitioned, will lead to smaller courses, more options, and more satisfied students.

The power to make such a change rests with the CSC, which should work immediately to authorize large swaths of courses for Core credit for this spring term. Most upper-level courses are difficult enough that they will not require a high level of scrutiny. The only excuse for not authorizing scores of new courses is surmountable institutional inertia.

If the CSC will not, for whatever reason, act on this immediately, the Deans of the College and the Faculty should take matters into their own hands. Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 and Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles did as much in September when they fast-tracked several new humanities courses for Core credit. A simple piece of Faculty legislation could also do a world of difference.

Focusing too much on the bright future will create a “lost generation” of students stuck between old and new. By expanding the Core, the principles of the new general education system can begin to be applied to the old system. The Classes of 2007 to 2010 may not get the full benefit of a new general education system, but they should not be totally left behind.