After three and a half years, the Faculty is set to consider the first round of curricular review proposals at a meeting this afternoon, starting with a pitch to delay concentration choice until the middle of sophomore year.

“We want to give students more opportunity to explore areas they might not have even heard of before they entered the University,” said Professor of Philosophy Warren Goldfarb ’69, who will be introducing this proposal to the Faculty.

A Crimson poll conducted last week showed strong support among undergraduates for a delay in the selection of a concentration.

Out of 354 students who participated in the poll, 59.9 percent said they supported the delay, 31.6 percent said they opposed it, and 8.5 percent remained neutral or unsure. The poll carried a margin of error of about 5 percent.

A new addition to the proposal will require students to have a documented meeting with at least one and up to three concentration advisers in the spring of their freshman year, Goldfarb said.

Goldfarb is a member of the curricular review’s Educational Policy Committee (EPC).

The committee decided to require students to meet with concentration advisers a semester early because of concerns that under the new system, science concentrators would not receive adequate advising.

The Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences (DEAS) approved several statements in late January, one of which criticized the EPC proposal.

The Physics Department voted last month to “endorse the sentiments of the DEAS statements,” Physics Department Chairman John Huth wrote in an e-mail.

Since science courses are arranged in a strict sequence, would-be science concentrators who do not take the right classes freshman year may find their options limited, according to Lawrence Professor of Engineering John W. Hutchinson.

“We want to make sure that the system that is set in place brings the freshman into contact with the departments…early on in the freshman year,” he said.

Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross met with members of the DEAS and Physics departments separately in mid-February to discuss their concerns. He also met with the EPC.

“I think they were absolutely right to ask us to think harder about how this proposal would affect students who need to get an early start,” said Economics Professor David I. Laibson, an EPC member.

The change the EPC made to its proposal in response to these critiques was widely supported at the Faculty Council meeting last week, Goldfarb said.

Hutchinson said he thought the change was an improvement, but added the adviser meetings should be required even earlier.

“I’d like to see it happen during freshman week,” he said.

Another potential concern, Dillon Professor of International Affairs Jorge Dominguez said, is that a delay in concentration choice would require departments—especially those with year-long sophomore tutorials—to change their requirements.

But Dominguez said he thought the Government department, which currently requires a full year of sophomore tutorials, could adjust.

“It’s nothing particularly difficult or complicated,” he said.

Chair of the History Department Andrew Gordon said some members of his department have already discussed how they might respond to the proposal. One option is to add more faculty-taught seminars.

After an initial planning meeting, “we were all very enthusiastic,” he said.

Many professors said they expect that the concentration choice delay proposal will be passed in some form this spring, along with an EPC proposal to create secondary fields, which would function like minors.

Berkman Professor of Psychology Elizabeth Spelke will introduce this proposal to the faculty tomorrow.

Saltonstall Professor of History Charles S. Maier ’60, who is also a member of the General Education Committee, said he thinks most faculty members are ready to vote on the EPC proposals.

“My sense is that the EPC proposals are inherently less controversial than the Gen Ed proposals,” he said. “I don’t see why there should be fundamental opposition.”

However, several prominent professors continue to argue that the entire curricular review should be put on hold until a new Dean of the Faculty and University President are chosen.

“No curricular reform that’s going to be effective can be implemented effectively without the enthusiastic support of the dean and maybe the president,” McKay Professor of Computer Science Harry R. Lewis ’68 said.

According to Lewis, a former Dean of the College, the incoming dean of the Faculty will want to have input on the proposals that he or she will have to implement.

“A leader wants to be able to lead and not simply follow directions that the previous dean, in the last weeks of his term, got the faculty to vote through,” Lewis said.

Laibson said it would be a serious mistake for the faculty to decide not to move forward with the review this term.

“It would give our students a terrible message. It would tell the world that Harvard is somehow frozen in place,” he said.

Bass Professor of English and American Literature and Language Louis Menand, also a member of the Committee on General Education, said he would be disappointed if the leadership upheaval sidetracked the review.

“I think that the people who don’t like the proposals are going to be the people who say we should wait until we have a new dean and a new president,” he said.

—Staff writer Lois E. Beckett can be reached at lbeckett@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Johannah S. Cornblatt can be reached at jcornbl@fas.harvard.edu.