Why does Historical Study B-35, “The French Revolution: Causes, Processes, and Consequences,” satisfy a core requirement while History 1463, “Paris From the French Revolution Through the 19th Century,” does not?

Because it says so in Courses of Instruction.

Time and time again, we have endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on General Education, which call for the replacement of the current Core Curriculum’s 11 areas with three broader distribution requirements in the arts and humanities, study of societies, and science and technology that include all courses—no matter if they are introductory Core-like courses or upper-level departmental courses. We are confident that future classes will benefit from the new system once the Faculty will approves it in due time.

Current students, however, are bound by the strict requirements of the Core, and particularly its limited course offerings. This must change, and it must change for the fall semester. And it doesn’t have to wait for a debate and vote by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences—the Core office can vastly increase the number of departmental courses that satisfy Core requirements by expediting the approval process, and it needs to do so this spring.

The dearth of Core courses is problematic for two reasons. First, in any given semester, the number of courses that satisfy a particular Core area tends to be very small. In the fall of this academic year, for example, there were only four moral reasoning courses offered. This is particularly problematic for seniors who, with a schedule conflict or two, are often forced to take a specific Core course in order to graduate.

Second, as the French revolution courses illustrate, it is illogical for only one of two similar courses to count for Core credit. This is especially true because Core courses tend to have narrower focuses than departmental survey courses. Why force a student to study five performance premieres in Literature and Arts B-51,“First Nights,” if they would rather study 1,000 years of music in Music 1a, “Introduction to Music I?” This goes to the heart of our objections with the current system, which arbitrarily slaps the “Core” label on some courses while denying that status to similar offerings.

The proper solution is not to re-label a handful of departmental courses as Core courses, as has been done in the past (for example Literature and Arts B-11, “The Art of Film,”was previously Visual and Environmental Studies 170a). Under proposed General Education guidelines, the reverse will likely happen, as some current Core courses are absorbed into their professors’ departments. Instead of renaming courses twice, there should be a concerted effort, especially in the social sciences and the humanities, to certify additional departmental courses that meet a particular Core requirement while maintaining their departmental administration.

Currently, for example, there is a single departmental course (Music 2, “Foundations of Tonal Music”) that satisfies the Literature and Arts B requirement. In contrast, there are 17 departmental courses (ranging from introductory geology to organic chemistry to mechanics and relativity) that satisfy the Science A requirement. The fact that there tend to be more extra-departmental “Core” courses in the social sciences and the humanities than in the sciences is not a sufficient reason to neglect to certify more departmental courses in these areas.

The process of vetting departmental courses to gain a spot on the Core list has traditionally been initiated by professors or students. One of several review committees, comprised of faculty, then reviews the course’s curriculum and requirements. This spring professors and students, as well as departmental administrators, College administrators, and the Core Office itself, must all identify potential courses and advocate for their certification. The review committees should still fully evaluate courses to make sure that they are consistent with the tenets of the various Core areas, but they should consider loosening their standards of whether a course is, say, analytical enough to meet a Core requirement. In the mean time, professors should consider making minor adjustments their curricula so as to be consistent with the logistical requirements of Core courses, which include that courses have midterm and final examinations. (We humbly remind professors who prefer to give a final paper that a final exam need not be a three-hour examination; in our book, a brief unit test would suffice, too.)

The effects of more departmental courses that are cross-listed as Core courses will not be substantially different than the effects we envision after the implementation of the General Education proposal. Students will benefit from taking more rigorous departmental courses, although a few departmental courses may find their classrooms a little fuller. Current Core courses may find their enrollments drop. But one of the most welcome results of a more open distribution system will be an open market, so to speak, for courses, where the best-taught courses will be the cream that rises to the top of the pedagogical milk.

That process can begin with a wider slate of Core-satisfying courses. When we open the 2006-2007 Courses of Instruction this fall, we hope to find the Core Curriculum section twice as thick before.