The six-member committee charged with revising the current General Education proposals and preparing them for a Faculty vote this fall will actively seek input from other faculty members as they work over the summer, one of the co-chairs of the committee promised this week.

“We want people who have expressed an interest in gen ed—and there are a lot of them—to feel in the loop,” said co-chair of the committee Louis Menand, the Bass Professor of English and American Literature and Language. “We don’t want to produce a report in secret and then kind of spring it on the faculty.”

The committee faces the daunting task of reviving a wilting curricular review that has been widely criticizing for lacking a guiding vision and failing to generate much enthusiasm among professors.

A similar, five-person committee that met last summer was also charged with structuring a set of general education requirements for the College. Though that report will ultimately not be adopted by the Faculty, it will likely inform the work of this summer’s group.

This summer’s committee, which first met on June 9, includes two veterans of last summers “Gang of Five”—including Menand and philosophy professor Alison Simmons—as well as four new faces.

A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Menand said his committee will look to build on the work of its predecessors. The first committee charged with producing a new general education curriculum met during the 2003-2004 academic year.

“We’re not just going to throw it out,” he said of the current proposal. “We’re going to think of ways to make it work better.”

But he added that the group has not ruled out the possibility of eventually starting from scratch with a new report.

The most recent General Education report, released in the fall of 2005, suggested that students be required to take three courses in each of three areas: Humanities, Science and Technology and the Study of Society. The report also proposed the creation of optional interdisciplinary general education courses, although a clear definition of these courses has yet to emerge.

In contrast to Menand’s words on this year’s committee, the work of the 2004-2005 committee was often shrouded in secrecy, compromising the process of general education reform, according to some professors. The committee has also been criticized of working independently of broader faculty discussions.

The members of that committee met only briefly at the beginning of the 2005-2006 academic year, before discussion of the curricular review shifted to meetings of the full Faculty.

This fall the Faculty approved an extension of the concentration choice deadline as well as the institution of secondary fields, akin to minors. But it has yet to discuss general education at any length.

Menand emphasized the benefits of drafting general education proposals with a small number of professors.

“We want it to be an open process to the extent that we can,” Menand said, but he added, “I’m encouraged that it’s a small group. We’ll get things done a little more efficiently.”

The small-group approach is similar to one taken last year. The 2004-2005 committee—which included 13 professors, 2 deans, 2 students, and a number of administrative staffers—debated a wide range of issues surrounding general education, but the large group proved unable to write a satisfactory report.

The committee members have not decided yet how frequently they will meet during the summer. “If we find that we’re pretty much on same page quickly, we’ll probably spend time writing and not meeting,” Menand said. “We could meet every week. It’s really hard to predict.”

Its membership parallels the three-by-three structure of the current Gen Ed recommendations, with two professors representing each of the three proposed areas. The two humanities professors on this summer’s committee, Menand and Simmons, were both members of the Gang of Five. The two science professors on the committee, Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology David R. Liu ‘94 and Ford Professor of Human Evolution David Pilbeam, and the two social science professors on the committee, Lindsley Professor of Psychology Stephen M. Kosslyn and Professor of Sociology Mary C. Waters, are new to general education committees.

Concern has arisen recently among some undergraduates because students have not been included in the six-member committee that could potentially steer Harvard’s eventual general education plan in a new direction.

Students have been officially involved in both of the previous general education committees, although no students were members of the Gang of Five.

Menand, when asked about the lack of students on the summer committee, said, “The committee was appointed by Dean Kirby, so you would need to ask him.”

But he added, “We are of course aware that students are interested in the work of the committee and we certainly look forward to receiving student input and response as we proceed.”

Kirby did not respond to an e-mail request for comment yesterday.

FRESH FACES

The new committee’s makeup could lead to some substantial changes in the general education recommendations before they are brought before the Faculty for a vote. The emphasis of the current report is student flexibility and choice, but many faculty members have argued that students need more guidance in choosing what kinds of courses to take.

Menand and Simmons have both said in the past that they favor more prescriptions than the current proposal contains, but Menand said this week that it would not be clear whether the rest of the group agreed until the members had a chance to meet further.

Liu, Waters and Kosslyn have not previously served on any of the curricular review committees. But Liu taught one of this year’s new Life Sciences introductory courses, which have been suggested as possible models for the new general education courses.

Pilbeam was previously the chair of the review’s Committee on Advising and Counseling.

A SUMMER OF FOCUS

In addition to the six members of this summer’s committee, a number of administrators were present at the June 9 meeting. Those present at the meeting in University Hall were Kirby, incoming Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, incoming President Derek C. Bok, Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross, and Assistant Dean of the College Stephanie H. Kenen. Outgoing University President Lawrence H. Summers, who was involved with the Committee on General Education as an ex officio member in 2004, did not attend the meeting.

Bok—who has written widely on curricular reform and was at the University’s helm when the current Core curriculum was adopted—has said that he will offer his thoughts on general education to the committee if asked, but stressed that he will not impose himself on the process.

—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.