Many members of the Class of 2010 who had for months carefully considered their choice of concentration were in for a rude surprise last week when they sought out the final signatures necessary to declare their concentration. Just days before the deadline to file a plan of study, the economics and psychology departments announced that they were suddenly no longer allowing joint concentrations in their departments. The timing of this announcement could not have been much worse, as it forced prospective joint-concentrators in these two fields into rushed decisions and saw them scraping to correct their plans of study at the last minute.

In light of Harvard’s recent efforts to promote good advising on campus, decisions of timing such as this one are at once unacceptable and embarrassing. Advisers cannot effectively counsel undergraduates on their plans of study if concentration requirements are restructured just weeks before the deadline to declare. While some students had heard rumors from their advisers or others that this decision may have been on the horizon, many were caught entirely off guard. The lack of communication between administrators in the economics and psychology departments, advisers, and students demonstrates a systematic failure within the advising system.

Nevertheless, we believe administrators in these two departments acted with the best intentions when pressing for this change. Previously, joint concentrators would have been required to write a thesis advised and graded by both departments. As Jeffrey A. Miron, the director of undergraduate studies for economics, told The Crimson, “A very large proportion of joint concentrators have difficulty writing a thesis because it’s hard to keep two masters happy.” Often times, joint concentrators face conflicting expectations and contradictory advice from their two fields, with each department fighting for their methodology’s supremacy. Although some students executed joint theses elegantly, many caused administrative headaches.

With the advent of the secondary field program last spring, students have been given more choice in their ability to engage in interdisciplinary study at Harvard without the significant burden of writing a joint thesis. Of course, the experience of writing an interdisciplinary thesis is still an important one, and one that can still occur under the new system. For instance, if students wanted to write a thesis in economics and psychology, they could still incorporate elements from both under the purview of a single department. Hopefully, professors and administrators in both departments would advise and aid any eager student in such an endeavor. Furthermore, without joint concentrations, students are not locked into the thesis requirement, even if they complete advanced coursework through a secondary field in a department outside their concentration. That being said, not all departments should rush to end joint concentrations—although those that have found them problematic should be free to do so.

As the administration renews its focus on the undergraduate curriculum—and advising in particular—its decisions must be cognizant of student interest in terms of both substance and implementation. That this change was neither timed well nor communicated effectively represents a serious pitfall on the part of the administration. That being said, the decision to end joint concentrations in these departments is a reasonable one.