Four months ago, the Task Force on General Education articulated, in its preliminary report, a guiding philosophy for the future of general education. That philosophy, centered on the practical application of a liberal arts education to the problems of the modern world, impressed us then and continues to do so today.

The Task Force, however, has gone too far with this philosophy in its final report, which was released last week and will be discussed by the full Faculty today. Unlike the original report, which emphasized the openness and flexibility of the new system, this latest report perpetuates one of the worst features of the Core: it is overly constraining.

We hope instead that the Task Force’s report forms the foundation for a two-tiered system of general education, one which marries the limited system of special “general education” courses laid out by the Task Force with a second tier made up of a broad variety of departmental classes that will count for general education credit. Such a system would provide top-notch and applicable courses that would serve as a portal to disciplines a student is unfamiliar with but would also allow students who want to explore an area in depth to do so without excessive handholding or demeaning and overly simplified requirements.



While we generally applaud the Task Force’s adherence to a consistent underlying philosophy, the report’s undying loyalty to a somewhat arbitrary vision of general education as “real-world application” runs the risk of repeating some of the most atrocious failures of the current Core Curriculum. Though numerous, these failures can be grouped into two main categories. First, thanks to their focus on “ways of knowing,” Core classes tend to focus on limited and somewhat obscure topics that are great for cocktail party banter but hardly form the basis of a truly general education. Second, the Core presents such a limited menu of classes that it is constraining, particularly for seniors who are at times forced to take poorly taught classes that do not interest them simply to fulfill a requirement.

The Core need not be that way. Most of its problems lie in its implementation. Educational flexibility has slowly withered and died at the hands of the all-powerful Core Standing Committee, which at times seems to exist solely to deny exemptions. One particularly troubling rule is that the Core has minimum requirements for amounts of reading, exams, and papers that prevents classes like tutorials—often the best taught and most valuable classes—from counting. We applaud the Task Force for making it clear that this will not be the case in the future.

The limited menu of courses in the proposed system, however, will cause headaches. Specifically, students will be forced to take classes that fulfill strict general education requirements regardless of their background or interests.

This is particularly problematic in more technical fields, where the gulf between an introductory course and a departmental course is widest. To force students with extensive backgrounds in the sciences to select from courses that “do not strive to train students to become future scientists or to enable students to take more advanced science classes” simply to get a “real world connection” is patronizing. Similarly, a Math 55 alum required to take statistics so they can see “real world applications” will likely fall asleep. The Faculty should trust ambitious students who wish to take difficult and comprehensive departmental courses to make real-world connections for themselves, as long as the courses are not too parochial.

This logic points to a clear solution: a two-tiered system for General Education at Harvard. The first tier should comprise the courses that are developed specifically for General Education and listed separately at the front of the Courses of Instruction. Here the pedagogical guidelines should be strict and the topic matter broad—we are not interested in having General Education courses about dinosaurs or Chinese imaginary space. These courses, aimed at non-concentrators, should be the focus of much Faculty attention in the coming years.

The second tier of courses, consisting of departmental alternatives, should be much more liberal in its awarding of General Education credit. This will give the system added flexibility, ensuring that students are taken out of their comfort zone and exposed to questions and problems they do not usually confront without forcing a one-size-fits-all model on students. Though the report correctly allows departmental courses to count for general education courses, they too must meet the same stringent standards, a requirement we fear will be too constraining.

The viability of such a two-tiered system will depend on its implementation, and the new Standing Committee on General Education will play a crucial role. Nevertheless, we believe that enforcing strict administrative requirements for such courses, such as mandating a final or midterm, would be a grave mistake. Furthermore, the Faculty must make it clear that the Committee should create strict guidelines on subject matter and pedagogy for the first tier of “General Education” courses. Our hope is that these courses, modeled on this year’s new humanities courses, will be so exciting and of such high quality that students will flock to them. The faculty should, however, be extremely flexible in the second tier, giving knowledgeable students the opportunity for deeper study. Courses that do not meet the requirements to be a General Education course should not be deemed worthy of that high honor, but petitions should actually be considered instead of being relegated to a pile on a Committee member’s desk where she can practice using her red “Denied” rubber stamp.



The past four months have been a period of intense discussion about what it means to be educated in today’s society, punctuated by skirmishes over the makeup of the distribution areas. We hope that the Faculty avoids provincial squabbling over exactly whose courses will count for General Education credit and focuses on the big picture. With some key adjustments we will have the backbone of a strong system, and the hardest part—implementation—will begin.

Now is not the time to return to the drawing board. The Faculty still has some work to do, but we are optimistic that the end is near and that the new curriculum will have been worth the wait.