Last week, another entry was added to the esoteric lexicon of Harvard students, accompanying “concentration,” “comp,” “intersession” and “proctor:” the “secondary field.” We commend the Faculty—and particularly the Educational Policy Committee (EPC)—for quickly implementing the Harvard equivalent of minors, which have the potential to become integral parts of the curriculum. We hope, however, that students will not treat secondary fields as a de facto requirement.

In an effort to cater to the broad interests of Harvard’s students, last spring, the Faculty approved secondary fields, optional programs of four to six half-year courses that will appear on a student’s transcript (but not diploma) after graduation. The EPC, empowered to implement these mini-concentrations, last week announced 24 secondary fields had been approved for the spring term. They will apply retroactively so that the Class of 2007 will be able to have secondary fields on their transcripts.

The speedy efforts of the EPC are commendable, and their product is practical; the approved fields will reward and provide flexibility to students curious about a subject far removed from their own concentration. They are also an improvement for students who wish to pursue two somewhat-related fields, but who are not sufficiently interested in their intersection to write a joint thesis. To top it off, the EPC has allocated a generous amount of resources to the nascent program, ensuring that even in pursuit of these minor concentrations, students will be advised and assisted well.

Given the history of bureaucratic committees at Harvard, the EPC’s achievement is quite remarkable. Their efficient and effective work should serve as a paradigm for the implementation of the rest of the Curricular Review and other curricular improvements in the future.

Secondary fields are not, however, an infinite good. The student body must allow this program to fill the role for which it was conceived. Secondary fields are a benefit to students with a keen interest in a subject unaddressed within their concentration. They are an educational opportunity, not an avenue to over-achieve, over-specialize, or add another line to one’s résumé at the expense of other interests and electives. We hope that the Faculty, house tutors, and other advisers will work proactively so that students do not treat taking on a secondary field as a default path.

Second, the faculty and program administrators should take mercy on students seeking to satiate their curiosity while still meeting requirements and navigating bureaucracy. Currently, only one course that counts for secondary field credit is allowed to be “double-counted” to fulfill a Core requirement. Although we agree that a secondary field should be a major intellectual effort, the current no-exceptions policy is unnecessarily constraining. A more judicious system would allow for credit petitions, which, given the resources being devoted to implementing secondary fields, seems feasible.

These concerns aside, the EPC deserves kudos for their success and the speed with which they achieved it. The rapid progress of the secondary field program demonstrates what can be accomplished at Harvard with resources, focus, and a concerted effort toward a concrete goal. We hope that other programs in the future can demonstrate such success just a few months after their initial approval.