Wherefore art thou, concentration requirements?

Harvard’s English department has been asking itself this question since last spring, when a task force convened to evaluate the current requirements for concentrators. The task force’s proposal to overhaul the English curriculum was overwhelmingly approved by the department last week, and for good reason: The English department’s willingness to reevaluate its curriculum and standards of instruction shows a laudable level of introspection and an admirable desire to serve its students.

The sweeping changes to the concentration are progressive and liberating amendments to a set of requirements that caters to a rather narrow set of interests. The current system requires that all concentrators complete English 10a and English 10b—two semesters of introductory courses on the English canon—as well as fulfill pre-1800 literature, American literature, and sophomore seminar requirements—along with their departmental electives. Under the new proposal students are freed from these rigid requirements. Instead, non-honors concentrators would be expected to take one course from each of the four “common-ground modules” outlined in the proposal and seven electives.

This type of revamped program of study is a crucial step toward keeping the humanities relevant and alluring to undergraduates. As higher education becomes more and more specialized and the job market becomes increasingly competitive, the temptation to concentrate in a subject with “real-world” applicability is strong. Yet English—and the other humanities—are valuable courses of study, along with more “practical” majors like economics or chemistry, but only if departments are willing to develop their curriculum to suit the times. Harvard’s new English program allows for much greater flexibility of study and can incorporate a wider variety of interests.

English is no longer a field whose scope can be limited to Great Britain and North America. Literature written in English is truly a transnational corpus, as migration and colonization have spurred the creation of English works from literally every corner of the map. The new common-ground modules emphasize the flexibility and adaptability of the English language and its study, and allow students who are interested in English literature’s diverse origins and vast diffusions the ability to pursue that course of study.

Unfortunately, the descriptions of the common-ground modules in the department’s proposal muddle the purity of the designers’ intentions. Littered with postmodern jargon, these “modules” become parodies of themselves. The idea of learning about the “arrivals” inherent in English writing is stimulating, but unless one is able to weed through terms like “embarrassment of riches” in order to reach the core of the module, the effect is lost. The same critique applies to the “Diffusions” module, whose description declares that students will ponder, “What does it mean to belong to a where, and what are the signs, and forms, and idioms, of belonging—and unbelonging.” While appropriate for faculty, or even upperclassman concentrators, this sort of esoteric framework needs to be clarified and translated into less intimidating language before it is presented to undergraduates. Otherwise, the English department will scare away the very students it is hoping to attract.

Because of the ambiguity of the modules and the greater freedom of choice under the new system, it is good that the curricular overhaul will be accompanied by an overhaul of departmental advising. Massive curricular changes must go hand-in-hand with greater attention to concentrators, especially during the transitional period. Comprehensive advising is the key to creating a unified course of study throughout four years in college: students should emerge from Harvard feeling as if they’ve learned something vaguely cohesive—not just having completed the required classes. And while it is the responsibility of individuals to have agency over their own work, a department can do a great deal to lure concentrators and shape scholars when it provides excellent guidance.

The English department is a model for introspection and constructive criticism at this point, and it would do well to consider student input moving into the future. For example, introductory courses like English 10a and 10b are still valuable—even if they should not be required. They provide necessary background knowledge for concentrators interested in a traditional British and American track, and also attract non-concentrators interested in English survey courses. Although the same sort of criticism as the department leveled at itself should be applied to the syllabi of individual courses like English 10a and 10b, these introductory courses should continue to be staple offerings of the department.

Moving forward, it will be a challenge for humanities concentrations like English to continue to attract students also lured by more conventional pre-professional tracks. Yet the study of the humanities is valuable and worth pursuing. The Harvard English department’s display of introspection without compromising academic standards has set a high standard for other departments to meet.