{shortcode-8ed5426335cb03ff3e6da8b1aec83a66a16ba3d2}
In business, they say the customer is always right. But in academics, it seems the student is always wrong.
The Classroom Social Compact Committee recently released a report asserting that many Harvard students prioritize extracurriculars over coursework, pointing to skipped readings and lack of attendance as primary symptoms of this problem.
While the report raises valid concerns, its language directs blame mostly towards students, seemingly ignoring structural curricular issues and putting academic and extracurricular engagement at odds. Without addressing these points, the report paints an incomplete picture of the real causes of student disengagement.
The report provides a long list of recommendations and guidelines to solve the problem, including a cell phone ban and regularized grading. Most recommendations come in the form of suggestions for faculty or requirements for students. But the recommendations gloss over pervasive structural features of Harvard’s curriculum that curtail student engagement.
For one, forcing students to sit in on hundred-person lectures does no student good. This problem can be tackled on multiple levels. First, Harvard could offer more seminar-style courses or break up large lectures into multiple sections. This model already exists: some introductory math courses are taught in smaller sections. Aside from the math department, many other intro courses do not offer non-lecture options.
Similarly, Harvard’s General Education program, which requires students to take large lecture classes on hyper-specific and often random-seeming topics, shuttles students into vast, impersonal lecture halls. It’s no wonder students check out.
Instead of investing in the Gen Ed program, Harvard could expand the divisional distribution requirement, which gives students flexibility to take smaller courses that align more closely with their intellectual interests while still encouraging exploration.
Curricular issues aside, the report portrays extracurricular engagement as the main culprit of stealing students away from class. I agree with the committee’s argument that academics should be prioritized. But painting extracurriculars as the villain ignores the critical role they play in shaping our student experience.
Organizations like The Crimson and Institute of Politics strengthen Harvard’s national reputation and attract incredible leaders to campus. Other organizations provide students pre-professional opportunities in the arts, journalism, or public service that they can’t otherwise attain through liberal arts classes. And most importantly, clubs are a vital source of friendship and community on campus.
Many other universities are known for their class-centric approach, where students spend significantly less time on extracurriculars. For this and other reasons, such universities have often been given labels such as “where fun goes to die.” Perhaps faculty want Harvard to be more like these schools. But they must recognize that Harvard is not Harvard solely because of its classes. Harvard is Harvard because of its classes, clubs, communities, and campus culture that makes it unique.
Extracurriculars are also symptoms of larger forces, and trying to minimize extracurriculars while leaving those untouched would be a fool’s errand. If Harvard eliminated all extracurriculars tomorrow, would students suddenly show up to every large lecture class that they aren’t able to focus in? Probably not. They’d find new ways to stack their resumes, spend time with friends, and develop their specific interests — most likely outside the classroom.
The committee’s report absolutely has its merits, and many of its recommendations, such as limiting device use in class and assigning smaller sections, are reasonable. But the committee also needs to understand that extracurriculars are often not in tension with students’ desire to learn – they’re an expression of it.
Finding the balance between academics and extracurriculars should not just be up to the students. It’s also up to faculty, administrators, and those who make important decisions about how courses should be structured and taught — it’s up to every member of our community.
Mukta R. Dharmapurikar ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Environmental Science and Engineering and Economics in Lowell House.
