Pushing the Review
The Crimson reports on
the ongoing debate over the curricular review at a faculty gathering yesterday evening. Bill Kirby seems determined to leave his office identified as the architect of a curricular review, and so he is pushing to pass the review. I wonder if Dean Kirby is familiar with
Marbury v. Madison.
The discussions apparently centered on moving the time of concentration choice from the end of freshman year to the beginning of sophomore year. There is also a proposal to create secondary concentrations that would not require the writing of a thesis. And English department chair James Engell argued that the teaching of writing and speaking deserve a larger place in the curriculum.
All of these things seem unobjectionable enough and maybe even worthwhile. But they are also underwhelming. Harvard University—probably the world's greatest arts and science's faculty—decides to revamp the architecture, the guts, of its curriculum, and the debate at faculty meetings centers on when students should choose their majors? This does not feel like a curricular review, but rather, tinkering at the margins. It is not exactly bold or profound.
I still believe that the real curricular review should start as soon as a new dean is appointed.
