The review was a hell of a lot more coherent then--a distribution requirement just like what's in place at all of Harvard's peer institutions. Now, it's a mess of strange categories that Simmons and Menand desperately try to fuse into one common philosophy--like, say, the core... and all because Judith Ryan's objection to the original distribution requirement was that it wouldn't make the front pages of the New York Times. Yes, she actually said that.
 

So did Larry.
 

Dear Richard,
May I propose a new topic for discussion: the appointment of a dean for FAS? What qualities should he or she have? What are the most urgent problems to be addressed? What should his or her relations with the students be? Relations with the Center? The FAS dean is vital to Harvard's health and especially the health of the College. So, why are we talking about it? I can see why people would hesitate to name individuals in a forum like this --might be the kiss of death to be subjected to criticism from anonymous people. We should be to discuss the aforementioned questions, however.

By the way, is anyone else disappointed in the job that Knowles has been doing this year? The Mass Hall debacle is one example, but more generally he seems to be letting things go. I thought that he was brought in to get the FAS house in order, but it looks like the next dean will inherit many unsolved problems.
 

"So did Larry."

Any documentation for that?

Here's the article with Prof. Ryan's quote:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513828
 

Thanks for the link. But reading the article, I think you're being unfair to Professor Ryan. She's not advocating a certain proposal solely to win publicity, as you say. Sounds to me like her comment has a kind of world-weariness to it: "Well, what can you say about this proposal? It's not exactly going to put Harvard on the front page of the New York Times."

What she's saying is clearly *not* this is a bad plan because it won't get us in the Times. She's saying, This is such an uninspired plan, no one's going to take it seriously. A different thing altogether.
 

Summers routinely called editors when the stories weren't to his liking. Why do editors not report these conversations? No doubt he insisted that they were off the record, but the fact that the call occurred and was off the record cannot be off the record. Or can it?
Anyhow the press played into his hands, and still is.
 

Pursuit of an angle, or pursuit of accuracy? Only the Seward knows!!!
 

Yeah, if the curricular review was a mess under Larry, at least then it was sane. This new proposition is mildly ridiculous.
 

Really, 4:10? How about some details? I think it's a pretty good structure myself, though I have criticisms here and there myself, and how the courses get assembled, what departmental options are added, and the extent to which faculty step forward to create an actual curriculum will determine how successful it is. This structure in fact moves us a long way forward from the one we started with, which was more than mildly ridiculous. So let's hear what is still ridiculous, since the actual legislation is still in the future, so maybe you could help us improve it.