As Goes Harvard. . .

Commentary ^ | September 2006 | Donald Kagan

[shrinkermd]

Does it matter that Harvard’s curriculum is a vacant vessel? It is no secret, after all, that to the Harvard faculty, undergraduate education is at best of secondary interest. What is laughingly called the Core Curriculum—precisely what Summers sought to repair—is distinguished by the absence of any core of studies generally required. In practice, moreover, a significant number of the courses in Harvard College are taught by graduate students, not as assistants to professors but in full control of the content. Although they are called “tutors,” evoking an image of learned Oxbridge dons passing on their wisdom one-on-one, what they are is a collection of inexperienced leaders of discussion or pseudo-discussion groups. The overwhelming majority of these young men and women, to whom is entrusted a good chunk of a typical undergraduate’s education, will never be considered good enough to belong to Harvard’s regular faculty.

But this does matter, and the reason is that how Harvard deals with its undergraduates is of great importance to other colleges. Harvard’s antiquity, the high quality of its faculty and student body, its wealth, and its prestige have made it a model to be watched and emulated. When Harvard adopted a program of “General Education” after World War II—the forerunner of today’s debased Core Curriculum—it changed the character of undergraduate education throughout the country.

So it is intriguing and instructive that Harvard’s former dean should be castigating the curriculum produced by the Harvard faculty—a curriculum that, he believes, exposes Harvard as “a university without a larger sense of educational purpose or a connection with its principal constituents.” And it is equally intriguing that Derek C. Bok, a former and now again, in the wake of Summers’s departure, the current president of Harvard, should have released his own troubled look at the same subject.2

[shrinkermd]

A serious look at college curriculums and their influence on learning and society.

Harvard's ongoing success may not be the quality and nature of its efforts but the ability to "cream" the IQ distribution. Smart people go there and then go out and use their smarts to make above average livings. It is the selection rather than the experience that may determine Harvard's success.

[weegee]

It's all about name recognition and networking. Outside of that, the degree is meaningless.

[nuconvert]

Related -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693527/posts

[ClearCase_guy]

I agree. Smart, motivated kids go to Harvard. Then, for 4 years they rub shoulders with other smart, motivated young people. In many cases, this sort of start in life can lead to success in a variety of fields.

Harvard faculty and curriculum undoubtably cause some damage to the students, but geting to know some bright peers makes the experience useful (although expensive).

[Gordongekko909]

I'm in my third year at Loyola Law School, and I'm taking a REQUIRED course called "Law and Poverty." Or as about half the student body calls it, "Socialism 101." There is no law in this class. It's 100% political indoctrination. Y'know, as if we didn't get enough of that in undergrad.

[wideawake]

I've audited classes at Harvard and I was definitely underwhelmed by the rigor and sophistication of the teaching.

My courses at the University of Chicago were much tougher and meatier.

I would agree that going to Harvard has to be about networking, not education.

[Malesherbes]

Good comment. Harvard has historically had a great library,highly competitive faculty, and highly competitive student body. Because of the WWW, libraries are becoming universal. The Harvard faculty has become politicized. But Harvard still creams for smart and aggressive students.

[massgopguy]

The best thing about Harvard is the Kronosaurus skeleton at the Museum of Natural History. Other than that it's good for third place in the Bean Pot.

[untenured]

He [Derek Bok] gamely offers a number of suggestions. At the prodding of their presidents, for example, colleges could undertake continuing “evaluation, experimentation, and reform.” They could offer professors seed money and released time for trying new and better ways to teach.

As a university professor, I find this embarrassing. "Trying new and better ways to teach" is a basic professional responsibility. Faculty seriously committed to the educational mission would not have to be bribed to do it.

[bobjam]

The whole problem lies in the conceptual fallacy of the general education curriculum implemented after World War II. Rather than focusing on training young people to be productive members of society, Harvard opted to expose its students to a wide variety of topics and fields in an effort to provide a well rounded or "liberal" education. In short, rather than training bright minds to be masters in one useful subject, Harvard is reduced to preparing its students to perform well on Jeopardy!

[Lou L]

They could offer professors seed money and released time for trying new and better ways to teach.

Judging from the article, there's nothing necessarily wrong with the "old and tried" ways of teaching; the problem seems to stem from the fact that certain departments have caved to political correctness. They lack the will to say, "there are academic standards of success, and they come as a result of studying and learning from classic subjects."

[bjc]

Kagan is dead on. This summer we had a Harvard undergrad as an intern. I was pleasantly surprised to hear from him that many undergrads thought the faculty had railroaded Summers and that many faculty were transparantly biased, naive in their politics and seen as jokes. I guess the undergrads are smart enough to detect BS among the polysyllables and erudite quotes. (However, there may be no hope for the graduate students who have to drink the koolaid!!)

[Earthdweller]

From time to time you have to rock the shakers cradle. Good on you. LOL

[Sarastro]

It's all about name recognition and networking. Outside of that, the degree is meaningless.

I never realized that! Perhaps you could speed my reeducation by citing corroboration that I can use when I make your point to others. You know, research-based evidence that four years at Harvard do nothing to enhance cultural appreciation, increase capacity for enlightened citizenship (after correcting for left-wing institutional bias, as smart students are well able to do), equip graduates for a productive career in the knowledge economy — things like that. Thanks in advance for your help.

[the invisib1e hand]

i don't think people have taken Harvard seriously for a long time.

[Dont Mention the War]

I would never hire a Harvard undergrad. The Core Curriculum is why.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Harvard Sucks Dead Goats.

You forgot, "in a blizzard."

[weegee]

You know, research-based evidence that four years at Harvard do nothing to enhance cultural appreciation, increase capacity for enlightened citizenship (after correcting for left-wing institutional bias, as smart students are well able to do), equip graduates for a productive career in the knowledge economy

You mean "old school" graduates from Harvard like Ted Kaczynski? When they had professors like Timothy Leary who would later advocate that young people Tune In, Turn On, and Drop Out?

Time Magazine called him a GENIUS (roughly in the same time frame they were questioning "is Rush Limbaugh good for America?"

Or maybe they should go to Harvard, where they can rub shoulders with Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Michael Medved, George W. Bush, and as fellow classmates. And study under the Taliban's propaganda minister, what an opportunity to do good things for America. < /sarc >

[bjc]

You are too hasty. We have had 4 Harvard interns in the last 10 years. All were book smart and pretty well-educated, at least as well educated as those from other schools and programs. One was great and got along with everybody, 2 fit all the negative stereotypes and were treated with contempt by their peers and 1 was - well super smart and equally odd. Interestingly, only one was obviously a liberal.