No Changes
It seems clear, however, that after one year of subdued agitation, there have been no major changes in student-administration relations in any of the parts of the University. In the College, no institutional changes to allow for more representation of student opinion accompanied all the talk. At the Law School, a Faculty-student committee has been established--it is too early now to predict what the committee's impact will be, but some students are already suggesting that it will turn out to be a device for suffocating real dissent. The Ed School may have made the most headway with the integration of students into some Faculty committees. Again, it is too early to tell.
Even in the event that students sustain their interest and the Administration maintains its seriousness, one final consideration remains: will the collaboration be successful, or will it simply be a series of compromises on key issues to keep everyone happy?
(5) Curriculum: Time for Change?
Where student discontent may have its greatest impact is on the curriculum. Here, it is possible, their complaints may fall on the receptive ears of some Faculty members who also believe change is necessary.
Med School Debate
In any case, 1966 saw at least one major Faculty begin deliberations that could lead to fundamental change in its curriculum. The Medical School, reacting to prodding from its new dean, Dr. Robert H. Ebert, began debating a series of major proposals for revamping medical instruction. Under the present curriculum, all students are required to carry the same basic course load. A special subcommittee suggested that this be altered. The subcommittee report emphasized the need of more flexibility in the curriculum to accommodate the varying needs and interests of students. It proposed that only a basic "core curriculum" be required of students and that the elective offerings be increased. The committee urged reduction in the amount of memorization and encouragement "independent thinking and scholarship which will insure continuing assimilation of new knowledge after graduation."
Pass-Fail
The debate still continues, and the prospect for some sort of change is considered good. Whatever curriculum changes take place at the Medical School, or any other areas of the University, will be lasting in effect. For example, in the College this year, the Harvard Policy Committee proposed that all students be allowed to take a free fifth course and have it graded only on a "pass-fail" basis. The Committee for Educational Policy has accepted this concept, added some details of its own, and now will put it before the full Faculty. If the proposal is passed, it will probably mean a significant increase in the academic workload of many students in the College. Likewise, the two-year debate on General Education has been completed, and a new Gen Ed Office will start looking for new Gen Ed courses to fill a more flexible program. This too, over the years, can expand the course offerings open to undergraduates.
It is difficult to write off the year in such simple terms. It is also difficult to argue convincingly that what appears important now will be important five or ten years from now. The stimulus towards curriculum changes may peter out. Problems between Harvard and the Federal government may be smoothed over. The University's planned growth may not be nearly so great--nor carry so many implications--as it now appears.
Equally possible--perhaps more probable - is that the events and trends of this year will generate farreaching consequences, now unforeseen and unintended.