Harvard News 4/9/84–Editorial –

CURRICULUM ANALYSIS MDCLIX – THE P.E. DEPT.

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief & Barton Samuel Aronson the III, Nothing of Import

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE THOSE ONLY OF THE TWO FOLLOWING EDITORS WHO HAVE TAKEN IT UPON THEMSELVBES TO CRITIQUE A SCHOOL THAT THEY STILL ATTEND. NOBODY KNOWS WHY A STUDENT WHO CAN’T GET AN “A” IN A COURSE HAS A RIGHT TO CRITICIZE IT. WELL, HERE’S BART AND RANDY.

I

It’s ten o’clock and I have nothing to write. I feel that this should be blamed on the simply anemic curriculum of the Physical Education Department. This department has been a bastion of higher education until recently when the department’s once daring and unconventional curriculum became outdated. A simple browse through the curriculum guide reveals the problem. We feel, NO YOU FEEL RANDY, oh shut up Bart, that the curriculum must expand to adapt to a new era in education. The solution is an expansion in the opportunities for students who do not participate in team sports. YOU MEAN WIMPS LIKE US RANDY, yes Bart. What can we do? ANYTHING BUT DON’T GIRLS IN. Okay Bart, we won’t. Just look at the courses offered by the P.E. Department, or should we say lack thereof. We feel that the Running for Fitness course should become a full department, with beginner, intermediate and advanced courses in running, along with some courses on the sociological aspects of the running craze. This is merely one example of the changes that can and should be made.

II

Well I do not need to emphasize the circumlocutionary aspects of that bastion of fecundity you have just perused. We all know who enscribed that absolutely proletariat piece of fiction to paper. It was our totalitarian, dictatorial leader Randy (don’t call me Eric) Schoenberg. Well now that he has gotten everything I wanted to say in this article into a michegas, I will have to correct his faux pas.

The real problem that underlies and defines the Department of the Education of the Physical Aspects of the Human Organism, herein referred to as the P.E. Department, is that they might someday let in GIRLS. OH DRAT, MY LIFE IS IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR AND DESTRUCTION.   I feel the real problem is that of repetition and redundancy. If females of the opposite sex or girls are let into this institution we will all suffer to our demise. Well now that I’ve redefined the word circumlocutionary and the act of saying very little, by saying nothing but being damn impressive, I will leave this fine institution and go on to pursue a career of politics.

Harvard News 3/22/84–Editorial – NEWS STAFF MUST AVOID COMPLACENCY

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief

Three years ago, when I was in ninth grade, the school newspaper was called the Coldwater Pipeline. It was run by a small group of students, predominantly seniors, and came out every once in a while, if at all. The Harvard Community was used to their type of slow, sparse news coverage, and therefore expected nothing more.

But two juniors, Paul Golding (’82) and Kenny Lo (’82) who had been excluded from the Coldwater Pipeline editorial board, wanted more from a school newspaper. They began publishing, bi-weekly, the Harvard Bull. The Bull was a just a single sheet of paper with news and sports scores printed on both sides. The determination of Paul Golding and Kenny Lo undercut the Coldwater Pipeline by emphasizing the irresponsibility of the lazy newspaper staff.

When Mr. Lander became the new faculty adviser for the school paper, he met with the editors of the Pipeline and the Bull and decided to start from scratch with the energetic but inexperienced editors of the Bull. They organized writers, photographers, and typesetters from the whole upper school, chose a magazine format, and created (for lack of a better title) the Harvard News.

Today, three years after the creation of the Harvard News, the old staff prepares to hand the paper over to its fourth editor, Michael Kezirian (’85). The Harvard News has come a long way from a small (8.5” x 11”) eight page magazine. Trask Leonard (’83), the second editor, increased the size by adopting the present-day format. Production has also changed the “look” of the paper. This year, the typesetters abandoned the hyphenation programs of Kenny Hayes (’83) on a privileged account of the school computer for the versatility of Wordstar on the Kaypro. The use of the letter quality printer in the faculty lounge quickly helped increase the number of characters per line from 28 to 35, an increase in volume of 25%. Still, a greater number of articles and photographs required four 12-page issues and even one 16-page issue this year. Indeed, in quality and quality, the Harvard News has experienced continuous improvement since its first issue three years ago.

It is important, however, that the trend of improvement be continued. The news staff cannot become complacent, or it risks becoming another Coldwater Pipeline.

The student body and faculty must continue to demand reliability from the newspaper, and not take it for granted. Already, over half of the Harvard Community has known nothing but the Harvard News. In two years, the editors of the school paper will likely never have read a long-awaited copy of the Coldwater Pipeline. It is important that the newspaper never forget what started the Harvard News or this paper will suffer the same fate as its predecessor. Paul Golding and Kenny Lo had a dream. They dreamt of a reliable, quality newspaper and set out to make one. This year’s staff has tried to continue the quest or excellence. The goal has always been in sight, yet it is not to be attained. Future newspaper staffs would do good to remember the example set by Golding and Lo and maintain the high level of commitment to Harvard School that the Harvard News represents.

Harvard News 1/30/84–Editorial – COEDUCATION AT HARVARD – PRO

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief

One of the touchiest questions of school policy, for administrators, teachers, and students alike, is the question of coeducation vs. unisex schooling at Harvard. The school is deeply divided over this issue, and perhaps that is why it is rarely discussed. The staunchest supporters of the present system are the members of the Board of Trustees. They have blocked attempts at coeducation in the past and seem likely to do so again in the future should a proposal be brought before them. I would like to preface my argument with one statement: although there is no overwhelming reason to have girls at Harvard, there are fewer reasons not to include them.

Many in favor of coeducation point out that Harvard ill-prepares boys for real life situations, restricts their social development, and reinforces the idea that girls do not belong in a rigorous educational setting. These statements are exaggerated, yet somewhat true. The few dances and social events which the school organizes do not provide enough contact with the opposite sex to dispel the belief that girls are strange, threatening creatures. Experience outside of school, whether at religious schools, summer trips, or weekend parties, are accessory. Although most students graduate having had adequate opportunities for intersexual relationships, all admit that girls at Harvard would have had helped tremendously.

Very few, if any, students go to Harvard because it is an all-boys school. In fact, there are probably some prospective students who do not go to Harvard simply because there are no girls. The success of the Brentwood School in attracting these people has raised the academic standing of the school in recent years. Notre Dame is hoping that its new coeducational policy will attract better students, both male and female. Harvard is of a dying breed and it is only a question of how long before the school becomes co-educational. I believe that Harvard will be co-educational by the early 1990’s or the year 2000 at the latest. Of course, this will be too late for most of us.

There are three arguments frequently forwarded by persons against coeducation: one, girls are not as educationally motivated; two, girls would detract from the academic atmosphere at Harvard; and three, Harvard does not have the facilities to accommodate girls.

There is no proof that girls are any different from boys in their intelligence, determination, and diligence. Speculation on the inferiority of females is prejudiced and an unfortunate carry over from the 19^th century. To deny girls of an education with boys at Harvard simply because of the nebulous assumption that girls are inferior is unsafe and unwise.

Assuming that girls of equal educational caliber would join the boys at Harvard, a decrease in seriousness would be unlikely. There is no reason why the addition of girls in the classroom would inhibit discussion or in any way disrupt the class. In recent years, females have proven themselves equal to males in many areas. Girls have been admitted to the established private schools, Andover and Exeter, without any noticeable changes in their academic standing.

The topic of the responsibility of admitting girls at Harvard is more difficult to discuss at this point. First, what must be done is to resolve to change. There are many possibilities, including a merger with Westlake or Marlborough. Many people worry that with coeducation, less boys will be offered a Harvard education. This is true—but easily dismissed because obviously, for every boy that is now admitted under the new system, one girl will be admitted and offered the advantages of Harvard School. We must change our priorities from giving male students a fine education to giving students a fine education.

Proposals for coeducation have been brought before the Board of Trustees with much support from the faculty, students, and administration. The majority of the Board has been opposed to this proposal. But as the Board evolves, and as student, faculty, and administrative opinions become more vocal, Harvard’s chances for coeducation increase. It is only a matter of time before Harvard alters its unisex status.

Harvard News 1/16/84–Editorial – CURRICULUM ANALYSIS: PART 5

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief and Bart Aronson, Features Editor

The Harvard News concludes its Curriculum Analysis with a two-part examination of the Foreign Language Department. Part I will discuss some of the deficiencies in the seventh grade Phenomenon of Language course, while Part II will focus on the possibility of adding German to the four existing language alternatives.

The Foreign Language Department, Part I

The Phenomenon of Language course (P of L hereafter) was introduced at Harvard in 1978, by then-Foreign Language department chairman David Florian. The course, in brief, works this way: students are introduced to the dynamics of language, and its association with culture and society, through a quarter of Latin study. The second and third quarters are given over to five-week units of Spanish, French and Russian. The exposure to these four languages is supposed to give the seventh grader a basic understanding of language dynamics, and enough background to choose the language he will study. On balance, we contend that the value of the choice is negligible compared to the harm the P and L course may be causing.

Advanced Placement scores are not an infallible index to student performance; however, they are instructive. The number of people taking the Spanish language A.P., has gone from one to thirty-three in three years; during the same time period, the pass rate has gone from 100% to 57%. Statistics for the French language A.P. are even more discouraging; the number of people taking that test has gone from six to seventeen in three years, and the pass rate has dropped from 66% to 23%. Moreover, no Harvard student earned a 4 or 5 on the 1983 French language A.P. Comparisons are dangerous; still, we will make two. First, these pass rates are significantly lower than the pass rates for Harvard students on other Å.P. tests. Second, Westlake School students consistently achieve a 60% (and higher) pass rate on the A.P. language tests. Why the difference? Rejecting the possibility that Westlake’s Language department and/or program is significantly superior to Harvard’s, the main difference is that Westlake students have another year of language study going into the A.P.:   They choose their language upon entering Westlake No one can prove positively that this extra year makes the difference; still, the numbers are compelling. The focus of this part of the editorial will be the P and L course.

The P of L course was introduced at Harvard, and as a result, the community is naturally prejudiced in its favor. Furthermore, the course claims for itself some lofty goals: according to the catalogue, “the Lower School Program stresses an awareness of language or a phenomenon of communication and its impact on human perception of the world.” We believe that a modified version of the P of L course could go as far as the current course in meeting these lofty goals and, at the same time, add nearly a year of language study to a student’s program. Furthermore, we believe we would not significantly sacrifice a student’s opportunity to make an informed choice. Finally, one must remember that the mere fact that the course is an innovation is a neutral one, and the course deserves to be examined.

We propose that the course be modified in this way: the first quarter would remain the same, with emphasis on the dynamics of language in general and Latin in particular. The last week of the past quarter could be given over to exposing students to the sounds of Spanish, French, and Russian. Students would then choose their language, and being to study it after the Christmas vacation.

The P of L course claims that giving students exposure to the three languages offered allows them to make an informed choice about the language they will study. First, many students choose the language they will study before they take the abbreviated survey. Second, if students can learn as much about the language structurally through Latin as they can through the study of the language itself (as we argue below), then they need only a brief exposure to the sound of the language to make an informed choice. Third and finally, the choice per se is not inherently more valuable than adding nearly a year to a student’s knowledge of the language.

There are two main structural differences between English and the languages offered at Harvard: case endings (and their effect on word order) and gender. Latin has both. Students can be exposed to case endings and gender, and begin to learn how to manipulate them, during the quarter of Latin To then spend fifteen weeks showing them that Spanish, French, and Russian also have case endings and gender seems redundant. Furthermore, French and Spanish sound much like, and are structurally based on Latin, and Russian is structurally similar to Latin . It would appear that a brief exposure to the unfamiliar Cyrillic alphabet would be sufficient to acquaint seventh graders with the languages offered; anything else seems unnecessary.

Finally, the P of L course claims to familiarize students with the cultures which shape the languages studied. But the time to do this is very limited, and we contend students would gain more by an in-depth exposure to one culture, than a brief, sketchy exposure to three.

Even if the course we propose does not meet all the goals set by the P of L course, we would still find justification for change. Ultimately, the goal of the language program should be to teach students to communicate, through both the written and spoken word, in another language, and to expose students to the culture behind the language in the process. These practical goals seem more valuable and more attainable than the lofty goals of the P of L course. Furthermore, though assigning courses between first and second quarter may be difficult, computers (See Dec. 4 issue ‘Supplement’) are doing amazing things these days.

Part II

Seven years ago, Harvard’s Latin teacher left the school, having taught all of the Latin sections for many years. After his retirement, several students wrote a petition asking for a German course to replace Latin. The Language Department examined the proposal and found that many people signed the petition but were not willing to sign for a German course. Harvard hired a new Latin teacher, mainly because they felt that not enough Harvard students actually wanted to take German. Since then, Latin, Russian, French, and Spanish courses have maintained sufficient interest to justify their existence. There are, however, several compelling reasons to include German in the Foreign Language curriculum.

Although less people speak German than Spanish, French, or Russian, it is nevertheless a very valuable language for Harvard students. German is the sister language of English: the two are very closely related in vocabulary and structure due to their common etymological history. Therefore, it would add to a student’s understanding of his own language to study German.

In practical applications, German is a least as valuable as any other language—if not more so. In the scientific world, German is very prominent, and the accomplishments of German scientists, including Leibnitz, Planck, Gauss, and Einstein are the most significant in modern history. Our own American engineering excellence came about as a result of the mass exodus of German scientists fleeing Hitler during W.W. II. Freud, Jung, and Adler singlehandedly transformed the way we look at the human mind.

But it is more likely that Harvard students will come into contact with the cultural influence of the German language. German composers have dominated classical music history. In literature, German writers have contributed the development of political and philosophical systems. Marx, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Kant, and Nietzsche are perhaps the most important. In literature, no one can dismiss the grandeur of Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, and Mann. German is at the heart of our western cultural tradition.

However, the value of German as a language has never been denied by the Foreign Language Department. They have instead used three other reasons to deny German a chance at Harvard. First, there is the assumption that there would not be enough students interested in German to fill a full class. Unfortunately, there have been no recent polls to justify the department’s claim of German’s unpopularity. On the contrary, the last year’s curriculum poll showed German to be the one class that most Juniors and Seniors thought Harvard lacked. Whether this poll proves that students would take German is debatable, but it does show a significant interest that should be tested.

Second, the department is worried about the effect that adding a language would have on the other languages offered. According to Mr. John Smith, “There is a correlation between the size of the school and the number of languages that we can offer.” Right now, all four languages are attracting enough people to justify their existence.   The fear of the department is that instead of having two good sized classes of Russian and Latin, there would be three undersized classes in German, Russian, and Latin. Five languages are not too many for a school of Harvard’s size. Assuming a class size of 15-20 people, 6-8 sections are possible. One section of German would not eliminate the possibility of filling classes in the other four languages.

The third and final problem is that of adding a new teacher to the staff. This problem is solvable provided the Board of Trustees is willing to pay an additional salary. Considering the value of the new teacher, this price cannot be too much.

German is a particularly valuable language. Its scientific and cultural importance is undeniable. The obstacles to creating a new course are clearly not insurmountable. Finally, it seems unfair and unwise to deny Harvard students the study of the language of their choice, if indeed German is the choice of a sufficient number of students.

Harvard News 12/5/83–Editorial – CURRICULUM ANALYSIS: PART 4

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief and Bart Aronson, Features Editor

The English Department has recently proposed a drastic change in its Senior curriculum. Our editorial, therefore, will be composed of two parts, one describing the new curriculum, and the other analyzing and proposing alternatives to the new curriculum plans.

The decision has been made, by the Curriculum Committee and the English Department, to adopt a Senior English course, outlined by Ms. Suzy Moser. This course will be the only alternative to AP English for Seniors; all other English courses will be electives, taken in addition to the Senior Course by an estimated 30-40 students. “The decision was basically a philosophical one,” noted Dr. Robert Archer, Chairman of the English Department. He cited three points of justification for the change. First, a “Senior English” course looks better on a college application than some of the electives. Electives began to be allowed in place of a Senior English course over fifteen years ago as a result of the liberal attitude at the time. “Harvard jumped on the bandwagon back then,” Dr. Archer said, but now the school has decided to move away from the electives because of the noted unchanging, anti-intellectual connotation they have gained in recent educational discussions. Obviously, Harvard’s electives are far from unchallenging or anti-intellectual, but the Curriculum Committee felt that the change should still be made to a strong, solid easily identifiable Senior English course. The second reason for the change is that Harvard students spend a great amount of time on Composition in grade 10 and 11 which detracts from the students’ knowledge of world literature. “Eleventh graders turn in 26 papers during the course of a single year,” said Dr. Archer, adding that most public school students do not write nearly that much during their entire high school experience. The Senior English course will incorporate many of the materials reading electives now, especially those read in Shakespeare and American literature. The Senior English course would, theoretically, round out Harvard students’ knowledge of world literature and the mandatory nature of the Senior courses would encourage more people to take AP English. And third, the committee concluded that Harvard students should not specialize in their study of English literature so early. Courses such as Science Fiction and Logic and Language, have been dropped in the past, despite their popularity, because of their narrow approach to literature. Similar attacks have been made on Shakespeare, “one author,” and Utopian Literature, “one theme.” These three philosophical and somewhat practical reasons for the mandatory Senior English course will have some tremendous effects on the nature of the English Department.

As a consequence of the new mandatory Senior English course, there will be a dramatic increase in the number of people taking electives and the number of electives offered will be reduced. Modern Thought and Literature, Dramatic Literature, and Shakespeare will no long be offered at Harvard. American Literature, Utopian Literature, and a full year course made up of one quarter of Composition and two quarters of Other Voices, Other Views will be the three full-year English electives. As a new policy, there will be no one-quarter course in the English Department. In short, to take an elective, a student will have to take two full year courses in English and thus will have to drop a course, in another subject. But one purpose of reducing the emphasis on electives is to encourage the more qualified students to take AP English. Some of these people now choose electives over the AP course which is broader and possibly more valuable than its elective counterparts. Dr. Archer said, “If we can funnel twenty more students into AP English then that will be worth losing our elective courses.” This philosophy is very different from one that caused the addition of electives in English but as Dr. Archer puts it, “It is not a choice between good and evil . . . but one of philosophical and practical considerations.”

These considerations, their validity, and possible alternatives to them are the subject of this editorial.

Initially, it has been suggested that the current electives are lumped together with such public school courses as “Home Economics” and “Metal Shop” by the colleges, and viewed unfavorably. No one doubts, of course, that Harvard’s Senior electives are rigorous: the teachers who teach them guarantee that. Furthermore, Harvard has a reputation for having high standards and offering difficult courses; there are few “Mickey Mouse” courses here, and none of them are Senior English electives. Harvard Seniors who take such courses have, as a perusal of our matriculation record would indicate, little difficulty in being accepted at prestigious universities. It does not seem that our electives hurt our student’s college chances in any demonstrable way.

Second, it has been said that, if a Senior elective is made a mandatory alternative to AP English, more students will be “encouraged” to take the advanced course. We firmly believe that students who take AP English should do so only because they are committed to the rigorous nature and material of the course. People who truly want to take AP English—whether for the AP credit or the material taught; will do so without regard for other courses offered. The course’s ranks should not be filled by those who dislike the curriculum of the mandatory Senior course. Rather, students should have the opportunity, as they have had in the past, to take advantage of the varied talents of those in the English Department. And students should also be able, since a Senior year in English should be required, to take courses which interest them—without having to burden themselves with two English courses. That is how the department currently functions; its success speaks for itself.

That the Senior electives, as currently offered, are too “narrow” in content, has also been suggested. It is difficult to imagine, however, a course with the breadth greater than Modern Thought and Literature. Furthermore, the study of Shakespeare—“one author”—as the most important figure in the English language is traditional and, almost, above reproach. The “Utopian Literature” course has a deceptively narrow title: the course covers a tremendous amount of philosophical material—and the Senor year is a time for thought and philosophy. Such courses—far from being narrow, take advantage of the unique talents and experiences of our outstanding English Department’s faculty, and provide fascinating areas of study for our students.

We believe, however, that a stock Senor elective could find a place in Harvard’s English curriculum. The time will come when a teacher, who teachers a senior elective and other course, will leave Harvard. When that time comes, the new teacher will not only have to adjust to a new school and our course structure, but he or she will also be burdened with filling that Senior elective spot. Perhaps, that teacher could teach a stock English course, with an existing structure and syllabus. At the same time, that teacher, or another teacher in the department, could develop a Senor elective. One year, two years, three years later—after that Senior elective is developed—that elective would be substituted for the stock course. Hence, the stock course would be available for when there is a lack of elective sections, but only with the understanding that, while it is being taught, a Senor elective would be developed. The stock Senior course would not be a requirement; it would simply be another elective.

Such a stock elective could either be a chronological English and American literature survey course, or a world literature course. It should emphasize reading, however, as do most of the current Senior electives. After the rigorous Junior writing course, the Senior year should be a time for discussing trends and ideas, not writing close textual analyses. The AP English course, which has a specific goal, is of course, an exception.

Under such a system, the English department would continue to take advantage of the unique talents of its teachers and, the same time, be able to handle any future faculty changes.

Harvard News 11/14/83–Editorial – CURRICULUM ANALYSIS: PART 3

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief and Bart Aronson, Features Editor

The flexibility of any effective social studies curriculum is governed by certain subjects which must, of educational and social necessity, be taught. Basic social studies skills, the history of the western world from the fertile banks of the Euphrates to our current modern world, and United States history—all are necessary. Harvard’s social studies department has, over the years, developed a comprehensive arrangement of those necessities, and at the same time, has provided considerable opportunities for taking electives. However, this does not mean that the program is not deserving of scrutiny; a different organization might be equally comprehensive (if not more so) and, at the same time, take fuller advantage of the department’s excellent elective program.

The Social Studies department proposes to introduce Lower schoolers to “the content and methodology of the social sciences.” The seventh grade course provides a broad base for future study in European and American history with useful library skills, and then geography, economics, and anthropology. However, the course includes a five-week unit on archaeology as well. Given that archaeology does not cover a specific time span, investigate historical trends, discuss causal relationships in history, or find significant application beyond the seventh grade course, it may not be a necessary social studies skill. Perhaps another unit, which could simultaneously provide a case study for necessary skills, introduce new skills, and provide information that can later be used, would be more appropriate.

The eighth grade course could be used to provide the necessary case study for the seventh grade. The seventh grade course could culminate in a case study of the United States government, with emphasis on those things—such as early American society, politics, and our governmental system—that would involve both an application of the skills learned, and valuable civic and historical knowledge. Such a case study is, even within current time constraints, feasible. First, the archaeology unit and the “big dig” would be eliminated from the seventh grade. There should be not less enthusiasm as a result: the American system is fascinating and intriguing, both because it is inherently so, and because it is ours. Second, the eighth grade course contains a lengthy unit on library skills, which is repetitive. Third and finally, the course contains an inordinate emphasis—nearly the entire spring quarter—on criminal law. The most important elements of this unit could be incorporated into the case study itself. This would complete the seventh grade year, and prepare a student for Western Civilization I in eighth grade.

The current Western Civilization I course, with a few modifications, could be easily adapted to eighth grade use. The course—particularly the early units of the course—provides an excellent vehicle for the application of the geography, economics, and anthropology learned in seventh grade. The application of those tools, so soon after they have been learned, would certainly enhance the learning of the historical material itself. Furthermore, once the student understands that he is not studying cases out of context, but actual, chronological history, his enthusiasm would increase. As a consequence, the Western Civilization I material should not be too difficult for eighth graders.

Currently, Sophomores have a choice between Western Civilization II and A.P. European history. However, if Western Civilization I were moved back, Western Civilization II would also be moved back. There is no history course with the breadth, depth, importance, and, finally, the complexity of European history; yet, A.P. students are expected to master the material in one year, the sophomore year. The scope is extraordinary; many sophomores who have taken the course do not feel comfortable with their grasp of that scope. If all students took the Western Civilizations I and II courses in sequence, then those who wanted a fuller understanding of European history would be intellectual. Tenth grade, then, would offer United States history, both regular and A.P. Though it is clear that United States history is offered nationally in the eleventh grade, it is not clear why. Most students find United States history should be taken in the tenth grade, before the more difficult A.P. European history course.

Under the proposed changes, the social studies sequence would end in tenth grade. A student would then have one more year required, which he could satisfy with an elective. The social studies department, with its outstanding faculty, offers an astounding wealth of experience and electives, all valid, and all valuable. A.P. European history is a popular course, and certainly students will continue to take it. The course would certainly not be repetitive: it would have a different focus than Western Civilization II, and would complete, and be complementary to, that course. Two years of European history would provide enough time for a real grasp of the subject. Finally, there has been some suggestion that the department’s electives are too fragmented. In order to guarantee the rigor required in a junior course, perhaps the department could require juniors take only full-year electives. Given this and the other proposed changes, an already outstanding Social Studies department could, perhaps, be improved.

Harvard News 10/28/83–Editorial – CURRICULUM ANALYSIS: PART 2

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief and Bart Aronson, Features Editor

In this issue, the Harvard News continues its review of the core curriculum with a look at the Math Department; in the nest issue, the News will consider the Social Studies Department.

THE MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT

Students of mathematics at Harvard exhibit a wide variety of innate capabilities and levels of knowledge, perhaps more so than in any other discipline. For some, it is a tough climb from Mathematics I to Geometry or Pre-Calculus in eleventh grade; for others, it is an easy ride along the accelerated path to Advanced Topics in twelfth grade. Two things, perhaps, can be stated generally about math students: first, nearly everyone begins seventh grade with a different level of understanding, and second, everyone learns at a different rate. At the same time, there are, potentially, three areas of the mathematics program which do not fully provide for Harvard students’ needs: first, all students begin with the same seventh grade course, regardless of ability or experience; second, the students who drop from the accelerated program usually repeat that program’s material in another class; third, geometry is all but absent from Harvard’s curriculum.

Students enter Harvard having had different backgrounds in mathematics, and there is no doubt that some come already knowing the basic arithmetic skills taught in Mathematics I, or could learn them quite quickly. This creates an extremely difficult classroom situation. The teacher must teach at the pace of the least able student, and simultaneously keep the attention of the average and above-average students—a trying task for the best of teachers. The result is frustration for the students who learn slowly, and are learning the material for the first time, because they feel they are holding back the class, and frustration for the more skilled students, because they are not learning at all. As a consequence, though students can still follow an accelerated path and take Calculus in 11^th grade, tracking—beginning in seventh grade—is essential.

Mathematics is the easiest subject to test for ability. Tests, such as the SSAT or (better still) a test developed by the Math Department, could be used to divide the students into accelerated and basic levels. No test is perfect; however, presumably the SSAT is sufficiently accurate to be used in Harvard’s admission process. And certainly, any test would produce more unified classes and facilitate tracking.

Westlake School tests incoming seventh graders in August to determine which math class they will take in September. Schools such as Santa Monica High School and Walter Reed Junior High School offer accelerated tracks which allow students to take Calculus (AB and BC) in tenth grade. Such a program at Harvard would simply mean allowing outstanding seventh graders to begin with the eighth grade Unified II course. Courses would not have to change significantly—only the makeup of the classes would. The result would be classes and courses more tailored to students’ needs.

One problem in particular is the problem of students who begin in the accelerated track, and then drop out. Students who drop out after Unified III—as quite a few do—repeat the course material in Advanced Algebra with Transformations in tenth grade. In the end, they gain nothing (besides a lower grade) by taking the accelerated track. For ninth through eleventh grade, Harvard’s third track should be tailored to the students who drop from the accelerated track and the successful students in the regular track who chose not to enter the accelerated track. This proposal—which is, in sum, a change in the makeup of classes in the lower grades and grades—is both feasible and beneficial. While taking Calculus in eleventh grade instead of tenth grade might not destroy the future of any budding genius, there is no reason to slow him down.

The lack of Geometry in Harvard’s core curriculum is more of an ideological problem than those previously discussed. Geometry was eliminated from the regular and accelerated tracks by former chairman Richard Sisley, and since his departure, the Math Department has not had a chairman remain at Harvard long enough to reinstate it. Geometry in a math curriculum serves two vital functions. First, geometry is the most analytical of all mathematical areas. The use of proofs and physical models train the mind—better than any other mathematical topic—for inductive, logical thinking. Second, the standardized tests with which Harvard students are inundated, are full of geometrical questions—questions for which some of Harvard’s better math students find themselves unprepared. The general attitude of Harvard’s math teachers is that geometry should hold a larger place in our math curriculum, and it is hoped the new math chairman, Ms. Beverly Kocan, can begin to effect such changes.

Harvard’s outstanding mathematics faculty has for years taught students the necessary basic skills and, at the same time, allowed Harvard’s finer math students to accelerate beyond those basics. The changes we propose would, we hope, allow for even greater flexibility and tailoring, and in the process, enable students to learn at rates match by their abilities.

Harvard News 10/11/83–Editorial – CURRICULUM ANALYSIS: PART 1

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief and Bart Aronson, Features Editor

Education at Harvard is like a lone, narrow path winding up a mountain: the path will ultimately reach the summit, but there are no rest stops and no short cuts. This is not to say that the path offers no scenery and requires no skill; rather, that it has been worn, and no new ones have been made. Harvard has made the transition from a good school to a great school; Harvard should now attempt the transition from a great school to an innovative, exemplary institution. Past changes have been lateral instead of vertical; that is electives in both traditional and non-traditional fields have been added, but the core curriculum remains unchanged. The current curriculum is confining: tracking occurs too late or not at all. Few students find the curriculum frustrating because it is too hard; however, many find the curriculum frustrating because it is too easy. This is only one problem. Consequently, changes in the core curriculum should recognize students’ varied capabilities and emphasize flexibility. In the following few issues, the Harvard News will examine the core curriculum and propose changes.

Before any assessment of means is possible, an assessment of goals is necessary. Harvard is and should remain dedicated to college preparation. At the same time, two other propositions deserve our dedication: that of learning as much as possible, given our resources and our time; and that of exploring limits, with regard to a student’s potential. Harvard pursues both; we believe it could so better.

All five departments will be surveyed in the next three issues, and their order is both random and arbitrary. In this issue, we begin with a survey of the science department.

THE SCIENCE DEPARTMENT

The goal of any science program is to offer the opportunity to study Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and the related sciences. We at Harvard are quite fortunate to have advanced A.P. courses in all three of these major areas. Unfortunately, advanced study in all three of these areas, for the serious science student especially, is not feasible. There are two general reasons which account for this problem. First, Harvard students begin to learn the fundamentals for the major sciences only in ninth grade. Second, the Science Department requires basic courses before A.P. courses can be taken in two of the three major courses. The Science Department’s potential—with its excellent faculty, its extensive resources, and its wealth of courses—is phenomenal; it is unfortunate that students cannot take these courses, take advantage of that potential, and fulfill their goals as science students.

The priority of the Lower School science courses should be to prepare students for study in the three major sciences: Chemistry, Biology, and Physics. The current Lower School courses do not offer such preparation. The seventh grade course could be termed pre-Biology—though it is hard to classify the Egg Drop in any scientific category. The knowledge gained in this course is at least three years away from its application in Biology, and is usually forgotten by then. The eighth grade course introduces the basic concepts of Mass, Volume, Density, and Temperature. These concepts are reintroduced in ninth grade and studied, as they should be, in more depth. Combining the useful aspects of both Lower School science courses into an Introductory Science course and then offering a Matter and Energy course in the eighth grade, is a conceivable and practical alternative. With such changes, the Lower School science courses could better serve as preparatory courses for advanced study in the three major areas of science.

Moving the basic courses back one year would help solve the problem of students not being able to take all the advanced courses, but it would not be enough. Harvard is unique in its requirement of Chemistry before A.P. Chemistry and PSSC Physics before A.P. Physics (Mechanics) and, also, not allowing Biology before A.P. Biology. Many schools allow very capable students to enroll in A.P. science courses without introductory course, and allow two-year options to the rest of the students. Harvard could certainly do this as well. In the ninth and tenth grade, students could have a choice between Biology and Chemistry, on either the normal or advanced level. In eleventh grade, students could be allowed to take Physics PSSC or A.P. Physics (Mechanics), along with a choice of many science electives. Twelfth grade would then be available for other electives or even A.P. Physics (Electricity and Magnetism). This system allows for the most flexibility and opportunity, for all students.

Under such a proposal, Harvard students would learn at least Biology and Chemistry, and could theoretically take A.P. courses in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics (Mechanics and Electricity & Magnetism). Such achievements are not impossible; one need only look at Walter Reed Jr. High School for a program at least equally remarkable. At the end of the seventh grade, IHP (Individual Honors Program) students have the opportunity to take A.P. Chemistry or A.P. Biology in Eighth grade—without a Seventh grade science course. The class, which includes students from the regular junior high school, boasts a 90% pass rate. Jeff Kurland (’84), who graduated from the IHP at Walter Reed, estimates 60% of Harvard’s students could quality for, and succeed in, the program. Harvard has the faculty, the resources, and the courses for such an outstanding program. All that needs to be done is to give students the opportunity to take advantage of such a program.

Harvard News 9/26/1983–Editorial – NOTHING TO WRITE

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief

Ten o’clock and my mind is blank. For the first time in six issues I am unable to find a meaningful, thought-provoking topic for an editorial. There is no scarcity of subjects, just a scarcity of ideas . I considered the issue of parking (nothing to say and what there is to say is being said in a news article), computers (same problem as parking), and the Emery Room (no issues, pertains only to 12^th grade). All other topics would be more appropriate in the future. So I am resigned to analyze my own problems of non-creativity with hopes that it may somehow be universally applicable to the average Harvard student.

This is not the first time I have been unable to write a unique composition. I experienced the same problem when asked to write an essay for my Senior Questionnaire, a sample college application designed to prepare Seniors for the ultimate tasks inherent in the application process. I, therefore, have come to the conclusion that our Harvard education may not adequately prepare us for what I term “creative essay writing with a sense of audience.”

When asked to write an “essay,” Harvard students always must answer a specific question or statement. If done correctly, the student must factually represent an opinion on the topic given him. This is balanced by “creative writing” in our English courses. We are encouraged to write emotional poetry or comical histories. Usually we are given the form that this “creative” writing is to be in and, more often than not, we are given a certain subject area. The result is a paper written mainly to show a mastery of the English language rather than creative ideas or insightful thoughts.

With both types of papers we have an extremely limited sense of audience. The writing is directed toward the preferred style of the teacher, a single person who has no choice but to strain through each and every paper he must grade. This practice will have disastrous consequences if applied to college essays (or newspaper editorials).

The closest Harvard comes to teaching “creative essay writing with a sense of audience” is the 11^th grade English writing needed to pass the English Achievement Test. Mrs. McGuire’s “Red-Liners” emphasize a much-needed sense of audience although it is a known fact that her red pen is a far more tolerant critic than a college admissions officer (or a newspaper reader).

Realizing the exclusive concentration on either creative or essay writing with almost no sense of audience, it is not surprising that a Harvard student might have difficulty writing a creative essay on the topic of his choice. The difficulty becomes even greater when a real-world audience is considered. Essay writing and creative writing are essential skills, but their ultimate value is in a combination of the two. Most articles published in magazines or literary journals combine creativity in essay form with an added sense of audience. If a writer cannot meet these standards, he will not succeed.

College admission, the immediate goal of any Harvard student, also places a premium on the ability to write a creative essay and the readers are considered the discerning audience. Every college requires an essay of this type as a part of the admissions packet. Harvard University asks in these words:   “On the following page please write a brief essay of 200-500 words on any topic which is of direct personal importance to you.”

“Our Harvard Education may not adequately prepare us for … ‘creative essay writing with a sense of audience.’”

“Omigod! What should I write?” is the most common response to this typical question. This is not because of an inability to write an essay—we’ve done millions of those—but rather inexperience in creative essay writing. Students are so accustomed to having the topic of their essays handed to them that they freeze when asked to write their own.

Training for these questions would be easy, however. Essays on final exams could be made to involve more creativity. For example, “Pick an event in the development of Western Civilization up to the Reformation and relate briefly the significance of its implications” would test broad knowledge and understanding of Western Civilization along with the writing skills useful if one were to write on such a topic in the real world. The possibilities for questions and essays are endless.

Eleven thirty and my mind is still blank. Again, I have managed to squeeze out of my untrained brain a relatively thought-provoking, meaningful editorial. I hope that there will be easier topics to find in the future but I am thankful for this opportunity to test my ability to write a “creative essay with a sense of audience”—I hope.

Harvard News 9/12/1983–Editorial – COUNCIL NEEDS CONTINUITY

By E. Randol Schoenberg, Editor-in-Chief

Every year, we begin with a challenge: Make this year better than the last. And every year, we succeed only partly in meeting that challenge. This year we will be obsessed with increasing school spirit. In the Student Council, increasing attendance at sporting events and after-school activities will take precedence over increasing the quality of school life. Cafeteria, Election, and Curriculum Committees will fall by the wayside while Homecoming and Rally Committees will be thrown into the limelight. Don’t expect this year’s Student Council to deal with leaf-blowers or water fountains. There will be no changes in election procedures, no menu changes to the cafeteria, no curriculum polls. This is strictly a spirit administration.

In order to succeed in meeting the challenge of a better year, the Student Council and The Student Body rally behind areas that were weakest during the previous school year. Continuity is unfortunately not considered an asset. To take up an issue that the previous administration made an effort to deal with would not be popular, no matter what potential for improvement exists.

In recent meetings, the council has discussed the activities it is going to pursue. There was a feeling of redundancy when election procedures were mentioned. Cafeteria changes were shrugged off as useless. But if we establish a commitment to continued improvements in these areas, Harvard Students would benefit from sustained progress rather than a year of improvement in an area followed by a year of regression.

The problem this year, as it has been every year, will be in the Council’s preoccupation with being different (and therefore better) than last year’s Council. Rarely will a Council follow through with a previous Council’s efforts. And this year will probably be no exception.

What we need is a Council that deals with school spirit and school life. By this I mean a Council that gives as much attention to keeping the Student Lounge clean as it does to a “Fan Bus” for away games. The best Council would be one which does not create its own weaknesses by concentrating on the weaknesses of a previous Council. The Student Council would exceed all our expectations of success and do a service to itself and the school if it became spirit and school oriented instead of prematurely committing itself to only one aspect of school life.