2015年哈佛通识教育临时报告中关于通识教育现状的内容

Students report not taking their Gen Ed courses as seriously as other courses.

Students report feeling frustrated that other students do not take their Gen Ed courses seriously.

Students wish more Gen Ed courses were worth taking seriously.

Students choose Gen Ed courses differently than other courses: they tend to look for low workloads and courses that easily deliver high grades.

More generally, students have come to expect high grades for little work in Gen Ed courses; this is a source of dissatisfaction from students and faculty alike.

Students report being unable to discern why some courses count for Gen Ed and others do not.

Students complain that there are too many Gen Ed requirements.

Some students report frustration at not being able retroactively to have courses satisfy the Gen Ed requirement.

Many faculty and students report discontent with the categories of Gen Ed.

Some faculty report not being able to understand why their courses have not been approved for Gen Ed; more generally, they express frustration with the approval process.

Some faculty, especially those in the Arts and Humanities, have an incentive to teach large Gen Ed courses in order to support their graduate students. Some faculty members report having responded to this incentive by lowering the expected workload for their Gen Ed courses and promising high grades to students.

Other faculty members, especially those in the Natural Sciences, have an incentive not to teach Gen Ed courses. They report finding it difficult to recruit qualified teaching fellows, as graduate students are generally funded by grants to support research. In many cases, the level of compensation provided by the College for teaching is inadequate, so that graduate students with a full teaching load must also be partially supported by research funds. This produces a tension between teaching and research demands, and serves as an effective disincentive for advisors to allow their students to teach.

The Standing Committee on General Education expresses frustration that there is no mechanism for reviewing courses once they are accepted into the Program. They note, however, that with 574 courses on the books, a review procedure would be lengthy and arduous.

The Standing Committee also reports a lack of financial support, and more generally a lack of commitment to the Program on the part of the College and University.