In February 1999 the Committee on the Undergraduate Program (CUP) charged the HASS Overview Committee (HOC) to undertake a general review of the Humanities, Arts, and Social Science (HASS) curriculum at MIT⁽¹⁾.
 
 
 

The timing of this review corresponds to the timing of the twelve-year review of HASS-D system that had been mandated by the faculty when the new distribution requirement was first put into place. The CUP requested the HOC (rather than an Institute-wide Committee (2)), to undertake a review of the HASS curriculum, including the HASS-D requirement. However, that broad review has been postponed. Therefore the CUP called for a scaled-down review of the HASS Curriculum, including the HASS-D requirement, to be undertaken within the School of Humanities and Social Science (SHSS) rather than by an Institute committee⁽²⁾.
 
 
 

From the outset the HOC focused upon two main areas: the HASS-D system and the Communication Requirement Initiative. The latter in particular is likely to impact dramatically upon the HASS curriculum, as indeed it will upon the MIT curriculum as a whole. Similarly, any further reforms of the HASS-D system will have a major impact upon our curriculum.
 
 
 

In hindsight, it was fortunate that the Committee's charge included both a review of the HASS-D system and consideration of how the HASS curriculum might incorporate a new Communication Requirement. Our discussions on the latter topic brought into sharp relief contradictions within the HASS-D system that have all along created problems for its management and oversight. It is the view of the Committee that the introduction of a new and substantial Communication Requirement can only be expected to exacerbate those problems.
 
 
 

Three broad desiderata govern the design of the HASS-D curriculum:
 
 
 

· Comprehensive introduction: Each HASS-D subject is supposed to provide an introduction comprehensive enough for it to be suitable for a student who will take no other subjects in the field.

· Communication: The mechanical criteria (a minimum of 20 pages of writing spread over at least three papers, mandatory recitations with a cap on size, etc.) that HASS-D subjects must meet are designed to ensure that they will provide students with an adequate training in written and oral communication.

· Distribution: The structure of the HASS-D requirement is intended to guarantee that MIT students will have a sufficiently broad exposure to topics in the humanities, arts, and social sciences.
 
 
 

Setting aside the question of how successful the HASS-D system has been at meeting these desiderata, we simply wish to note how strikingly different they are. And, while the first and third, arguably, complement each other to some extent (in that it behooves a distribution requirement spread over a mere three subjects to comprise subjects that are, individually, as comprehensive as possible), they stand in definite tension with the second: One is left with the strenuous task that some faculty regard as hopeless of teaching a subject which is simultaneously a writing subject and a comprehensive introduction.
 
 
 

The prospects for further strain on the HASS curriculum became abundantly clear to the committee as it took up the question of how to introduce a Communication Requirement into that curriculum. On the assumption that the HASS-D system remains in place, two models for such introduction suggest themselves, described in more detail below. Briefly, the first model would build the new Requirement into the existing HASS-D system, by modifying the mechanical criteria for HASS-D's (or perhaps for a subset of them) so as to greatly enhance the communications aspect of these subjects. This model would fail to take advantage of HASS subjects that are already "communication intensive" (or very nearly so), but unsuitable as HASS-D's because they do not meet the other desiderata; it would also increase the strain of trying to simultaneously meet these desiderata. The second model would simply introduce a distinction between "communication intensive" HASS subjects that would be orthogonal to the existing HASS-D/non-HASS-D distinction, thereby confronting our already beleaguered students with an even thicker tangle of requirements to negotiate. Perhaps, then, the assumption that the HASS-D system will remain in place needs to be reexamined. In the conclusion to this report we consider ways in which 'distribution,' 'communication' and 'general education' could effectively be disentangled in a future, boldly restructured HASS requirement. The recommendations in the main body of the report, however, presume existing structures.
 
 

In 1994 the HASS-D Six-year Review Committee headed by Professor Harriet Ritvo, Associate Dean of SHSS, declared that "the HASS-D system is working well" and recommended that "most features of the present system be retained." The one existing anomaly that was addressed by the Ritvo committee was the fact that, given the rules in place at the time, the arts were "not encompassed in a requirement" in spite of the fact that some faculty believed "MIT's strength in that area has been built up sufficiently to support a mandatory HASS-D subject in the arts⁽³⁾."
 
 
 

The Ritvo committee recommended that the existing system, which required students to take one HASS-D from categories 1 or 2, one HASS-D from categories 4 or 5, and one HASS-D from any remaining category, be modified⁽⁴⁾. The new system that the committee recommended was designed to enhance students' freedom of choice within the distribution requirement while at the same time encompassing the arts within that requirement. Students are currently required to take one subject from categories 1, 2, or 3, one subject from categories 4 or 5, and one subject from any remaining unselected category. The new system continues to require students to take a subject from 4 (Cultural and Social Studies) or 5 (Historical Studies) on the ground that, given freedom of choice, students would gravitate away from those areas. The Ritvo report characterized this decision as "'affirmative action' for the social sciences and history⁽⁵⁾":
 
 
 

The record of enrollments indicates that MIT students are relatively disinclined to take subjects in the social sciences or history. A distribution requirement should direct students toward investigating fields they might not otherwise choose.⁽⁶⁾
 
 
 

The CUP approved the Ritvo Committee's recommendation on a provisional basis, requiring that the "experiment" be addressed in the current review. The critical difference between the reformed system and the original system is that students are no longer required to take a HASS-D from categories 1 or 2. Since the reform was put into place there has been a slow but steady migration of students away from categories 1 and 2. Conversely, a steadily increasing number, currently about a fifth of all graduating seniors, fulfill their distribution with categories 3, 4 and 5 (or through some combination of categories 3, 4 and 5 and the foreign language option⁽⁷⁾) (see Appendix C).
 
 
 

Both the original framers of the HASS-D system and conventional wisdom presume that categories 1 and 2 correspond to the "humanities," category 3 corresponds to the "arts," and categories 4 and 5 correspond to the "social sciences." From the point of view of distribution among these broader categories it appears that the six-year review committee recommendations resulted in a net weakening of the HASS-D requirement. At present, not only are the arts not required, but the humanities are not required either. Moreover, the migration of enrollments away from the humanities suggests that the "affirmative action" argument applies to the humanities as well as the social sciences. At present enrollments in Social Science HASS-D's outnumber enrollments in Humanities by a ratio of 4:3 and in the Arts by a ratio of 3:2 (see below). Indeed, insofar as "the primary purpose of the requirement is distribution, that is, assuring that students take subjects that involve three different intellectual fields" as the Ritvo report asserts (pp. 9-10), it follows that students should be required to take a subject in the humanities and a subject in the arts and a subject in the social sciences. Alternatively, if enrollment patterns are not as predictable as the Ritvo committee presumed them to be, if student choice and flexibility is a premium, and if distribution among the implied broader fields is not a primary concern, it makes sense to allow students to choose subjects from three different HASS-D categories without further constraint.
 
 
 

One argument against requiring an arts subject in the distribution raised in our own deliberations echoes a point of view that is articulated in the Ritvo report: The arts do not represent an intellectual field of adequate substance, variety and heft when compared to the intellectual fields contained in the other HASS-D categories. However, faculty strength in the arts has grown steadily since the inception of the HASS-D system. The present faculty who teach visual arts, music and theater at MIT includes a world class group of practicing artists who represent a wide variety of methods and aesthetic points of view. Similarly, the "humanistic" aspects of arts disciplines, such as musicology and art history, are taught by scholars of international repute. The range and number of Arts classes available in the HASS-D system alone testifies to the strength and diversity of the Arts curriculum at MIT.
 
 
 

A second concern is more serious. Are there a sufficient number of arts classes in the HASS-D system to support a separate Arts requirement? Appendix D shows one possible reorganization model whereby the five present HASS-D categories could be collapsed into three. With a few exceptions as noted, categories 1 and 2 are assigned to the new category 1 ("humanities"), category 3 is assigned to the new category 2 ("arts"), categories 4 and 5 are assigned to the new category 3 ("social sciences")⁽⁸⁾. According to this scheme, the Arts category contains 18 subjects compared to 22 in the Humanities and 33 in the Social Sciences⁽⁹⁾. During the most recent complete year for which we have records the Arts had 876 enrollments, as compared to 962 for the Humanities and 1291 for the Social Sciences. Clearly the Arts category would have to expand if it were to be required, but the amount of growth that would be needed is feasible given current departmental strengths. Discussions at Creative Arts Council and among Arts faculty confirm this impression.
 
 
 

If the HASS-D system were to be reformed so as to introduce an Arts requirement and reintroduce a Humanities requirement, the simplification of the HASS-D categories would make a lot of sense. The symmetry between a three-category requirement and a three-category structure is elegant and straightforward. Simplifying the structure of the HASS-D requirement has other advantages too. Students and, especially, faculty find the present system overly complex and unwieldy. This is particularly a problem for freshman advisors outside of SHSS. Students have a vested interest in engaging in the HASS curriculum and the HASS-D requirement as early as possible, and it behooves us therefore to have a requirement that freshman advisors can grasp easily.
 
 
 

At the same time, there are important advantages of the present five-category system. The five categories capture more about the texture and specificity of intellectual fields within HASS than the broader generalized three-category system does. The five categories are plainly not disciplinary in character but rather indicate emphases that can occur in many, if not most, disciplines. Consequently they capture something about the permeability of these intellectual fields and the opportunities for interdisciplinary approaches that they imply.
 
 
 
 
 

Recommendations
 
 
 

· The committee feels that the advantages of the 5-category system outweigh those of the simplified system. Therefore, the original HASS-D categories should be retained.

· In the interests of equity among all the intellectual fields and freedom and flexibility of choice for the students, we recommend that the HASS-D requirement be simplified: Students should be required to take three subjects from three different categories, but without further constraint. Note that for practical purposes the only new permutation that this adds to the existing system is that students will now be able to fulfill their distribution requirement by taking subjects from categories 1, 2, and 3. All other existing possibilities remain the same.

· The foreign language option should be retained, but without the present constraint that one of the remaining HASS-D's must come from categories 4 or 5.

· Students should be encouraged (though not required) to take a HASS-D as freshmen. (The present 'HASS-D Guide for Freshmen,' which was introduced at the beginning of this academic year, may provide such encouragement de facto. In the fall of 1998 81% of freshmen took HASS-D's, a higher percentage than any previous fall semester in the last 10 years.) This recommendation may be qualified by the communication requirement initiative (below).

· In some disciplines there are introductory subjects that attempt to fulfill the criteria for HASS-D's and at the same time provide a foundation for majors. These goals frequently diverge: HASS-D's are meant to stand alone and provide complete experiences of disciplines without further study. Foundation classes for majors tend to emphasize their continuity with more advanced subjects. This double-duty produces scheduling headaches for students and other contradictions. For example, a prospective major may be lotteried out of the HASS-D and forced to postpone embarking upon his or her major. Prospective majors and students seeking only to fulfill their distribution requirement have different levels of preparation, which makes it hard to gauge the level at which the class should be taught. Where these conditions exist, departments should be encouraged to explore the possibility of developing alternate versions of their introductory subjects, suiting one version to the prospective major and organizing the other according to HASS-D principles.
 
 

Background
 
 
 

In academic year 1997 (AY97) the faculty voted in favor of a two-year period of experimental communication-intensive (CI) instruction in preparation for a possible new communication requirement. The CUP was charged with overseeing this experimental period and with developing a proposal for an Institute-wide communication requirement in time for a faculty vote in AY00. A special CUP Subcommittee on the Communication Requirement Initiative, co-chaired by Professors Gene Brown and Langley Keyes, was appointed for this purpose.
 
 
 

Dean Philip Khoury charged the HOC with the responsibility for overseeing CI experiments in the HASS curriculum and with developing a policy for the school. During AY98 the committee, in consultation with School Council and other faculty, developed a white paper concerning how a communication requirement ought to be administered in SHSS and proposing a set of guidelines for CI instruction in HASS. We proposed that the communication requirement initiative (and an eventual requirement, if it is voted into place) be administered autonomously within SHSS, and the CUP subcommittee endorsed that proposal. We also proposed a set of guidelines for HASS-CI instruction: Relatively small class size, continuous writing exercises (including at least one major revision), and oral communication exercises, such as student presentations or student-led discussion. (The full text of the HOC white paper is given in Appendix F.)
 
 
 

Pilot HASS CI Subjects
 
 
 

Using the HOC guidelines the Dean solicited proposals for pilot HASS-CI classes for AY99, which constituted the contribution of the HASS curriculum to the Institute-wide experiment⁽¹⁰⁾. The Committee on the Writing Requirement granted these classes experimental status as approved Phase One Writing Subjects: Students who passed their HASS CI with the grade equivalent of B- or higher automatically passed Phase 1 of MIT's current writing requirement. This was important, because it meant that the pilot HASS CI's had a student-motivating feature comparable to what they would have in a fully-realized new communication requirement. SHSS supplied funding to support the pilot HASS CI program. Instructors who took advantage of the available funds used them to hire writing tutors to assist with the increased personal attention and writing instruction that the CI classes required⁽¹¹⁾.
 
 
 

Evaluation
 
 
 

At the time of writing, the HOC is engaged in an ongoing evaluation of the HASS CI experiment. We have taken two main approaches to this evaluation: Student self-assessment, using questionnaires administered at the end of each semester, and faculty feedback during informal roundtable discussions. In the first student survey, most (about 80%) reported that the writing helped their understanding of subject content and that instructor comments were useful. Over half reported significant general improvement in their expository prose, their ability to generate ideas, their ability to revise their own prose, and their organizational ability.
 
 
 

In the spring term of AY99 we administered the questionnaire to students taking all HASS-D's (except the two arts practica subjects) as well as to all students taking HASS CI's. The mechanical criteria for HASS-D's emphasize communication skills through the writing and discussion requirements. Therefore we felt that comparing these two groups gave us a foundation for determining with greater confidence the effectiveness of HASS-CI classes.
 
 
 

For each of the 13 questions, the average for the aggregate of the CI subjects was higher than the aggregate average for non-CI HASS-D's. Moreover, with one exception, all of the differences were statistically significant (and the one that was not almost was).⁽¹²⁾ Although some of the higher scores for the CI subjects may be attributable to the "Hawthorne effect" (telling people you are doing something special makes them rate it higher), the consistency of the results offers some hard and convincing evidence for the success of the HASS CI experiment.
 
 
 

Faculty feedback, though less formal, has been rich and suggestive in terms of developing pedagogical strategies and identifying strengths and pitfalls associated with HASS CI instruction. Faculty testimony supports student opinion about the greater effectiveness of CI classes when it comes to teaching writing. We also learned from roundtable discussions among HASS CI faculty that, in general, CI instruction places considerably greater burdens upon faculty, because of the increased continuous individual feedback that it demands. The amount of increased pressure upon faculty is directly proportional to class size, except in the case of subjects with generous TA support. To the extent that, in a fully realized communication requirement, large numbers of students will have to be taught in HASS CI classes, some, if not many, of these will have to be large classes. Therefore, faculty will need additional teaching support, along the lines of the writing tutors that were assigned to some of the pilot CI classes, and this in turn will demand the allocation of considerable resources to our school.
 
 
 

Many faculty also reported that they experience tension between curricular content and writing instruction in their CI classes. The extent to which content is compromised varies greatly, and most faculty report a compensating improvement in depth of coverage that offsets some of the loss of breadth. Nonetheless, this tension is sure to aggravate the implementation of a full blown requirement in HASS.
 
 
 

In the area of oral communication skills, faculty reported that it is difficult for students to give oral presentations or to engage in meaningful discussion in introductory level classes: Students' breadth of knowledge and conceptual grasp is insufficiently developed to engage in meaningful discussion. These factors in turn undermine students' confidence, which in turn limits student's willingness to participate in discussion. For these reasons, faculty felt that the oral component of a Communication Requirement is more appropriate for relatively more advanced classes⁽¹³⁾.
 
 
 

The Preliminary Phase
 
 
 

One initiative regarding communication instruction in HASS that developed independently of the HOC is the so-called "Preliminary Phase." This will require students who do poorly on their Freshman Essay Evaluations to take expository writing during their first year at MIT. A recent memo from the Committee on the Writing Requirement gave the background to this initiative:
 
 
 

Currently between 15-20% of each entering class receive, based on their performance on the Freshman Essay Evaluation, a strong recommendation to enroll in an expository writing subject during their freshman year. While most of these students scoring Subject Recommended on the Freshman Essay Evaluation eventually do complete a writing subject, unfortunately only about one-third of them do so during their first year, the remainder enrolling in their sophomore, junior, or senior years.

These students, in particular, and the Institute, as a whole, will benefit substantially from their taking these classes at the beginning of their undergraduate career rather than at its end. The present system makes little educational sense, with the majority of these students receiving focused instruction in writing later in their academic careers and often only after repeated attempts to complete the current Writing Requirement. Currently, this cohort of students going through the undergraduate program makes it difficult, if not impossible, for instructors in all parts of the institute to pay proper attention to student writing. Informal reports from HASS, Engineering, and Science faculty consistently identify a bottom 20% of students whose writing problems require at least as much instructional effort as the remaining 80%.

The CUP has approved the Preliminary Phase on a 2-year experimental basis. Assuming that it becomes a permanent component of the writing requirement at MIT, the Preliminary Phase will be an important component of the Communication Requirement Initiative in HASS.
 
 
 

A Communication Requirement in HASS
 
 
 

The CUP Subcommittee has proposed that the MIT Communication Requirement should require all MIT students to take a minimum of one CI subject per year. Of these, the freshman and sophomore years should be covered by the HASS curriculum and embedded in the HASS requirement; the junior and senior years should be covered by departments and embedded in departmental requirements for the major. The HOC has developed 2 models for a possible Communication Requirement in HASS in the context of the overall structure proposed by the subcommittee.
 
 
 

Another parameter within which we worked was conceptual rather than structural in nature. Our goal was to propose a system that would enhance the teaching of communication skills within HASS without compromising the essential educational mission of the HASS curriculum. The chief risk of such compromise (indicated in some of the faculty feedback from pilot HASS CI, reported above) is the tendency in CI classes for instruction in writing and speaking to replace disciplinary content.
 
 
 

Model 1
 
 
 

In contrast to the teaching styles that characterize other schools at MIT, the teaching of writing and (to a lesser degree) speaking is intrinsic to much teaching in SHSS, especially in humanistic fields. Indeed, the HASS Guide stresses the development of "skills in communication, both oral and written" as one of the chief aims of the HASS curriculum. An important part of the HASS requirement, the HASS-D system, already mandates a steady commitment to writing: All but arts practica HASS-D's must have a minimum of 20 pages distributed throughout the term in a minimum of 3 assignments. HASS-D's are similarly meant to maintain a steady emphasis upon the development of students' oral communication skills: One of the three weekly classroom hours must be devoted to discussion. On the basis of the experience of the pilot HASS CI classes, the mechanical criteria for HASS-D's could be modified in such a way as to strengthen the communication component of HASS-D's. The cap on class size could be reduced from 25 to 18; a minimum of one major revision assignment (possibly replacing the mandated final exam) could be added to the writing requirement.
 
 
 

With these modifications in place, it is possible to institute minimal reforms in the HASS curriculum that fulfill the spirit and goals of the Communication Requirement Initiative without adding a new requirement for most students:
 
 
 

1. All students who fail their Freshman Essay Evaluation are required to take Expository Writing in their first year (the "preliminary phase"). These students are further required to take at least one HASS-D by the end of their second year.
 
 
 

2. All other students are required to take at least one HASS-D in each of their first two years.
 
 
 

3. Special arrangements (e.g. writing practica, special 3-unit IAP writing seminars, etc.) will have to be made for students who elect arts practica HASS-D's or the foreign language option.
 
 
 

The chief advantage of this model is that it entails the introduction of no new additional requirement in the HASS Curriculum. MIT students are already overly constrained by requirements as regards their choice of classes, and the new constraints introduced by this model are minimal. HASS classes would continue to be designated HASS-D or HASS-E (elective), but none would be designated HASS CI. Moreover, the HASS-D reforms that this scheme would bring about will strengthen the distribution system, bring about greater depth of coverage in HASS-D classes and encourage students to fulfill their Distribution requirement earlier rather than later in their undergraduate careers.
 
 
 

The chief disadvantage of this model is that many HASS-D's are not as writing or speaking intensive as the mechanical criteria imply. The introduction of communication-related reforms might encounter resistance from faculty who perceive the move to be intrusive or a potential assault upon disciplinary content. A related issue is that of enforcement. The HOC has noted already that the enforcement of mechanical criteria for HASS-D's is difficult; that difficulty will only get worse if the mechanical criteria are made more stringent. Finally, there are many communication intensive HASS electives, e.g. small seminars with prerequisites, that it would be natural to encompass within a communication requirement but whose status will be unaffected in this arrangement.
 
 
 

Model 2
 
 
 

1. Designate some HASS classes, whether HASS-D or HASS-E as "communication intensive" according to criteria developed in the pilot program. HASS CI licenses will be granted and overseen by the HOC along lines similar to HASS-D oversight.
 
 
 

2. All students who fail their Freshman Essay Evaluation are required to take Expository Writing in their first year. These students are further required to take at least one more HASS CI by the end of their second year.
 
 
 

3. All other students are required to take at least one HASS CI in each of their first two years.
 
 
 

The second model has the advantage that it engages faculty who are committed to the communication initiative and intrinsically motivated to explore it. We should expect a more creative engagement of faculty with this model just as we have experienced the creative engagement of the self-selected group of faculty who participated in the pilot initiative. For these reasons, oversight of this model and faculty commitment to it could prove to be less onerous than the first model. Moreover, encompassing a greater range of HASS classes in an Institute-wide Communication Requirement could boost enrollments in what are normally excellent but often under-enrolled HASS classes. Because this model leverages teaching that already exists within the HASS curriculum it is probably also the cheapest to implement (see cost projections for the two models given in Appendix J).
 
 
 

Conversely, the second model introduces yet another complication in the already complicated HASS Requirement at MIT. In this scheme CI subjects would intersect with HASS D's and HASS-E's in fairly arbitrary ways, with the result that some classes will fulfill a greater number of HASS requirements than others. For example, within any given HASS-D category, some subjects will fulfill the HASS-D requirement only, while others will fulfill both the HASS-D Requirements and the Communication Requirement in HASS. Among HASS Electives, some will fulfill departmental requirements for the concentration, minor or major, while others will fulfill these requirements plus the Communication Requirement in HASS. The chief risk associated with this model is that it undermines the liberal arts ideology of the HASS curriculum by encouraging students to select subjects on the basis of the number of Institute requirements that they satisfy rather than on the basis of what intrinsically interests them.
 
 
 
 
 

Recommendation
 
 
 

Both models for a Communication Requirement in HASS aim at improving writing and speaking without compromising the educational mission of the HASS curriculum at MIT. Either model would allow students to fulfill their Communication Requirement in HASS by their sophomore years. The models have inverse strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages. We urge further discussion among the Dean, School Council, HOC and other interested faculty with a view to committing to one of these models prior to the Institute faculty vote on a Communication Requirement in AY00.
 
 

As noted in the introduction, the bulk of our deliberations was given over to the HASS-D system, the Communication Requirement Initiative, and the potential relationship between them. As regards the remainder of the CUP charge, we addressed only the main elements.
 
 
 

HASS Principles
 
 
 

In the Introduction to the HASS Guide the purpose and mission of the HASS Curriculum is characterized by the following bullets:
 
 
 

· knowledge of human cultures past and present, and of the ways in which they have influenced one another;

· awareness of concepts, ideas, and systems of thought that underlie human activities;

· understanding of the social, political, economic, and legal framework of different societies;

· sensitivity to modes of communication and self-expression in the arts;

· skills in communication, both oral and written.
 
 

We propose that a further bullet be added:
 
 

· HASS offerings are meant to complement science and engineering at MIT and to emphasize other methods and modes of discourse.
 
 

The purpose of this addendum is to convey a clearer picture to students and faculty alike of the relationship of HASS to the broader MIT curriculum. It will also help to clarify the criteria according to which classes are reviewed for HASS elective status. The HOC receives several requests per year to allow non-HASS classes to count toward the HASS Requirement. Examples are mathematics and classes in set theory offered by the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy and highly quantitative classes in micro- and macro-economics. The most controversial HASS subject in this regard is the heavily enrolled, neuro-scientifically oriented HASS-D "Introduction to Psychology (9.00)." It has long raised concerns within the HOC as to its appropriateness for the HASS-D system. The HOC will decide whether it should be renewed as a HASS-D in Fall 1999. The new bullet gives the HOC a written criterion to refer to when making these decisions.
 
 
 

Concentrations
 
 

The HOC surveyed existing HASS concentrations and reviewed the principles underlying the concentration requirement. We recommend the following:
 
 

· The HASS concentration is meant to provide students with depth in their experience of a particular discipline or field of study, but the present curriculum is inconsistent about what constitutes 'depth'. Different concentrations require students to take different numbers of classes: Some require three, others four. However, determining the number of classes that constitute a concentration is a departmental or sectional prerogative, and the present system should be left in place.

· Students are presently allowed to count only one HASS-D as part of any given concentration. Some interdisciplinary concentrations, however, list multiple HASS-D's among the subjects that students can take to fulfill the concentration. American Studies, for example, lists no fewer than 10 HASS-D's. However, HASS-D's are introductory level subjects with no prerequisites. The rule that limits the number of HASS-D's that students can take to fulfill their concentrations is consistent with the goal of providing students exposure in depth to a field or discipline. Therefore, the HOC endorses the present system and urges all concentration advisors, with special emphasis upon area-studies advisors, to apply the rule consistently and fairly. In order to help advisors we ask that the rule be written onto the concentration proposal form and that a column be added in which HASS-D's can be checked.

· We endorse the present system of faculty advisors for HASS Concentrations. We urge faculty advisors to be available for consultation with advisees and to actively engage in the process. A memo to this effect from the Dean to all concentration advisors should be sent at the beginning of each semester.

· The committee feels strongly that only HASS subjects should be allowed to count toward a HASS concentration in any field.
 
 

The Joint Major
 
 

The joint major with science or engineering (21-S and 21-E) is available only to those HASS disciplines that are part of Course 21. It is something of an historical accident that, for example, students can take a joint science or engineering degree with Anthropology or Literature but not with Political Science or Philosophy. We recommend that SHSS departments outside of Course 21 be invited to develop the joint degree.
 
 

Scheduling
 
 

HASS-D's are presently scheduled at the discretion of departments and faculty. However, their schedule frequently conflicts with science core subjects, with the result that students are unable to take them. A related issue has to do with evening classes. Large science and engineering classes frequently offer review sessions and exams in the evening, outside their scheduled class time. This creates conflicts for students who are enrolled in evening HASS classes, some of which (such as performance classes) have to be scheduled in the evening.
 
 
 

The HOC urges the CUP to study these conditions and determine whether it is possible to develop a scheduling convention at MIT that would avoid such conflicts.
 
 

The HASS curriculum at MIT is robust and thriving. The richness and variety of HASS offerings are increasing steadily. Some of the conflicts noted in this review, such as scheduling conflicts, are products of this positive trend. Maintaining the richness, creativity and autonomy of the HASS curriculum in face of the particular challenges posed by broader curricular conditions at MIT demands a certain vigilance of the HOC, the Dean, School Council, and other governing bodies responsible for oversight of the curriculum.
 
 

The Communication Requirement Initiative is chief among those challenges. As explained in this report, the HASS Overview Committee in the course of its deliberations became very conscious of the multiplicity of goals which the current HASS-D system is attempting to address. Adding new CI subjects is likely to add yet more complexity. One solution, which future committees should consider in more detail, might be for the School of Humanities and Social Sciences to disaggregate the different agendas currently assigned to the HASS-D's: general education, on the one hand; writing and speaking instruction, on the other. One way to do this would be to institute two separate requirements for students: one, a distribution requirement, and the second, a communication requirement. The first, distribution requirement could, for example, mandate that students take at least one subject each in Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, groupings which could be designated on a departmental basis rather than on a subject-by-subject basis. In other words, a student could take any subject in the literature, foreign literature, or writing sections to satisfy the Humanities distribution, and any subject in visual arts, music or theater arts to satisfy the Arts requirement, and so forth. For the second, communication requirement special CI subjects would be designated within each department and overseen by the HOC, as is currently done with the HASS-D's. According to this scheme, neither distribution nor communication subjects would necessarily be introductory in level.
 
 

The separation of the distribution and communications functions of the current HASS-D's would have several advantages: 1) it would allow the creation of special CI subjects without requiring the administering of two sets of subjects (HASS-D and CI); 2) it would keep the current distribution function of the HASS-D's while simplifying it (thus making it much easier for students to fulfill); 3) it would retain the oversight function of the HOC to insure the quality of the CI subjects; 4) it would allow departments flexibility as to which subjects they chose to designate as CI (in contrast to the current HASS-D system which requires that all HASS-D's be introductory subjects); 5) many of the new CI subjects could in fact be created out of existing HASS-D's.
 
 

Another challenge to the HASS curriculum is posed by subtle changes within some HASS disciplines that blur the boundaries between HASS and science or engineering. Such blurring at the boundaries of Philosophy, Economics and Psychology have already been noted. Will the widespread infusion of Comparative Media Studies into the HASS curriculum contribute to this trend? This is surely a topic for a future review. However, MIT is noted for interdisciplinary exploration and invention. We are confident that the HASS curriculum can participate in increasing measure in the broad intellectual enterprise of the Institute while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at MIT.
 
 
 

¹ The text of the charge is given in full in Appendix A.

² For the period of the review Professor Merton Flemings of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering was invited to join the HOC, which otherwise consists of HASS faculty.

³ Report of the HASS-D Six-year Review Committee, p. 9

⁴ For a definition of the five HASS-D categories, see Appendix B.

⁵ ibid., p. 10

⁶ ibid., p. 10

⁷ The present system permits students to substitute one intermediate-level foreign language subject for a HASS-D in any category.

⁸ This is not the only way to collapse the 5 categories into 3. Assigning subjects to categories by discipline is another model. Thus, for example, all Literature classes would be assigned to the Humanities category, in spite of the fact that some of these are taught by poets and have a "practical" orientation; all music subjects would be assigned to the Arts category in spite of the fact that some are historically oriented; and so forth.

⁹ Note that the ratio of social science subject to other subjects in the HASS-D system is favorable to the social sciences: 3:2 in relation to the humanities, 2:1 in relation to the arts. This is in itself a form of "affirmative action," and one that is preferable to a social science requirement where no comparable humanities or arts requirement is in place.

¹⁰ The complete list of pilot HASS CI subjects for AY99 is given in Appendix G. The pilot program in HASS will continue in AY00, and the list of pilot HASS CI subjects for AY00 is also given in Appendix G.

¹¹ Funding has been made available for AY00 from endowment to MIT from the Ford Motor Company, administered by the Chancellor.

¹² The questions that displayed the most notable difference were concerned with ability to write argumentative prose, ability to organize, consideration of audience, ability to revise and edit own work, conciseness and sentence style, oral presentations (although both groups were low), and writing aiding in understanding of course content. Results from both student surveys are reported in Appendix H.

¹³ Faculty feedback is summarized in full in Appendix I.