Sweeping changes for science at Harvard (Sept/Oct Harvard Magazine)

<p>The university planning Committee for Science and Engineering has released a preliminary report outlining a comprehensive and sweeping strategy to strengthen science at Harvard. Among the highlights, the 97-page report (PDF) calls for up to 140 new faculty positions in the next decade, requiring as much as $2 billion to endow (not including costs for shared core equipment, infrastructure, and the administration of proposed new centers and institutes, or the capital costs of constructing a new campus in Allston)...."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090655.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090655.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Yes, well good luck to Harvard on getting approval for the Allston expansion.</p>

<p>approval from who?</p>

<p>Did it not get the approval already? I must say that it is one step in a positive direction. As a pre-med student at Harvard, though there were a lot of stumbling blocks with the new Life Sciences courses, the faculty is genuinely interested in improving the class over time. In addition, the new Physical Sciences classes that are starting this fall are already proving to gather a lot of interest from the faculty.</p>

<p>The Life Sciences 1a class last fall was the largest science class Harvard had ever seen in 20 or so years with approximately 500 students. Instead of using the traditional lecture halls in the Science Center, next semester's Life Sciences 1a is going to be in Sanders Theater, the largest "lecture hall" on campus in order to accomodate the increasing interest in these classes. It does help that the professors are the most accessible and the best I have had so far here at Harvard College.</p>

<p>Of course they could break it up into smaller lectures given simultaneously by multiple different professors.... One advantage of having the money and space to expand the faculty and the campus.</p>

<p>I think that hell will freeze over before the faculty takes any action that would require them to teach more. The enormous science lectures will stay and you'll have to depend on sections to get some personalized attention.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, the one unstated benefit for the faculty is that they only have to teach 1/3 or 1/4 of the course. These things require a lot of effort to setup, but once that's done most professors go on autopilot. It's kind of funny to see the old lecture notes, homeworks, and exam problems pop up year after year.</p>

<p>Actually, cambridgeguy, one of my professors that I still keep in touch with say its harder as a team. This is because in these new team-taught classes, the faculty sit amongst the students during lecture in random spots. The professor lecturing knows that he's not only teaching a wide range of students, but is also being judged by his colleagues, who are extremely accomplished in their respective fields.</p>

<p>Life Sciences 1a/1b and Physical Sciences 1/2/3 can't go on autopilot for at least a couple of years. In addition, when they do, that means you are guaranteed a fantastic class with a wonderful teaching team.</p>

<p>You can go on autopilot and reuse lectures and problems in intro physical science courses, since the introductory content has not changed for a long time. In the life sciences, even at the most introductory level, the basic content changes from year to year, so every year things must be updated. Over a few years, the lectures could change dramatically.</p>

<p>This is one situation where pouring money at things produces really good results. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.</p>

<p>When I visited last April there were new constructions of science buildings north of the Science Center, and we were told a lot of them will be nanotech laboratories. I wonder if these new constructions are also part of a comprehensive plan outlined somewhere. A professor actually told us the first of the new labs will be ready by the end of this year.</p>