the two has generally been used to describe a variety of curricular patterns that have little in common. To convey the notion of genuine interdisciplinary work, the word integrated might be more appropriate because it connotes wholeness. This is no finicky debate over educational terminology. If interdisciplinary studies are to achieve their proper educational objectives, a sense of integration must be provided. In deciding what constitutes a sound interdisciplinary approach, it is important to ask why early efforts that aimed at improving general undergraduate education failed. What kinds of interdisciplinary approaches have been designed over the past half century, and what were their strengths and weaknesses? Consider the reasons for developing a more adequate general education program in the first place. As the late James B. Conant pointed out when he was president of Harvard 30 years ago, undergraduate education had become so specialized that it failed to educate youth to understand themselves and the world in which they lived. He and the Harvard committee that wrote Education for a Free Society, the so-called Redbook, therefore proposed broader, more inclusive, thematic sets of courses in the various major divisions of knowledge. Harvard launched several such programs in the social sciences, the physical sciences, and the humanities, and numerous other institutions adopted roughly similar curricular arrangements. Conant himself was so intensely interested in the new approach that, in addition to his presidential duties, he taught a onesemester interdisciplinary course in the sciences each year. For reasons of space, one example must suffice to explain the differences between typical elementary courses and the more general courses Harvard proposed. In science the new courses would not offer the student bits and pieces of elementary physics, chemistry, or biology, nor would they cover all the preparatory material for future instruction in the sciences. Instead, they would integrate several of the sciences around themes or major breakthroughs to make science meaningful to the students. In some ways the Harvard program was successful; students liked most of the general courses and a modest percentage of the faculty participated with considerable enthusiasm. In the minds of the faculty as a whole, however, the program was unsatisfactory. It took students from their specialized courses and conflicted with the traditional systematic treatEARL J. McGRATH is executive director of the Program in Liberal Studies at the University of Arizona. He is the author of two monographs published by the Lilly Endowment: Values, liberal Education, and National Destiny and General Education and the Plight of Modern Man. Dr. McGrath is a former U.S. Commissioner of Education.