THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER is to argue that a bold restructuring of curriculum is a more effective response to critical problems posed to undergraduate history teaching than stoic resignation,1 piecemeal course innovations, and minor tinkering with requirements that have constituted reactions of most universities. The program planning that is advocated seeks to avoid that back-and-forth movement between structuring and freedom of choice that has a long history. Phyllis Keller recently called it the Great Game of Academe, endless reinvention of curricular wheel (which of course keeps coming full circle), or to change metaphor, perpetual shuttle between extremes of prescription and permissiveness.2 It does so by carefully reformulating curriculum objectives and aims for courses at different program levels, by using methodology courses as core courses, drawing upon present ferment in discipline, especially on-going debates on methods and ends, as a teaching tool. Such far-reaching reform necessitates reflection and discussion of how and why of undergraduate teaching and, in our case, led to changes in teaching methods. The argument presented here is based on recent experience of history department of Universit6 Laval, Canada's leading francophone university, where out of a total student enrollment of over 30,000, some 300 undergraduates take history majors and honors programs. After long discussions, both programs were radically reformed in 1979.3