Author: Irwin Collier

The following memo summarizes the results of a survey of “high magna” or summa A.B. economics concentrators who graduated from Harvard between 1925 and 1954. The 211 respondents accounted for 84% of the alumni/ae contacted. The chairman of the department of economics who initiated the survey, Seymour E. Harris, was interested in the career paths chosen by the top undergraduates of the economics program and obtaining feedback from them about what they thought was good and not-so-good about the content and ways they were taught at Harvard.

About the same time a similar report was written about the experiences and opinions of 193 economics PhD graduates from 1950-54.

___________________________

Harvard High Honors Students

Seymour E. Harris, ’20
Chairman of the Economics Department

As Chairman of the Economics Department, I sent out a questionnaire to 252 Harvard College graduates who had received a high magna or summa in economics in the last 30 years. This group accounted for 6 per cent of the seniors in economics in these years. The objective primarily was to find out what had happened to these men (and women) after they received their A.B.’s and, with the intent of throwing light on our current educational practices, to obtain and analyze their views concerning their Harvard education. This is the only study of high honors students at college that has come to my attention.

Replies

Since we received 211 replies, or 84 per cent, the response was most satisfactory. Exclusive of those who could not be located (one was deceased), the responses were 87 per cent of the total sent out.

As might be expected, the number of questionnaires returned varies inversely with age: with classes before 1929, 18 out of 31 responses were received, or 58 per cent; in the last 6 classes, 57 out of 63 replied, or 90 per cent. The differences are relevant in that since the older classes responded in smaller numbers, it may be assumed that incomes are biased downwards, that is, average income is higher than is revealed in the results to be given later.

Occupations of High Honors Graduates

Professions		114
Lawyers	43
Teachers	31
Government Employees	20
Research Economists	12
Physicians	4
Writers & Editors	4
Executive, Managerial, etc.		56
Executives	27
Employed in Finance	17
Employed in Nonfinance	12
Military Service		13
Students		18
Housewives		4
Other		6
		211

[p. 2]

The professions, it will be noted, accounted for 54 per cent of these graduates of the last 30 years. For 1947, according to another study based on a sample of 9,000 graduates in the nation, 50 per cent of the male graduates (the females in our sample are a relatively small percentage of the total) were in the professions. When allowance is made for those in our sample still students (excluded in the national sample) and the younger average years out of college of our respondents (a weighted average gives but 13 years out of college), then the number in the professions of these high honors graduates is substantially larger than in the national sample of male college graduates. The attractiveness of the professions for our sample is much greater than is suggested by our figures; for the forties and fifties, years in which our sample is relatively heavily concentrated, were also years when the pull of business was especially great. Thus, as I showed in my Market for College Graduates (p. 89), the proportion of all male graduates in business rose from 37 to 49 per cent from 1940 to 1947-48 and of the professions declined from 63 to 44 per cent.

Graduate Degrees

Of these 211, 151 earned at least 1 graduate degree; 43, 2 or more; and 5 earned 3 graduate degrees. More than 70 per cent obtained graduate degrees. As might be expected, this percentage is much higher than for students generally. For example, in a corresponding period only about one quarter of all recipients of undergraduate degrees obtained a graduate degree.[1]

[1]This figure is obtained by comparing all undergraduate and graduate degrees for the average year in which the graduates in our 211 sample took a graduate degree. Basic figures will be found in HEW, Statistics of Higher Education, 1951-52, p. 37, and the Commission on Financing Higher Education, Financing Higher Education in the United States, 1953 (Millett Volume), p. 32. The weighted average of our sample should receive a Ph.D. in the middle forties.

The largest number of degrees of the Harvard sample were in law (38 per cent); next the M.A. (35 per cent) and the Ph.D. (30 per cent). When one compares these percentages with the national figures, one can see that the able undergraduate disproportion-

[p. 3]

ately seeks higher degrees in Arts and Sciences and especially the Ph.D. The Harvard sample reveals 6-8 times as many Ph.D.’s proportionately to all graduate degrees as the national sample.

Percentage of M.A. to all graduate degrees, national	(1939-40)—25	(1949-50)—17
Ibid. Harvard sample (For 30 year period)	(35)
Percentage of all Ph.D.’s to all graduate degrees, national	(1939-40)—5	(1949-50)—4
Ibid. Harvard sample (For 30 year period)	(30)

Source: Ibid., and my calculations.

These high honors Harvard graduates especially seek graduate degrees in the Harvard Graduate Schools (80 per cent at Harvard; 5 per cent, Columbia; and 3 per cent, Chicago). Percentage of graduate degrees at Harvard of the total were as follows:

All	76 per cent
LL.B	77 per cent
M.A.	74 per cent
Ph.D.	74 per cent
M.B.A.	91 per cent
M.D.	100 per cent
Other	40 per cent

Degrees and University Awarding Them

Degree	Total	Harvard	Columbia	Chicago	Yale	Oxford	Minnesota	Other
LL.B	58	45	4	1	2	0	1	5
M.A.	54	40	4	1	0	0	1	8
Ph.D.	46	34	2	3	0	1	1	5
M.B.A.	22	20	0	1	0	0	0	1
M.P.A.	6	6	0	0	0	0	0	0
M.D.	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	0
Other	10	4	0	0	1	2	0	3
TOTAL	200	153	10	6	3	3	3	22

Of the 200 degrees, 98 were in economics (inclusive of 4 joint degrees), suggesting that high honors concentrators tend to remain in their undergraduate field of concentration (49 M.A.’s, 38 Ph.D.’s, 5 M.P.A.’s). In addition there were 22 business degrees. In view of the large relative number of M.A.’s and Ph.D.’s

[p. 4]

given by Harvard to our high honors group, it is clear that these distinction men provide much of the raw material for our Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. The only other large outlet was law (59).

Income Distribution

Incomes of the high honors graduates of the last 30 years are high. The median (the value midway from low to high) with students, housewives, and soldiers eliminated is $11,227, and the arithmetic mean (in total divided by the number of income recipients), $14,664. This is a surprisingly high figure, especially in view of the fact that these men are out of college (weighted mean) only 13 years; that the proportion in the professions, with relatively low incomes compared to business, is large; and that their education has in a large proportion of instances been delayed by the war. The median of $11,227 may be compared with the following:

Median income of males, 14 years and over, 1954	$2,300
Median income of males in professions, 1954	$4,905
Median income of males, managers, officials and proprietors, except farmers, 1954	$5,234
Median income of population, 1947	$2,200
Median income of male college graduates, 1947	$4,689
Median income of HYP graduates, 1947	$7,365
Median income of HYP graduates, adjusted for rise of income since 1947	$10,000

Source: They Went to College, pp. 26, 179; U.S. Census Income of Persons in the U.S., 1954.

Income Distribution

 

Annual Income		Frequency		Frequency, excluding students, housewives, and soldiers
$0		16		0
1-5,000		27		15
5,001-10,000		66		62
10,001-15,000		44		44
15,001-20,000		14		14
20,001-30,000		24		24
30,001-40,000		4		4
40,001-50,000		3		3
50,001-75,000		4		4
75,001-100,000		0		0
100,001 and over		1		1
TOTAL		203		171
Not given	8
Mean (all reporting)	$12,648	Mean (excluding those named above)		$14,664
Median (all reporting)	$9,470	Median (same as above)		$11,227

[p. 5]

When allowance is made for the low age of our group as against the national sample (and the disproportionate failures to reply of the older graduates in our sample), then the relatively high income of our group stands out. In the sample of 9,000 college graduates, the median income for male college graduates aged 35 years was $4,618; for those aged 40-49, $6,152; and for those aged 50 and over, $6,244. The 1950 Census shows that whereas the 30-34 year group with 4 or more years of college had 5.1 per cent in the $10,000 or over group, the averages for those aged 35-44, 45-54, and 55-64 were 13.3, 19.2, and 18.1 per cent, respectively.[2] (The 30-34 year group comes nearest to representing our sample.) Since our graduates correspond only to age 34 (and even lower when allowance is made for the disproportionate loss of time in graduate work and military service[3]), the median figure of our group should be raised by a substantial percentage to make the figure comparable with the national sample.

[2]Calculated from U.S. Population Census: Education, Special Report PE No.5B, pp. 108-9.

[3]Disproportionate because our sample is a young sample, especially subject to military service, and years spent in the service and graduate work are a disproportionate part of working life.

An honors record at college seems to pay. The above statistics underline this conclusion. In They Went to College, the following is said of a 9,000 national sample (median income):

Greasy Grinds	$5,149
All Around Students	$4,775
Big Men on Campus	$4,648
Those who Just Sat There	$4,300

(Ibid., p. 164)

Students with high grades earn larger incomes according to this national male sample. In business 20 per cent more A than B and C students had incomes of $7,500 or over. Among doctors, lawyers, dentists and scientists, the corresponding advantage for A students was 35 per cent; among teachers, clergymen and artists, 175 per cent; and among public servants, 167 per cent. (Ibid., p. 160.)

[p. 6]

The larger number in the professions pulls down the average income of our group. Thus for the 114 in the professions, the mean income is $11,567 and the median, $9,663; for the 57 others (business executives and the like), the respective figures are $21,557 and $17,142, or about twice as high as in the professions. Also relevant is the fact that the percentage of those in executive and business jobs tends to rise with age. Hence our sample with an average adjusted age of 30-35 yields a lower income because the older age groups include larger percentages in this group. In ages 25-29, 30-34, 35-44, 45-54, and 55-64, the percentages of males in the executive-business group were 6½, 10, 12, 15, and 14 per cent, respectively.[4]

[4]U.S. Census, op. cit., pp. 88-89.

Attitudes Towards Harvard Education

Of 211 respondents, 144 or 68 per cent wrote that they would concentrate in economics again if they were starting all over. But 58 of the 211 or 28 per cent believed that they concentrated too much.

In reply to the question, would they go to Harvard in 1956 were they at the appropriate age, the replies were most satisfying. Of 211, 196 (14 with qualifications), or 93 per cent, would do it all over again and 3 per cent were undecided. But 6 (3 per cent) would not; and 2 inclined towards seeking an education elsewhere.

In reply to a question, what do you consider yielded the largest returns from your years at college, the responses were as follows. Note that the average respondent included 2-3 factors. Course work received the largest number of votes and tutorial next.

Largest Contribution to Education

Item	No. of times mentioned	Item	No. of times mentioned
Course work	120	Extra-curricular activities	39
Tutorial	95	Thesis	32
Informal association with other students	50	General academic atmosphere and intellectual freedom	29
Reading on one’s own	45	Intellectual awakening	20
Contacts with faculty members	40	No answer or undecided	10
			480

[p. 7]

In their replies much emphasis was put on the advantages of the smaller and more personalized courses; on the new general education program; the quality of the faculty and the importance of personal contacts with the faculty.

For tutorial, 92 expressed favorable views; 13 favorable with qualifications; 15 favorable in relation to thesis; and 18 unfavorable. Hence the vast majority believed that tutorial made an important contribution. In view of the fact that tutorial presumably counted over the years for about 1/7[5] of the total education, its large returns are evident (120 votes for courses and 95 for tutorial). Tutorial was especially important in the first 20 years of this survey. In the last 10 years, the need of economy weakened tutorial. Among the graduates of the first 20 years (1925-44) 88 commented on tutorial, all favorably (3 with qualifications); in the years 1944-54, 49 commented. The percentage of favorable comment for these years was 55 per cent; favorable with qualifications, 20 per cent; unfavorable, 24 per cent. The responses clearly reflected a deterioration of tutorial in the last 10 years.

[5]3 courses out of 16-17 classroom courses plus 3 equivalent to tutorial.

“Suggest any ways in which your education might have been improved.” The analysis of replies follows. A more balanced program, more and better mathematics and statistics, more and better tutorial, smaller classes, and more personal contact with faculty stand out.

[p. 8]

Improvement of Education

Item	No. of times mentioned	Item	No. of times mentioned
More balanced program	43	Better training in writing through more papers	17
More and better courses in mathematics and statistics (particularly Math.), possibly required for honors candidates	29	Emphasis on analysis of problems and on original thought	8
More and better tutorial, perhaps even extending into other fields than Economics	23	Better personal guidance for freshmen and others	8
Smaller classes and more discussions in them	24	A better and earlier theory course	5
Greater personal contact with faculty members	22	Less pressure; less emphasis on grades	5
More “practical” courses	19	Teachers who possess teaching rather than research ability	5
		Other	26
		No suggestions, or inapplicable to others than respondent	46
			280

These replies should be considered in the light of the fact that the respondents cover a 30-year period which witnessed the rise and some decline in tutorial, the opening of the Houses, and the introduction of General Education. The criticisms and proposals apply to the education of these men (and women) at the time they were in college. The weighted mean (as suggested earlier) is 13 years out of college.

Replies to an invitation to make general comments cannot easily be classified. A large number of those commenting want more “practical” courses which would give the undergraduate concentrator a more intimate acquaintance with current economic events and issues and with the problems and actual practices of the business community. In general, while praising the courses offered at Harvard, this large group seems to feel that the average economics concentrator should be prepared more adequately than at present for business school and/or a business or legal career.

[p. 9]

But a much smaller group insists that an economics major ought not to provide such preparation, that students should not major in economics because they plan to go into business, and that the Department should continue to emphasize economic theory and history.

A second major point that was made was that study at Harvard and concentration in Economics are most important insofar as they develop a mode of thinking, a clearness of mind, and a power of analysis in the individual. Somewhat in line with this, several respondents again emphasized the need they felt for a faculty with high teaching ability rather than intellectual eminence alone. The more interested the faculty is in teaching, and the more concerned its members are with their students, both formally and informally in contacts in and out of class, the more rewarding will a Harvard education in Economics be.

Finally, several respondents reiterated the need for a balanced program and praised the General Education program, while another group worried that concentration and distribution requirements might seriously limit the freedom of choice of the undergraduate as to studies. The intelligent enthusiast, this group felt, should be allowed to “overconcentrate” if he so desires, while the normal student should be allowed to gather a more liberal education. However, there were several other respondents who stressed strongly the need for abler and more personal guidance in the choice of courses both in and out of the department.

Harvard Education and Income

Finally, our high honors concentrators were asked to explain the fact that a college graduate seems to earn a lifetime income of $100,000 in excess of the non-college graduate and the Harvard graduate receives $200,000-$300,000 more than the non-college graduate. Our objective in including this question was not so much to get an adequate explanation of these differentials but to classify the explanations of an unusually able group of college graduates.

[p. 10]

Differences in Income

Variations in ability	121
Connections	93
Better education	84
Higher income background of Harvard men	37
Harvard’s prestige and name	31
No reply or don’t know	40
	406

Many stressed the point that Harvard’s high quality education attracts able students, and these in turn attract better teachers who provide a better education. The high quality of undergraduate instruction stimulates many to enter graduate schools, it was held by many. Though connections were emphasized as factors in attaining employment, education and ability, it was emphasized, were the factors that enabled men to hold their jobs.

Some Quotes

Comments by High Honors Men on Harvard Education:

Two high government officials, out of college about 25 and 15 years, respectively, write:

“Briefly stated, I suppose the greatest returns were intangible in form, involving no particular factual knowledge nor any specific know-how. It was the development of a feeling of confidence and dignity — the lifting of horizons yielding perspective together with some degree of understanding. From formal course work I gained background and acquaintanceship with basic material; tutorial work developed thinking in terms of relationships; and reading on my own stimulated reflection and yielded appreciation. Extra-curricular activity such as varsity athletics, particularly intramural participation, was helpful in maintaining a feeling of physical well-being.”

“On the whole, I would guess that particular courses taken by students and the particular educational techniques used are much less important than the intellectual stimulation and the perspectives provided by the individual faculty members. While I took a large number of economics courses as an undergraduate, I don’t regret this overemphasis because they were on the whole stimulating courses given by very good men. At the same time I feel heavily indebted and remember very fondly an English literature course, given by the late Ted Spencer, and I would be hard put to judge the relative value of that course for my later professional work relative to any of the economics courses.”

[p. 11]

By a bank official, out less than 10 years, the following appraisal is made.

“Association with students in many other fields in the House system (Leverett House in my case) was in my opinion worth more than several courses. We had an informal Seminar in Practically Everything each evening in which everyone contributed something from his particular field of interest.

“The reading period before exams was valuable for pulling a course together and relating it to others. I found that I missed it very much at Chicago where the quarter system did not provide time for relief from being lectured at.”

A member of the faculty of the Harvard School of Medicine, out of college more than 15 years, says:

“I’m not sure when my education really took hold but somewhere between 1936 and 1940 I developed certain habits of thinking, reading, wondering which have served me in good stead. I can’t say whether it was course work, tutorial, exposure to a fine faculty, exposure to some very able classmates. I don’t doubt its value, however, and I’d certainly do it again.”

An outstanding economist, out about 10 years, now on the staff of one of the major universities, has something to say for the lecture system and overconcentration and higher standards.

“If anything, I would argue that I didn’t concentrate enough on economics. I began with a broad interest in other social sciences, and while I don’t for a minute think of those courses as wasted, I think the scales should be tipped in favor of more rather than less concentration.

“It’s a firm belief of mine that in most ways there’s nothing like a good lecture course. I learned a lot in tutorial, but looking back it’s clear to me that there wasn’t enough of it. A little bit of tutorial makes only a little bit of sense. For tutorial to be really valuable to the good student it would have to take more of his (and of the tutor’s) time, say at least the equivalent of one course, and probably more. And there should be more writing.

“I should have been required to study mathematics along with elementary economics, instead of having to discover it myself, much later. The absence of a decent course in statistics in the department also cost me time later on. I have the strong feeling that undergraduate courses in economics are much too easy for honors candidates. Much of what is taught at the graduate level could be pushed down to the junior year. For the serious undergraduates anyway. This would free graduate courses for really advanced work; much too often every graduate course feels obliged to begin at the beginning. Sometimes I have the distinct feeling of never having learned anything in a specifically undergraduate course.

“As I compare the present undergraduate curriculum at Harvard with that of my own day, I am filled with nostalgia for the almost free elective system under which I was a student. As I recall, we had to have one course each in Natural Science, Social Science, and Humanities, and after that it was all gravy. No doubt General Education has some

[p. 12]

advantages for many students. But it would be a shame if the occasional enthusiast who wants to study nothing but economics (or mathematics, or physics, or Slavic Languages and Literature) should be prevented from so doing.”

A business executive, out 7 years, urges tying theory to the problems of the day, earlier concentration in economics, and more careful choice of tutors.

“The Department fails to show its students sufficiently that economics is primarily a disciplined way of looking at our environment and analysing it, rather than merely a set of facts and theories. Only a small minority of students — even Harvard students — have strong theoretic abilities and interests. This does not mean that Harvard should not strive to give its students rigorous theoretic training. But it does mean that the theory must be tied to practical applications in an obvious, meaningful and continuous manner.

“My second observation is that too many students concentrate in economics for the wrong reasons or by mistake. It would be a tremendous help if all students who had any thought of concentrating in economics were strongly encouraged to take Economics 1 in their freshman year. This would give them a basis for deciding whether they wanted to go on with the subject a full year before they have to make their final decision as to a field of concentration. I have heard it argued that Ec.1 is too advanced a course for freshmen. If that is true, then the course is badly designed. But I doubt that it is true; if the freshman can take Physics 1 or Math 1, he can certainly cope with the theory of marginal adjustments and basic national income theory.

“I feel strongly that the Department was lax in providing guidance to its Ec. 1 instructors and tutors last year. Tutorial tends to become a reflection of the varied interests of the individual tutors and not an expression of a thought-out educational scheme. Tutorial therefore tends to be successful for the bright student accidentally matched with the proper tutor. It is much less successful — and less successful than it could be — for the average student.”

In the view of a top economist, out about 25 years, connections are important. He also opposes excessive concentration.

“My guess is that the Harvard pass student turns into a better earner than the honors student — suggesting that connections are a big part of the explanation. I reckon that as taxes press more heavily on income and inheritance there’s an increasing tendency to transmute capital into the kind of power that can hand over income to relatives and favorites in guise of their ‘earnings’.

“Harvard training does seem to be among the best in making sure that a young man can take hold effectively in graduate school. (The glamor of Swarthmore, Reed, etc. rests partly on their really having only honors students; if we omitted from the Harvard number those who never aspired to honors, the percentage making scientists, etc. would jump.)

“A student who thinks he has chosen his field might ideally minimize more duplication and improve basic training by devoting almost all his undergraduate time to other fields. But he needs to find out enough about the field to validate his choice; and he is entitled to the sense of (relative) mastery he gets by exercising his talents. I think a…recommendation of a minimum-scale economics major for intending graduate students is optimal, balancing these questions. Also has merit in terms of working conditions for teachers at undergraduate centers.”

[p. 13]

A successful Southern business executive, out about 15 years, looks back to his education at Harvard with much satisfaction. Concentration in his view mirrors the interests of the contemporary society.

“I do not regret the extra work. I think the years at Harvard were useful, fruitful, and I know, pleasant. I am egotistical enough to believe the result was good. I believe it was economically valuable, and I know it contributed much to making life more endurable, or more happy, depending on my state of mind.

“A great deal of the value, I am certain, was derived from living in a climate of high average intelligence. A man could not be as ordinary as his inclination might lead him to be. There was too much behind him, in the traditions of the university, before him in the faculty, and on all sides of him in his classmates. I am sure this climate of intelligence forced many of us to greater achievements than we would have made ordinarily.

“I believe, however, that the direction of education in any responsible university tends to mirror the concerns of the society from which the undergraduates come. Why then, in the late 30’s and early 40’s, should there be any surprise that an undergraduate would over-concentrate in economics or in government? The whole concern of society was directed largely toward the understanding of the economic bases of society, and the mitigation of some of the allegedly inherent evils. I believe that today’s view of economics as simply another useful tool is more accurate, more valuable, and far less dangerous.

“In the same way, the overconcern with science has naturally reacted and caused an equally great concern that the undergraduate is being made into a machine, with brain but without soul. I shall be greatly surprised if overdiversification does not result and if the undergraduate of today does not say twenty years from now in answer to a like questionnaire, that he wishes he had specialized more. However, I doubt that harm will be done in either case so long as Harvard maintains her great climate of intelligence, a truly open mind, and a refusal to be pushed down any alleys of education, politics, or economics, simply because others are going that way.”

A banker-economist wants Harvard staffed by men with outstanding analytical minds.

“In staffing the Economics Department, great emphasis should be given to obtaining men with outstandingly good analytical minds, men who are interested in teaching their students the fundamental principles and the proper use of tools of analysis. The institutional and ‘practical’ knowledge can be acquired later, provided that the student is made to realize that he leaves Harvard with a good foundation but that he must build the superstructure himself as he acquires experience in the use of what he learned in school.”

A view expressed more than once is that economics is not necessarily the best preparation for business.

“I do not believe that economics, at least in 1947-50 and on the undergraduate level, provides any better preparation for business than many other academic disciplines. (But I understand some other schools are managing to combine academic and business courses.) For this reason I think general courses, or a diversification is much better than concentration in economics. It might even be that concentration in economics, government, or the sciences should not be permitted in undergraduate work. Everyone

[p. 14]

has to specialize after college, and college should be the time establishing a broad base of general education.”

A well known government and academic economist, out 25 years:

“If I knew I was going to become a professional economist, I would not concentrate in economics as an undergraduate but would leave the instruction in economics to graduate school.”

A lawyer out about 15 years:

“My training in economics has been of great value to me in the law. We represent a number of business corporations and the approaches I learned to the economic aspects of society have served me in good stead on a number of occasions. When in school I often bemoaned the lack of more ‘practical’ subjects in economics. I was wrong — adhere to the theory and the history.”

More case work is the proposal of a lawyer out 10 years:

“I think that at least in the social sciences there could have been a substantial improvement through an increased use of individual project work resulting in written reports or other papers. The ability to do research, make studies, draw conclusions, and report them lucidly, is one which comes only from practice and experience and the college years could and should make a substantial contribution to that experience.”

More details about the current financial scene are suggested by a Radcliffe Magna and P.B.K., out about 10 years:

“I think my Economics background (specialized in Money and Banking) could have been improved through a little more stress and detail in recent and current fiscal and monetary developments; e.g., level and trend of the government bond market; actual current Treasury financing and its actual effect on the bond market (using bond prices and yields); consumer credit trends; weekly Federal Reserve policy (in open market operations) through financial page in N.Y. Times, for example. In other words, while I received a magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in Economics, when I actually went to work I knew next to nothing about banking figures — level of long-term government bond interest rates, etc. The theory was all there, but actual working knowledge was practically nil.”

An able economist, out 20 years, proposes seminars for honors students and more and better Mathematics and Statistics:

“I think there might be increased opportunity for outstanding honors candidates in economics to learn from each other by meeting as a group. Perhaps this could best be done by providing a special course required of honors candidates (or better, some more highly selected group), perhaps in some other way. It may be that this need is met by the present Economics 101.

“The glaring deficiencies of the undergraduate economics program of my day, considered as pre-professional training for those going on in economics, were that it failed to provide the student with two of the basic tools: mathematics and statistics. (What is far more serious, the same statement applied to the graduate program of that period.) This comment, however, poses a serious problem as to the

[p. 15]

purpose of the undergraduate program. It cannot be assumed that the majority of undergraduate concentrators will, or should, go on in economics. Nor can it be assumed that those who do go on will make the decision much before they graduate. For those who go, say, to law school or into business, the tools referred to, though useful, are not essential. Thus my comment, while applicable to my own education, cannot be taken as a criticism of the undergraduate program in general. The graduate program, however, was seriously deficient.”

Conclusion

It is clear that the high honors graduates in economics have done well in later life. They disproportionately enter the professions and go to Harvard Graduate Schools. Their success can, of course, be associated with the high quality of the men, the circles in which they move, and, we hope, their Harvard education. Clearly most of them believe that Harvard has helped them greatly. The association in graduate courses is helpful; but they emphasize also tutorial and small classes; and they would like to have closer association with faculty. The Houses clearly make a contribution here. But in the writer’s opinion tutorial (tied to the Houses) and smaller classes and perhaps a somewhat greater emphasis on undergraduate vis-a-vis graduate instruction would also help.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961 and some earlier. Box 16, Folder “Honors-Highest (Harvard)”.

___________________________ 

The Harvard Crimson reports…

Survey Joins Honors Work, High Incomes
Honors Status Pays Off, Harris Asserts

May 21, 1956

An honors record at College seems to pay.

That is one of the conclusions of a survey report now being circulated among selected members of the Faculty and graduate students in economics by Seymour E. Harris ’20, professor of Economics. The report summarizes the answers to a questionnaire filled out by 211 high magna or summa graduates in Harris’ field of economics, and represents an attempt to find out what happens to “our best undergraduates.”

The survey shows that: “Incomes of the high honors graduates of the last 30 years are high. The median with students, housewives, and soldiers eliminated, is $11,227, and the arithmetic mean (income total divided by the number of income recipients), $14,664.”

Harris calls this figure “surprisingly high” considering that the graduates questioned are out of college (weighted mean) only 13 years, and that the proportion in the professions, where incomes are relatively low compared to business, is large.

Professions Lower

“The larger number in the professions pulls down the average income of our group,” Harris continues. “Thus, for the 114 in the professions the mean income is $11,567 and the median, $9,663; for the 57 others (business executives and the like), the respective figures are $21,557 and $17,142, or about twice as high as in the professions.”

Probing graduates’ attitudes toward their college education, Harris found that most felt they received the largest returns from their course work. Among various items contributing to the graduates’ education, course work was mentioned 120 times, and tutorial, in second place, was mentioned 95 times.

“In their replies,” Harris states, “much emphasis was put on the advantages of the smaller and more personalized courses; on the new general education program; the quality of the faculty and the importance of personal contacts with the faculty.”

He felt that responses “clearly reflected a deterioration of tutorial in the last ten years.” He noted that tutorial was considered especially important in the first 20 years of his survey, while in the last ten years “the need of economy weakened tutorial.

Source: The Harvard Crimson, May 21, 1956.

Image Source: Seymour E. Harris in The Harvard Class Album, 1957.