Category: Fields

A recent post provided Harvard President Lowell’s interpretation (1916) of the results of a recently completed study on economics instruction at Harvard (subsequently published in 1917). In this post we see how Professor Frank W. Taussig spins his reception of the ongoing study for a pitch to Harvard alumni to get over their edifice complexes (i.e. their revealed preference to fund new structures) and to create more endowments to fund graduate students and post-docs who are an important link between the research and instructional missions of the University in general and the department of economics in particular.

______________________________

THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS.
PROF. F. W. TAUSSIG, ’79.

The most striking change that has taken place during the last fifty years in the content of the College curriculum has been the dominance acquired by the political and economic subjects. What Greek, Latin, Mathematics were a half-century ago, that Economics, Government, History are now, — the backbone of the ordinary undergraduate’s studies. I will not undertake to say whether on the whole the change is or is not to be welcomed. It has its good sides and its bad sides. In one respect it is undoubtedly good. The main cause behind it is a great awakening of public spirit, — a consciousness that the country is confronted with pressing political and economical problems, and that we must gird our loins to meet them. And an assured consequence will be that the new generation of College men, who are being graduated every year by the thousands and tens of thousands, all trained in these subjects, will constitute a leavening force which must in time affect profoundly and beneficially the conduct of public affairs. At all events, so far as university teachers and administrators are concerned, the plain fact must be faced: instruction in these subjects has to be provided on a large scale.

The responsibility thus devolving on the Harvard Department of Economics among others was impressed on its members by the outcome of the new system of concentration introduced in 1910. It appeared that in some years this department had the largest number of concentrations of any; and in every year the number was very large. Its only rival was the English Department. These figures — familiar enough to Harvard men — set the economists to thinking. Under the able leadership of the chairman, Prof. C. J. Bullock, a deliberate inspection of the Department’s work was decided on. Obviously, the surest way to get at the unvarnished facts was to enlist the services of outside critics. To this end the Department of Education was asked to come to our aid. Its members were invited to attend lectures and recitations, to read examination books and theses, to learn by questionnaires what the students themselves said and thought, to suggest improvements. In addition, some members of the Visiting Committee appointed by the Board of Overseers really visited, attending systematically the exercises in some courses and preparing valuable critical reports. The Educators responded to the appeal with gratifying heartiness, and the two Departments have cooperated cordially in a course of action which is unique in the history of the University.

Already this movement has borne fruit; and it will bear still more. The introductory course Economics A (which has successively borne the names Philosophy 6, Political Economy 1, Economics 1, and now Economics A) has been systematically visited. New methods of instruction have been suggested, old methods have been tested, promising devices are on trial. It should be added that the more expensive and effective methods of instruction tried in it, and started even before the educational survey, were made possible only by generous financial support from the Visiting Committee. This is the largest elective course in College, having over 500 students; here is the most important teaching task. In the next tier of courses, two are being conducted on new lines; in these cases on the department’s own initiative rather than in consequence of advice from outside. They are the undergraduate courses on accounting and statistics, in which something closely akin to a laboratory system is being applied. That is, the assigned tasks are done, not in the student’s room and at his own (procrastinated!) hour, but in special quarters equipped for the purpose, at times appointed in advance, and under the supervision and with the aid of well-trained assistants. Other courses, especially those having considerable numbers, are now under similar inspection, and we have every hope that in them also good advice will be secured and good results obtained.

The problems of instruction in this subject, as in so many others, are far from being solved. How far lecture, how far enlist discussion, how far recite? In what way bring it about that the students shall think for themselves? In what way communicate to them the best thinking of others? Almost every department of the University, not excepting the professional schools, is asking itself these questions and is experimenting with solutions. Undoubtedly, different methods will prove advantageous for different subjects. Within the Department of Economics itself there is occasion for variety in methods. Some courses, especially those dealing with matters of general principle and of theoretic reasoning, are best conducted by discussion. Others, dealing with concrete problems, with the history of industry and of legislation, with description and fact, call for a judicious admixture of required reading, lectures, written work. In all, the great thing to be aimed at is power and mastery: training in thinking for yourself, in reaching conclusions of your own, in expressing clearly and effectively what you have learned and thought out. The courses that deal with industrial history, with the labor problems, with railways and combinations, taxation and public finance, money and banking, need something in the nature of laboratory work, such as I have just referred to; an extension and improvement, supervision and systematization, of the familiar thesis work.

Now, throughout all such endeavor and experimentation, the indispensable thing is a staff of capable and well-trained instructors. We need able men, effective personalities. We need them throughout, from top to bottom, — professors, assistant professors, instructors, assistants. The ideal man is one having a good head, good judgment, good teaching power, good presence, good training, the spirit of scholarship and research. Men who possess all these qualities are rare birds; we are in luck when we get the perfect combination. Often we have to accept men not up to the ideal. But we know what we ought to have, and we should strive to get as nearly to its height as we can.

In no subject is there greater need of good teachers and of trained thinkers than in economics. The subject is difficult, and it abounds with unsolved problems. Some things in its domain are indeed settled, — more than would be inferred from current popular controversies or from the differences in the ranks of the economists themselves. But on sundry important topics it is useless to maintain that we have reached demonstrable conclusions. There are pros and cons; conflicting arguments must be weighed; only qualified propositions can be stated. Differences of temperament, of upbringing, of environment, will cause the opinions of able and conscientious men to vary. Hence there is need above all of teachers who can think, weigh, judge; who are aware of the inevitable divergencies of opinion and of the causes that underlie them. There is abundant room for conviction, for enthusiasm, for the emphatic statement of one’s own views. But also there is need, above all in the teacher, of patience, discrimination, charity for those whose views are different.

It is thus of the utmost importance that young men of the right stamp should be drawn into the profession. I say the profession, because it has come to be such. And it is a profession with large possibilities, one that may well tempt a capable, high-spirited, and ambitious young man. Twenty-five years ago, when I was in the early stage of my teaching career, it would have been rash to encourage such a youth to train himself to be an economist. Then academic positions were but ill-paid, and were not held in assured high esteem. The situation has changed. Though salaries are still meager, they are rising; and the public regard for scientific work is increasing for all subjects, and not least for this one. Quite as important is the circumstance that the services of trained economists are now in demand for the public service, and that in this direction there are large opportunities for usefulness and for distinction. The possible range of work has come to be much wider than the academic field. And no large pecuniary bait is necessary to enlist men of the needed quality. Those who are interested primarily in money-making cannot indeed be advised to enter the profession; but they are also not of the sort to be welcomed in it. I am convinced that nowadays there are more young men than ever, in Harvard and elsewhere, to whom something nobler appeals. The spirit of service is abroad in the land, and moves students not only in their choice of college courses, but in their choice of a career. Yet a career should be in sight. There should be a reasonable prospect of promotion, a decent income according to the standards of educated men.

To enlist men of the right stamp in the service of the University there must be still another sort of inducement. There must be a stimulating atmosphere, a pervasive spirit of initiative and research. To mould the thoughts of students and so the opinions of the coming generation is an attractive task; but no less attractive, often more so, — much will depend on temperament, — is the opportunity to influence the forward march of thought, the solution of new problems. As I have just said, economics offers unsolved problems in abundance. There are high questions of theory, concerned with the very foundations of the social order and tempting to the man of severe intellectual ambition. There are intricate questions of legislation and administration, calling for elaborate investigation and pressing for prompt action; these will tempt the man of practical bent. For either sort of work, there must be something more inspiring than the opportunity for routine teaching. The advanced student needs the clash of mind on mind, the companionship of eager inquiry. It is this way that the Graduate School most serves Harvard College, and indeed is indispensable to the College. Without the opportunity and the stimulus of independent scientific work by the graduate students as well as by the teaching staff, it would be hopeless to try to enlist in the University service promising men of the desired quality.

I dwell for a moment on this aspect of the situation, because it is not understood by those among the alumni who believe that too much of the University’s money and too much of the professors’ time are given to graduate instruction. The late Professor Child, one of the most distinguished scholars as well as one of the most delightful men in the annals of Harvard, is said to have remarked that Cambridge would be a most attractive place were it not for the students. The remark reflects the weariness which in time comes over the professor whose teaching is confined to the routine instruction of undergraduates. It is astonishing how much scholarly work of high quality was achieved by Child and others of the older generation, under the untoward conditions of their day; sometimes, there is ground for suspecting, — not, by the way, in Child’s case, — because they simply slighted their routine teaching. Under the new conditions and the new competition in the academic world, we may be sure that if this were the only sort of work expected of the staff, the staff would be made up in the main of men qualified for this work only. It is the opportunity of doing creative work that tempts the highest intellectual ability; and creative work needs a creative atmosphere.

It is to be noted, further, that the source from which Harvard College and all the colleges must draw their teaching staffs is in these graduate schools. The experience of the Department of Economics convinces its members that the only way to secure a good staff of junior teachers, — instructors and assistants, — is to train them in a graduate school. The staff of the Department has been very much improved during the last ten years, and the improvement has come almost exclusively by recruiting from its own advanced students. We are confident that the training we give them is thoroughly good; we even cherish the belief that nowhere else can so good a training be secured. At all events, we try to retain the best of our advanced students in our service; if not indefinitely, at least for considerable stretches of time. And among the inducements which lead them to stay with us are the opportunities not only for teaching, but for research of their own, made possible by a moderate stint of stated work and enriched by the wealth of material in our great library.

What the Department of Economics most needs, then, and indeed what the University most needs in every department, is men. The University must have buildings, laboratories, libraries; but most of all it must have ripe scholars, inspiring teachers, forward thinkers. As it happens, external and mechanical facilities count less in economics than in many other subjects. There is no need of expensive laboratories, such as are indispensable for physics, chemistry, biology, the medical sciences. Like the Law School, we use chiefly collections of books and documents, and convenient lecture and conference rooms. The one fundamental thing is the men, and the one way to get them is to have free money, — enough money to pay good salaries to those on the ground, and to draw to the University the rare genius whenever by good fortune he is to be found. The specific way in which the generous-minded graduate can serve the needs of such a department is by the endowment of instruction and research.

The endowment of instruction ordinarily takes the form of the establishment of a professorship; and this will doubtless remain the most effective way of achieving the end. But there are other ways also. Professor Bullock has recently called attention in these columns to the possibilities of the endowment of economic research. I venture to offer a suggestion for something analogous, — something which may combine the endowment of research with that of instruction, and which has the further merit of not requiring so formidable a sum as is necessary nowadays for the foundation of a professorship. The University has at its disposal a not inconsiderable number of fellowships for training young men of promise. I believe that it could use with high advantage similar posts, more dignified and more liberally endowed, for mature men who are more than promising, — whose powers are proved, whose achievements are assured. Research fellowships they might be called, or professorial fellowships, if you please. An endowment of a moderate amount would enable the incumbent of such a post, if a young unmarried man, to give his whole time to research; if an older man, to limit his teaching hours within moderate bounds and so to give a large share of his time and energy to research and publication. The appointments would be made, I should suppose, for a specified term of years; and they would go preferably to scholars in the full vigor of early manhood. They would be highly honorable, and they would be tempting to men of high ideals and of quality coming up to our own ideals of University service. Will not some of our friends, not of the multi-millionaire class, desirous of doing what they can for our benignant mother, and perhaps of perpetuating a cherished name, reflect on this possibility?

Source: The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine. Vol. 24, No. 94 (December, 1915), pp. 274-279.