Harvard. Report on Comments of 187 Economics PhDs. 1950-1953

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror creates and curates digitized archival artifacts for historians of economics interested in the training of economists. This post provides the complete text and tables from a 118 page report that was “…based on the comments of 187 graduates, who received their Ph.D.’s in Economics [at Harvard] during the years 1950 to 1954. The comments are drawn from questionnaires filled out during the spring and summer of 1956.” This copy of the report was found in the papers of Edward Chamberlin at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University. 

This is the first major job of transcription that I have used artificial intelligence (Claude) for processing photographic images. The speed and accuracy of Claude’s optical character recognition was breathtaking. The capturing of the tables required minor tweaks, table-by-table, but still resulted in a significant net saving in transcription time. 

_____________________________

[i]

ECONOMICS

Section 1

1. 1. SUMMARY
   2. BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS
   3. THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PH.D.

THE THESIS
LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

1. 1. FACILITATION AND DELAY IN GRADUATE EDUCATION
   2. THE QUALITY OF GRADUATE EDUCATION

LECTURE COURSES
SEMINARS
TERM PAPERS

Section 2

1. PREPARATION FOR TEACHING
2. STUDENTS AND THE FACULTY
3. STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
4. LIBRARIES
5. ATTITUDES TOWARD HARVARD AND ITS GRADUATE TRAINING

[1]

I. SUMMARY

This report is based on the comments of 187* graduates, who received their Ph.D.’s in Economics during the years 1950 to 1954. The comments are drawn from questionnaires filled out during the spring and summer of 1956.

The questionnaire encouraged respondents to comment upon and to criticise, in the light of subsequent teaching and research, aspects of their graduate training which might have been improved.

Seventy-two percent of the respondents in Economics write that there were subjects they should have studied which probably or definitely would have been helpful to most students. In this context, most comment that they should have studied more mathematics and statistics. Similarly, the largest proportion of the 56% who feel that there were requirements which were not high enough mention mathematics and statistics. Both of these questions stimulate comments from economists that they need more tools for research in their present work. Besides mathematics, some respondents feel they would have benefitted from courses in research design and methodology.

A source of complaint from respondents in Economics are the language requirements. There is satisfaction that mathematics may be substituted for a second language, but 36% (the highest percentage among the four largest departments in the Social Sciences) vote to eliminate completely all language requirements. Sixty-five percent write that they now use foreign languages rarely or not at all in their work. Some note that math is the only important foreign language for economists, and others agree with the respondent who writes: “I approve of the idea of knowing languages, but there are more useful things to do in the field of economics.” Of course, a sizable group feels that the language requirements are important and useful.

A section of the questionnaire asks respondents to consider the factors which unduly delayed their graduate training. Twenty-four percent, in Economics, cited inadequate preparation before Harvard as a factor. One-fifth mention language requirements and an equal proportion note the time spent as teaching fellows or tutors (although this does not necessarily imply that they begrudge this time; in fact, some note that the delay was worth the experience). Another 21%

______
* Including 16 graduates of Radcliffe who are not included in the percentage totals.

[2]

comment that delay was caused by lack of financial assistance; they had to leave graduate school in mid-course in order to earn money. The single most lengthening factor, cited as such by 42%, was the time taken for research on and writing of a thesis. There are those who feel that Economics should substitute a requirement of two or more publishable research articles for the thesis.

Fifty-eight percent of the respondents in Economics now do some teaching as part of their work, but 45% write that they had no experience, other than the subject matter, in graduate school which afforded training in college teaching. Not all feel they should have had any training for teaching, but some of those who do suggest more teaching fellowships; more supervision from the faculty; seminars conducted by graduate students as practice teaching; and more small courses (which reflects a more general complaint about over-large courses).

Economics respondents, in general, were not satisfied with their relations with the faculty. Fifty-four percent write that they knew only a few or none of the department members “fairly well,” and this is the highest percentage among the large departments in the Social Sciences. Some feel the faculty were too busy on their own work (34%), and they agree with the respondent who writes that there should be “less emphasis on getting a faculty known largely only for their research and greater stress on teachers for teaching whether or not they have big names.” Another 20% blame the situation more on themselves, feeling they, as students, did not press hard enough for contacts.

 [3]

II. BACKGROUND

1. Number of years from preliminary examination to Ph.D.

	Economics*
Same year	1
1 year	8
2 years	28
3 years	15
4 – 10 years	35
Over 10 years	11
No answer	2

Number of years from admission to Ph.D.

	Economics*
2 years	1
3 years	9
4 years	30
5 years	12
6 years	11
7 years	9
8 – 10 years	8
Over 10 years	20

College where A.B. gotten

	Economics*
Harvard	18
Other	82

 

2. Field of concentration as undergraduate

	Economics*	Rank**	High***	Low****
Same as department of thesis field in graduate school	71	1	71	23
Similar – Social Science in both college and grad school	16	4	57	16
Different fields	11	3	20	10
No answer	2

______

* Percentages
** Among the four largest departments in Social Science: Economics, Government, History, Social Relations.
*** Highest percent among four largest Social Science departments
**** Lowest percent among four largest Social Science departments

[4]

3. Positions held since completing residence

	Economics	High	Low
Major private universities	18	26	18
Major state universities	12	12	9
Major independent liberal arts colleges	8	14	8
Other liberal arts colleges	3	12	3
Other state universities	8	8	5
Miscellaneous institutions (teachers’ colleges, tech. schools, etc.)	1	12	1
Other universities	12	12	11
Industry	19	19	2
Business	2	4	2
Government	16	16	6
Secondary school	0	3	0
No answer or not employed	1

 

	Economics	High	Low
Instructor	2	42	22
Assistant professor	21	42	21
Associate professor	24	24	14
Professor	6	6	2
Lecturer	3	3	2
Dean	1	1	1
Other administrative	1	1	1
No answer or non-academic	42	43	23

4. Present Position.

	Economics	High	Low
Not teaching	41	41	19
Teaching	58	80	58
No answer	1

5. Division of time in present position

	Economics
All teaching (teaching + misc.)	6
All research (research + misc.)	10
All admin. (admin. + misc.)	3
Over ½ teaching + research	17
Over ½ teaching + admin.	4
Over ½ research + teaching	5
Over ½ research + admin.	11
Over ½ admin. + teaching	2
Over ½ admin. + research	11
Teaching, admin., research, none over ½	18
½ teaching and ½ research	5
No answer or misc.	8

[5]

III. THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE PH.D.

13. Were any requirements too high or needless?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	20	3	31	14
No	75
No answer	5

FREE COMMENTS Q. 13.

Extensive reading in the history of economic thought undoubtedly broadens one’s thinking, and to that end is invaluable. But some theory courses tend to be overly meticulous in their examination of the views of earlier writers.

** Language requirement.

I am somewhat doubtful as to whether a second year of advanced theory is helpful in the absence of mathematics.

The thesis requirement ought to be replaced by a requirement of, say, two substantial articles, considered worthy of publication. It is premature for a man just out of graduate school to write a book.

Too much emphasis was placed on proficiency in formal economic theory — particularly in the “rating” of students by department chairmen and others.

The emphasis on economic theory is much too great at Harvard. Except for those who go on to teach economic theory at a few special universities, the requirement of economic theory is too high.

I am thinking about the Ph.D. in economics. There is far too much emphasis on “fancy dan” economic theory. The first graduate course in theory is essential. After that emphasis should be placed on theory as applied to public policy and practical economics. Emphasis on theory and mathematical economics after this should be a special and elective field.

______

** Cited more than three times.

[6]

Too many required courses, resulting in duplication of effort and artificial segmentation of fields that ought to be considered as units of thought. Time spent in classes could often have been spent to far greater advantage in reading courses with major professors, covering wider groupings of subjects and allowing more unrestricted exploration of major problems — let alone more time for important additions to one’s competence in other and apparently quite unrelated fields.

The special oral examination after completion of the thesis in practice seems to serve no useful purpose provided 2 or 3 professors read the thesis and provided there is a general oral exam at the end of the course work.

Requirements weren’t too high. But some things seemed needless, like formal term examinations in each course.

R Generally — there are too many formal assignments (long reading lists and tests on them) and a student does not have enough time to think or work out problems and ideas by himself or herself. In part this is due to a shortage of junior faculty members which might be available for guidance and consultation on a more personal basis.

Thesis should be limited to a 30-40 page article (but a good article).

Economic history. This subject, as seen by one overspecialized technician, was a cultural frill intended to dress up the trade school education. I must admit that the course provided — because my exposure to it antedated the one-volume Toynbee — a new insight into the nature of things; but that doesn’t justify it.

I believe some allowance should be made for courses taken as undergraduates. For example, Economics 101 was quite a repetition of facts of Economics 1. Perhaps in our case it was useful because there was a war in between college and graduate school.

14. Any subjects which should be required or standards which are not high enough?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	56	1	56	46
No	38
No answer	6

______

*R Radcliffe.

[7]

FREE COMMENTS Q. 14.

First year courses should have provided at least one opportunity to do a protracted “research paper” under guidance. The limitations of staff time are of course paramount here.

** Mathematics and statistics. (Mathematics and statistics were cited in 55 questionnaires)

I believe that differential and integral calculus should be required of graduate students in economics. A great deal of our professional work is now in the field of model building and a thorough knowledge of mathematics is essential for competence in this field.

Math for economics and Money and Banking for all Economics graduates.

The general exams — the prelims — they are orals; and I think prelims should be orals to supplement a rigorous and thorough set of writtens in each field.

Accounting should be made a requirement in addition to statistics, although not in place of this, and in addition to a half-year of economic theory. This could be for students planning for business uses of Ph.D. training.

Something I can only call “literacy” — including a demonstrated ability to write in the English language and to speak it.

Mathematics and statistics, particularly for those whose interests are in theory. There was then no mathematics requirement, and there should be one. There was a statistics requirement, quite sufficient in terms of course hours, but of very inferior quality. In my day there was also a scandalous neglect of the modern theory of income determination by almost everyone but Alvin Hansen.

Mathematics! Mathematics! Mathematics!

______

** Cited more than three times.

[8]

Mathematics is basic to good research work — a wide variety of fields. California places entering students on probationary status until calculus requirements are met, regardless of field. Why not Harvard?

The use of economic data — analysis and interpretation. More and better economic history.

Business organization.

I believe that it is no longer a tenable assumption that an advanced degree candidate has enough background in related fields, and I would like to see some check on the breadth — as well as the depth — of a man’s training and knowledge. Do our Economics Ph.D.’s have enough history, political science, etc., etc? I doubt it.

* There might be at Harvard a somewhat greater emphasis on the History of Economic Doctrines to place current theories in their proper perspective.

R No economics major should complete Ph.D. without Money and Banking. Most elect this anyhow, but I didn’t, and I should have.

For many entering Harvard without a solid foundation in economics, a “digestion” period away from the school working in the field — preferably teaching with a try at research on the side — would be desirable.

I did not attempt to qualify in mathematics, but it might have been more helpful than the second year of advanced theory.

It seems to me that two genuine intellectual tools are not sufficiently appreciated — the philosophy of logic and mathematics. The importance of these tools to a scholar are self-evident.

Statistics should include processing of data to fit for government or industry work.

** Foreign languages; statistics, theory.

The statistics requirement, good as far as it went, was inadequate particularly with respect to recent developments.

I agree with Prof. Samuelson that every economist should know basic accounting principles.

[9]

While I don’t hold this view too strongly, I do feel that we could have been exposed somewhat more to data problems: the availability, significance of data and need to relate theoretical concepts to available data.

I hesitate to add a requirement, but a demonstrated ability to write team reports in coherent English is a desirable quality in a Ph.D. candidate.

I would like to see the two theory courses, Ec 201 and 202 be raised to higher standards. A great deal of recent theoretical development is being left out — due to the lack of mathematical knowledge on the part of the students.

Math and more statistics. Am constantly hampered by the mathematical and statistical requirements of the new business age. Also we need Experimental Design training, plus introduction to the dozens of research techniques of various social and natural sciences.

I prefer a major and minor field system (involving two disciplines) rather than a concentration within only one discipline.

Somehow during his graduate study, it should be contrived that a student prepares a rather good paper on each of the following: a theoretical question; an institutional analysis; a quantitative problem.

47. Would have been “better off” with opportunity to substitute exams for the more formal course requirements.

	Economics	High	Low
Yes	16	16	8
No	76
No answer	8

FREE COMMENTS Q. 47.

Yes. There was considerable emphasis on review, particularly in my first year, and these purposes could have been better served by a reading course tailored to fit my individual gaps and lacks, and credit given on passing written examinations covering both the work I had reviewed and the knowledge I presumably carried into graduate work with me.

[10]

I wasted a lot of time on assigned books, when there were many more important gaps in my own knowledge. Reading lists, with assignments, are not sufficiently discriminating for individual needs.

Courses in economic theory, monetary theory, and international trade considerably overlapped in subject matter.

* Because of the undergraduate courses which were in many cases so similar.

In general I am against this. In all sorts of subtle ways you learn more about a subject from a good course than from the kind of study that will pass an examination.

Actually to prepare a field on your own is better than listing and passing trivial examinations.

I learned a great deal in every course I took. This indicates to me that I was unprepared to make such substitutions, but I believe the opportunity to substitute examinations for course work should be freely available.

In the short run, from point of view of time to get Ph.D., yes; in long run from viewpoint of adequate training, no.

I could have passed most of the requirements by examination shortly after entering, if such examinations were at an objective level not reflecting individual instructors’ special interests.

To some extent, but I would not exaggerate. My yes answer partly reflects dissatisfaction with some of the courses I took and the feeling that I could have done better by reading; but better instruction would have reversed this judgement probably. In any case, there would have had to be a fairly definite and detailed requirement as to reading and subject matter prior to the exam.

I’m one of the multitude who finds the external stimulus of the examination a great help to rapt study and understanding.

First year lecture course required (theory) added little to excellent undergraduate training. The same was true in lesser degree of one or two other lecture courses. I think I could have done better to skip

[11]

them, and probably could have if given an exam alternative that did not involve any severe penalty for failure (i.e., that only meant the course would be required if exam not passed).

I could probably have by-passed one or two first year courses that were required but did not show up on my academic record. This would have left more time for other courses I would have liked to take.

50. Emphasis placed by department on performance in preliminary (or general) examinations.

	Economics	High	Low
Too much	21	21	13
About right	66	74	66
Too little	1	5	0
No answer	12

FREE COMMENTS Q. 50.

Too much. In the sense that such fear is built up that it hurts performance for many students.

Altogether too much depends on a two-hour oral examination, which induces much nervousness. Some kind of written general examination should be added, with the oral as a supplement.

The pressure placed on the student to do well is enormous. But it is necessary. I am happy that I had to prepare so carefully for it.

Man cannot be judged on a two-hour performance. Very capable students get poor marks at their generals; the level of difficulty is of course not uniform.

Too much. It is my impression that the faculty considers the oral exams to be far superior to written exams as a test of the student ability. Yet American students are not trained to take oral exams. While I am willing to concede that extreme cases can be judged in this manner, I think that there is too much of an element of chance in the precise grade that is given.

[12]

The exams are oral and I don’t think a good test of ability — and the grades are much too refined. It is a crude test at best.

A traumatic experience for any student. Usually takes a student 6 months to recover from his generals and get seriously started on his thesis.

Emphasis by the department was merely upon passing the exams. Any emphasis upon performance was placed there by the students themselves.

Too much, considering the way they were administered. Of course, there must be some point or points along the way where the faculty says yes or no to a candidate, and this point cannot avoid creating a great deal of tension in the student. However, there appears to be a great deal of luck in how well or how poorly a student does on the exam as it is given. The exam is entirely oral; thus a student who is at his best in communicating in writing is not adequately tested. There is also the problem of oral communication between one or more examiners and the student, as peculiarities of terminology of a professor the student has not had in class is to the disadvantage of the student.

Because of conflicting views on various subjects among faculty members, the exam becomes a gamble as to whether you get a professor on your board whom you studied with, or someone whose views and emphasis are completely different.

Terrible tension generated over this, though I have no idea on how they can be avoided.

I would have preferred a written examination. For years the student accustoms himself to written exams. Suddenly an oral exam is introduced. It seems to me that this needlessly heightens tension.

My investment in graduate study was high. The risk entailed to me in failure was tremendous. The pressure I felt, uprooting my family, living on a much lower income than previously, and the sacrifice I forced upon my wife and children seemed excessive when I considered that in a two hour examination all could be forfeited.

R In one sense, although not personally affected, I felt the use of the oral exam was a bit unfair. Some students, not brought up in an academic environment, were upset needlessly by the oral exam, for which they had had no preparation.

[13]

I expect that the department placed less emphasis on them than the student did. The results, however, were the same in that they were an unnecessarily severe psychological strain for some students.

It had the atmosphere of a critical test, and should. The pressure might be eased a little if there were some (partial) oral exam to take before this one. It is awfully hard on the nerves.

The two-hour general exam period is probably too small a sample for exclusive determination of fitness. However I suspect that it was weighted along with course grades. The two together constitute a fairer test. I am opposed to lengthy written generals but a short one — no longer than one day — might supplement the oral.

The department placed considerable emphasis on the general examination and I believe rightly so. Too many who go into teaching, especially at the secondary level, are more concerned with teaching qua teaching, than with knowing something to teach.

I was not aware of any emphasis placed on performance in the preliminary examinations. If candidates for a Ph.D. are concerned about performance, it is probably indicative of a lack of maturity which makes the whole Ph.D. process something of a farce.

Consideration might have been given to counseling with students preparing for general examinations. This would probably be of considerable assistance to some who have considerable fear of this part of graduate work and consequently postpone their examinations frequently.

Problems were with the student rather than with the general exams — i.e. his fear over them — this fear however, could be immeasurably reduced and improve graduate work, if examiners attempted to evaluate the student’s ability to handle the material and theories rather than an inordinate emphasis on detail and fact.

I think too much was made of the general exam. Of course a candidate learns some things while preparing for the exams, but not in proportion to the time involved and wear and tear on the nervous system. I think the practice of giving a grade on the general exam was particularly senseless.

Coverage not thorough enough, so results to a sizable extent a matter of luck. (No sour grapes here; my grade: excellent-minus.) If the candidates are as numerous as they were in 1948, not much can be done about this; if not, perhaps two sessions on different subjects might be used (possibly optional, at the student’s discretion).

[14]

However, I believe that those experienced in teaching Ec A were given a tremendous advantage.

As a result I was so nervous when I took the exam I hardly knew my own name! Much more emphasis should be placed on evaluation of the candidate’s total record.

I’m not sure that their grading system is so accurate that so much stress should be put on them in recommendations, etc. (and I received pretty good scores on them — hence — no obvious bias).

R If classes were smaller and the faculty knew the students well, the emphasis on performance in the generals could be reduced.

So much of the outcome of this depends upon personality considerations other than professional competence that I’m not sure what this performance actually measures.

The department took special pains to deemphasize these examinations. The big difficulty was the tremendous and overwhelming importance which the students gave to them.

A very difficult question to answer. I think that anything that could be done to reduce the formality of the oral would be a long step in the right direction, though. It is hard to stake two years’ work and a large monetary investment on one two-hour meeting. Perhaps, the average of two or three “minor orals” spread out over the two years would be fairer. I know that this would increase the load on the staff, but anything to reduce the almost intolerable strain of the present system on the candidate would be in the interests of both education and humanity.

It was almost a formality. I believe it is easier on the student for the department to have a long record of examinations satisfactorily passed so that generals can become almost a formality.

Too much emphasis was placed on course-work material and “the facts” in these examinations. I think more emphasis should be placed on the ability to discuss problems and the factors pertinent to them.

Too much, because in the generals too much depends on the chance of who happens to be on the board, and what the board happens to ask. For example I coached a classmate of mine, who had done less well than I in his course

[15]

work, for his generals. The board was not too tough and happened to ask him what I had coached him on — so he got a “good,” but when I came up for my own generals I hit a snag in a question by one of the board which I could not understand — so I got a “fair.” Another example is that of Jacob Viner, who failed his generals and yet became more famous than anyone else in his class. Still another is the case of David McCord Wright who failed his exams the first time and got an excellent the next.

The emphasis is about right, but the exam itself isn’t very good due largely to lack of preparation by examiners.

But the strain (emotional) was terrific. I felt that everything depended on a short 2 hours. I don’t know how to remove the strain but a way needs to be found to lessen it.

Again, can’t answer yes or no. I never know if anyone really took that two-hour performance seriously. If they did, if getting a degree really depended on the arbitrary health, mood, timing, place in sequence, of one student and four men closeted for two hours, then it was a preposterous bit of hazing and far too much emphasis was placed on it. But if, as I am confident, it was merely the customary initiation ceremony, the rite de passage conventional for all closed fraternities; if, while it had its own importance, it was considered in the light of course work and personal relationships, then it seems a reasonable way to proceed. Nominees ought to be scared of non-election.

More accurate grading in courses would be a fairer test than the orals.

55. Number of exams (excluding those for courses) for Ph.D.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
About right	64	3	66	54
Too many	21		30	21
Too few	9		18	2
No answer	6

FREE COMMENTS Q. 55.

A comprehensive written exam, with sufficient time for thoughtful consideration and preparation of answers, would, I believe, increase the incentive for broader preparation.

[16]

The usefulness of the final examination escapes me both as a student and now as a faculty member who sits on the board. The defense of the dissertation is virtually a formality, and if anyone does any defending, it is the faculty advisor rather than the student.

The fault I found was not with the number of the exams, but with their nature. (Oral and no alternative or supplemental written exams) and the time (about ½ hour for each field) allowed. I do not believe they provided an adequate or fair test of the student’s competence to be advanced to candidacy for the Ph.D. and yet they were the “needle’s eye” through which he was forced to pass.

A written examination should precede the oral.

A single 2-hour oral exam puts too many eggs in too small and psychologically precarious a basket. I would strongly favor the setting of a written field examination in each field (I feel that the fields, if 6 are still required in Econ and Gov’t may be too numerous and too thin), probably with all of them to be passed within a limited period. Then there should be a general oral which would be mainly designed to examine ability to integrate and cross-reference subject matter in the fields.

The examinations in my mind should be the more continuous observation by the faculty of the student. Papers and course work should indicate something. Reliance upon single examinations gives an impression of a lottery.

I’d have preferred more exams, to eliminate sampling error and make the student more confident that the outcome reflects his ability, and more frequent exams with less concentration on an eventful “oral” all at once.

R In a written examination, the questions can be much broader and the opportunity for organizing material and thinking through problems much greater. If this comes before the oral and a preliminary judgement given to the candidate (perhaps it could determine one’s readiness for the oral), some of the nervous strain of the oral would be relieved.

I do not see how the examination on the thesis serves any useful purpose so far as the student is concerned. Questions about the acceptability of the thesis should be resolved before the final draft, and the general competence of the candidate should be ascertained — as it is at Harvard — before he embarks on the thesis at all. I also believe the thesis examination is an inferior method of checking on the professor responsible for direction of the thesis in an effort to maintain high standards uniformly throughout the department. It provides an outlet for personal politics and jealousies from which a doctoral candidate should be shielded. It would be more useful to the candidate to have one or two conferences during the course of thesis preparation with the same faculty committee than to have the ex post thesis examination.

[17]

Possibly if the content of the thesis is such as to demonstrate the required level of competence on the field, no special examination need be required. (This introduces administrative problems, of course.) My examination was not a defense of the thesis, so no opinion on value of that kind of exam.

My answer here reflects my general feeling that high enough standards were not enforced in the years I was in residence.

I am not confident that a two-hour oral examination for the Generals is adequate. Some students are handicapped in an oral examination and would make a better showing in written examinations. Too much is left to chance in a two-hour oral, because only a very few areas can be covered.

The so-called examination on the thesis was pro forma, and certainly ought not to have been. The results of this weakness are evident, if you read theses, for which the Harvard standard (along with all others) is too low. The thesis subject ought to be subjected to severe critical study early on, and to only slightly less severe examination upon its completion, by an independent faculty group not afraid to censure vacuity regardless of its sponsor.

I would recommend an 8-hour written examination or 16-hour written examination before the general examination.

The generals (prelims) might be more useful in the form of written examinations or if more time were given to the several fields. In the present form, the pressure of the short oral carries too much weight. A series of short orals — one in each of the fields — might be an improvement.

My impression is that (1) the Department should be able to predict fairly accurately the results of these examinations, and should not allow students to take them if they are not going to succeed; (2) The Department can tell in an oral examination as much as, or more than it can tell from a written examination. There is no virtue, I think, in multiplying formalities.

[18]

56. Final oral examination

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Keep it about as it is	59	3	67	55
Abolish it	11	2	23	1
Improve or change	26	2	31	18
No answer	4

FREE COMMENTS Q. 56.

Should be made more demanding. Longer examination to test the knowledge of the student.

It should be improved in that the candidate’s committee should be required to have read the dissertation before the examination. Not to have done so is discourteous to the candidate and makes a farce of the proceedings.

I don’t feel strongly about this, but I’m inclined to think the present Harvard practice is a little too enlightened and antiseptic. Why not go back to the good old medieval heckling, sheer defense situation with all faculty comers admitted and no holds barred, but with vote as to pass or fail reserved to a small committee? This has good ceremonial content (not unimportant) which the present procedure lacks.

(1) a more public examination.
(2) open to students both for experience and for the opportunity of question.

Separate grades on thesis and final examination on major subject.

It should cover more of the special field in which the thesis was written, and be less concerned with the thesis itself.

On my final orals, my doctoral dissertation was explicitly excluded from discussion or questioning — the exam was on my “special field” (economic history). Practice does vary, but I think the thesis should be included.

The third examiner was uninformed of thesis subject matter; better without such examinations.

[19]

* It should be made stiffer, to test competence in the special field as well as the thesis topic.

R During my final examination, one examiner was reading his mail, and another kept leaving the room to answer the phone. I didn’t learn very much from it.

* I feel that it should be an examination of the thesis and not of the entire special field.

* It should be concerned with the thesis only.

It should be spread over a few days or even weeks by fields. Questions should be broad enough to test student’s powers of communication.

It should be made public.

My oral was on the field of my thesis primarily, and secondarily on the thesis. It should be on the thesis. Incidentally, none of the examiners had really read the thesis.

If work is acceptable to the committee, I see no reason for additional examination — if adequate direction is offered during the period of research and writing.

If a person is flunked on his oral it means either (1) he shouldn’t have passed his generals or (2) his thesis advisor shouldn’t have accepted his thesis.

[20]

THE THESIS

52. Was there pressuring of students to work on topics in which they were not interested?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	4		11	4
No	94
No answer	2

FREE COMMENTS Q. 52.

The “pressure” was merely the lure of remunerative employment — elsewhere than at Harvard.

I had a research job (required for financial reasons) and I was encouraged to write a thesis on the work I was doing.

No. But I think Harvard formerly had a rule that material developed in projects undertaken and published elsewhere could not be presented for thesis. I believe this has generally been abandoned. Anything of this nature should be done away with.

Not the topic itself — but the way it was to be handled theoretically.

When I was a graduate student one very junior man in the department hired me for summer research and assumed I would do my work under him. Partly because I had no other clear topic I spent almost a year working with him. Highly incompetent man now no longer at Harvard.

Not pressure of the Chairman — agreed to work on project in which I was only mildly interested in order to receive financial help.

[21]

53. & 54. Was there freedom to publish thesis results by one’s self alone? If not, do you approve of this?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	87	4	92	87
No, yes	7
No, no	1
No, no answer	0
No answer to 1st part	5

FREE COMMENTS Q. 53. & 54.

When Harvard University Press published it, it had only my own name on it, if that’s what you mean. But, confidentially, my thesis director and I fought pretty hard about the changes necessary for publication (in a series of which he had control), and, in order to get it into the series, I was finally forced to accede to his wishes. Of course, I could have taken it elsewhere, in theory; but no one else would have taken it on (I can now say this with rueful authority; I’m surprised Harvard did!)

Because of close collaboration of my director.

Only if it is part of a team research product that should be jointly published.

R Data for thesis confidential, based on a study of the relationship between price and cost in a specific company. I could never have obtained the freedom to learn how a company really operates unless the confidential nature of the findings could have been assured.

This question was not raised since some of the material used in the thesis had been drawn from confidential sources.

Yes, I was free to publish if I could find a publisher. I would urge that Harvard make a practice of publishing all dissertations; which should be rewritten and shortened down to moderate monograph proportions.

No. Department or University rule, I think.

[22]

No. I had a Russian Research Center Fellowship — they financed my thesis.

No. There was a period of several years in which the University keeps the rights to publish the thesis first. The guiding principle for Harvard University publications ought to be MERIT and not commercial results. They should publish a worthy thesis even if it has been published independently.

No. Project financed through government funds. Had no desire to publish it anyway. I was grateful for the opportunity to have financial help while writing the thesis — and the question of publishing was of no importance.

51. Compare usefulness of preliminary exams to thesis.

FREE COMMENTS Q. 51.

I found the general examinations useless. I would have preferred spending the study time on more intensive work in other fields. The thesis was useful and I would have enjoyed more writing time. In preparation for future work the thesis was meaningful. The generals to some extent indicate the failure of the faculty to judge the student body when it should — over the long period of study.

In my particular case, the general examination was crucial as a prerequisite to writing a thesis in economics.

Much more valuable to subsequent work as a teacher or as a researcher. Thesis tends to be a narrow project; laborious; repetitive in terms of what you learn, i.e. methods of research. It proves one thing only — it is a test of perseverance — it indicates that the student has the persistence to finish what he started. To some extent this is what a Ph.D. itself means.

R The generals were more useful. Research is necessarily specialized. Most economists specialize a great deal in their post-graduate research. The basic training should be broad, as their activities will probably never be broad again. Thesis research begins the narrowing down process.

[23]

The general examinations are far more useful than the thesis in economics, as even the government recognizes in its employment policies. This is for two reasons: 1. it is possible to be a competent professional economist without ever having written the thesis; 2. the book-length research contribution by an individual is today almost an impossibility in economics.

General exams much more useful. Thesis requirement may be too formal. How about faculty committee passing on caliber of published research work, and if satisfactory, regarding this as fulfilling requirement?

The exams were a waste of time — half a dozen almost —strangers and I politely trying to find a common ground to talk about in 5 different fields; and all in two hours. Idle conversation with the person next to you at a diplomatic dinner. The thesis was wonderful experience.

General exam is very much less useful. It does not, contrary to theory of it, force a student to take a broad look at his subject. Rather it forces him to concentrate on specific questions particular professors may ask. Thesis however provides valuable training in research and writing.

As a hurdle, the general examination is not particularly useful in itself to the student — except as a guide-post. The thesis, on the other hand, continues the process of instruction: the student is obliged to accept full responsibility for the identification and analysis of a problem, and to write a lucid discussion of the problem with the aid of the recognized analytical tools of his discipline.

Something of both sorts is obviously essential, the one to test general competence in a field and the other to test technical competence in a trade. Neither proves anything about intelligence, unfortunately. But on the whole, preparation for a general exam requires systematization of a sort (even though the examiners always refuse to see the interrelationships of their own fields) and the dissertation does require arduous work on a particular problem, and Harvard in my day balanced them at least to my own satisfaction.

The exam’s usefulness as a learning device is low. That is, it just forces a general review, which could be done quite as easily without making your career face a fatal blow from a brief period of oral inquisition. The thesis process is a much more positive one.

The oral examinations were principally a test of memory, the thesis was primarily a test of the candidate’s ability to do independent research.

[24]

The generals were a nuisance which one had to put behind one as quickly as possible. Preparation for them eats up a disproportionate amount of a student’s limited time.

They forced me to work, as nothing else could have.

With proper thesis supervision, the thesis could have made a larger contribution to my development as an economist; It’s also difficult to contrast these situations — for I was scared stiff, nervous and upset in the generals while the thesis was virtually prepared entirely on my own while I had a full-time job as a professional economist.

My thesis work was much more valuable to me. Preparing for general examinations after having had course examinations added something to the education experience, but not so much, by far, as my thesis work.

The general examination prepared me well for the thesis. Yet I do think the general examination is not demanding enough!

The general examinations were by far the most important. Preparing for them trained me as an economist. Writing the thesis consisted mainly of applying what I had learned earlier.

I had a good time writing my thesis and learned a lot. The general examination was a mere formality. The preliminary examination was both a goad and a tremendous hurdle. It is impossible to overemphasize the psychological element in the preparation for the preliminary examinations except in the case of the naturally brilliant student. It results in narrow concentration on what you expect to be examined in. Anything which can be done to investigate this attitude would be conducive to a better education, except for the lazy student.

Thesis much more useful. This, to me, is the heart of the Ph.D. program. It is here that Harvard could improve. At present, students consult their thesis advisors far less often than they should.

The thesis has been much more useful as an instrument of learning and of self-training. The only thing I can say for the prelims is that I think I clarified some ideas in preparing for them (for the 2nd time) that I would not otherwise have done (specifically, in statistics).

Exams are better test of the student’s ability to think rapidly, under pressure and without preparation. Anyone — almost —could write a thesis if he would devote time and energy to the task.

[25]

The examination only gave me nervous indigestion. The thesis was the basis of my subsequent career.

I feel the usefulness of the thesis far outweighed that of the preliminary examinations. The examinations were primarily, if not entirely, of use to my instructors only, giving them an idea of my qualifications. The thesis, on the other hand, had first-rate value in teaching me a great deal which otherwise I would have totally missed. Quite in addition to this great value, it perhaps gives a still better indication than the preliminary examinations, of my qualifications.

[26]

LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

11. A. Use of languages required for Ph.D.

a. 1st

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Frequently	12	3	39	11
Occasionally	22	4	34	22
Rarely	29	2	33	20
Not at all	36	1	36	6
No answer	1

b. 2nd

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Frequently	18	2	29	3
Occasionally	11	3	23	11
Rarely	21	2	30	13
Not at all	37	1	37	16
No answer	13

c. 3rd

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Frequently	2		8	0
Occasionally	2
Rarely	1
Not at all	0
No answer	95

11. B. Possible changes in language requirements.

a. Eliminating all foreign language requirements

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	36	1	36	7
No	57
No answer	7

b. Requiring only one foreign language

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	45	2	47	10
No	25
No answer	30

c. Raising standards of proficiency required

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	29	4	49	29
No	45
No answer	26

[27]

FREE COMMENTS Q. 11. & 12.

** For the field of economics I would say that foreign language is of but slight value. The important foreign language articles tend to be of a mathematical nature and therefore tend to stump even the foreign language reader without sufficient math training.

1. Only professional educators are foolish enough to argue endlessly about the foreign language requirement. There is no right answer. And the student doesn’t much care — if he’s in a hurry to finish, he begrudges the time, but he’ll accept it either way.
2. If the language isn’t needed in the profession (and it isn’t in economics), let him pick up the languages after his dissertation, if he likes. If the purpose is a well educated man, he’s liable to learn it better at leisure than by a month of cramming.
3. Still better, contrive that languages be taken in high school and undergraduate courses, when time isn’t so short.

The objective should be to encourage students to use limited time as productively as possible. For some this will mean developing real proficiency — but not for most and therefore drop as general requirement.

A language is broadening because it opens one’s eyes to other viewpoints than he has been used to. There may, however, be more effective means of accomplishing this objective, e.g., via cultural anthropology.

I was able to obtain the Ph.D. with absolutely no knowledge of science, practically no knowledge of math, and the spottiest knowledge of related social sciences. I don’t believe that such specialization should be allowed.

It is impossible to determine, in advance, what foreign languages an economist will need to know in order to work effectively in his chosen specialty after leaving the university. Moreover, in economics, at least, a knowledge of foreign languages is not necessary while preparing for the Ph.D. except in rare cases. The same time would better be spent on history, literature, philosophy or some other “liberal arts” subject (this refers to social and physical scientists). Foreign languages should not be required, but credit should be given to students who feel mastery of a foreign language is necessary in order to do the kind of work they desire to do.

Economists are parochial enough; with no language work, they would be more so; besides, as a tool it widens the scope of a man’s efforts. My view is that language proficiency should be encouraged in every way, by making two languages a requirement. But concessions should be made for

[28]

the poor chaps who just can’t handle it. They should be permitted to offer some substitute; the degree should not be denied them because of this incapacity.

English is now a dominant, contemporary language for economists but access to earlier works as well as current intercourse still justify a modest language requirement. Unless dictated by the need for specific research in connection with the dissertation, the selection of second foreign languages introduces an arbitrary element. As a practising government economist, working on international questions, I have considered my linguistic preparation as surely adequate. From the vocational standpoint, proficiency in three or four modern languages would be desirable, but I would not have welcomed such requirements during my graduate work.

Those who already know the language, do not need the requirement. Those who do not, can learn it when they need it. Learning it for the degree and then not using it seems wasteful.

Only if the candidate lacks a background in these languages from his undergraduate days do I feel that it need be included in his graduate program. I feel that knowledge of at least one foreign language is required of an “educated man.” But I feel that to supply him with this is a function of his undergraduate college, not the graduate school.

At present only a nuisance — my French never proficient enough to be of real use in research — anyone with a little study can pass the exam — as such merely a silly obstacle.

Equivalent effort devoted to improving competency in writing, math, etc. would be of real use in work. It is outmoded requirement in my field of work. A stiff exam in writing ability and/or math econ. would mean something when passed as part of the Ph.D. program.

The purpose of the foreign language examination needs to be re-determined and understood.

Doctorate should imply an educational level implying working knowledge of at least one foreign language. But present system of allowing math in lieu of one language is acceptable.

The place to learn a language is in college as an undergraduate (or earlier, even better). The existence of a language requirement too often degenerates into a sham ritual. It takes the time of those students who must cram to meet the exam without leaving them with a working knowledge of the language. This makes it almost completely a waste of time.

[29]

I should prefer one ritualistic requirement to two; and none to one. On the other hand, if the requirement is to remain, it should be made much more rigorous, so that the student actually will have something to show for his efforts. Two further comments: 1) the disadvantage for an economist in not knowing other languages is minimal in most fields other than economic history. Most contributions are available in English. 2) I learned my languages (including Japanese, with which I now work) as an undergraduate; so these remarks are not the out-pouring of personal bitterness or experience.

I believe that my lack of use has been related to research work now being conducted. One of my colleagues is using his German background continuously. If you really need material in a foreign language, you can get an interpreter.

It would be much more valuable for me to have concentrated on economics and mathematics. My special field has no worthwhile literature which is in a foreign language. An extensive U.N. translation program has put all the best literature into English. It might be that an economic historian or an international trade economist might need languages. I have neither used mine, nor am I likely to. I learned my second language after finishing my thesis. I learned only enough to pass the exam. Both languages were a waste of time. True, any scholar in an ideal world would be a gentleman enough to know how to read two languages. But a graduate school should not try to remedy high school deficiencies. On this I felt quite strongly and am a member of the two man no language party at Michigan.

** I approve of the idea of knowing languages, but there are more useful things to do in graduate school — at least in the field of economics.

** Certainly present requirements (at Harvard or elsewhere) are largely silly. In economics, mathematics (also a language) is the most important tool and if the student arrives at the graduate level without the language and math tools, he is much more profitably using his time to concentrate on math.

** If there is any argument for a language proficiency, it is a cultural one, and for this purpose, much more than a mere qualification is necessary. For persons in some fields (e.g., Russian economy) it is essential to have an intimate knowledge of one or more languages, but I feel that this should be a requirement for the particular field only.

[30]

The standards set for “proficiency” are really not sufficient to permit using the language as an effective research tool; therefore, I would recommend either eliminating the requirement or raising the standards. If, however, a substantial amount of foreign language literature exists in the thesis field a very high level of proficiency in this language should be required.

I feel it is wrong to give way on this requirement. Pressure to relax is largely from those who are in haste to get on with the “trade school” aspects of graduate work — these are the ones who need foreign languages, or math, the most.

Foreign language qualifications were essential for the writing of my thesis and have been the decisive factor in getting 2 out of 3 of my post Ph.D. jobs. Possibly one language, provided that the language of mathematics (inclusive of calculus, differential equations, and functions of a complex variable) be required in addition to the foreign language — the reason is that probably there are more important economic articles written in the language of mathematics than in any foreign language.

** I consider it mainly as a general “culture” requirement, not a technical necessity.

For research purposes, the ability to read foreign languages is essential (however rarely exercised).

I believe that the ability to read original material in at least one foreign language adds to satisfaction in scholarly research. In economics a math requirement is as important as language requirement.

Acquaintance with continental literature is essential in most social sciences. I feel both French and German to be important; I feel the lack of French. Exams in my field were so easy as to be almost farcical. Perhaps mathematics should be an alternative to a second language; as I believe it has now become in economics.

* Because honest research requires access to all relevant published and documentary material including that in foreign languages. The standards now required do not really force a student to become sufficiently proficient to make the language usable in research.

I suspect that most of us cannot begin to keep up with the literature in English, let alone foreign articles. I enjoy foreign languages and had no difficulty passing the reading examinations. (I even taught high school French for several years). But I doubt that it is of importance to most teachers or research men that they be able to read one or more foreign languages.

[31]

* A doctor of philosophy should have some knowledge of two foreign languages even if they have no practical application: in fact, they do have some.

** The trouble with language requirements is that learning languages is (or it should be) essentially a high-school and college affair. A graduate student should not be spending his time on languages. If he’s learned them earlier, fine. If he hasn’t, it is too late to do a decent job without sacrificing more important things. And in high-school or college he can have at best a poor view of what he will later wish he had learned. (Naturally all the above goes only for economics, and then not for people with special interests, like economic history.)

I would favor three alternatives for the candidate to elect one from:
1. Two foreign languages.
2. One foreign language plus proficiency in applied (economic in my field) statistics.
3. No language but both applied statistics and mathematics proficiency.

Professional economists, as matters stand, have already managed to isolate themselves almost completely from any world but that of their English-speaking colleagues, a contributing factor in the increasingly arid technical competence and general illiteracy of students of the field. Language at least begins to counteract this trend.

Absolutely; the requirements to which I was subjected were farcical for a major university. They required about one week of intensive cramming, after which knowledge was free to return to limbo. There is no intellectual justification for pretending the exam I took measured anything at all — a sad and foolish state of affairs.

The reason for the requirement, I suppose, is that a cursory knowledge of other languages is supposed to make one an educated man. But would it make just as much sense to impose “outside” requirements in any number of disciplines, e.g. logic, physics, astronomy?

Really has nothing to do with professional competence. A hang-over from the days of “learned” men rather than scientists.

R Knowing one language is part of a liberal arts training and aids in developing appreciation for the use of one’s native language. In economics, languages are a formal, rather than a necessary, requirement.

R I knew two languages before I came to Harvard. But I think many students are held back too long by the language requirements.

[32]

Today, the prime use of foreign languages in economics is not the traditional one of scholarly research, but rather actual field work where speaking and verbal comprehension is essential.

Something of an anachronism in Economics — an Anglo-Saxon science par excellence.

R If one is working in an area that requires the knowledge of a foreign language, he will learn that language without being forced to do so. I think students should study foreign languages as undergraduates, or else learn them after obtaining the Ph.D.

I would like language in with an area concentration — involving history, literature, thought and language involving use of the language of a distinct culture and people.

Too many of us — even the Ph.D.’s who should know better —believe erroneously that: 1) “the important works in my field are always translated” and 2) translations are adequate substitutes for the original. Amazing also how many people think Americans are in the forefront of most fields of research.

Certainly math and statistics are far more important “languages” for the average economist. My principal hesitancy about this position is the increasing liklihood of international assignments for the economist and political scientist. The trouble is, the language needed is more likely to be Thai or Japanese than French or German and it’s almost impossible at the graduate school stage to know what languages a student will need for working purposes. If Harvard could do a real job of finding out how to teach general linguistic competence, and then strongly advise — or even require — that, you’d be doing a tremendous service to all of us. A half-cake is better than a whole — if we can’t have none at all (subject to the above, somewhat more serious comments). A thought growing out of the preceding scribbling: Why not abolish the requirement and add a field (or otherwise compensate for the removal of this initiation rite) and then encourage students, particularly those with area interests, to take one field in a foreign language, but a real honest-to-God field which would require real oral as well as reading and writing competence?

A certain amount of intellectual elegance should be associated with the Ph.D. This is one way of attaining it. If undergraduates were required to undergo a rather fixed curriculum then language requirements should present no difficulty and in fact would not be required as a Ph.D. prerequisite. Where students do not have at least two years of undergraduate courses in each language required then they should be required to take special language courses in their first two years of graduate training.

[33]

I think this is one of the biggest decisions graduate schools all over the country must face up to. I believe most institutions are afraid to lower language requirements for fear it appears to lower academic requirements for graduate degrees. As I see it, total standards for the degree can be kept as high while realistically changing content by eliminating the language requirements.

Yes, an unnecessary and, in most cases useless, expenditure of time and effort. The effort put into passing languages, now forgotten, might have been used more advantageously in improving mathematics or in attending lectures, auditing other courses, etc.

I use four foreign languages, but do not feel everyone should be required to learn more than one.

[34]

IV. FACILITATION AND DELAY IN GRADUATE EDUCATION
How long should it take?

40. Number of years considered par for Ph.D. in the department.

	Economics
2 years	5
3 years	53
4 years	32
5 years	4
Over 5 years	0
No answer	6

FREE COMMENTS Q. 40.

5 years.
The department seemed to operate on the idea that the typical graduate student came directly to Harvard from undergraduate work, that he was already highly conversant in the field, and that he could complete his work for the Ph.D. in three years; this was not my case.

Spending full time on courses and Dissertation, student should finish generals in spring of 2nd year; one year for language exams and 2 years for dissertation.

Two years of course work plus 1½-2 years for the thesis.

2 years.
Plus 1 additional (if full-time) year for thesis. I have the feeling that, given the deficiencies of undergraduate preparation, this is too compressed.

3-4 years.
A minimum of 2 years of course work plus a minimum of one year of thesis research. Am inclined to believe that the current 3 year expectation may not be quite enough.

2 years.
I feel that the present requirements, except for the language requirement, should in no way be relaxed.

[35]

3 years.
The thesis requires a year’s research, but for some like myself, financial problems and finding a subject made it impossible to proceed directly to the thesis. Also, only after a few years of teaching did I know enough to be able to write a thesis.

3 years beyond Master’s Degree, 4 years beyond BA.

R 2 years course work beyond a masters elsewhere, 1 year full time on thesis assuming you knew your thesis topic at beginning of two years of course work so that term papers tied into thesis.

3 years.
Dean should do everything possible to encourage completion, including thesis, in successive years. It took me 14 years to get my thesis done, and then probably only because of the deadline imposed by the department.

Three years are sufficient for students with good undergraduate backgrounds. However, I believe that four years would contribute more to the development of a reasonable maturity in the field. Therefore, I feel that part-time teaching and research assistantships are good even though they delay somewhat the achievement of the degree. The increased maturity more than compensates for the lengthened degree period.

3-4 years.
I feel that three years is adequate. One of greatest problems is lack of purpose and drive; a normal let-down after completing Ph.D. orals. I feel seminar work in selecting dissertation subject early would be helpful in this regard.

3 years.
I am assuming no previous graduate work, no family responsibilities, and no graduate assistantships.

I do not believe there is any fast rule for that. It depends on the individual involved, the topic of his thesis and the conditions in which he actually works after graduation. In my particular case, I would have benefitted from waiting one more year before presenting my Ph.D. dissertation, but I was pressed to do what I did by Laval University, my present employer. With one more year allowed to complete my thesis, I would have stayed at Harvard the third year as I did, but would have worked on my thesis only part-time and employed the rest of the time available attending seminars and auditing courses, especially outside the Economics Department, for instance in the Mathematics Department or in the Social

[36]

Relations Department. I could have completed my thesis the 4th year while working elsewhere.

5 years.
I would hope, someday, that the Ph.D. might require not only 2 years in residence, the years on thesis, but also, perhaps two years of undergraduate post-thesis: for example under the Ford Internships.

4-5 years.
I think that too rushed a job on a thesis is not desirable. In a sense when the tension is smaller one can learn a great deal around this place.

It should not be made a shorter period, but a more actively useful period (by cutting down on large lecture courses and stepping up small group discussions). I think three years is a reasonable period to get saturated with the subject.

I often wish I could have had another year for class work, etc. in subjects in other fields in which I was interested. However, economic reasons would have made a longer program impractical.

41. Factors affecting time required for Ph.D.

a. Inadequate preparation before Harvard

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	24	3	35	16
Did not lengthen time	24
Actually shortened time	3
Not applicable	38
No answer	11

b. Repeating at Harvard work already done elsewhere

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	13	2	16	4
Did not lengthen time	26
Actually shortened time	1
Not applicable	44
No answer	16

[37]

c. Passing language exams

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	20	3	28	6
Did not lengthen time	53
Actually shortened time	0
Not applicable	12
No answer	15

d. Employed as Teaching Fellow or Tutor.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	20	3	31	20
Did not lengthen time	15
Actually shortened time	1
Not applicable	48
No answer	16

e. Employed as Research Assistant

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	3		11	3
Did not lengthen time	5
Actually shortened time	1
Not applicable	72
No answer	19

f. Obligated to work outside while studying at Harvard

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	10	3	31	9
Did not lengthen time	8
Actually shortened time	1
Not applicable	61
No answer	20

g. Lack of financial pressure to finish speedily, owing to continued G.I. benefits

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	5	3	7	4
Did not lengthen time	31
Actually shortened time	14
Not applicable	33
No answer	17

[38]

h. Financially obliged to leave Harvard in mid-course and work to earn money

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	21	1	21	12
Did not lengthen time	4
Actually shortened time	1
Not applicable	57
No answer	17

i. Family obligations

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	22		29	20
Did not lengthen time	17
Actually shortened time	7
Not applicable	36
No answer	18

j. Preparation for preliminary (or general) exams

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	23	2	48	16
Did not lengthen time	51
Actually shortened time	1
Not applicable	9
No answer	16

k. Research for, and writing of thesis

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lengthened time	66		69	62
Did not lengthen time	18
Actually shortened time	1
Not applicable	4
No answer	11

42. The most important of the factors listed in question 41.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
a.	3		8	3
b.	2		2	0
c.	4		7	0
d.	4		13	4
e.	0		1	0
f.	2	3	13	2
g.	2		2	0
h.	12		12	8
i.	4		4	4
j.	3	1	17	3
k.	42		42	28
No answer	22

[39]

43. & 44. Other factors more important than any of the above? Suggestions of how Harvard could obviate the chief factors.

FREE COMMENTS Q. 43. & 44.

The 5 year deadline had a lot to do with keeping the delay from being longer.

Be less bull-headed about allowing a student to plan his grad program with the assurance of at least some transfer of credit. To tell a student “maybe” means that he lays himself open to a trap if he plans his program on the assumption of credit transfer that may not materialize.

To inform me of the nature of the subject matter (that is different from the one in other countries), so that I could have prepared myself better.

R Grant me a scholarship while I wrote the thesis. But I didn’t expect that, of course, and I think I wrote a better thesis because I did some teaching before writing.

Personal problems and lack of great interest in work delayed my Ph.D. Postwar graduate school at Harvard in Economics was not stimulating. Careerists and incompetents dominated student body.

Disinterest in my field by faculty of economics and psychology departments, and busyness of even those who were mildly interested — little guidance or encouragement.

R I would have had to have considerably more financial assistance to permit me to stay to write thesis. This would have shortened time considerably because I had had an unusually good research training and experience before coming to Harvard, could have written thesis in a year if I hadn’t had to work.

I never liked the language idea, didn’t know how to go about it because of lack of training in foreign language, and hence procrastinated too damned long. Change language requirements. Stipulate more training in specific areas prior to beginning work; this could be done “on job” in many cases similar to my own.

[40]

It might have been financially possible to continue had I realized how important it was (to avoid long delay). To urge all to go straight through and get their Ph.D. at one time — too many take a break which becomes longer than they intended before writing thesis.

Eliminating language requirements would have helped some though primary result would have been better training in other areas rather than shortening time requirement. Eliminating thesis requirement – which I do not suggest — would have shortened period by one-half.

Problem was that after 7 years of Army and government work, I was out of touch with research problems and methods, had trouble getting back into an “academic” frame of mind. Some personal guidance from a senior faculty member at this time — (i.e. on beginning to write thesis after a lapse of 7 years) — some reading required more broadly in special field before starting thesis would have made thesis better and saved maybe a year in writing of it.

I was anxious to stay on after completing my general examination for the purpose of writing my thesis. The chief help Harvard could have been would have been in financing me for a year.

I might have been helpfully kicked in the pants at one or more points.

R If students were more familiar with research problems, they would not waste so much time when they begin doing research for their thesis.

In general, I think teaching fellowships lengthened time of most of my fellow students. Where the student accepted teaching fellowship because of financial need, this help might be given with no strings attached. However, most students took fellowship for other reasons (teacher training, desire for future appointment at Harvard, etc.)

From my observation of other students, fear of failing or not doing well in the preliminary exams tended to cause some students to lengthen their time in an attempt to be better prepared or to “put off” the fatal day.

I delayed completing the Ph.D. because, after taking the General Exam, I went to work and for years I had no opportunity to devote the necessary time to write a dissertation. An additional year at Harvard would have made a great deal of difference.

None of above. The only delay was in getting my advisor to read the first draft of my thesis — that took 6 months. (It took me 3 months to write it.) (and shows it)

[41]

I understand that it is the Harvard tradition to use a “sink or swim” approach to the writing of the dissertation. I find this very strange since it was only in the writing of the dissertation that I needed some help; I could have passed the course requirements with the aid of a reading list. Particularly since there is no requirement in Economics for a Master’s degree, a course in research would be helpful.

To have made it necessary to earn money after completing my course requirements and before and during thesis preparation.

Opportunity of earning some money.

Attempting to write thesis while holding full-time position.

I would eliminate thesis requirement and substitute requirement that candidates publish one good article in a leading professional journal in the field. Emphasis would be on quality. A good 20 page article is worth more than 500 pages gathering dust. The candidate’s work should be publishable but it needn’t be a “thesis” or “dissertation.”

An opportunity to have discerned my problems with a Dean, a Department Chairman, or an assistant Department Chairman.

General inertia that sets in once one has interrupted the process. Financing either as grant or as pay for teaching or research; requirement of continuous process without interruption to the completion of thesis.

A year or two or more should be spent in teaching or directing research before writing the thesis. When the student is prepared to write his thesis, the opportunity to return to Harvard with some financial support should be made available.

Don’t try! We are all enmeshed in the American rush — short cuts to culture.

The most important factor was the problem of completing writing of a thesis while holding a full-time job not directly relating to it. This is a common problem of those who have left Harvard for positions in Washington, D.C. A program which would amount to a thesis writing fellowship with six or nine months duration would have been a very great benefit to those in this position.

[42]

Put more pressure on me to finish the damn thesis.

More non-teaching fellowships.

Nonrenewable financial support for a term of two years.

I would not have wanted to miss the Teaching Fellowship.

Provide financial assistance or sufficient low-cost housing.

48. Would have been better if department had set a faster schedule for exams and thesis.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	10	2	20	6
No	86
No answer	4

FREE COMMENTS Q. 48.

When you have other duties it is easy to give them priority. Deadlines certainly have a vitalizing effect.

Faster not possible. Standards none too high at present.

I find my work at Harvard profitable. A faster time schedule would have given me less work there. However, I do believe accelerated time schedules should be available upon recommendation of professors knowing the individual students’ capacities and accomplishments.

One problem so dominated my development that perhaps outside pressure would have gotten me writing sooner.

Although not true in my case, I feel that many students would have been better off with more pressure to complete their work in a realistic period of time.

I was permitted to move too rapidly.

[43]

Most of my time was taken up in overlearning for the preliminary examinations. If I had not had to concentrate on this aspect so much I could have spent more time on wider reading.

My “yes” rests on my lack of enthusiasm for the principle of the general examination. I’d rather have taken each subject exam at the time I was ready, then pass on to the study of the next one. There is a great loss of time in “preparing” for general exams, much of which is aimless worry, some of which is memorization and study of oral exam tactics, and some of which is just waiting for the Department to schedule an end-of-year exam. I could have taken the exam half a year earlier if encouraged.

This might have reduced my procrastination regarding languages.

I can assure you that I bent every effort to get students and employees to finish soon now.

I think it important that a time limit be imposed. Two or three years after the prelims should be sufficient for the thesis. Teaching should not, but other full-time work in the field might be admissible for extension.

I think that a closer time limit would make for even more nervous tension than normal graduate work involves.

1) It takes time to develop a sense of professionalism, and three years is none too long; 2) it takes time to learn the language and tools of a trade and how properly to use them; if anything, three years is too short; 3) it takes a great deal of time to become an educated man, and three years of a Harvard graduate education is the merest beginning. To shorten this period would be disastrous — or at any rate, would be a brand new kind of Ph.D. for Harvard to grant. If we’re going to water down the stock, let’s at least change either the brand name or the company name.

A faster time schedule with respect to the thesis probably would have forced me to complete it sooner.

I doubt that it would have been physically possible to complete a thesis in less than two years.

It takes at least 3 or 4 years to understand the fundamental problems and concepts of the subject.

[44]

I firmly believe that maturity in economics cannot be rushed. I have seen too many students complete their degrees rapidly, and lack the wisdom and insight that would probably have come with a lengthened degree period. However, I realize that economic and other considerations might make it necessary for a student to forego the achievement of maturity until after the degree has been achieved.

49. Would have been better to have taken preliminary or general exams earlier.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	6	2	18	2
No	91
No answer	3

FREE COMMENTS Q. 49.

I probably took it too soon — after only a year and a little more. It would be better to allow two years in most cases for sufficient individual reading.

If anything, I would have appreciated the opportunity of doing more course work before the general exam.

R The Department discourages students from taking the preliminaries until the second year of course work is nearly completed. Felt I could have taken exams sooner since I had taken my undergraduate work with the same men and taken almost the same courses.

Only by a general relaxation of the pressure (probably generated by student competition rather than the faculty) under which most students approached their generals. I was “scared to death” to take them when I did.

In view of my extensive study in economics as an undergraduate I should have been encouraged to take the general examination at the end of my first year of graduate work.

By encouragement from the staff. I was frightened!

[45]

If I had not been made to feel that the general exam was a great milestone to be passed in full parade, I might have taken it casually and passed it casually and been the better off for it. The arguments for either (1) testing how much one can know all at once, or (2) seeing how he stands up under oral pressure, are poor in my opinion; the only real incentive of the exam is the student’s belief in the unreliability of the examiners which requires extraordinary measures of precaution in a conservative kind of study.

If so much stress were not placed on the generals, I might have attempted to pass them earlier.

Still, I feel that these exams are currently too demanding; integration with the total program would be an improvement.

[46]

V. THE QUALITY OF GRADUATE EDUCATION

15. Kind of courses thought most valuable.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Lecture	16		16	8
Seminar	9	4	19	9
Small courses open to advanced students	11		11	8
Individual reading or research	2	4	19	2
Can’t decide	57	1	57	44
No answer	5

16. Would you change the emphasis on any of these types of courses?

FREE COMMENTS Q. 16.

The lecture courses were much abused in some cases by extremely bad teaching. The professors were in some cases overburdened and couldn’t spend enough time on their lectures. Classes were too large in all cases.

** I’d virtually eliminate lecture courses and substitute direct reading and research plus a few seminars. I learn by thinking and doing myself, at my own speed and along my own peculiar thought paths. Formal lectures pitched to an “average” usually turn out to be the equivalent of a text book chapter; and less easy to absorb as well as less informative.

The most important aspect of graduate study is the development of a desire on the part of the student to do original creative work, and the ability of students to observe how creative men go about their work. The subject taught as such is of relatively minor importance. Therefore, increase the student’s contact with professors as they are working. Properly handled seminars accomplish this very well.

The effectiveness of the educational process in the small informal group operating within a defined framework is such as to place a premium on this type of instruction whenever possible.

[47]

The lecture course, dominating my graduate education, was useful only in so far as it forced a major professor to try to systematize his thinking in front of the students — all too rare an experience. The seminars were useful occasionally, when a really first-rate person was brought in to raise really meaningful problems, but for the most part they were dull sessions with unprepared people or with graduate students. The Harvard faculty performed its greatest educative function, it seemed to me, when it sat down with you and perhaps a few others to work over problems in thoughtful, patient, protracted consideration —possible only in the small course or the reading (tutorial) atmosphere. Students will gain to the extent that it is possible to shift emphasis from the former to the latter.

Eliminate seminars. They are pompous bores. Too large for discussion, only show-off places for the uninhibited.

I tend to believe that large lecture courses should not be made requirements and that students should be given reading that covers the basic work in each of these fields and allowed to acquire their knowledge through such individual effort, leaving more time open for seminars and small courses where an exchange of opinion is possible.

* Seminars with outside speakers are a common — and useless —feature of Harvard Economics Department. The speakers rarely have anything new to say, there is no continuity, and little chance for discussion (as opposed to stilted questions from the floor).

More small classes would have been desirable if the level of instruction could be kept high enough. However, I found that some of my most valuable courses were a few large lecture courses where the professor did a masterful job.

Large seminars were generally very entertaining but more solid work was accomplished in lecture courses involving smaller groups. Reading courses should only be a supplement and then only for the advanced student or Ph.D. candidate.

I believe that the introduction of case material in some lecture courses would be very helpful. This would enable the student to gain a feeling for the subject matter of the lectures and a better understanding of applications of theoretical concepts which would be of great value when he begins to undertake research.

Seminars could be excellent if small and if they were really discussions. Merely presenting a paper and then having questions asked (which I found usual) is not real discussion.

[48]

** If it were economically feasible I think I would place more emphasis on research courses and advanced seminars. Because I think graduate students ought to be encouraged to do independent research and to write more.

I found lecture courses quite valuable, and have no particular objection to them as such. This should, however, permit frequent question asking and discussion, and should therefore be kept small. Seminars, I feel, often lack focus, but are quite good as a technique of instruction.

Research courses. In my experience no specific emphasis was given to research techniques. I think the graduate student would save much time if he were given the benefit of this experience of the productive research men. Maybe that is something that is being done, or I missed it because of my part-time status.

I can see very little value in lecture courses, particularly when the lecturer, as appears to be generally true of college professors, is a poor speaker. Why should he not mimeograph his lectures? It would save everyone a great deal of time and force the professor to organize his material more thoughtfully.

As of the time I was there, I think emphasis was all right, especially considering ample freedom of student to choose. If small advanced courses have disappeared they should be resumed. Actually, I recall only one such course — a seminar not for credit, I think — which mainly derived value from attendance by students who had already completed their residence. It was extremely useful. Perhaps the “advancedness” is not too closely connected with the smallness; I think small, specialized courses, whether lecture or seminar, are especially valuable although costly in faculty time; I took a small, specialized, non-advanced course that I found very helpful.

If all graduate students had adequate undergraduate preparation, reading courses should be stressed. As for me, my background was poor and so the basic lecture courses were more useful; the most valuable part of these courses being the reading list. Seminars take up too much time, are spent throwing so much bull. In any case I can’t assimilate properly a technical paper which is read to any audience. I would rather read it silently by myself.

As I must confess that I tend to fall asleep at the end of lengthy lectures, I would favor a system in which professors would not attempt to cover everything but pick out for special attention difficult topics, or subjects which are not adequately covered in easily accessible material.

[49]

Let me answer indirectly. The purpose of the graduate program is to generate an intensive educational experience in the student, centered in a given subject-matter discipline. This must be the student’s experience and it must be primarily his responsibility to seek and achieve it. The University facilitates the search and the achievement (1) by providing an environment in which the most vigorous intellectual activity is fashionable, honored, and exciting (this Harvard does extremely well), (2) by setting and administering certain performance-evaluation procedures to inject needed discipline into the effort, and (3) by supplying various ready-access sources of information, thinking by others than the student himself, and stimulants to the student’s own thinking in the form of libraries, shoulder-rubbing with other students (who do a great deal to teach themselves collectively), and faculty services. The latter include individual counseling, what might be called the standard for emulation that is created by the faculty member who is a skilled thinker, researcher, and/or communicator, and the teaching of courses. Ideally the mode of teaching should depend upon the forte of the individual faculty member. In what form of classroom activity does he have the greatest impact? However, despite the silliness of lecture courses that are simply oral transcriptions of or substitutes for extant books, a word in defense of lectures: they are the mass medium. They enable the stimulating faculty persons who can lecture — particularly the ones who are talking books not yet in print — to have the broadest impact upon students. And the relative intellectual stimulus of the class or seminar discussion may be over-rated. Probably there is nothing more intellectually more stimulating than the frustration of being at the time unable to ask the pressing, combative questions that a good lecture should generate in the student’s mind.

Eliminate lectures on any required basis — give out standard reading list, have one lecture every two weeks, and organize maximum of small discussion groups. Because students don’t begin to learn until they have to think out answers for themselves and formulate them effectively in give-and-take discussions.

Considering size of lecture classes (100 or more students) I got more out of them than I had expected. But one can get about as much from reading the arguments and discussing them with other grad students — perhaps one “finished” lecture a week would be sufficient — A couple of good assistants could then help the professors meet with small groups of grad students for question, and discussion. Time should be allocated for this.

1. Lecture courses — These should be given by Professors whose interest was in giving and preparing good lectures rather than writing for the journals. They should not be given in narrow fields but in integrated fields which would be required for all students in a particular field.
2. Individual reading courses — Here you bring in the paper writers and the specialized subjects. I did not get much out of the seminars at Harvard. They were too big (might just as well have been lectures), the talkative fellows took up too much time. I found bull sessions much better.

[50]

19. Kind of program preferred

A. First year

	Economics
4 Classroom courses	49
3 Classroom courses and one individual course	33
2 Classroom courses and two individual courses	9
1 Classroom course and three individual courses	0
No formal courses	9
No answer	0

 

B. Second year

	Economics
4 Classroom courses	9
3 Classroom courses and one individual course	26
2 Classroom courses and two individual courses	41
1 Classroom course and three individual courses	8
No formal courses	4
No answer	12

 

20. Quality of instruction

A. Lecture courses

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Excellent	33	4	46	33
Good	41		45	39
Fair	19		19	11
Poor	2		2	0
No answer	5

B. Seminars

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Excellent	30	2	36	24
Good	35	4	47	35
Fair	18	3	27	13
Poor	4		7	1
No answer	13

[51]

26. Were there any subjects which would have been helpful to most students?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes, definitely	45	1	45	32
Yes, probably	25		30	25
No; I needed it but most students might not	9		14	9
Yes, no explanation	2
No	13		20	13
No answer	6

FREE COMMENTS Q. 26.

R Area development problems courses. Because of the peculiar conditions of Puerto Rico and the development efforts underway, as I explained above, I should have emphasized on courses in this area.

Mathematics, economics, Chinese language.

I have needed better preparation in prices of agricultural products and statistics methods.

** Math and statistics. (Mathematics and/or statistics were cited on 78 questionnaires.)

Industrial organization; statistics. It was my own mistake not to take work in the field of industrial organization. However, I think that the training in statistics and the required level of proficiency were far below what is necessary for professional work in economics.

A course demonstrating how economic theory has direct relevance to practical every day economic problems — rather than it being taught in the abstract.

Labor relations, as I explained above; and the field of marketing would have put me in better command of many highly practical tools of analysis that I find I am expected to have.

A course on the economic development of underdeveloped areas would have been especially helpful to me.

[52]

I wish I had had more mathematics, statistics and economic history.

Methodology.

I feel I should have attended other courses in the History and Social Relations Departments.

The social relations aspect of occupational choice and other “economic” decisions would be most helpful. I discussed this subject with several faculty members and grad students in the Social Relations Department. This was helpful, but a course or seminar would have been much better.

Would like to have had work in Social Psychology.

More on psychology and social psychology and Sociology.

International trade. My interests in location analysis and economic development have placed a premium on knowing this field.

Political Science theory.

The role of law as a technique of industrial control — especially anti-trust law broadly conceived. The translation economic policy objectives into public action was scarcely considered. Moreover, insufficient emphasis was given to the practical necessity of compromising conflicting goals.

The objective, comparitive and critical study of the organizational structure and actual behavior in various modern economic societies.

Research and teaching techniques.

Problems of economic development, which were touched upon in international trade. However, I feel I can go along on my own now, even without a course in it.

I should have studied the technical operations of our central banking system in greater detail.

Taxation; Business Management.

[53]

Mathematics. In general, I deplore the mathematical quasi-mechanistic direction in which economics seems to be moving. Since it is happening, however, there is little choice but to learn the language.

Management of people.

I think a formal course or seminar in scientific method in the social and physical sciences would have been extremely helpful, probably in the first year, perhaps in the second. One gradually absorbs a feeling for methodology, the logic of science, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses; but a more systematic experience with the subject might be extremely helpful. Actually, perhaps this is more important than a history of thought in one’s own field, and might compete with it as a kind of requirement.

Although it was quite clear from the world situation that one of the most important economic problems was and would be for some time the high cost of military preparedness, this problem was not given special or even significant consideration in any course work.

A better foundation in statistics, especially multiple correlation, theory of sampling. Some courses in business administration, especially business finance likewise would have been of value.

The management approach to economics, to provide a basis for improving management methods.

A couple of courses in the Law School would have been valuable in view of my subsequent work as a practitioner in my field.

Mathematics and economic theory. I am repeatedly finding myself handicapped for lack of mathematics. As I get farther away from school I find that my economic theory is more helpful and the more applied economic fields obsolete.

I did not pursue any subject excessively. I could have used a stronger background in antropology-sociology and mathematics, but I would have neither required for students generally.

Generally work in the field of political science and law.

[54]

a) In general – logic and mathematics. b) In particular – international trade. The former are essential tools and seem to me to be increasing in importance for an understanding of our diverse and complicated universe.

The current tendency in the social sciences generally, and notably in economics, is utterly to neglect history as a social science and to pretend that separate fields can be studied as entities independent of the historical culture in which they developed. This invidious tendency produces mechanics, not educated men. For my part, I would surely have given much greater emphasis to economic history and the history of economic thought, within my field, and to the social and intellectual history of the western world as an unrecognized part of my field.

Mathematics and philosophy. Disciplines are too interrelated to be studied in isolation.

(1) Mathematics. (2) Economic history. (3) Economic doctrine. Just general gaps in my preparation. In the long run mathematics is likely to be the most serious omission.

The whole field of industrial economics is taught by Mason in his course and seminar. I believe it could and should be expanded – i.e. beyond the anti-trust emphasis, etc. Perhaps more to the realm of economic growth and industrialization. I think it unfortunate that most of this work could only be gotten in economic history.

Business cycles as mentioned earlier. Perhaps I should add that this should be a rather thorough analysis of the major section of the national economy and their contribution to the GNP and interaction on other areas of business.

I should like to have pursued additional work in International Trade, Fiscal policy, and Industrial Organization as well as math. The latter should have been accomplished before graduate school. Two years was not sufficient to cover the other three.

R In retrospect, I would have benefitted from more courses in the government department, particularly State and Local relations.

Industrial organization which I did not take due to time limitations imposed by my own unusual program. Also more math and statistics.

Higher math, especially matrix algebra.

[55]

More work in applied aspects of market analysis and finance.

In my private research in fiscal policy I have encountered articles employing the concepts of symbolic logic and I can see now that some course work in symbolic logic (as well as in econometrics) at Harvard would have been helpful to me.

Mathematics. I also wish that I could have had more time for studying corporations. I had no room for that course. Human relations, especially psychology, would have been another desirable area for study.

Statistics and mathematics. Perhaps, social psychology and sociology although many of the relevant developments in these fields have occurred since 1946-1948.

Mathematics — I do not consider this a matter of real substantive importance, but it has become another requirement for professional prestige in most departments.

As my responsibilities since graduation have been primarily in a School of Business, I would prefer a program which combines the analysis of the economics department with the techniques of the Business School.

I feel that what was most lacking in the Harvard training in economics was a course that related economics to other academic disciplines, particularly ethics and the other social sciences.

Further study in industrial organization would have been helpful to me in my present position. Also somewhat greater emphasis on economic forecasting would have been to my advantage. This, however, was not serious, and I think it need not be for any student who gets a good grounding in economic theory.

* I think all students can benefit from “Business Cycles” and “Money and Banking.” Fortunately, I had the latter and obtained some business cycle theory in courses on economic theory.

How to teach. We were taught nothing formally on this subject. We did learn by observing our professors, but things look different through the eyes of a student and of a professor.

[56]

30. Was there encouragement and opportunity to take courses in

A. Other areas in own dept

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	66
No	20	1	20	9
No answer	14

B. Other departments

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	25
No	59	1	59	33
No answer	16

C. Other faculties (e.g. Law)

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	17
No	62		64	56
No answer	21

D. Neighboring institutions (e.g. M.I.T.)

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	14
No	59		66	59
No answer	27

31. & 32. Attitude of department toward “outside” courses. Elaboration of Q. 30.

FREE COMMENTS Q. 31. & 32.

My problem here was of my own making. So intent was I on fulfilling the requirements most efficiently and expeditiously that I did not allow myself to consider “outside” courses, even though, in retrospect, I should otherwise have enjoyed them and found them useful.

Considered a definite watering down of the serious study required to become an economist. Was specifically discouraged from formal work in Social Relations Department by faculty member and by then Chairman of Department of Economics.

[57]

The big difficulty is lack of time. I see no way to include more outside courses without spending a longer time at graduate school, however desirable more courses would be.

Somewhat askance when I offered a government field, but no difficulty or questioning occurred as a result of my exercise of the option of presenting one field from outside the department.

When I was a graduate student there was considerable effort to discourage this. The attitude was that a student interested in inter-disciplinary study should be in one of the inter-departmental committees permitting this. I felt and still feel that this is a major weakness as there is considerable room for a major emphasis in a given discipline and the status that goes with it while yet allowing some outside training. It was felt that it took full-time work to produce an economist, and, moreover that outside courses tend to dilute one’s interest and performance in the discipline.

I would have liked to take some sociology, but two years of course work and one summer simply didn’t allow time. This was the attitude of my department, and I’m inclined to agree with them. I had no desire to take courses at M.I.T. or in the Law school, so don’t know about attitudes on that.

No encouragement or interest is offered on the part of the faculty to go outside the department. However, they allow it if you really want to. There is a great (and unfortunate) split between the Economists at the Graduate School and the faculty at the Business School.

My personal impression was that the department I was in was not interested in having its students enroll in courses in other departments, with the possible exception of mathematics.

The issue has not come up, except in one instance where I was encouraged, at my suggestion, to audit a course at the Business School.

I had chosen on purpose to concentrate on Economics, although some suggestions were made to the effect that I follow courses in Government and Sociology.

There was no particular department attitude. Information on the value of such outside takings was lacking, and there was no one I felt like going to for discussions on this problem. There is a real need for the graduate student to have an advisor during the time when he is taking courses. When I went in to get my schedule signed, I had my choice fairly well rationalized. There is need for someone to probe to see if the student has

[58]

completed enough information to make a wise choice of courses. There was a tendency to permit graduate students to take preliminary examinations just as soon as they have satisfied the minimum requirements. Actually, I could have stayed longer if I had been pressed.

I took courses in another department by extending my stay at Harvard — my major Professor recommended that I do so. It was treated as an extra-curricular activity on my part.

Amused indifference.

I would like to have taken a course or two in the Business School and the Law School but there was no regular procedure for this.

GSPA specifically organized seminars including other facilities. The one I attended was the only good seminar I experienced at Harvard. My criticism is only inadequate time to take advantage of the opportunities available.

I received the impression that it was necessary to have the ultimate preparation for the general examination in order to obtain the highest grades not only in these examinations but also in courses. These implied requirements discouraged “outside” courses.

Given the requirements, there was little time, whatever the department’s attitude. In some areas, given special interests (math, for instance) there was a reasonable amount of encouragement.

There was opposition to my taking a course in International Relations in the Department of Government. As I look back, I feel this attitude was justified, for what I most needed then was intensive, systematic courses in my own field.

The advisors seem to take too much liberty in controlling all the courses included in the curriculum. On the whole the direction given was good, but some latitude should be given to the student in the form of free choice options.

I don’t think there was an attitude. There was opportunity but no encouragement. I’m not sure there should have been encouragement. It’s hard enough to cover the minimum requirement in economics in two years or so of residence. The law school connection is an exception, perhaps, but there was a little encouragement there, or at least contact. Of course, for the related field of government, Littauer arrangement made such connections easy.

[59]

Discourage “outside” courses — the general field of economics being too large to learn adequately in the normal time period.

The school of economics was a self-sufficient world of its own and so did not notice that the Business School might offer anything of interest.

I believe that opportunity technically existed for outside work, but one professor discouraged the venture. In truth, he believed in the merits of an outside field, but he warned me that others (either in the outside department or in economics) might cause me difficulty on the preliminary examination.

An unnecessary suspicion of Social Relations — otherwise good.

[60]

FORMAL LECTURE COURSES

17. Emphasis on formal courses for credit

A. First year

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Not enough emphasis	2		7	1
About right	86	1	86	75
Too much emphasis	10		17	10
No answer	2

B. Second year

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Not enough emphasis	0		5	0
About right	64	2	72	60
Too much emphasis	28		28	22
No answer	8

18. Would have been better off with less formal course responsibility

A. First year

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	8		17	8
No	55	1	55	39
No, I had plenty of freedom	33	3	40	25
No answer	4

B. Second year

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	22		24	22
No	31	1	31	16
No, I had plenty of freedom	41	3	53	39
No answer	6

[61]

SEMINARS

21. Number of seminars taken at Harvard

	Economics
1 seminar for credit 1st & 2nd year	12
1 seminar for credit 1st year only	11
1 seminar for credit 2nd year only	17
2 or more seminars for credit 1st and 2nd year	8
2 or more seminars for credit 1st year only	5
2 or more seminars for credit 2nd year only	6
No seminars for credit both years	25
1 for credit 1st year, 2 or more 2nd year	5
2 or more for credit 1st year, 1 2nd year	0
No answer	11

22. Number of seminars preferred.

A. First year

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
More	15		21	14
Fewer	6		13	6
Same as I had	61	2	68	50
No answer	18

B. Second year

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
More	29	2	36	16
Fewer	4		10	4
Same as I had	48	2	58	45
No answer	19

23. Any seminars exceptionally helpful

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	53	4	69	53
No	31
No answer	16

[62]

FREE COMMENTS Q. 23.

The seminars were interesting, but not particularly helpful. One exception however: just before our general exams, the faculty organized discussion groups where we talked over theory and other matters. The question and answer method was exciting and educational, and in addition I got to know some members of the faculty well. This is the sort of advanced bull session (among about 8 students and 1 faculty member) which should be encouraged. It was not coaching either.

Professor Slichter’s seminars because they drew on the experience of usually well-selected and well-prepared outsiders and introduced diversity and specialized knowledge.

One seminar — with Leontief — was on the right track. I think it was called Ec 209 and was supposed to be a course.

The one Prof. Hansen scheduled was basically “open house” to passing VIPs in economics. What was lacking in unity was made up in other ways. Mason’s seminar (industrial orgn.) was always helpful. It provided the students a chance to defend a paper. The typical “test” of a student’s progress was written. Yet, in the generals the big test was oral. Many who had demonstrated an ability to “write” failed miserably at defending an argument orally.

O.H. Taylor’s seminar on history of economic thought and W.Y. Elliott on contemporary political thought. The groups were small and informally conducted, with stimulating leadership. They were of most use to me in strengthening the philosophical foundations of my subsequent study and work in political economy and in drawing my interest into nearer channels in post-doctoral work.

Industrial Organization Seminar was based on results of research done by individual students. This technique as well as their findings were instructive.

* Seminar in economic history: a paper presented by each student with criticism by professor and discussion among students. This procedure parallels the practice followed in much research work which one does in later life. Experience rather than the material discussed was valuable.

** Dr. Black, Agricultural Economics, seminar was especially good for the class of outside lecture leaders he brought in and his relentless frankness in forcing them to admit error, be frank, use less hokum in their discussions.

[63]

Dean E.S. Mason is a master at running a seminar. One student had the assignment of preparing and delivering a paper while the remaining students were free to interrupt the delivery (within limits) to ask questions or to challenge facts and conclusions. Dean Mason kept the questioning under control, skillfully preventing discussions from becoming irrelevant and too time-consuming. Dean Mason had an excellent ability to get to the heart of the controversy by summarizing the points at issue. Time was thus economized and the papers were completed, while all students experienced a state of intellectual ferment during the seminar.

The two best seminars each were given by two of the most outstanding scholars in their respective fields. These men did not hesitate to challenge each other and to take different positions on topics under discussion. This made the students think for themselves and to develop a critical ability that would not have resulted in other circumstances. The first seminar was given by Professors Schumpeter and Haberler (on business cycles).

Professor Schumpeter’s seminar in Business Cycles was particularly interesting. The personality and encyclopedic knowledge of the professor contributed greatly to make it so. In addition the seminar was small (half a dozen students) and the discussion was very open and informal.

Seminar in collective bargaining; Profs. Slichter and Dunlop schedule some of the top people in the labor field to participate. The continuation of the discussion at the Faculty Club was very stimulating and frequently brought out important points that would not have been mentioned in a “classroom” meeting.

Seminar by Fainsod on Public Administration — Definite readings, excellent penetrating questions, all participating (no one allowed to run away with the discussion). Seminar by Dr. Black on Conservation — same as above.

Large group of practical unionists and executives provided useful contacts in my special field.

Fiscal policy — caliber of men conducting seminar was most important factor.

The “labor” seminar, which made a substantial contribution to my general breadth of education in labor economics and policy.

[64]

The general Economics Seminar was very helpful in broadening my understanding of some current economic problems and in clarifying the differences in viewpoint and methodology of some of the leading economists of the day.

The seminar in fiscal policy (Hansen and Williams) was excellent both because of the quality of the professors handling it and leading the discussion, and because of the quality of the outside speakers brought in; the seminar in international financial problems (conducted by Williams) was small and gave the maximum opportunity for thoughtful and quiet discussion between professor and students as to the problems raised by the various papers presented.

National authorities in money and banking, and government finance, occasionally appeared. Student research papers were read and criticized by the instructor and class. We were encouraged to treat the whole field of economics as considerably less than a tin God.

The various economics seminars were especially useful in bringing to Harvard outstanding economists from universities, government, and industry. These men are very stimulating and help to round out graduate training in economics.

R A joint seminar in Labor Law with students and professors from both the economics department and the law school. In view of the growing importance of inter-disciplinary approaches, experience in delineating the difference in approaching questions consequent to differences in training appears to be of particular importance. Essentially, the first two months of the course were spent trying to decide which to ask first, “What should the law be?” à la the economists, or “What is the law?” à la the law students. I also enjoyed the Collective Bargaining seminar in which guest speakers appeared from the Unions and Management.

** Hansen-Williams fiscal policy seminar: really more a series of great lectures than a seminar, but useful anyway. The two professors made a splendid team. Mason (E.S.) Industrial Organization: something more of a seminar, though again heavily weighted with guest lectures, though interesting ones — main virtue: it was about the only contact I had with my thesis director, and while not especially personal it did convey a clear impression of his views on the subject.

Fiscal policy seminar of value because of outside speakers, discussion, writing of paper — a valuable experience — and comments of Professors Hansen and Williams.

[65]

Seminar in Collective Bargaining: outstanding speakers plus the opportunity to meet with them for discussion provided many new insights, useful research contacts, and supplementary information not available in textbooks.

1. The program of the seminar and major themes were described at the outset. The participants were encouraged to come prepared; in each participant had to prepare a paper which was the main subject matter of the discussion at each seminar. 2. The conduct of the seminar was systematic and participants were encouraged to ask questions and participate in discussion which was not monopolized by the chairman. 3. The chairman summarized the whole discussion showing its relationship to past and future topics and the main theme.

The fiscal policy seminar (in my first year) was especially useful because it has always been a forum for visiting and local brilliance — however, to exploit this one need not have taken it for credit nor need it have been organized as a seminar — in fact, there were frequently well over 100 persons present. The constitutional law seminar was a wonderful experience, due to the lucidity of the instructor and the uniformly high quality of the student reports (this was in 1948).

During my first year I audited a seminar in Transportation (Ec 266) which I thought was very helpful to me. A number of outside authorities were brought in to discuss issues from their different points of view. Also participating in this seminar were representatives of the Law School and Business School as well as economists, who in my opinion contributed a great deal. When there were opportunities to follow the seminar with discussion at dinner I feel that students gained a great deal through this added informal discussion. One reason this seminar was particularly outstanding for me was that my thesis topic was in the area of transportation. But aside from this, I considered it a very successful one.

Leontief’s theory seminar. Papers were addressed to actual uses of econometric techniques and discussion was excellent. Mann’s seminar similar.

A seminar which I took as an undergraduate was particularly useful to me, in that the work consisted in the formulation of a theory of consumer demand, and the application of this theory to data on meat prices and consumption. This work was done in class, so that the issues involved could be discussed jointly with the instructor. It combined (1) theoretical analysis, (2) quantitative analysis, and (3) collaboration between teacher and student of the sort which theoretically takes place over term papers and thesis. The typical divorce between “course” and “paper” was avoided here.

[66]

R Some of the ones conducted by Black and Galbraith asked 20-25 students most interested in topic to dinner at Faculty Club and then we returned to a small class room for another 2 to 3 hours discussion.

The first seminar session was devoted to an orientation to the field by E.S. Mason. Thereafter, each person presented a paper. Dean Mason’s inspiring leadership was much the dominating reason for its success. His criticism drove the students to greater curiosity and work.

** Dr. Edward Mason — Industrial Organization. 6 weeks of lecture by Mason, then research papers presented by members. Mason is a fine teacher and a great stimulator.

The topics presented dealt with controversial questions in monetary and fiscal policy (Hansen and Williams); each student presented a paper based on research — and applying the theoretical concepts developed in lectures and reading courses. This seminar was particularly useful to me because: (1) it was my first exposure to applied economics at an advanced level; (2) since the seminars were attended by distinguished faculty members (sometimes from other institutions) and the ablest students, the discussion was penetrating and stimulating; (3) the utility and the limitation of theoretical analysis in the study of questions in public policy were fairly demonstrated.

I thought Usher, Mason, Hansen gave seminars that were really fine. On the whole, I would say in retrospect that the Mason seminar was ideal and I’ll always regret not having taken it for credit — i.e. not preparing a paper, etc.

If they were systematic, they degenerated into glorified lecture courses; if they were unsystematic, they degenerated into kaleidoscopes of ideas. It always seemed to me theoretically possible to plan a seminar so that it was not only systematic but also called on the best talent from outside and within the faculty and yet permitted freedom for thoughtful consideration of major problems — but I never attended one that would have met these criteria.

Seminar provided an opportunity to hear prominent speakers talk on current topics. We sometimes had the feeling that we were being given the “inside story” or were being told about research that was still “confidential.”

I found particularly useful the seminars on price policy in which stress was laid on the real problems for which solutions were being sought.

[67]

I have found Economics 284 — the seminar on collective bargaining — particularly helpful in the past — residential and post-doctoral sense. Indeed, I have attended it now for many years! It is lead by an outstanding speaker — from labor, industry, or government — who presents his subject, usually in an hour. It is followed by discussion from the member of the seminar and guests who represent labor, management, and academic points of view.

It was through seminars that I was able to establish a working relation with several members of the faculty. The principle weakness of many seminars at Harvard is too many visiting professors, which limit the student’s active role.

A seminar, not for credit, by invitation of the instructor or by his permission if one asked admittance, peopled by second, third, and fourth year students and some young faculty, mainly devoted to the current research of the students but involving some organized presentations by the instructor, highly theoretical in nature, and enjoying the member of the faculty who was perhaps most talented in this sort of thing and an outstanding economist as well. One really felt he was participating in adult research and discussion. Also a student-organized seminar, meeting outside the classrooms, with some young faculty in attendance, by self-appointment and invitation, was extremely useful though perhaps less socially desirable than the other. (From the point of view of the entire student body.)

Prof. Fainsod’s seminar in public administration — and public policy — Despite its size he rather effectively welded the various social sciences.

The Labor seminar (Slichter) was carefully worked out. An outside speaker was used, primarily as a means to suggest questions and a stimulus to discussion. The professor had apparently carefully thought over a number of fundamental questions. These served to start the discussion; there was no emphasis on the lecture as such. The man was brought in to provide a spring board for discussion. I suspect the Professor was getting some of his field work done without having to go into the field. The men brought in were experts on their subjects — the best obtainable. They had their brains picked thoroughly by the end of the evening.

24. Any seminars not especially helpful?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	30	4	57	30
No	49
No answer	21

[68]

FREE COMMENTS Q. 24. & 25.
[Note: no table or explicit Q. 25 was included]

In some of the seminars, the leaders were not enough conscious during the discussion that the audience was not composed only of individuals of similar religion, attitudes and culture. Such a behavior on the part of the leader was in many instances unnecessary and could have been avoided without impairing the academic value of the discussion.

Were too large for much individual participation by less aggressive students.

R Sometimes the professor did not try to stimulate discussion but conducted seminar as a lecture course.

In my fifth year. Profs. were interested more in students’ papers which would serve as basis for their articles than in a free inquiry. Also rather superior attitude toward students’ views.

I feel that seminars can be overdone. They can’t entirely replace lecture courses. Moreover, seminars must be rather carefully planned or they will drag, and if existing authorities aren’t carefully selected, there is danger of a great deal of duplication and lack of balance.

Wider participation by advanced students in presenting preliminary thesis results, along the lines of Chicago’s “workshops” would be a possibility.

The term papers could be the most useful part of the seminars. In my experience, however, they were not. Perhaps they should be on a single, assigned subject, for this way the teacher can integrate the paper with the rest of the course work. It seemed to me that papers in fact led to a dissipation of attention and interest, spreading things too thin to provide useful mental discipline.

R The large ones of 100 to 125 students tended to be poor lecture courses. More material could have been covered more interestingly and more effectively in these large groups in some other way. Some of the dullest hours I ever spent were in Harvard seminars.

Seminars related to “policy” matters. Only a few in the Civil Service are on a policy level. I am not one of them.

[69]

Two or three senior faculty members conducted the seminar and usually outside speakers with important status in the profession performed. This led to complete faculty domination and suppression of student participation. Smaller seminars; faculty participation as guides, as unobstrusively as possible, to creative activity and discussion by students.

Papers presented by graduate students were, in my time, uneven in quality. Some pre-seminar discussion with the profess-in-charge [sic], or his assistant, while adding another burden for the faculty member, would have shown the students how to maximize the results of their own efforts.

* Small as possible — let students do the work (and most of the talking).

I believe that the professor in charge should have a genuine “fellow researcher” relationship with his graduate students.

Plan them as real discussion and report groups. On the basis of student interests, make an ad hoc schedule of student reports and readings relevant to them.

Hopeless. Possibly have small groups of fine, first term, under junior faculty members, and competition to be chosen for a select group under a senior professor.

Consisted almost entirely of outside guest lecturers. Question periods were provided. Not enough continuity of content nor enough student-professor exchange of ideas. Papers required but never read to group. Should be restricted to a dozen or so students for maximum benefit.

** Seminars should be kept small and visiting firemen should be kept to a minimum; should give students a maximum of opportunity to prepare and present their papers. Too much unrehearsed “off the top of their head” discussion among faculty members and visiting outside pros.

They largely consisted of importing some big names from Washington to talk to subjects they were associated with. They were interesting as entertainment but scarcely more than that.

When led by the professor, the subject matter was poorly prepared. When based on student papers, the discussion was inefficient; the British system wherein a defending and an opposing critic receive the paper in advance and prepare, partly in consultation, comments is much more useful. When a collection of students who are still inferior economists feel compelled to make off-the-cuff comments on topics they have just met for the first time, no one profits much.

[70]

Most of the meeting consisted of papers by guests. Frequently they were “men of wisdom” who said nothing of particular value. The discussion that followed would be dominated by the faculty. This was interesting but it should not be considered a course. At the end of or following two years of graduate work a student may be competent to participate in a seminar on a subject. A seminar should facilitate exchange of ideas by people who are doing significant work in the field. It should not be a fancy word for a small class that has no organization or purpose.

There were too many visiting speakers whose talks were not coordinated with the sessions conducted by the regular instructors. In general, it was poorly organized and they were too big. Inviting outside speakers is fine, but they should, for the most part, hold forth outside of regular class hours to enable all economic students to attend.

More intensive program for students to write papers. More papers — shorter — discussed each time in seminar.

They were not useful because they were not organized. They were not really seminars. There was too much personal reminiscing on the part of the instructor, too little preparation and participation on the part of students. Better organization, preparation, guidance on part of instructors; more careful selection of visiting speakers; more deliberate use of seminars as the place and opportunity for student to develop critical and searching and questioning attitudes.

The seminars I knew about tended to lack focus and direction. They provided an opportunity to practice research, however, and to engage in valuable discussions.

Invite more guest lecturers of the highest ability.

Students read papers. The presentation was too formal (I suspect because of the size of the seminar). Usually, the student spent 1½ hours on background, primarily because he feared he could not hold forth for 2 hours. Reduce their size, with consequently more active participation by the professor and students. Do not allow auditors.

R Give more of them, with fewer students per seminar. I don’t think the greatest scholars necessarily make the best teachers — perhaps it would help to hire more professors primarily as teachers.

[71]

They might be better if three or four people gave five-minute papers, instead of one person giving a half-hour paper. The problem, I think, is to have a number of members read the same literature as preparation.

First, I do not like this form of instruction. Second, in one seminar the students were not sufficiently prepared in general to take full advantage of the course. Third, in another the professors or talkative students took up too much of the time. Fourth, all seminars seem much too large. Cut them down in size or eliminate them. Otherwise convert them into lectures of a topical nature or use them to present guest lecturers.

Mostly student papers. Most people benefitted only from their own work. Little useful criticism.

[72]

TERM PAPERS

62. Number of term papers assigned

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
About right	59	4	87	59
Excessive	1		5	1
Too small	32	1	32	2
No answer	8

63. Which were more useful

	Economics
Term papers	28
Course examinations	41
Both	0
No answer	31

FREE COMMENTS Q. 62. & 63.

Believe that the standards for term papers were insufficiently high. More self-discipline and rigorous preparation required for the examinations.

** Very few were assigned. This is a good teaching device and it is not used at all in many major courses.

I think a large number of short papers is best, if the papers receive careful attention and are worked over intensively, with redrafting following instructor’s comments, etc. One-way transmission of papers is of limited usefulness, though perhaps I exaggerate the need for student-teacher interaction on the paper work. I think course examinations are quite essential for most people in providing an incentive and a common interest among students. As an academic person I should perhaps be thought capable of learning without the mechanical incentive of rewards, recognitions, punishments, etc.; but I was not, then, and I sometimes wish now that there were exams ahead of me to give me reason to devour particular subjects.

This is good preparation and should be encouraged. My term papers were too few to do me much good. Course examinations have at least the merit of forcing a review and summarization of material covered, which helps the student to retain it.

[73]

Term papers provide research experience and writing experience but are usually so specialized that their exclusive use would be too narrowing. Exams necessary to assure breadth of learning.

Throughout the questionnaire I have emphasized the lack of such individual creative activity in my training. I welcomed each infrequent opportunity and found them very helpful. Each graduate course should require at least one to force the student to evaluate what he has learned. Course examinations seldom teach anything to the serious student. The type of questions asked require little imagination and evaluation. They do not effectively promote application of knowledge to a specific problem.

With only four courses on a student’s program, there is room for more written work. I would prefer to see a term paper replace the reading period assignment.

The emphasis on course examinations for graduate students overdone — i.e. midyears, mid semester and even weekly exams — the exam for a course which both forces student to organize his thinking and material sufficient for student and faculty to test his skill and understanding.

Term papers supplied experience in application of course work, stimulated thinking, and provided practice in writing. I remember my papers, certain had ideas which I believe are worth developing further and recall the point of the entire course. Examinations can be passed by knack, or luck, as well as diligence.

However, more short, staccato, quick-deadline assignments — not on the model of “homework” but in the manner of the quickie memoranda which an economist in a staff position so often has to hustle into shape — would have enriched the training.

I doubt if I wrote five in my two years of course work at Harvard, although term papers are the only possible way of (a) testing a student’s ability to relate intelligently the various aspects of his training and (b) teaching a student at least a little about language as a tool essential to his trade. It is not a graduate school’s job to teach English Composition, but they ought at least to have some confidence in the ability of their graduates to make themselves understood before turning them out on a deafened world. And practice in this matter really does help, if papers are thoughtfully criticized.

The “course paper” is too formal and lifeless an institution. Better spend time in more reading and in some real research than in papers on books and “topics.”

[74]

R I think group research projects would be good training, even better than individual term papers.

Course exams are “quick-cram, quick forget” and are antithetical to deep thinking. Term papers make one think, search out information, penetrate, finally understand, and feel pleased with the result. And one never forgets.

More writing should have been required. Perhaps less “research” papers and more “thought” papers. Despite the waste of time, as described above, I must say the pre-exam boning up often gave me the best overview of the field I had all term.

As I had already a good training in writing papers, the benefit to me of term papers was only in terms of the content which I then could learn to master more properly. According to my experience, on the whole, term papers when not too numerous are beneficial although time-consuming. It is crucial to write many papers before trying to write a Ph.D. dissertation. I consider both as having been complimentary to my training. Course examinations permitted me to rate myself in relation to other students. Term papers permitted me to judge personally of my own ability.

I favor several short papers over a few long papers, the latter being the sort of term work we were assigned. Both, I think, have their place. I would like to see term work given a more prominent place in the final grade assigned, however. I feel about course exams much as I feel about the orals — anything that will spread the risk will be (a) a more accurate assessment and (b) more humane.

Term papers tend to be too narrow — absorbing time better devoted to more comprehensive study.

At the time I was doing my graduate work, I would probably have regretted the need to do more term papers, because of the time pressure. From my present vantage point, I think more would have been invaluable.

Term papers are necessary in training the student in research techniques. I suggest that the readers of these papers examine them not only for content but also for the techniques employed. Where deficiencies of technique are discovered, some remedial training might be in order.

Wrong kind. Usually a set book or two to read and write about. Very dull.

[75]

Term papers should be more useful. In practice, however, they did not seem to be, because there was not adequate supervision of the subjects chosen or of the preparation itself. Perhaps there cannot be. I always found that my own interests led me away from the instructor’s argument. If so, he should have insisted more on the merits of his approach if he were to be helpful to me. (Of course he was too busy.)

American students are over-examined. Exams encourage tabulated information, not critical and creative thought.

Much of the benefit of graduate work comes from what you read. Course examinations and the assignments upon which they are based provided a systematic incentive for reading a large part of the basic literature in my field.

Examinations, unfortunately, are necessary to stimulate learning that “last ounce.” I think term papers useful for facilitating expression.

R In the economics department one could get to the thesis stage without ever being required to prepare a paper. I think thesis-writing would be made easier if there was prior training in writing course papers.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

ECONOMICS
Section 2

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

[76]

VI. PREPARATION FOR TEACHING

28. Evaluation of training in preparation for teaching vs. research

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Proper balance	36		36	29
Better for research than for teaching	22	4	56	22
Better for teaching than for research	28	1	28	6
Not too good preparation for either	8		10	3
No answer	6

FREE COMMENTS Q. 29 [sic].

(Better preparation for teaching than for research)
Perhaps Harvard could reciprocate with some other institutions well equipped in certain fields to more closely supervise the research project of students. Many of Harvard Professors act too busy with own research and book writing to help students in early research methods — especially helpful in giving them other viewpoints.

Graduate schools in economics simply are not set up to give students proper guidance in research methods. For the student favoring research you might think of assigning him to an organized research project for a period of time as a substitute for the thesis. A special course in research methods in the social sciences might help.

(Better for teaching then for research)
Use term papers as minor investigations with individual tutoring.

To prepare students for thesis work and other research, it would be useful, indeed, to have some lecture courses or seminars on research techniques.

Too few research papers were required in any economics education, and too little attention was devoted to sources and quality of data on which the research economist must rely. Prior to the time of my doctoral thesis, I do believe I received more research training at Swarthmore College than at Harvard.

[77]

A course (half) on research methods and made compulsory though not part of the course requirements might be established. This course might be integrated with the field that the candidate elects for his thesis. I don’t believe it is the objective of a graduate faculty in a specific discipline to prepare candidates for teaching.

Explicit time allowed for seminars in research and techniques of teaching.

Encourage mr require students to perform small pieces of independent research, and to write up the results. I don’t think there ought to be any special preparation for teaching.

I have a very strong impression that Harvard operated on the assumption that it could teach a student something about how to teach, and how to do extension work, but that the only way to learn to do research was to jump in and start paddling. Needed: (1) one or two good courses in research methodology and (2) more help from thesis supervisor in organizing and conducting thesis research.

My failure to get teaching experience was largely my own fault — I was in too great a hurry to get the Ph.D. Better announcement of what opportunities to get teaching experience are open would help. It’s still handled too casually and informally.

The emphasis placed on theory and examinations indicates, to my mind, a bias in favor of teaching vs. research. Perhaps if more importance were given to applied economics and to term papers, the imbalance might be partly corrected.

Give more training in research methods, especially statistics, and require more research of the scope of a seminar paper.

A very tough question. Certainly Harvard should not offer a course in teaching, because this time should be spent in other courses with content; perhaps nothing should be done. One or two off-the-cuff suggestions: let each man take a section of Ec 1 for an hour (if he wishes) and have some able teacher criticize his technique. But this presumes an able teacher can be agreed upon. Better just give each man a copy of Highet’s Art of Teaching and let it go at that!

R I never did any research at Harvard before I wrote my thesis. I had had good undergraduate training so this didn’t matter, but I think that far more of the course work should involve short research papers, so that candidates would have some practice before launching on a really big project.

[78]

Recognize, very explicitly, that the function of a university in our society is not merely to advance the frontiers of knowledge through research, but to produce whole men who understand something about the civilization and culture in which they live. Develop an orientation of il graduate prosta [perhaps an image of “the prostrate graduate”, beaten into submission, in meant here, ILC] which will produce teachers, not “scholars” who teach as an added and sometimes painful duty. Recognize that faculty men who can truly instruct the young are more valuable than so-called scholars whose work rarely lives beyond them.

Place more emphasis on applied courses using as a basis the kinds of research done by economists in government and business – techniques as well as substance.

I am not quite sure what could be done. I reject the education emphasis on “How to teach,” and yet I am not satisfied with the exclusive emphasis on content. I believe that the really great teachers are born and not made. Schumpeter was an outstanding example of this.

I don’t think the imbalance was serious in my case. I would rather see primary emphasis given to research in a graduate program. Would I have desired to take the time in my graduate program to take or apply for a teaching assistantship for a year, this would have been satisfactory from the standpoint of giving me teaching experience. As it was, I was able to enroll in a short teacher-training course at Radcliffe that I felt was very helpful to me.

More seminars with research and the preparation and presentation of research reports would be desirable.

Provide better instruction and give better supervision to students attempting research. This is time consuming and tedious work for faculty members, and probably it is unrealistic to expect that faculty members will devote the necessary time and effort required for teaching individual students in view of the stress on productive research as a measure of achievement in our modern educational system.

Encourage, or preferably require, participation of students in an organized and supervised research project.

R The Harvard-Radcliffe College teacher training course should be expanded and be given credit status. The course, however, should be optional.

Provide teaching experience for the interested — teaching at present is open to those who receive fellowships not necessarily on the basis of teaching experience.

[79]

Broader exposure through lectures and readings to research methods applicable in the social sciences. Require undergraduate math and atatistics courses, to be taken by undergrads, or made up by grads before admission to regular status. Permit more teaching by graduate students, attend the Radcliffe lectures on teaching at college level. Arrange on the job training in industry — provides money and practical slant.

R There should be more emphasis in economics on empirical research and research methods. Emphasis is primarily on theory and students are encouraged to think up small refinements in what is already a very intricate and abstract theoretical system — which is badly out of touch with reality. Training in theory is valuable, but is over-emphasized at the expense of research methods and empirical orientation.

I’m more interested in teaching, therefore I thought the balance was satisfactory.

More writing of papers in courses and less exams. Make required at least one seminar — in the second year as a preparation for thesis (though the paper written need not be a basis for the thesis).

R Please do not try to prepare Ph.D.’s for teaching. If a teacher really knows and likes his subject he will communicate more effectively to those students who want to learn than if he were primed with all the pedagogical theory in the world. If there is one factor which has done more than any other to lower the standards of our public schools it is the “teachers college” with its emphasis on methodology.

I was preparing for research primarily — I got what I wanted. Those preparing for teaching would want to balance with some training in teaching methods. One great lack on the part of many is the ability to write and speak effectively — to communicate. Researchers, especially, need to learn how to write.

Although preparation for teaching was better than for research, still more should be done on teaching techniques so that prospective teachers not only know subject matter but can put it across. In my days inadequate time was spent on statistical sources and research methods.

Harvard should set up an internship for teaching experience. I feel strongly that no Ph.D. should be awarded without at least one full year’s experience at teaching the Ec. A. course. I believe this would be a most valuable addition to present requirements.

** Institute more small courses with emphasis on individual work.

[80]

Require papers in all but a few of the basic courses. More emphasis on practice in research both for courses and in the Economics Club.

As noted in many other of my answers, much more should be done to promote small group discussion. Speaking and quick thinking in mutual discussion are vital for good teaching, and no special effort seemed to be made to develop these abilities.

R I would consider that better preparation for teaching than research is a good thing, since that is what I wanted. However, even in the work for my thesis I could have used some training in research methods.

I’m not sure that the imbalance should be changed. I think that in economics at least there is no real difficulty in quickly adapting to a research career, even if previous training has emphasized teaching. The contrary is not true — the familiarity with the classic literature needed to teach is best acquired when a graduate student. Moreover, Harvard ought to continue to be the standard for all other schools, in training college teachers of economics.

** Possibly more emphasis on research methodology in general.

I don’t know. Possibly give greater opportunity for student presentation to class. This would sharpen “stage presence” as well as knowledge of subject. Place some premium on conciseness, clarify of exposition in these presentations. Have students speak before local civic groups and present problems in terms these lay groups can readily grasp. But these are technical points only — real solutions lie in the area of an “atmosphere for teaching” plus economic recognition of teaching!

As emphasized earlier; more opportunity for expression in both written and oral form. Seminars are particularly helpful to put the student in search of feasible research subjects on present frontiers of knowledge in the discipline.

37. Experience at Harvard (other than subject matter) affording training in college teaching.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	43
A little	9
No	45	1	45	25
No answer	3

[81]

59. Time employed as Teaching Fellow or Research Assistant.

	Economics
None	57
1 year ½ time or over	5
2 years ½ time OR over	12
3 years ½ time or over	6
4 years ½ time or over	2
More than 5 years ½ time or over	0
No ½ time but 1-3 years less than ⅓ time	18
No ½ time but over 3 years less than ½ time	0
No answer	0

60. Educational value of such work during

A. Graduate training

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Indispensable	10		14	10
Useful	26		18	11
Not especially useful	12		18	11
No answer	52

B. Later post-doctoral research

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Indispensable	6	2	19	4
Useful	15	3	22	9
Not especially useful	25	2	40	22
No answer	54

C. Later post-doctoral teaching

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Indispensable	10		18	10
Useful	20	3	36	20
Not especially useful	9		11	4
No answer	61

61. If such work was indispensable, for what length of time should a grad student teach?

A. Number of years

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
1 year	15		15	11
2 years	22	4	36	22
3 years	2		4	2
4 years	1		2	1
No answer	60

[82]

B. Fraction of time

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
1/5 time	14		21	14
1/2 time	23	3	35	19
3/4 time	1		2	1
No answer	62

FREE COMMENTS Q. 60. & 61.

I believe I have expressed my feelings above on the importance of teaching experience. I do not think a high pay or even any pay is necessary. One course of teaching each semester could be part of the required training — no pay necessary. Financial assistance would be determined on other grounds.

Supervision was good, attitude of senior faculty was excellent.

Beginners in teaching need some coaching from experienced faculty members. Deserve higher pay.

A good way to subsidize graduate students. Also helps students to communicate.

Insufficient supervision.

I had the fortunate opportunity to teach and assist in administering courses under a man who had considered all the problems of preparation and teaching down to the most minute detail. This together with previous teaching experience gave me the best obtainable background and actual experience necessary for teaching.

They could benefit from more contact with senior faculty on semi-official department sessions. Imperative: more respect and credit for tutorial work.

I believe a small amount of teaching ought to be spread widely. Also, the rule that teaching fellows cannot hold other employment ought to be changed. This rule was invoked against me after my thesis was approved on the grounds that it would delay my Ph.D. (I had 1/4  time at the time) (and a pregnant wife).

[83]

Two years at ½ time gives all the training which is essential. Longer time can be easily increased to full-time. Best to limit the time allowed for Teaching Fellowships for man over 26.

No help received. Pay: very generous. Attitude of senior faculty: there were a couple of dinners at which an honest but feeble effort was made to create an atmosphere of family unity. I give the department “A” for effort but not on achievement.

My teaching fellowship was in Accounting and Statistics and my work was confined to running lab sections. The work was menial and not a challenge intellectually.

The demands on my time were not great and I did enjoy the contact it afforded with two professors.

I was employed primarily as a laboratory assistant and did not teach any courses at Harvard which I taught later as other institutions.

Could Harvard make arrangements for graduate students to teach in other institutions (e.g. Brandeis, Northeastern, B.U., Tufts) since no doubt it cannot accomodate all graduate students in Teaching Fellowships at Harvard?

Lighten the teaching load to one section.

A wonderful way for good students to get teaching experience and help them financially. The greatest help the fellowship had given me was in the contact it established with other fellows and the permanent faculty.

Opportunities for employment as teaching fellows should be better publicized and appointments made by some generally known and formalized procedure.

Teaching elementary economics is good discipline for a graduate student. It helped me considerably to clarify my thinking.

Just a job without supervision or training, just one criticism at end of year.

[84]

I learned economics by teaching it and I also learned to teach. Very valuable in both respects to have been a teaching fellow.

The courses I taught were not particularly difficult and they did not result in closer professional contacts with the faculty – if they had, they would have been extremely useful. Professional contacts with the faculty should be encouraged – research assistantships might be preferred to teaching fellowships.

I learned more economics this way than from the faculty; the incentive was intense, much greater than the incentive of an oral examination. The teaching experience, by itself, was probably no great help to my subsequent teaching; it made it easier to teach later, but of course it was hard the first time at Harvard. Mainly I valued the learning process in teaching. But I’d have learned as much from one section of elementary economics teaching at a time as from two or three. They should be encouraged or forced to work more intensively on the problem of course organization and the level at which subject matter can be communicated. Experience is good only if interpreted, and it is hard for a teacher to interpret his own results.

In the light of my post-student teaching experience, I believe that the particular crystallization of ideas which is the objective of the learning process is most likely to be achieved effectively by teaching the subject one is learning (or thinks he has learned), and that this undogmatic crystallization is highly useful for later learning, research, or teaching. Would it be practicable for Harvard to arrange with colleges and universities throughout the country for its doctoral candidates to teach for one year full-time with full pay from the college, one out of several specific groups of courses tailored by Harvard to the specialization it offers? Such teaching, supplementing the Teaching Fellow program at Harvard itself, could be a required part of the doctoral program, preferable following but permissively preceding the general examinations, to be followed by a final year in residence at Harvard. This would provide the candidate with (1) the learning advantage that teaching develops, (2) the opportunity to see if he would like teaching as a career, (3) an entry into the college field if he decides on such a career, (4) an opportunity to address himself to a thesis topic prior to the completion of residence at Harvard, and (5) the experiencing of the difficulty of trying to do research along with a full-time job. Incidentally, it should assist colleges in their staffing problems, weed out misfits from teaching, provide a further screening for doctoral candidates, and give those who return to Harvard a fuller appreciation of the research facilities there. For those who complete their theses prior to the completion of the extra residence, a real broadening of their education at Harvard could be undertaken realistically.

By teaching, I probably learned as much or more Economics than in my course work.

[85]

Negative attitude indicated here may be partly due to special type of work involved: simple laboratory guidance to undergraduates in accounting and statistics. Analytical exposition or discussion work would have been helpful. If it were possible to step up discussion – group techniques, requiring small group meetings, this would be an excellent use for teaching fellows. The practice of handling group discussion would be wonderful for them. The students would gain more by the opportunity for close discussion than they could possibly lose from the use of only partially trained teaching assistants. In fact they probably would gain more in confidence by dealing with people more nearly their equals in training.

38. How could teacher training be improved at Harvard?

FREE COMMENTS Q. 38.

Compulsory part-time teaching even for fellowship holders.

Give grad students a chance to lead discussion in undergraduate seminars, etc.

Offered to more students, and students given autonomy in handling teaching assignments.

It happened not to have mattered to me, but in retrospect, it would have been useful to have had some experience of this sort. If it weren’t such a dirty trick on the undergraduates to subject them to fumbling and frightened illiterates little older than they are, I’d say more undergraduate sections would have been useful. Certainly formal teacher training would be wasteful, and practice sessions meaningless. What else is there? Wish I knew; it would be useful at Chicago.

Mostly by improved opportunities for active discussion and presentation of student positions or papers for mutual debate in small groups. (Preferably not on highly formal basis in large seminars.)

I should have liked to be given the opportunity to lecture to groups of students, including members of my class, and then having my presentation criticized.

Frankly, except for the “Ec-A” section men at Harvard (and their counterparts elsewhere) the shock of “learning to teach” is very great for those who come to us. We lose men from teaching on that score I am certain. At Harvard some structuring is needed to give them prestige — if the job they are being trained for is anything more than marginal.

[86]

By insisting on good teaching, i.e. by insisting that whatever a man teaches, he must prepare his lectures in such a way that they will be worthwhile to the students; that they contain something on which the student can take meaningful notes. Men who are excellent teachers should be hired and promoted even if they do not write anything for publication, and an end should be put to the practice of measuring a man’s qualifications for teaching by the amount of writing he does.

** Seminars conducted by graduate students.

Teaching training comes with opportunity for classroom exposition. Perhaps there could be opportunity for students writing their thesis to expose their research results to the criticism of fellow students in seminars or classes.

A series of non-credit lectures on technique of teaching, followed by practical application seminar-style and carried out by course members would have been very helpful.

Of course; if Harvard could cut lectures to one a week or one every two weeks and substitute the tutorial system it would help — not the tutorial system where student tutor meets 6-8-10 at once. Two or three might work however. It was a sad day when Harvard was forced to give up tutorial.

I would not sacrifice any time spent on subject matter for this purpose, except in the case of Teaching Fellows, who do learn more economics in the process of leading sections.

I would have enjoyed 2 or 3 opportunities to present a subject to a group of other grad students, with criticism of ideas presented and how they were presented. Supervised teaching experience for persons who wish to become college teachers. (Possibly 5 or 6 such experiences would fill the bill.)

A 2nd year 1 hour seminar on the Planning and Teaching of Courses in Economics.

Resort somewhat more to teaching through comparative case-studies. Experiences in different parts of the world could be used for this purpose.

Actual experience is the best training for teaching; perhaps a program increasing the number of teaching fellows and tutors and granting a measure of course credit in the subjects taught might provide the opportunity and incentive needed.

[87]

The basic prerequisite is a desire to do so — that is, taking on the training of teachers must be considered a desirable goal for a graduate school to pursue.

Apprenticeship experience (under a good teacher) after completing graduate work would be preferable to taking courses in education. e.g. the Ford Foundation Program.

Limit each teaching fellow to one section.

Could Harvard provide graduate students as teachers in other undergraduate institutions in the area? (The main problem is to have enough openings to provide this experience, it seems to me.)

More frequent staff meetings of graduate assistants should be helpful.

More opportunities for teaching fellowships; more departmental efforts to place graduate students as part-time assistants in local universities. Perhaps even a “practice teaching” program in cooperation with School of Education.

I was fortunate enough to take part in the Ford Foundation Program — and had the year’s internship under an excellent teacher and scholar. This directed personal experience in teaching seems to me an excellent introduction to teaching. I am convinced that actual teaching, not courses in education, is the answer.

I think there could be a one-hour seminar — perhaps for auditing only — on teaching as such. I firmly believe that to offer more than that would be a serious mistake. Teaching Fellowships with some guidance — best method.

Would have liked a teaching fellowship. My impression is that assistantships are worth something, but not terribly much. Possibly divide the available teaching fellowships among more people. (Possibly this procedure has already reached its optimum because of the limitation to the number of good economists who are willing to take the time out from their degree and because of the need to provide a source of sufficiently large income for some of the present fellows.)

By setting up an intern program — even if it means smaller Ec A classes. I do not believe students should be paid for this unless they need the additional money.

[88]

By a brief course in the teaching of economics, perhaps a seminar. I doubt whether the need is for an “education department” course; but my pride now permits me to confess that in matters ranging from the science of exam grading to the comprehensibility of various parts of economic theory my own a priori judgement was probably poor and my experience only improved my judgement very slowly. If teachers among the graduate students could be required to pass a course in the subject (not “pass,” really, but attend) before they could teach, the matter might avoid the degrading of the “economics” curriculum and be part of the work load of teaching and so not be taught in poor taste.

Another idea: ask the second year people who wish to teach to take small groups of Ec 1 people and prepare them (hold review lectures) for the Ec 1 finals. Might do same for the seniors prior to senior generals. This would relieve tutor and Ec 1 men, who are typically exploited.

Perhaps advanced graduate students could conduct small discussion groups for undergraduates. Perhaps each student should be required (or encouraged) to plan a semester of lectures in his field, have his effort criticized, perhaps deliver a lecture or two.

Formal course plus opportunity to teach at least a few hours in elementary course for undergraduates.

Making some teaching work available to anyone who wants to undertake it (i.e. on a rational basis, without turning undergraduate courses over entirely to teaching fellows, since the interests of the undergraduates must also be considered).

As far as I can see, the only useful training is being a teaching fellow, and it would be impracticable to make this mandatory. However, any graduate student should have a part-time opportunity to do so if he desires.

[89]

VII. STUDENTS AND THE FACULTY

33. Number of faculty members in dept known “fairly well”

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
All of them	0		5	0
Most of them	15	3	31	12
Several of them	30	4	41	30
Only a few	48	1	48	24
None	6		6	2
No answer	1

34. If only a few, for what reason

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Too many graduate students	6		6	1
Faculty too busy on its own work	34	1	34	17
Faculty too indifferent to students’ problems	1		1	0
Probably because I didn’t press hard enough for contacts	12		12	7
I didn’t press hard enough, in addition to another reason listed	8		14	8
No answer	39

FREE COMMENTS Q. 34.

Many students feel that they may be imposing if they press for contacts. Faculty members should realize this and attempt to bridge the gap.

Frankly, I feel that the urge to know illustrious faculty members well is some kind of an ego-need — and not a necessary or even efficient condition of learning, looking at the college program as a whole.

Social gatherings might be helpful in this respect. This is of particular importance in the case of foreign students who, apart from facing the cultural problems of a new environment, are not generally accustomed to close contacts with professors.

The above are all true. But there is also a certain reluctance about pressing one’s self on the attention of faculty members. It savors of “apple-polishing” — but it is indispensable for subsequent employment in teaching.

[90]

Reduce the size of the Littauer group — appoint a leader for it as in the Neiman Program – Build a strong Littauer Seminar Program.

In the immediate post-war years, there was a feeling that “grades” made you or broke you. Making contacts was a luxury which competed with study. Seminar papers are a vehicle for forcing such contacts.

It is the responsibility of the student to improve the student-faculty relations. This task might be made easier for the shy student by more social contacts with the faculty.

Faculty members might invite small groups of most promising students to their homes.

Attach each student to a faculty member as a general tutor for regular check-ups and discussions (could be done in groups profitably).

Real seminars would do it; teachers should discuss proposed papers with each student; each student should have a faculty advisor who would work with the student through to placement.

I feel this pressure to “improve” student-faculty relations misplaced. My most stimulating relationship with a professor was when he was engrossed in his field, teaching his subject. I would have preferred better preparation by certain professors in their courses.

I thought student-faculty relations were good. Faculty members were always courteous to me, and I did not feel they could be more so.

Limit the amount of outside work by some faculty members. In Economics it had reached a proportion where it works badly for students.

R Probably can’t be helped as far as the “big” people are concerned. But there should be more faculty at junior or intermediate rank, who have close contact with graduate students and have time and interest for them.

Increase in ratio of faculty to students.

I had the impression that most of the professors were too involved in non-teaching activities to desire non-classroom discussions with students. With few exceptions attempts to have such discussions met with polite but definite discouragement.

[91]

Suppose a member of the faculty — a young instructor or Assistant Professor — read and thought tirelessly and conveyed his thought and knowledge to the students in a superb manner — in other words, suppose he was one of the country’s best teachers but he didn’t publish much. Would he advance to full professor? The race to publish articles destroys the teacher-student relation because the teacher is usually under pressure; every 5 minutes counts because he’s behind on some deadline — no possibility of that “leisurely pursuit of truth” we talk about.

A limited number of social events for faculty and graduate student body on the campus would enable new students to meet faculty members in an informal atmosphere.

R I think that there was too much emphasis on getting faculty members who were prominent in the field. They did not necessarily put their best efforts into teaching or helping graduate students.

No handy way for students and faculty to get acquainted, except in seminars. An afternoon “tea,” à la Social Sciences Bldg., Chicago, and occasional evening bull sessions might help.

Greater frequency of contact on informal levels which would involve discussion of a wide range of problems in economics and related fields — such as occasional meetings in faculty homes and perhaps the faculty club. This would involve a relaxed atmosphere including beer, etc. with the conversation.

Restrict the amount of outside consulting by the Faculty. There were many professors who were around the University only a few hours a week.

Some members of faculty were accessible and friendly to students (Black is a good example). Others required appointments and appeared anxious not to be bothered with students.

I would have pressed harder for contacts if I had had the feeling that faculty members (or at least most of them) did more than merely tolerate student consultations. In fairness, however, my difference may have been my own fault, i.e. in misreading the faculty attitude, and in not being more aggressive.

** Less emphasis on getting faculty known largely only for their research, publications, etc. — greater stress on teachers for teaching whether they have big names or not.

[92]

Compulsory attendance of faculty at social events given for students in the department, with the requirement that the faculty not spend most of its time talking to other faculty. Of course they would consider this cruel and unusual treatment (especially given the last closure of a loophole) and all will agree that faculty are human beings too.

R If I hadn’t come to Harvard to study under someone with the personal interest in his students that Black had, I might have a different attitude. Other students envied Black’s students. The week-end trip to Harvard Forest each fall and spring is a device others would do well to imitate. Also, the Blacks were most cordial in having students in their home, but no one else took the time or trouble.

Have more than merely one office hour a week, which seemed to be the usual case. I felt that any problem I had was not deserving of the faculty’s precious time. The last was underscored by the limited office hours.

Smaller courses, particularly seminars, are a natural avenue. Many students are reluctant to press for faculty acquaintance and recognition for fear of being stigmatized as an “operator” rather than as a scholar.

** Smaller classes would help, but more importantly making faculty available. Harvard economists spend too much time in Washington and/or New York. I approve of research — but not outside jobs — but not at the expense of teaching.

This was excellent, especially regarding Prof. Black.

Do more to encourage contacts. Many students don’t appreciate the opportunity til it’s gone. Arrange social get-togethers.

Be more restrictive in admittance of students. Then put pressure on faculty to “adopt” a few of the better ones.

Some members of the faculty such as Usher and Chamberlin were outstanding in giving of their time. Schumpeter too. Others were just too busy.

I think there should be more occasions, especially in the first year, for faculty members to meet small groups of students at informal occasions such as teas, evenings at home, etc.

[93]

Judging from my own teaching experience, some personal relation developing between student and teacher is essential. The faculty member has a certain responsibility for taking the initiative and encouraging in various ways these personal relations between student and teacher.

Probably an inherent result of a busy faculty and too many students. All the faculty I knew I met as a Teaching Fellow or instructor.

46. Relations with thesis director

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Satisfactory	89	2	91	80
Unsatisfactory	9
No answer	2

FREE COMMENTS Q. 46.

Too pleasant: he should have taken more time to give me a bad time where I was too superficial.

The fifteen minutes per week I was allowed were worth very little since the professor spent most of the time thinking his way through to the point which I had developed as the point of departure for the week’s discussion. (I may add that 2 chapters of my thesis have been published without any benefit of the advisor’s contribution; my present employment prevents publication of more.)

* My thesis director, Dean Mason, represents a distinct exception to some of the things said in reply to questions 32, 33, 34. The busiest of men, he was never too busy to see a student. This was one of the reasons he was a popular thesis director.

They were non-existant until I handed in the completed document. On the other hand, had I wanted advice and other help, it would undoubtedly have been available.

R * He wanted to be left alone and I wanted to be left alone.

Satisfactory for the most part. But there is the problem of meeting someone else’s standards of what is worth writing about — and how it should be done. I would have written a better thesis on my own, I think.

[94]

I was not always able to see him as often as I would have liked. In the early stages, particularly, I think it would have been very helpful to me to have been able to discuss the direction of the study more.

* I feel that Professor John H. Williams was one of the most helpful, likeable, relaxed, and insightful individuals that I have ever known. I thoroughly enjoyed my entire association with him, including the writing on my thesis.

I feel that the encouragement and assistance given by Professor Slichter were the major reasons why I was able to finish my thesis so quickly under the pressure of financial worry and full-time work after completing my residence requirements.

I wrote my thesis in absentia. I frequently had to wait months before receiving comments upon drafts of chapters. I finally had my thesis bound and submitted without ever receiving comments on the last half.

By Harvard standards they were very satisfactory. But I really would have learned more if he could have spared considerably more time for discussion. He was good with students, consciencious about courses, but very busy with his own research.

Not enough consultations. He did not help enough — very few suggestions, slow to correct and comment on my drafts. Too busy. However, he was a very nice person, and also part of graduate training is being left to one’s own.

I had approximately 3 sessions! Unfortunately, I was just getting around to the point where conferences would have helped when I had to leave the Cambridge area.

He was difficult to find. While his criticism was incisive, I felt that he read draft thesis chapters no more than cursorily. If I were he, I should not have accepted my thesis.

My relations with my thesis director, Professor Haberler, were excellent; they could not have been better.

They were congenial. But he was rather occupied with too many other things.

[95]

Work with Professor Leontief was probably the most useful part of my graduate training.

They were minimal. I picked a subject without any particular encouragement and got little advice until the job was finished. Although I came out well, I probably should have sought more help in picking a subject.

R ** My thesis director was (and is) a very busy man. Our relations were most pleasant, but I didn’t get much help, nor did I feel free to ask for it.

I would have appreciated more criticism and pressure toward higher standards. Too many professors assume a good course record is all that is necessary to produce a satisfactory thesis.

He was evidently much too busy. We had a total of two conferences. At the first he approved my topic, at the second he glanced over my completed draft for 20 minutes.

Dr. Hansen was very free with his time and assistance.

* I could not ask for finer treatment than was given me by Dr. John D. Black.

R I perhaps would not have realized how satisfactory they were had I not known of the difficulties encountered by teaching colleagues from other institutions.

I wrote my thesis after leaving Harvard. The help that I received on my thesis from my thesis advisor were contained in a one-page and a half page letter. Those who stayed in Cambridge to write their theses received about the same amount of help.

R My thesis director was a “B” School professor (ex-Economics faculty). Without his constant help and direction, I couldn’t have written it. He encouraged my interest in the topic — as opposed to the attitude of the Economics faculty.

Had difficulty getting replies to letters.

[96]

Excellent. Walter Isard is a wonderful fellow and a stimulating intellect. He made thesis work rewarding. Harvard was shortsighted in letting a man like this go.

[97]

VIII. STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS

35. Opportunities for communication with fellow graduate students

A. In seminars, laboratories, library stacks, etc.

	Economics	High	Low	Rank
Good	71	79	62	2
Fair	24	35	18
Poor	4	4	2
No answer	1

B. In extra-curricular, social life.

	Economics	High	Low	Rank
Good	47	59	36	2
Fair	32	43	27	2
Poor	19	24	14	2
No answer	2

FREE COMMENTS Q. 36.

Have a larger graduate center — and fewer loud-mouthed, wrapped-up lawyers. (i.e. get the lawyers out of their shells.) Otherwise, nothing really can be done as the limitations of time and pressing work restrict communication. Much as one might have liked to mix, there was always some work to be done.

I’m not sure — there seemed to be more opportunities for Littauer fellows than for others.

A good snackbar-lounge in the middle of departmental activities.

A party twice a semester. Actually this problem is one for the individual. If he meets people easily, is interested in them, he’ll make his own contacts — in classrooms, etc.

The after class discussions in theory such as held by Dr. Baldwin. More use of second and third place men for such group discussions might be helpful for developing teachers as well as students.

[98]

Living quarters! If not actual apartments, then a luncheon facility. “Luncheon seminars” are very helpful. A lounge with coffee available would be an added enducement to exchange ideas.

Could desk space be found for students at Littauer?

I was married at the time, and this reduced contacts. Perhaps living quarters for married students along the lines of Holden Green would help on the social side. Graduate students, however, have to work hard at their specialties, and I am not sure that they could welcome more academic “clubs”; they were too busy.

* Real seminars are the best technique; a graduate club.

A suitable location where students can discuss topics in small groups other than in Albiani’s.

Common rooms in class buildings.

In my opinion a quiet eating place with long tables would help, particularly if they were set aside for persons wishing to discuss topics in the field of economics. Before the war perhaps a dozen of us used to eat lunch, immediately after the economic theory class, at a long table in the old Georgian cafeteria (the one in the street leading down toward the river). From our discussions there after class we often learned a good deal more than we did in the class itself. Some government students ate at the same table and topics other than economic were discussed, but questions raised by the economic theory course were usually the principal topic of conversation.

A greater attempt to get them to meet one another when they enter.

Housing projects for married graduate students would help a great deal. It is very difficult to commute from suburbs and still have time for discussion with fellow students.

In Economics Littauer Library is an excellent place for getting acquainted. Perhaps other fields should have special libraries.

Although I approve wholeheartedly of Harvard’s emphasis on scholarship and individual study, still I think much more can be done to create occasions for bringing students together to get to know one another and to discourage isolation and clannishness.

[99]

Make the club for graduate students a going concern with dances, parties, lectures, musical events, etc. It wasn’t while I was at Harvard but may have changed since.

Big favorable change has been made since my time in graduate center. Semi-formal evening bull sessions might well be tried, to get the backward people such as myself into more discussions than they quite dare to seek on their own initiative.

This was satisfactory. I engaged in several small cooperative study groups who were assisted by instructor working for Professor Black. This sort of thing should get more formal faculty encouragement.

How about encouraging joint work in preparing a paper for a seminar.

The most valuable opportunities I had in this respect were at lunch — with students like myself who brought their lunches and had a “seminar” while eating. Provision of a good eating place would be very helpful for this.

Encourage departments to have occasional collaboratory symposiums with “sister” departments.

Students who were Harvard undergraduates should be encouraged or forced out of their old rut and made to mix.

[100]

IX. LIBRARIES AND LABORATORIES

57. Library facilities satisfactory

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	92	2	95	88
No	5
No answer	3

58. Laboratory and guidance satisfactory

 

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes	13	2	41	4
No	4
No answer	13
Not applicable	70

FREE COMMENTS Q. 57. & 58.

More permanent graduate student desk space, I suppose, especially if enrollment rises. But oh, Widener!

Too large proportion of the actively useful books are getting into Lamont, and the Lamont staff always finds some pretext or other to prevent them from circulating. The majority of books in Lamont now cannot be taken out at all. This handicaps the graduate student.

No convenient place for discussion near to libraries.

An awful lot of books in Widener are misplaced or lost. Also separation of Littauer and Widener — Baker Library — awkward especially for economic history.

Statistics laboratory antiquated and lacking in equipment — this may have been changed by now.

If funds were available, catalogue on IBM to make bibliographic work simpler especially for documents.

Conversation in Littauer reading room is objectionable. “No talking” rule should be rigidly enforced, with comfortable provision elsewhere for discussion.

[101]

What about limiting by university regulation the permissible proportion of book requests answered by returns of call cards marked “Not on shelf” or “at the bindery” to something less than 60%? Also perhaps do something about professors’ right to ironclad, indefinite reservation of books.

For research, excellent. For assigned reading in the large size courses, frequently assigned materials were missing or were not available in sufficient quantity.

A better statistics lab — improved equipment for machine tabulation. I had to use old machines in social relations lab on my thesis project, although the administrative offices were most helpful on one or two occasions and made their facilities available.

I would prefer that circulation were limited to books of which there are extra copies.

[102]

X. ATTITUDES TOWARD HARVARD

9. Would you choose Harvard again if you could start over as a graduate student?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
Yes, definitely	63	3	67	63
Yes, probably	30	1	30	25
Probably not	4		7	1
Definitely not	1
No answer	2

FREE COMMENTS Q. 9.

R I think I’d try to go to a smaller graduate school where more individual attention would be available (unless Harvard gives more now).

R Harvard gives the graduate student, besides the opportunity of learning from Professors’ lectures, what to me is most important at that level: the opportunity to develop independence of thinking.

The yes because Harvard has great intellectual resources and possibilities. The experience was mentally stimulating and I felt I learned a great deal. Further, Harvard Ph.D.’s have high standing. The “probably” is added because there is relatively little weight in my field of interest, and the lack of good contact with the senior professional staff on the part of the grad students, and very little help in thesis.

* Good department, good general intellectual atmosphere, good for getting jobs.

If the training offered now by Harvard were at the same level of that of 1947 — probably not — but the main weaknesses have somewhat been remedied by now. I would seriously consider, however, going to a graduate school with a smaller student body.

Only adequate graduate training center in economics for person with agricultural interest.

[103]

Yale has improved sufficiently that I would consider it seriously.

I am not convinced that Harvard gives better training in Economics than some other schools, although it has such a reputation (and this is not to be ignored when job-hunting). But the opportunities for broadening one’s education in the total environment of Harvard are surely unsurpassed in the U.S.

For someone in Agricultural Economics, I would advise a combination of graduate study at a land institution with Ph.D. from Harvard. This gives an excellent combination with technical background related to agriculture plus the scholarly background and more theoretical background available at Harvard. In some instances, courses at land grant institution did not complement those at Harvard. It would have been possible to have advanced further without repeating some work.

The chief advantage of training at Harvard derives from the high standard of performance required from the students. There are, of course, a number of contributing factors inherent in the institution which help in achieving such a standard. The chief factor, however, is the conviction I have that at Harvard one must achieve a high standard in order to succeed.

I might go to Yale which offers a less distinguished but younger staff with a more flexible curriculum.

Within limitations discussed below, I still feel that Harvard has the program best suited to my abilities and interests.

I think the work at Harvard with its emphasis on theory provides a sound background to move in more than one direction after graduation.

Provided that a more adequate training in mathematical economics and statistics were available than during the period I attended.

I believe both the instruction and the graduate student complement were the best any university could offer. The Harvard degree has definite attractions for employers and in some cases the Harvard Ph.D. was the only Ph.D. businessmen would regard as offsetting the lack of a business school training.

My only reservation arises out of thought that it might have been better to do graduate work at institution other than the one where I went to college.

[104]

Yale and Princeton are increasingly attractive in economics.

Harvard training does not convey a command of the tools (analytical) of economics and this is precisely the criterion of craftsmanship and power in this discipline.

Courses at Harvard permitted one to obtain a solid foundation in economic theory and the related, more applied fields of industrial organization, money and banking, etc. Except in statistics where new developments had not been incorporated at the time that I attended, the content of the courses and the instruction were first rate.

In those days the Harvard Economics Department stood head and shoulders above nearly all other centers of graduate study. This is no longer true. In economic theory and mathematical economics, I can think of several departments where better training is available.

I am not fully informed concerning the teaching in agricultural economics since the retirement of John D. Black. My original choice of Harvard was because Professor Black was there.

My basic reason for coming back to Harvard would be the presence of Dean Mason and John Williams, whose realistic approach to the policy problems of economics represent, to my way of thinking, the proper method of producing effective economists.

For my purposes, the training in economics should be as broad as possible. I feel that Harvard was wise in requiring courses in economic history, statistics, and economic theory, and in permitting a whole range of other courses. The professors in economics at Harvard are top-notch as are the students. The combination is necessary for learning at the graduate level.

I feel Harvard graduate school is too large in terms of the ratio of students to faculty. In retrospect, I believe that I would prefer a program of more informal teaching with more emphasis on seminar teaching, creative activity by the student and much greater contact between student and faculty members.

Harvard is still tops — for people with an MA. I would not recommend Harvard to an AB with only 18 hours or so of economics. Outside of a few places (Leontief’s project) the student gets lost in the crowd and lacks all personal contact with the faculty.

[105]

I interview many Ph.D.’s seeking employment at this bank — Harvard graduates still seem to be getting the best training.

I feel that on the whole I benefitted greatly from my experience at Harvard, and as far as I know, more than I would have had I gone to some other school. The high caliber of professors and great emphasis on actual study rather than extra-curricular activities I find attractive (although something more should be done in the first year in particular to make students feel at home and to get to know one another and the professors). Also Harvard’s prestige is a great asset in subsequent work, as is its reputation for scholarship.

I like the place and some of the teachers are extremely capable people. “Probably” refers to my main objection to the actual experience. The place is too crowded and the opportunity for seminars or informal group discussion with the teachers is criminally inadequate. I think this hurdle can be jumped by aggressive attempts to corner teachers, and extensive group discussion with other students, so on a return trip I think it would be ok. But the opportunity was 90 % wasted when I was there.

* The retirement of J.D. Black has left a vacancy not yet filled by a person vitally interested in the economics of agriculture. Work in econometrics is also a bit overshadowed by Yale.

Perhaps chiefly because I still get some wholly unadmirable snob satisfaction from the Harvard label (which I’d never admit unless assured of anonymity). I still think Harvard is on the whole a magnificent institution. However, as an Easterner, I’ve learned there are other excellent institutions, and I see certain advantages in an institution that is still “on the make.” As for economics, I think the Harvard department is still strong, but it is my impression (rose-colored spectacles?) that it may not be relatively so strong, or at least so vital, as it was in the early ’40’s.

My doubts arise from the fact that with Professor Schumpeter dead, and Professors Hansen and Williams retired, Harvard has lost three of its best teachers, while the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, since acquiring Paul Samuelson shortly before the war, has acquired much of the prestige that Harvard once had in economic theory.

* At the time I was at Harvard, there were far too many graduate students in economics which meant that classes were much too large. The quality of the instruction, especially in the applied (as opposed to theoretical) courses was mediocre, but the quality of the students was high.

[106]

I still feel that Harvard has the best economics department. From the practical side, a Harvard degree has proven a definite asset.

* I was a Harvard undergraduate, and a change would have given me wider experience and a more professional attitude to graduate work.

The top caliber men in the economics department are close to retirement. The younger men in the department don’t appear to have the relative eminence in their fields that was held by the men they are replacing.

Reservation due to dissatisfaction with faculty’s involvement with own work, outside consulting, etc. (To their being mostly miserable lecturers I do not object; after a few years of listening to dull economists, I grew suspicious of lecturers who made special efforts at forensic techniques, being conditioned to a diet of unvarnished grist.) This involves the usual dilemma: creativeness vs. pedagogic superiority. I do think that I would have picked a school drawing the line a little closer to the latter. In this connection, I approve of the teaching fellow system; the fellow sees the student’s problems of comprehension (even though he too is so involved in being creative that his sympathy is due perhaps only to proximity to, rather than sympathetic interest in, the undergraduate’s problems). Perhaps Harvard might consider the solution approached by Chicago: a low-grade faculty composed presumably of excellent teachers and a high-grade, creative faculty. (At Chicago the former handles the undergraduate and the latter the graduate.)

Very large size of the department would incline me somewhat to one or two other small but good departments.

Original choice was made in the belief that: 1. the Department of Economics offered the best available training for a professional economist, and 2. that members of the faculty were prominent in my special field of interest (Hansen, Williams, Haberler, etc.). Subsequent experience convinced me that Harvard’s emphasis on theoretical analysis and high standards of scholarship — apart from its financial ability to recruit and hold a distinguished faculty — explained, and assured the continuance of, its preeminent position.

The facilities at Harvard (library, fellow student contact) are hard to beat; after Swarthmore undergraduate training, however, the relatively childish attitude at Harvard toward graduate students (e.g. weekly exams, difficulty of contact with professors, etc.) was most disappointing.

[107]

Professor J.D. Black was a main “drawing card” in view of my field of work; he is now retired. Also I would want more training in mathematical economics. Perhaps emphasis is now being given to latter at Harvard. A current counterpart of Professor Black at Harvard would change my answer to yes.

My original choice of Harvard was due to the attraction of the joint degree (economics-government) program and some of the faculty members. My experience since the Ph.D. has tended to reinforce my earlier convictions concerning the necessity of some inter-disciplinary training for graduates in economics, and as long as Harvard encourages this it would probably continue as my first choice. Also I found the faculty to be very much interested in and concerned with the problems of individual students, despite the large number of graduates and the busy schedules of faculty members.

10. Would you plan your program differently if you could start over again? *

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
No	22		25	22
Yes, in some ways differently	66		66	61
Yes, in many ways differently	8		13	8
No answer	4

______________
* 53 answers emphasize a need for more math and statistics in grad study.

FREE COMMENTS Q. 10.

I believe I would be inclined to spend more time if I could afford it. I would take more economic theory, I would audit more courses than I did; I would take courses in mathematics and anthropology. I would take a course in mathematical statistics if it were available.

More mathematical economics. Broader training in general area of social science, not so heavily economics. Also I would prepare more in mathematics before starting graduate work.

Rather than attempting the joint degree at Littauer I would take a straight economics degree. The theory of a joint degree is good but it is difficult to execute. Thorough training in one discipline is both more satisfying and rewarding than attempting to become a “jack-of-all-trades.” Also the joint degree as such, while more difficult to accomplish well, is not recognized.

[108]

Given the same conditions, I would probably have taken the same program. The condition I regret is that I was a scholarship student and felt obliged to maintain my grades, which directed much of my effort into channels I would not have freely chosen. If not for this condition, I would have taken a quite different program. I would have spent less time on some technical courses (statistics, international trade, money and banking) more on economic thought, economic history, social science courses in other departments. I would have read many more books of my choosing, many fewer required books.

1. Would take more mathematics and statistics than required then; if necessary would take on undergraduate level first to avoid the terrific increase in pace met in my first and only statistics course. Fault goes back to undergraduate requirement.
2. Would look for professors interested in marketing research in both the economics and psychology departments — as well as in Business School. Consumer motivation research was my goal even then (1947-51), before it became a great trend outside, but could find no congenial attitudes in any of the three related departments. If none found, would not enroll.

I would take more fundamental courses because it is easier to apply fundamental courses to different actual fields than to take too many applied courses when one is not sure to work in these special fields. Of course, I would retain in my program at least one good course in an applied field.

For a unique reason which need not concern you in your evaluation: I am one of the last products of Harvard’s non-mathematical economics era, and thereby am in danger of becoming obsolete before reaching the higher level on which practitioners of an advancing science normally expect to pass a comfortable obsolescence.

My course work would include mathematics and more economic history. I would take courses that offered opportunity to write term papers (which are good training) in place of sitting in class. I would pay little attention to particular course titles — a good reading list and a good term paper in (say) money and banking reaches far into the subject matter an d reading matter of economic theory, statistics, business cycles, etc. This is true for most or many economics courses. In choosing courses, I would give more attention to the ability of the particular teachers than to alleged subject matter.

I would have devoted more time to courses outside of economics, e.g., mathematics and philosophy. I definitely would repeat the additional individual work that I undertook in the Social Relations department.

[109]

I would have concentrated almost exclusively on the acquisition of a good working knowledge of analytical tools, namely mathematical economics, statistics, and sociometric methods. Descriptive courses which I took as a graduate student were entertaining but are of little use in independent work.

I should like to have had more time for sampling some of the courses in other departments. I certainly would want to work a little more in money and banking and international trade. The changes, however, would be more desired than feasible; and the resulting dissatisfaction would not be great. Incidentally, it is my impression that the economics department already has gone far toward reducing the course requirements and toward introducing greater flexibility in interpreting requirements.

1. Greater emphasis on mathematics and statistics in undergraduate and early graduate work.
2. Select one language for reading and conversational in undergraduate.
3. Greater emphasis on economic history.
4. Complete Master’s and Ph.D. within 5 year period after B.S. — with follow-up work each five years thereafter. Subject matter and theoretical concepts in Economics change too fast to stay on the job — unless teaching. Those who go out into Extension or Government work soon lag behind. This suggests a possible concentrated refresher course — six weeks to three months in separate fields each couple of years.

* Longer if possible. Needed an extra year on Fundaments of Economics, math and logic.

I think the student should have more latitude in course selection, that is, some course, maybe one a year, should be a completely free option. My interest in business cycles related to one in business forecasting in which I still have a strong interest. It fits closely to market analysis for a corporation in the manufacturing field.

I should attempt to take courses in the Business School and possibly at the Law School. It would be difficult to do this under the regulations as I understood them during my residence. But I should like to audit out-of-department courses even if I could not take them for credit.

I believe many of the courses I took were repetitive of work I had done as an undergraduate. The emphasis should have been on more advanced seminars. I did not do this purely as a matter of choice or laziness. In the long run it was a great mistake on my part. I sat in on many seminars but avoided the discipline of completing all the required work of the seminars.

[110]

Increase attention to courses emphasizing practical problems on an individual firm and natural basis. Also to courses intently devoted to the data I would be dealing with in my future work. I believe that Harvard’s undergraduate work in economics was basically designed to train people to teach economics. If it were possible, I would try to plan my program so that I would be better prepared to practice as an economist.

Under conditions apt to persist for years to come, wherein every able-bodied young American must face the prospect of two years’ service in the Army (unless he is willing to commit himself to a rather cumbersome and time-consuming new Reserve program which was not available during my student days), it is imperative that the number of years in graduate school be minimized. Throughout my graduate student days I kept this consideration in mind, and in retrospect I am glad I acted accordingly. For it has been five years since I graduated from college and I am still not able to start my working career.

I found the lack of accounting a great drawback. It would have been useful background in most government work, could be useful even in teaching, and its lack was a definite drawback when it became necessary for me to seek employment in private industry. I had to go to NYC night-school to make up this lack. In an elective way, I wish I had taken corporate finance at the Business School.

I would take more seminar work and try to obtain more specific research experience.

I would obtain a substantial background in mathematics, calculus and matrix algebra particularly.

Would present Spanish instead of German as second language. Would take a course in policy. Would try to learn more mathematics.

I would take more seminar courses, especially in the various areas of finance — Consumer finance, Money and Banking, and Corporation Finance.

** I would take more math and statistics.

I would try to have more mathematics and mathematical economics. In statistics I would try to learn more about the processing of data and possibly less advanced statistical theory.

[111]

I probably would not concentrate so heavily in economics. I cannot get a government job in America as I am an alien, nor can I get one in France because I did not graduate from the specialized school called “Ecole Nationale d’Administration.” The prospects of economists in private business are poor. I feel that my prospects would be better had I studied law or engineering at Harvard. Nationalism is hurting me; it would perhaps hurt me less in some other occupation.

A balanced program of economics courses with intensive specialization in one field was what I needed. The particular subjects studied do not matter too much at this distance, though a very few were fundamental: economic theory, economic statistics. Apart from these the details do not matter. One has to study and fill in gaps after one leaves graduate school, no matter what program one selects while there.

I would take a joint degree from the economics department and the Business School. Moreover, I would emphasize mathematics more and a broader exposure in history, political science and sociology. My emphasis on a joint degree in economics and business administration follows because I feel the necessity for relating economic analysis continuously to the solution of specific business problems.

More emphasis upon research training and less upon lectures and learning. The seminars when I was at Harvard were a farce — as far as student training was concerned.

I would choose fewer courses in the more applied fields of economics — more in economic theory. And I would definitely take some math courses.

I would probably seek to do more work in the field of Psychology (social relations) and Political Science and would seek, although probably not successfully, to combine this with some work in law. This change reflects the interest I have in what might be termed “general education,” but which I would prefer to term “the development of economic and political literacy among undergraduates.” I have little basic interest in research per se, and prefer to occupy my summers with consulting positions in the fields of anti-trust work, employee relations, and current tax problems, which is a brief resume of my non-academic work for the three years before taking my present position, which is concerned with foreign economic policy.

I would try to begin on the thesis at an early stage. For the postwar GIs it seemed as if there were two separate phases of student life: 1. Before the Generals, and 2. Writing the thesis. Each was a distinct and all demanding form of activity. It seems more efficient to me at this time to let the thesis be an aid in preparing for the generals, not a step after the generals.

[112]

I would attempt to get more discussion with professors of problems relating to but not explicitly included in the formal course work. I would also attempt to sample more fields in economics and directly related areas.

More mathematics and mathematical statistics, more extensive and rapid reading in the fields of economic history and history of economic thought and more intensive reading in the latest developments. More teaching and research under guidance (say, as an assistant or as part of a project) while still in residence. Prompt completion of thesis. More time spent in discussion and argument with other graduate students.

Just as much emphasis on theory — perhaps even more. The institutional things can best be learned on the job.

** Mainly I would try to have another year of course work, by introducing in each year large chunks of mathematics and statistics.

Assuming I had the money I would take an undergraduate degree in economics and sociology. Then I would take a year of public administration toward a degree (similar to the DPA at Harvard’s School of Public Administration) at the same university at which I studied law so as to combine law with public administration. As an elective I should try to take a few courses in economics: the first graduate theory course, history of economic doctrine and economic history.

If the Dean’s Office allowed, I would certainly seek an interdisciplinary program. (Such was clearly proscribed when I entered.) A great deal of the field of economics of value is the undergraduate, liberal arts college can be better presented in the more general framework of the whole of the social sciences today, with the emphasis on General Education.

If I were starting over and knew that I would eventually get a Ph.D. I probably would go to Harvard directly after completing my undergraduate work instead of first getting a master’s degree at another school. Also, if circumstances permitted, I would not allow so much time to elapse between the different stages of the educational process.

I would write my thesis in a different field — not labor economics. I would take it easier during the first year after generals when a lot of wasted energy was spent on a search for a topic — and instead would study mathematics. In courses I would be more adventurous — particularly with respect to statistics and math-economics. However, there have been changes in senior staff which would make taking such courses easier now. Another possible difference would be that Economic history is better taught now and possibly I would do work in that field.

[113]

As the main difference, I would want to take as much mathematics as possible. This is so in the light of my interests as subsequently developed in economic theory. Actually I never took any math courses either in college or in graduate school, but studied calculus by myself on the side (and eventually taught it one semester at MIT, mainly to strengthen my own grasp of the subject). My main regret is that I was not counselled to take math in college — where I took several courses in philosophy instead. Also, it somehow never occurred to me to take any math courses as a graduate student, though today I probably would be so counselled either at Harvard or at any other school that I might alternatively choose.

1. I would see to it that I acquired a total of at least one year’s teaching experience while a graduate student.
2. I would try to take fewer lecture courses and more seminars and reading courses.

I believe I would try to include more courses outside of the economics department. I would particularly like to have had some graduate courses in government and history.

* I would take longer.

I would have been wise to take advantage of courses formally outside of economics but related to it. This would have meant taking courses in mathematics and human relations in particular. Of course, the pressure of work in economics made it rather difficult to find additional time for these other subjects. Yet, looking back, the sacrifice of precious time would have been worthwhile in the light of the enormous rewards that would have come later.

I took my degree as a joint one, in Government as well as Economics. While I have benefitted in some ways from exposure to the Gov courses, had I to do it over again I would take a straight Economics degree and perhaps sit in on Government Department courses. This is putting my feelings rather too strongly about this decision, however. Furthermore, I would do more work in mathematics and statistics, to which I had but a limited exposure during my formal graduate training. I might also want to do the course work at a slower pace, the better to absorb the material.

My undergraduate training was inadequate preparation for the rigorous and demanding economics curriculum in GSAS. The graduate program itself was excellent.

I would take more applied and fewer theoretical courses.

[114]

While generally I favor the broadest possible approach to the study of economics, in my particular case, I feel I went too far afield. I should have liked to take a greater interest in money and banking, statistics, and national income , and somewhat less in economic theory. However, this is hind-sight by someone who found his proper niche rather late.

The program I followed was necessary because of the time limitations I imposed upon myself. I neglected certain fields of study but this was unavoidable and not overly important. If I were to start over again without the pressures I had at that time, I would make a greater attempt to do research and writing under certain professors and I would also spend more time as a graduate student than I did.

R First, I would take all my work at Harvard. Second, I would not permit the long gap between A.B. and Ph.D. Third, I would like a L.L.B. as well as a Ph.D; those professors whom I especially admired had both degrees and I hope to return to college teaching when the right opening comes. If I were to make any really drastic change in “doing it over,” I should possibly settle for an L.L.B., for I have a real interest in law and government, in which case I would probably “stay” in government. In fact, if the Law School had been opened to women one year earlier, that is quite probably when I would have gone.

64. Extent of graduate training at institutions other than Harvard.

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
No	38
Yes, prior to Harvard	53
Yes, post-doctoral	2
Both	5
Yes, prior to Harvard Ph.D but while associated with Harvard	1
No answer	1

65. Was such training superior in some respects to that at Harvard?

	Economics	Rank	High	Low
No	29	3	43	24
Yes	27	1	27	17
Equal	1		1	0
No answer	43

[115]

FREE COMMENTS Q. 65.

The courses at Cornell, in some cases, had the advantage of being somewhat smaller in number. The quality of instruction, however, in the courses which I took at Harvard was, with rare exceptions, of a very high order.

University of California -— Berkeley.
No: there was less encouragement to take work in other departments, and less freedom in pursuing work in the department along lines of my special bent or interest. Yes: smaller classes and consequently closer faculty-student relations.

George Washington U.
Previous graduate training was at a school in which both students and faculty had other jobs usually. The faculty were rarely prepared and the students were of the same state.

University of California — Berkeley.
The “yes” results from the presence of Berkeley of one man who would have improved any faculty he was a member of. In general, however, the training was not superior. The atmosphere was too authoritarian, the students too cowed and submissive.

Cornell and Oxford.
Less pressure and more opportunity for reading at Oxford and more freedom from rigid course requirements to pursue other interests. Better training in research methods at Cornell.

University of Washington, Seattle.
Most of the courses were open to undergraduates, who constituted the bulk of the class in most instances. The instructors were out of touch with current economic thought.

National University of Mexico.
We keep closer in contact with real problems. Theory is confronted with practice. Cost curves are built by professors and students in visits to factories, for example. National and international economic problems are constantly discussed in order to illustrate points of theory.

Oberlin.
Although not a graduate school in economics (I did graduate work while a research assistant) the close contact with the faculty was something I never benefitted from at Harvard.

[116]

University of Paris, France and Ecole Nationale des Langues Orientales.
Harvard was incomparably better than any French school in economics, but for language training the method of “explication des textes” used in the Russian Language course at the School of Oriental Languages in Paris gave a thorougher understanding of the language in less time than any other method with which I am familiar, including the method used by Harvard when Professor Cross was head of the Dept.

Michigan University.
I firmly believe that the Harvard training is the best available in the United States.

University of Colorado.
Only in the close contact with the faculty which small classes permitted.

University of Washington.
Largely in the way of allowing more individual creative effort; more contact with faculty, more informality — all of which have an important role in graduate education.

Minnesota.
At that time (1939-41) the ratio of graduate students to faculty at Minnesota was much smaller. Hence courses and seminars were smaller and contact more intimate.

U.S. Navy post-graduate school.
Only in that teachers were better as teachers.

Toronto.
Work in economic history carried more esteem — and a much more adequate coverage was available. Also, better student-faculty relationships, and greater flexibility in selection of courses.

Princeton (for 1 preliminary year).
It was superior in one rather perverse respect: — the incompetence of one instructor was a tremendous incentive to work up the subject myself — to help set him straight. As a part of this and as a general superiority as well, all the classes at Princeton were very small; and the added participation that this invited was a great boon, at least for one year. At the same time, coming back to Harvard was also like moving up to the major leagues after a useful season in the minors. This contrast would not be as great at the present time.

[117]

University of Washington and Columbia.
At Washington the teacher-student relation was much closer (although the classes were as large). The professors were teachers first; researchers second; promotion did not depend entirely upon publication (in my undergraduate days). The word got around that X was a crackerjack teacher — had mastery of his material and an interest in his students. There was more contact outside of one’s specialty; more discussions ( in small groups) of ideas. These discussions ranged across fields — I am sure that I learned more, as an economist, by my discussions and study of Goethe (no course involved) than from my readings of Adam Smith. Goethe gives you method, insight. Looking back (at 46) I must say that I learned more that has subsequently proved to be fundamentally valuable and useful at Washington. This is accounted for by the closer student-teacher relation and by less specialized knowledge. For expertness in the specialized field, however, Harvard was best.

California and Chicago.
Statistics at Berkeley in both Economics and Math and Agricultural Economics Departments are superb. Econometrics at Chicago is good, with a terrific math department giving highly theoretical, but useful, courses.

Univ. of Penn.
Because of an unusually good teacher and close association with him, my introductory theory work was better than it would have been had I taken Harvard’s (good) course. In general, the student gets a much better curriculum at Harvard.

Univ. of So. Calif.
I had the theory that an interested student could get all he needed if he had a good library — despite faculty. Was wrong. Was given much busy work, but no great teachers. At Harvard GSAS, rediscovered the intellectual stimulation of great teachers. This was the brightest spot, despite not such great teaching, nor outstanding help and encouragement to individual students.

Univ. of Buffalo.
Instructors were teachers in greater degree. They prepared more carefully than was the usual inclination for Harvard professors (in my department). They expressed a lively interest in matters other than what happened to be their own research of the moment.

University of Illinois.
It was somewhat easier to contact and discuss issues with the professors. Also, more students were working in the same general area as I. This motivated a great deal of contact among students. The presentation of the subject matter, and the overall scholarly atmosphere that prevails at Harvard, however, outweigh these matters.

[118]

University of California — Berkeley.
Excellent small-group instruction by excellent instructors who seemed intensely interested in teaching and in students, carefully organized courses. But the time was World War II, when the total student body was unusually small, and the experience cannot therefore be generalized.

University of Rochester.
Instruction in statistics was superior to that at Harvard. Also, personal contact with faculty was better.

University of Florida.
There is no doubt that the best teacher must also be a creative scholar. On the other hand I felt that the teachers in the Economics Department because of (a) the pressure to produce and bring glory to the Crimson and (b) an unusual absorption with personal professional advancement, thought of their teaching obligations as the last thing needing attention. This plus the fact that some good researchers bore no adequate concept of the requirements of sound pedagogy resulted in exceedingly poor class room performance in some cases. In this connection I felt that some of the less known and less capable men that instructed me earlier at U. of F. did a better job in the classroom.

Wisconsin.
Closer relationships with faculty tutors.

Source: Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 16, Folder “General Teaching, n.d.” at Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive.

Image Source:  Harvard Seal detail from the cover of the Harvard Law School Yearbook 1949.