Harold Hitchings Burbank (1913-1951) will probably best be remembered in the history of economics for topping Paul Samuelson’s “Dishonor Roll” for antisemitism in the Harvard economics department ca. 1939 (the list is reproduced on p. 281 of Roger E. Backhouse’s first volume Becoming Samuelson, OUP 2017) as well as for being an all around bête noire in matters regarding mathematical economics at Harvard, though Backhouse (pp. 421-2) has at least been able to acquit Burbank of the charge of the premeditated “killing of the type” for Foundations of Economic Analysis [Plot spoiler: the printer did it (metal shortage)].
Burbank has in fact left a fundamental institutional legacy at Harvard College, having played a major role in the establishment and running management of the tutorial system that was set up to prepare undergraduates for the general examinations in their respective divisions of study. Many a Harvard economics graduate student, instructor, and faculty member have served as economics tutors so that no study of the education of economists would be complete without a serious examination of Harvard’s tutorial system in which economists have been active from the very beginning.
________________________________
Harvard College President Lowell on the undergraduate general examination for divisions and the Tutorial System (1922)
The effect of the general examination upon the choice of subjects for concentration is interesting. When first introduced for History, Government, and Economics it diminished the number of students electing those studies as their main field of work, presumably frightening away the faint-hearted. But the dread soon passed off, and at present seems to have little influence.
[…]
The framing of general examination papers which shall be comprehensive enough to cover the subject, at the same time shall be fair, and which give the student a chance to show his knowledge or ignorance, his comprehension or vacuity, demands much skill, ingenuity and labor. Moreover, a great deal of time is required to read the books, or conduct the oral examinations, in any department where the candidates are numerous. Clearly members of the instructing staff cannot be expected to do this in addition to their ordinary work. Some provision ought, therefore, be made in such cases for relieving them of a part of their teaching; and in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, where the plan has been in operation much longer than in any other, the examiners are relieved of about half their courses, either by reducing these throughout the year, or by exemption from course instruction in the second half-year, that being the period when by far the heaviest burden of the examinations falls. In conducting them the committee in charge is really examining not only the candidates, but also the instructors in courses and the tutors if any, because they can hardly avoid forming some impression of the thoroughness with which teaching is done by the different members of the staff; and although they make no report upon the matter, the opinions they form cannot fail in the long run to have an effect upon the instruction in the departments of which they are members. Moreover, their examinations determine the requirements for a degree in the various subjects of concentration, and the standard of attainment on the part of undergraduates. Their selection is therefore a matter of the utmost importance. In those departments that have recently adopted the plan, and where the number of candidates is too large to be examined by the instructors as a whole, a committee is appointed by the department itself; but in the Division of History, Government, and Economics it is appointed by the Corporation. The first members of this committee, Professors G. G. Wilson, R. B. Merriman, and E. E. Day, were the pathfinders, and to their wisdom and labor is due from the outset the success of the project.
When the general examination was introduced for History, Government, and Economics, it was perceived that in these subjects it could not work well unless the students were provided with the assistance of tutors in correlating what they had learned in their courses, and in mastering the parts of the field which courses do not cover. At first it was difficult to find men qualified for this task, quite unknown as it was in American college education, since no one had any experience in doing it. A new form of instruction had to be devised; new men had to teach themselves a new art. They have done so, until at present an excellent corps of tutors is working systematically in this division. No doubt experience will still farther perfect their methods, and by frequent conferences they are seeking constant improvement. A tutor, who by the way may be of any academic grade, is by no means wholly confined to tutorial work. A number of them are also conducting courses, and that is a distinct advantage. The only college work which they cannot do is obvious. They should not be on the committee in charge of the examinations. There is no better way of stating what they strive to do, and what they have accomplished, than by inserting as an appendix hereto the report of Assistant Professor H. H. Burbank, the Chairman of the Board of Tutors for the division.
Source: President’s Report in Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1921-1922, p. 13-4.
________________________________
Report on the Tutorial System in the Division of History, Government and Economics at Harvard University, 1922
To THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY:
SIR, — I have the honor to submit a report on the Tutorial System in the Division of History, Government and Economics.
The tutorial system of the Division of History, Government and Economics was made possible and necessary by the introduction of the general examinations. When this Division accepted the principle of these examinations it declared that they could be made effective and, at the same time, just to the student only by the development of a system of individual guidance. Tutorial instruction began in 1914 with a staff of six tutors supervising the work of some one hundred and fifty students. At that time the Division expected the number of concentrators would not at any time exceed four hundred. During the present academic year sixteen tutors have given instruction to six hundred and forty-eight students.
When provision was made for tutors, the Division contemplated only indefinitely their functions and the scope of their work. There were no examples to be followed; no system of like nature had been established in any American university and the precedents afforded by Oxford and Cambridge could give little guidance. During the first three years many experiments were necessary. The place of the tutor’s work in the general system of instruction had to be found, methods of work had to be developed. These problems could be met only by a process of trial and selection. At first there were many false starts; undoubtedly there was some lost effort, but there was also appreciable growth and development. The War brought an abrupt cessation of activities. With the resumption of normal academic conditions in 1919-20, tutorial work was reorganized, and it is from this time that the more important growth of the system is to be recorded.
Different methods of tutorial instruction are still being tried and probably will continue for some time, but the experience of the years since 1914 has been sufficient to give a definite indication of the processes which are best suited to our needs. Because of the several experiments which different tutors are undertaking, all generalizations regarding tutorial work are open to some exceptions.
Each tutor has under his supervision approximately forty students, selected in about equal proportions from the senior, junior and sophomore concentrators. The tutor meets his students regularly, usually once each week, in individual conferences. In some few instances, especially with sophomores, groups of two or, at the most, three students are found advantageous, but such group conferences are used sparingly; the characteristic method is the individual conference. Usually the conference lasts for about half an hour, but here the exceptions are many. The student is never limited in the matter of time. If he wishes to see his tutor with greater frequency it is his privilege to do so and he is encouraged to take full advantage of the unusual opportunities offered to him by individual instruction. The unwilling students — and they are so few that they leave no mark on the system — are obliged to do a minimum amount of work and to give a minimum amount of time to the tutor. The interested students can have about all they desire in time and instruction.
The introduction of the tutorial system was not accompanied by any change in course requirements. The student who elects to concentrate in History, Government or Economics, and thereby comes under the direction of the tutor, carries the usual number of courses from which he secures the groundwork for his general and special concentration. But courses are not synonymous with subjects; they cut through or across subjects. The first work of the tutor is to help the student organize and correlate this course material so that his chosen field of study appears to him as continuous and homogeneous rather than as groups of data or ideas with little or no relation. For seven years the tutors proceeded on the principle that class instruction could be taken for granted, that the material offered in courses had been accepted and assimilated by the students. The results of the examinations lessened confidence in the validity of this position and pointed directly to the need for further instruction along the same line. Many of the courses in this Division have very large numbers; the majority of those which are elected by undergraduates are conducted by the lecture method with little or no opportunity for discussion or for a thorough test of the student’s grasp of the subject matter. Further study and emphasis in the tutorial conference of material already presented in courses is proving of inestimable value. The data frequently is the same, — an historical period, a theory of government, a principle of economics, — the point of view is different, the stimulus is different. In the tutorial conference there is no question of marks or discipline; the one important object is to understand something which appears to be important.
Thus the tutor’s work deals in part with the materials already presented in class instruction — correlating it, focusing it, teaching it. But to arrive at the standards imposed by the general examinations requires a very considerable amount of additional reading. The tutor must and does expand the field of study by assigning and discussing problems not within the limits of courses now offered. In this connection as well as in the reconsideration of course material the tutor strives to interest his students in general reading. This is a very great opportunity. The student at Harvard as well as at the other colleges of this country has been so beset with textbooks, books of selected readings, page assignments and the like, that the reading habit not only has gone undeveloped but has tended to become stultified. Through conferences with his tutor and by means of his reading, the student gains a familiarity with his subjects of study that courses alone cannot impart. Furthermore, if he responds adequately to tutorial direction, he forms, largely unconsciously, a reading habit, a critical judgment and a discriminating taste that the established system of college education seldom produces. Another phase of this subject, or perhaps a by-product of this tendency, is found in the matter of general reading during the vacations. Ten years ago the student was rarely found who did not regard the final examinations in June as the terminus of his educational effort for that year. By small degrees this is changing. With the inauguration of tutorial instruction students were urged to continue their reading during the vacations, especially during the summer months. The cumulative effect has been important. Students in sufficient numbers are undertaking this work, to call for facilities to direct their reading between June and September. A plan is now under consideration whereby tutors will be in Cambridge during the summer either to take personal charge of students or to direct their work by correspondence. The significance of this development is apparent when the reader is reminded that such work is not only voluntary but receives no credit in terms of grades or courses.
The tutor has still another function, less tangible perhaps, but no less important than those already mentioned. A cursory study of the college records of undergraduates is sufficient to indicate that a relatively small proportion achieve anything above mediocrity — that is, above a “C” grade. This is not because of limitation of capacity. Undergraduates are capable of accomplishment far beyond that registered in courses. But they have many interests other than those which find their expression in the class-room. Their interests and their efforts are scattered; much time and energy are wasted. A tutor of the type sought by this Division has the power and capacity to stimulate the undergraduate to real intellectual achievement. When a student comes to him with a predominating intellectual curiosity — the type of student who is usually a candidate for distinction — he has but to mould the material into finished form. The more difficult, but possibly the more important, task is to stimulate the less eager student, to make his subject of study real and alive, to make it attractive, to inspire the student to want to learn not because of the record that may be involved nor because of any particular honors that may be granted, but for the sake of the achievement itself. To do this on an increasingly larger scale is one of the main objects of the tutorial system. During the last three years there has been perceptible progress in this direction. A great deal remains to be done, but very definite limitations are imposed by the inflexible requirements of university instruction. Without any substantial change in these requirements considerably more can be accomplished. It depends upon securing the unusual type of tutor. With more flexibility and perhaps with some reasonable reduction of the requirements in terms of courses, progress is possible and probable that will be significant in the trend of American college education.
One might expect that the improvement in academic interest which the tutorial system has been able to stimulate would express itself in an increase in the number of candidates for distinction. To some extent such an increase has appeared; students have become candidates who would not have done so without the stimulation of individual direction and instruction. But there has been a concurrent counter effect. Candidacy for distinction is dependent upon grades in courses. Unfortunately, intellectual interest, sustained work and broad accomplishment are not always synonymous with a high grade in the particular course which covers a part of the field of study. Undergraduates in appreciable numbers are showing a distinct preference for tutorial rather than for class work — less effort is given to courses, more is devoted to the more intimate work with the tutor. No attempt is being made to pass upon the desirability of this tendency. It is simply presented as a tendency which is showing increasing strength.
Among the various experiments which the tutors have made in the effort to secure broader and better preparation for the general examinations have been those connected with written work. For some time it has been clear to the tutors that one of the most effective methods of instruction is found in the construction and repeated criticism of written reports, essays and theses. Incidentally, very few of the students do not need the added instruction in composition and expression that written work entails. Recently this Division, recognizing and emphasizing the value of written work, has voted that a satisfactory thesis shall be required of all candidates. To provide more adequate opportunity for writing of this character, each Department is now offering a course in thesis work.
The most significant development in connection with the tutorial system has been the very favorable response of the students. Tutorial instruction is an addition to the usual requirements for the degree. At the minimum this increase is equivalent, in terms of courses, to about one course a year or, during the three years of concentration, it approaches an additional requirement of a year’s work. At the maximum the only limitations are those set by the available time of the student and the tutor. Each year there are some students who give considerably more time to their tutorial instruction than to their more formal requirements. These, however, are exceptional instances. Yet, as a group, the majority of concentrators accept tutorial instruction as an educational opportunity rather than as a demand for additional hours of study. In spite of the very considerable increase in the work involved, concentration in this Division has increased steadily. When the system of general examinations and tutorial instruction was announced, concentration in the Division, especially in Economics, declined heavily. Almost immediately, however, the Division proceeded to win back the numbers it had lost through the additional requirements. In part, this may be explained by the introduction of general examinations in other Divisions, but there is reason to believe that concentration in this Division would have approximated its present position if the examinations had been confined to History, Government and Economics. Although this increase in numbers has been gratifying, a more pronounced reason for satisfaction is found in the distinct improvement in the quality of the student and in the level of accomplishment. To a large degree this is due to the failure of the unwilling or the less capable student to choose this Division as the field for his special study. In part, also, it is due to the increasingly effective work of the tutor. Indifferent students still choose this field, but in decreasing numbers, and as the sophomore and junior years pass by they are weeded out in considerable proportions or, responding to the efforts of the tutor, their work improves. After a trial, more or less prolonged, the indifferent student seeks other Departments, but during the last two years transfers to this Division have more than filled these vacancies.
Another aspect of tutorial work is indicative of the attitude of the student. Attendance at the conferences is not compulsory. There is no system of monitoring or reports of absences to the college office. The fear of disciplinary action cannot serve as a stimulus to meet appointments or to prepare assignments. It is true that the authority to employ disciplinary measures can be invoked if the occasion arises, but in eight years no resort to such measures has been necessary. Yet the cutting of tutorial appointments is comparatively rare, far less than the cutting of courses. The majority of concentrators, well over ninety per cent, seldom fail to meet their engagements. The tradition of tutorial work has become firmly established.
H. H. BURBANK.
Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1921-22, pp. 34-38.
Image Source: Assistant Professor of Economics Harold Hitchings Burbank in Harvard Class Album, 1920.
