By itself such an archival artifact from 1924 is just another boring piece of paper. But it is evidence that the search for an optimal deadline to balance the interests of thesis writers with the interests (and capacities) of professors did seem to require an explicit memorandum from the University of Chicago department head to M.A. candidates regarding both deadlines and numbers of copies. This was a time when three copies meant typing with carbon paper, so having the copies due on the day of the oral examination gives us a sense perhaps of just how (ahem) deeply read the M.A. theses were, at least by the non-principal-advisor members of the committees.
______________________________
MEMORANDUM TO CANDIDATES FOR THE MASTER’S DEGREE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
SPRING QUARTER 1924
- Theses should be in the hands of the reading committee not later than May 15. An earlier date is much to be preferred since the committee should have ample time for reading the thesis and the candidate should then have time for making any needed corrections. If three copies of the thesis are made available for the reading committee action will, of course, be expedited.
- Three typewritten copies of the thesis in its final form are due on the day of the oral examination.
- May 30 is the final date for oral examinations. Please arrange an hour with my office.
- The committee on your thesis is indicated below:
[blank space: to be filled in]
L. C. Marshall
Source: University of Chicago Archives. Economics Department. Records & Addenda. Box 22, Folder 8. Cf. Folder 8 (includes names for committees)
2 replies on “Chicago. Memo to M.A. candidates on deadline for theses, 1924”
I read this less critically than you do. The “reading committee” had a minimum of 15 days to read the theses and this was presumably the key stage. A very short period, but consistent with reading the thesis carefully. For all I know, the main committee was the reading committee plus an impartial chair, who would be there simply to confirm that procedures were followed. Or perhaps there were cases where the reading committee and the final committee were the same. I don’t know, but my point is that the memorandum is hard to evaluate without knowing more about the composition of the committees.
My reaction is that this shows that little changes. We still have to work to ensure that students submit on time and in accordance with the rules.
You caught me being more cute than truly critical. Should have been explicit like you that precisely such a 1924 memo to students to “remind” them of the rules is easy to imagine today. The recommendation of submitting three copies by May 15 but actually only required on the day of the oral exam caught my attention as a somewhat odd inconsistency that I thought might be explained by a practice of one person reading and others having the opportunity to look into the MA thesis.