From the 81 Chicago economics Ph.D.’s as of Summer Quarter 1930 there were 40 responses to a survey conducted by the Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees. The chairman of the department Harry A. Millis wrote a memo summarizing (perhaps “spinning”) the results for his colleagues that he dutifully forwarded to the President of the University of Chicago. He chose to ignore responses of those who received their Ph.D.’s before 1920. Perhaps those responses were indeed irrelevant for the task at hand, but this historian of economics would have appreciated hearing what the earlier Ph.D.’s had to say too.
____________________________________
The University of Chicago
Department of Economics
December 11, 1930
President R. M. Hutchins
Faculty Exchange
Dear Mr. Hutchins:
Possibly you will be enough interested to read the enclosed memorandum I have sent to the members of the staff in Economics. In it I tried to bring together the significant things obtained from the questionnaires turned in by the forty persons who had taken the doctorate in Economics.
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
H. A. Millis
HAM-W
Encl.
____________________________________
December 1, 1930
Memorandum to: Staff in Economics
From: H. A. Millis
The Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees has transmitted to the Chairman of the several departments questionnaires filled out and returned by persons who have taken the doctorate in their respective fields. As you know, the object of the questionnaire was to secure reactions to and opinions on a number of matters involved in the existing program of graduate work and training. Each chairman has been requested to study his bundle of questionnaires and to present to his department such matters as seem to call for consideration.
Of the 81 persons taking the doctorate in Economics previous to last summer quarter, 40 returned questionnaires partially or completely filled out. Fifteen of the forty had taken the doctorate before Professor Laughlin retired so that for the most part they were writing of program and procedures passed into history. The remaining twenty-five had taken the doctorate within the last ten years (in 1920 or a subsequent year). Special attention has been given to the questionnaires returned by these twenty-five; on most point the other questionnaires have no value. Indeed, the questionnaires returned raise few questions and, taken as a whole, they do not contain a great deal that is valuable.
The Department is to be congratulated on the fact that all of the returns from those taking the doctorate in 1920 or more recently were more or less complimentary and appreciative of the training received. Not one could be said to be adversely critical in general. Yet, if special attention is given to questionnaires carefully filled out (a large number were not filled out at the points here involved), there are several suggestions worthy of consideration, most of them involving implicit criticism.
As would be expected, the absence of mature, full-arrived men in certain lines was regretted ([Clifford A. Curtis (1926), Garfield V. Cox (1929)]). The questionnaires make it quite clear that most of the gain, as seen by our doctors, is derived from contact with and instruction from outstanding men. While the value of carefully worked out, logically developed formal courses is commented on by a number as having been of value to them ([Emily Clark Brown (1927), Mercer G. Evans (1929)], Howard Barton Myers (1929), among others), it becomes clear that there is considerable feeling that there should be more emphasis on seminars and discussion groups ([Emily Clark Brown (1927), Herman J. Stratton (1929), Mercer G. Evans (1929), George R. Taylor (1929), John Bennet Canning (1929), Lysle Winston Cooper (1925)]). More opportunity is wanted to talk things over and out. A number congratulated themselves because they had obtained broad training in economic and allied fields, but a larger number now feel that their training was too narrow (Emily Clark Brown (1927), Colston E. Warne (1925)], Harold A. Logan (1925), Lysle Winston Cooper (1925), among others). Nor is this feeling that the training was too narrow due entirely or even generally to the variety of subjects now to be taught; a number are of the opinion that a broader foundation is needed for research and teaching in a specialized field. A few criticize our requirements and feel that it would be better to permit the students to follow their own bents ([James R. Jackson (1927), Harold A. Innis (1920), Harold A. Logan (1925)] — in the days of seven or eight written examinations). A number feel that they should have received more attention and supervision in their research ([George R. Taylor (1929), Shirley Coon (1926), Garfield V. Cox (1929), Leverett Samuel Lyon (1921)]). One ([Morris Copeland (1921)]) says that he should have been required to engage in factual research (don’t say anything about leading the horse to the trough!). It is evident that a number would like to have had a much greater opportunity to visit and discuss matters with the members of the staff.
Questions:
Should we not do more than we have done to get a considerable amount of the other social sciences into the programs of our students?
Would some change in our system of examinations be helpful in that connection?
Would it be wise to require a minor outside the department, this to be built up of work closely tying in with the student’s concentration and research?
(No doubt just such questions will be considered in the Division of the Social Sciences. Mr. Woodward will call a meeting of the Division in the near future.)
The Committee has been interested in the experience and training our doctors have had which would fit them for teaching. One group of questions submitted related to teaching experience, another to formal training in education.
Taking the twenty-five who took the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently and who filled out questionnaires, only seven had not taught in high school or college before entering upon graduate work here. Four of sixteen for whom the record is entirely clear, had taught 1 year, 6 had taught 2 years, 4 had taught 4 years, the other 2, 5 and 15 years respectively. Eleven taught while at the University. In so far as can be ascertained, all but two had taught in high school or college before they were placed by us in teaching positions. Only one of the twenty-five ([Alvah E. Staley (1928)] who has not entered the teaching profession) had had no teaching experience at the time he took the doctorate. The experience of two had been limited to 1 year, of three to 2 years, of two to 3 years, while the experience of the others had extended over from 4 to 15 years.
The questionnaire contained two questions as to formal courses in education. These were answered by thirty-four of the forty, but not answered by the other six. Twenty-one of the thirty-four had had no formal courses in education either as undergraduate or as graduate students. These divided themselves about evenly between the younger group, taking the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently, and the older. The remaining thirteen, all but one of whom had taken the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently, had had one or more formal courses in education. Inasmuch as no statement of reaction to such courses was called for, only six who had had two or more formal courses went out of their way to say anything concerning the value of us training. It may be significant that all six made disparaging remarks.
Miss K. [presumably Hazel Kyrk (1920)] had two courses at Chicago. One of these was in educational psychology which “was a snap course and an utter waste of time.” Special methods of teaching in High School “was much better.” She added that “education courses as a rule I believe are like the first.” Miss B. [presumably Emily Clark Brown (1927)]had three courses as an undergraduate, but none as a graduate student, “fortunately”, she added. She writes, “I would consider it a great waste of time. In my field, mastery of the subject, plus ability to work with people, is necessary for either teaching or research. I do not think that training in education would help enough to justify taking time from the study of the subject. Since experience in research and in teaching each contributes to success in the other, I would consider it unfortunate for a student to prepare specifically for the one or the other, and for that purpose to reduce the time available for securing the broadest possible mastery of the main and the allied fields.” Dr. K. had one course in educational psychology “but learned nothing.” Dr. T. writes, “I was graduated from the three-year course at he ____State Normal School at ______ before entering the University of Chicago. So far as I can now see the large amount of educational psychology, practice teaching, etc., which I had there was a total loss.” Dr. S. had a few courses while an undergraduate and one while a graduate student. He writes, “of no particular value to me except for some subject matter and a little theory of curriculum.” Dr. C. had taken a few courses as an undergraduate, but none as a graduate student. He writes, “As far as I can gather, such courses are a waste of time- if in no other way than in the circumstance that there are so many subjects in the individual’s own field or fields that he ought to be learning about.”
Only two of the twenty-one who had had no formal training in education, said anything about its value. In reply to one question, Dr. E. entered, “None, and I am glad of it”—an opinion based upon hearsay and common prejudice. Dr. Staley, on the other hand, writing about the program of work taken by him, states, “Often as a graduate student I felt that since I expect to spend a considerable part of my time teaching economics it might be well to devote some thought to problems of teaching as well as to the subject matter. I mentioned this notion a few times to members of my department, but they (some—not all) tended to discourage me in it. The feeling seems to be that the School of Education has nothing worth while to offer in this line, that teaching is something you have to learn by absorption or by experience anyway, and that ‘a science’ of education is rather to be smiled at, at least in connection with university teaching. I still feel, though, that even a university teacher has to teach students and not simply to teach subject matter in the abstract, and that therefore graduate students preparing for college positions should spend perhaps a little less energy on subtleties of their subject matter and a little more on considering what parts of it should be present to undergraduates and how. The best training for research and the best training for teaching are probably not identical.”
Question:
Prospective teachers need to know the pedagogy of their subject and the place of their subject and of themselves in the college. Of course all know something of these matters for they have been college students and have taken college courses in economics. This, however, may not be adequate. Some of our people have secured experience, if not a bit of training, by teaching while here, but the number of such persons is being reduced and will become negligible with the fuller development of policies already adopted. Some courses in the technique and problems of teaching elementary economics and business are being given by Mr. Shields. what more, if anything, should we do to prepare more adequately our graduate students before they are placed in teaching positions? This is the principal question the Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees wishes to have answered in a constructive way.
An examination of the replies to the question, “In view of your experience, do you regard it as important that a student shall take a Master’s degree on the way to the doctorate,” shows that except where there had been experience in graduate teaching here or elsewhere, the replies were decidedly influenced by personal experience in the graduate course, those (19) who had taken the Master’s generally answering “Yes,” those (21) who had not, answering “No.” In detail (the counts being for those who did and those who did not take the A.M.), (a) two and one did not answer the question; (b) four and four answered “no,” unless the graduate course is interrupted and the master’s is needed to get a job; (c) two and twelve answered in an unqualified “no”; (d) ten and three answered “yes,” for one or more reasons; (e) one and one stated that it all depends upon a variety of factors entering into concrete cases.
Those who gave reasons for a “no” answer, said a “mere vexation” ([John Bennet Canning (1929)]), “unnecessary evil,” of no value, may cause people not to continue to the doctorate ([William J. Donald (1914)]), infers with education ([Harold A. Innis (1920)]), gives the faculty too much trouble. Those who gave reasons for a “yes” answer, said that it starts the student in research early, that it tests him out and shows whether he should be encouraged to continue, that it causes the student to consolidate what he has already done, that the experience and research training are valuable.
QUERY:
What is our policy with reference to the Master’s degree and what should our policy be?
____________________________________
[Carbon copy of Hutchin’s response]
December 13, 1930
My dear Mr. Millis:
Thank you for your letter of December 11 and the copy of the memorandum which you have sent to the members of the staff in Economics.
I am very much interested.
Very truly yours,
R. M. Hutchins
Mr. H.A. Millis,
Department of Economics
Faculty Exchange.
____________________________________
Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President, Hutchins Administration. Records, Box 72. Folder: “Economics Dept, 1929-1931”.
Image Source: Undated picture of Harry A. Millis. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-00875, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.