Welcome to a 1905 discussion about the requirements for a Ph.D. in American History, Economics or Sociology from the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science. Should sufficient knowledge of Latin (repeat, Latin) be the subject of examination for those fields. From the minutes of the meeting transcribed below we learn that a no-brainer motion to dismiss the Latin language examination was postponed, pending inquiries about the Latin language requirements at other universities.
Can a I hear a Gloria in excelsis Deo?
______________________
Discussion Questions Regarding Revision of Ph.D. Requirements
Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University (1905)
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
January 25, 1905
President Butler
Columbia University
Dear Sir:
It gives me pleasure to advise you that the Faculty of Political Science decided at its last meeting to hold a special meeting on Friday, January 27, at 3:30 p.m. For the informal and preliminary discussion of the questions submitted by its committee on the Revision of Requirements for the Ph.D. degree, of which I enclose a copy.
Respectfully yours
[signed] Henry R. Seager
Secretary
- Is it desirable to distinguish the candidates for the doctorate from the rest of the student body and to prescribe preliminary tests or examinations for admission to such candidacy?
- Should proficiency in the required languages be treated as such a preliminary requirement?
- Should candidates with a major in (a) Economics, (b) Sociology or (c) American History be excused from examination in Latin?
- If so, should a third modern language be required of those candidates who do not offer Latin?
- How early in his period of residence, or how long before admission to the candidacy for the doctorate, should a student select the subject of his dissertation?
- Is it desirable that seminar work should be so organized as to encourage preliminary studies by the candidate in the field of his dissertation?
- When the subject selected as a major is one in which relatively few courses (less than eight hours) are offered, should attendance upon other courses, in addition to those now required in the minor subjects, be made compulsory? If this is desirable, should the end be attained by increasing in such cases the requirements in the minor subjects?
- When the subjects selected as a major subject is one in which more than eight hours of lectures are offered, should be existing requirements as regards attendance be decreased?
- Should it be required, before any candidate is admitted to the general examination on his subjects, that he be recommended by the professors in charge of his major and minor subjects?
- Is it desirable that the professor in charge of his major subject should refuse such recommendation unless the work of the candidate upon his dissertation has been carried to such a point as to render it probable that a satisfactory dissertation will be produced within the legal term?
- If any of the above changes seem desirable, shall your committee prepared, for submission to the faculty, rules adopted to realize said changes? Or shall say, where ever it seems practicable, draft resolutions which, if adopted, will merely express the general policy of the Faculty, to be made effective in practice by the action of his several members?
Source: Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder “11. Seager, Henry R.”
______________________
Minutes of Special Meeting
Jan. 27, 1905
In the absence of the President, the meeting was called to order by the Dean.
Present: Professors Burgess, Munroe Smith, Goodnow, Seligman, Osgood, Dunning, Giddings, Robinson, Sloane, Moore, H.L., and Seager.
Excused: Professors J.B.Moore and Clark
The reading of the minutes of the last meeting was passed over.
On motion, the Chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Requirements for the Ph.D. degree was requested to read abstracts of the replies received from the different members of the Faculty to the questions propounded by that Committee. On further consideration this action was, on motion, revoked.
The Faculty then proceeded to the consideration of the questions submitted seriatim.
On motion it was
Resolved: That the sentiment of the Faculty is adverse to the plan of distinguishing candidates for the doctorate from the rest of the student body.
On motion, it was decided in connection with the second question, that any candidate for the Ph.D. degree may take the required examination in the languages one year in advance of the examination on his subjects. After some further discussion the Faculty adjourned to meet as a committee of the whole on Friday, February 3rd at 3:30 P.M.
[signed] Henry R. Seager.
Secretary
Minutes of Special Meeting
Feb. 3, 1905
In the absence of the President the meeting of the Committee of the Whole was called to order by the Dean.
Present: Professors Burgess, Munroe Smith, Seligman, Dunning, Moore, J.B., Giddings, Robinson, Moore, H.L., and Seager.
On motion it was
Resolved: That the following motion be substituted for that passed at the close of the last meeting: Resolved that it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that it is desirable to permit and encourage students to take the examination on their languages in advance of the examination on their subjects.
The following resolution was then proposed: Resolved that it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that it is desirable to excuse candidates for the Ph.D. degree in Economics, Sociology and American History from the examination in Latin, provided that the professors in charge of their major studies certify that that language will not be necessary in connection with the preparation of their theses. After some discussion a substitute motion was passed instructing the Secretary to make inquiry as to the practice of other universities in reference to requiring Latin in connection with the Ph.D. degree.
On motion, Question 4 was passed over for later consideration.
On motion, Questions 5, 9 and 10 were taken up together. After some discussion it was on motion
Resolved: That it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that a recommendation from one or more professors be pre-requisite to admission to examination for the Ph.D. degree.
On motion it was
Resolved: That it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that no candidate shall be admitted to examination on his subjects until recommended by the professors in charge of his major and minor subjects, and that in case of disagreement among the latter the decision of the professor in charge of the major subject shall prevail.
After some discussion it was decided that the point covered by Question 10 was sufficiently provided for by the resolution adopted by the Faculty at its regular meeting in May, 1904. [*See below]
On motion, Questions 5 and 6 were laid on the table.
On motion, Questions 7 and 8 were taken up together.
On motion it was resolved, in answer to 8, that it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that when more than eight hours of lectures are offered in the major subject, the existing requirements in reference to attendance should be decreased.
No action was taken in reference to Question 7.
On motion, the Committee adjourned.
[signed] Henry R. Seager.
Secretary
*From the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
May 20, 1904
…The following resolution was offered by the Secretary:
RESOLVED that it is the sense of this Faculty that no candidate shall be admitted to examination on his major and minor subjects for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until the professor in charge of the major subject certifies that such progress has been made by the candidate in the investigation of the subject selected by him for his dissertation, as to render it probable that a satisfactory dissertation will be produced.
Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1897-1919, Minutes of The Faculty of Political Science (October 22, 1897 to May 9, 1913), pp. 133-134, 144-148.
Image Source: From archive.org: Xenophontis Socratici liber, qui Oeconomicus inscribitur. Bernardinus Donatus Veronensis vertit, 1539. Repository: National Central Library of Rome.