The subject of oral examinations has come up in earlier posts: Columbia 1932-3, Columbia 1967, and Harvard 1958. This post takes us to the immediate post-WWII years.
For visitors to this page who are unfamiliar with the divisional organization of Columbia University earlier: the department of economics was located within the faculty of political science that also included departments of history, public law and government, sociology, and anthropology — a disciplinary spectrum similar to that of Harvard’s Division of History, Government, and Economics.
____________________
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
23 April 1946
MEMORANDUM on the Conduct of Doctoral Examinations
TO: Members of the Faculty of Political Science
Following are a few suggestions, occasioned by comments of members of the Faculty relative to our oral examinations for the doctorate, both on subjects and in defense of the dissertation. They are distributed to call attention of members of examining committees to procedures previously agreed upon but sometimes forgotten or overlooked.
- That our system of departmental representatives at examinations is breaking down furnishes the subject of most frequent comment. This was understandable during the war when the staff was depleted and overworked; and provision of representatives for all examinations by the smaller departments is always a difficult problem. But the Committee feel that the principle is a good one and should be maintained. It makes for the equalization of standards in examination throughout the Faculty and serves as a constant reminder that examining committees, more particularly for the defense of the dissertation, are committees of the Faculty. Since the Faculty has for long been too large for all members to attend all examinations, the system of departmental representatives affords the means of maintaining faculty solidarity in the examination.
- There is further question relative to examining committees keeping within the allotted time. This is particularly important during the crowded period in late April and May, when examinations are frequently scheduled with no interval between. Lack of promptness in ending the examination causes confusion and irritation and detracts materially from the dignity of the examination. Obviously if the examination is concluded promptly on the hour, the committee must have some time to decide on the performance of the candidate, with the result that the next committee is kept waiting during the deliberation. This matter has been discussed with Miss Neare of the Dean’s office. She will do her utmost to allow at least one-half hour between each examination. If the schedule becomes so crowded that this is impossible, some other locale for the examination will be sought.
It should be noted that this arrangement may involve: (a) the commencing of some examinations on the half hour, and (b) the necessity of bearing in mind that some examinations will probably be scheduled in a room other than 304 Fayerweather. - Your committee would like to call attention of all chairmen of examining committees to the desirability of rigid adherence to the faculty agreement that 15 minutes at the end of every examination should be reserved for questions by departmental representatives, or more general questions by any member of the committee. At the same time we should like to point out that this rule has validity only if departmental representatives accept the responsibility of posing questions.
- The examining committee for defense of the dissertation is a committee of the Faculty charged to act for that body in the matter of certifying candidates for the doctorate. Occasionally when a question relative to the dissertation, or some unusual circumstance in the examination, has arisen reference has been made to the Committee on Instruction. It is the feeling of this committee that the decision of the examining committee should be final and that in all cases involving an unusual decision full and accurate record should be made of such decision, either on the reporting blank or on a sheet attached thereto.
Respectfully submitted,
James C. Bonbright
Austin P. Evans, Chairman
Philip C. Jessup
Robert K. Merton
APE:v
Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1940-1949.
Image Source: Fayerweather Hall from Columbia University Department of History website