The Committee on Instruction of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science (consisting of the four departments of public law, history, economics and sociology) circulated the following memorandum regarding the oral subject examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One is struck at both the apparent informality and variation of practice in the matter at the time the memorandum was written (most likely sometime during the academic year 1932-33). Of 74 examinations in economics, 52 were passed unconditionally during the three years 1929-30 through 1931-32.
__________________________________________
From the Committee on Instruction to the Members of the Faculty of Political Science
Memorandum on the Procedure of Doctor’s Examinations
At a recent meeting the Committee on Instruction discussed certain questions which seem pertinent in respect of the procedure in and standards of oral subject examinations for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. The Committee has decided to submit to the members of the Faculty certain of these considerations in the hope that the several Departments will discuss in departmental meetings any matters which seem important.
The procedure of oral subject examinations apparently rests in large part on custom. When a candidate is proposed for examination by a Department notices are sent to all the members of the proposing Department who are members of the Faculty of Political Science and a notice goes also to each of the other three Departments. The proposing Department can be represented at the examination by a committee of its members; it may add to the committee Professors who are not on the Faculty of Political Science; and the three non-proposing Departments are expected to designate representatives. In some cases this representative is a junior officer under the Faculty.
These inquiries concerning the conventions of examinations are not intended to suggest that there should be any attempt to draw up detailed rules and regulations. It is not thought that any existing evils—if there are such—can be eliminated by a codification of practices and agreement that the code should be followed. With the procedure based on custom, however, it does seem to the Committee on Instruction worth while for the customs to be recanvassed by informal discussions. This would seem to be the more desirable because of the increase in the number of doctoral candidates and the increased number of professors who serve on examining committees. A few years ago every member of a Department attended every departmental examination. Now there is increasing turnover among examiners. Hence, as has been said, it is more important that pertinent questions be rediscussed In submitting these questions the Committee on Instruction does no more than suggest that they are worthy of consideration. The Committee now expresses no opinion of how the questions should be answered:
1) Should oral examinations be made formal? Manifestly the occasion is an important one for the candidate. Should members of the examining committee smoke during the examination? Should the candidate smoke? Should member of the examining committee bring books, papers or proofs with them and carry on their work save when they themselves are asking questions? Should the presiding officer at the examination attempt to check conversations à deux or à trois between members of the examining committee when they are not asking questions?
2) Is it desirable to have any general understanding concerning the time allotted for the major subject and for the minor subject (a) when both subjects are within the same department, and (b) when the minor subject is in a different Department? Presumably in the case of (a) the matter can be settled within the Department. In the case of (b) the allocation seems to vary greatly, from twenty-five minutes to an hour.
3) Is it desirable to have the time of the examination devoted to questioning by four or five professors or is it desirable to have the questioning by eight or even more professors? If the questioning must be conducted by the larger number is it desirable to allow at least one of them a full half or three quarters of an hour?
4) Should all the professors who have asked questions be present at the conclusion of the examination and participate in the discussion of the candidate’s fate? Is it desirable for a questioner, after finishing his questions, to leave the examination room telling the Chairman his opinion of the candidate on his subject?
5) How should the decision of the examining committee be reached? By majority vote?
6) Should encouragement be given the practice of questions by representatives of other departments? What weight should be attached to the opinions of these representatives? Should efforts be made to give candidates less extemporaneous examinations?
8) Is there any reason for a change in the form of the Dean’s blanks so that on the record of the examination there will appear a list of the professors present and the special subjects on which they examined?
9) In the discussions of whether a student is to be passed or failed references to previous students who have passed or failed rest on the recollections of professors who have been on both examining committees. Is it desirable that notations be made on the blanks giving some indication of the nature of the performance of candidates and would it be possible for the Dean’s office to cumulate these notations and to send over with each new blank a summary of recent performances in that department?
10) Should consideration be given to the question of whether, in the absence of an examining committee of a certain size (including representatives from other departments) the examination should be postponed?
Record of Oral Subjects Examinations for the PhD Degree
Faculty of Political Science
|
Passed |
Failed |
Conditioned |
||
|
1929-30 |
||||
| Public Law |
6 |
10 |
4 |
|
| History |
13 |
12 |
6 |
|
| Economics |
21 |
2 |
4 |
|
| Sociology |
7 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1930-31 |
||||
| Public Law |
13 |
6 |
3 |
|
| History |
20 |
6 | ||
| Economics |
17 |
3 |
5 |
|
| Sociology |
11 |
2 | ||
|
1931-32 |
||||
| Public Law |
12 |
9 |
2 |
|
| History |
16 |
10 |
||
| Economics |
14 |
5 |
3 |
|
| Sociology |
7 |
7 |
Source: Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials. Box 10. Folder “Columbia University—General”.