A member of the Department of Economics Visiting Committee, John Wells Morss, took it upon himself to sit in and observe classroom performance in the recitation sections of the Harvard Principles of Economics course during the Fall term of 1913-14. From the first paragraph of his report it would appear that the department of economics had invited him to provide a report to serve as a complementary (friendly?) assessment to the survey being (or to be) conducted by the Harvard Division of Education on teaching in the economics department. That Division of Education report was later published: The Teaching of Economics in Harvard University—A Report Presented by the Division of Education at the Request of the Department of Economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917.
Morss’ report was passed along to President A. Lawrence Lowell of Harvard by the chairman of the department of economics, Charles Bullock, for-the-(positive)-record. While the report seems rather long-winded by today’s standards, it does provide us some good information, e.g. about the importance of the weekly questions discussed in the recitation sections. For a sample of the questions we are fortunate to have the published record.
Edmund Ezra Day and Joseph Stancliffe Davis. Questions on the Principles of Economics. New York: 1915.
“A few of the questions here presented are frankly borrowed from previously published collections…More of the questions have been drawn from a stock accumulated through several years in the hands of the instructing staff of the introductory course in Economics at Harvard University.” (p. vii)
The questions were arranged by topics to follow Taussig’s own textbook Principles of Economics (Second, revised edition of 1915: Volume One; Volume Two).
Another interesting takeaway is that Morss noted that over the four weeks that he attended sections, the average amount of assigned reading for these recitations was 33 pages per week from the Taussig textbook. This certainly seems modest from the perspective of today’s nominal reading lists but perhaps actually corresponds to the actual reading completed by the average undergraduate in an introductory or intermediate economics course.
Note: Since the following items come from the last folder from a box that contains the papers of President Lowell of 1909-14 and the month of February is significantly closer to the start than the end of the year, it seems likely that the date, “1913”, found in the typed date on Charles Bullock’s cover letter was mistaken and that both items transcribed below are from February 1914.
__________________
Course Announcement and Description, 1913-14
[Economics] A. (formerly 1). Principles of Economics. Tu., Th., Sat., at 11.
Professor Taussig and Asst. Professor Day, assisted by Messrs. Burbank, J. S. Davis, R. E. Heilman, and others.
Course A gives a general introduction to economic study, and a general view of Economics for those who have not further time to give to the subject. It undertakes a consideration of the principles of production, distribution, exchange, money, banking, international trade, and taxation The relations of labor and capital, the present organization of industry, and the recent currency legislation of the United States will be treated in outline.
The course will be conducted partly by lectures, partly by oral discussion in sections. A course of reading will be laid down, and weekly written exercises will test the work of students in following systematically and continuously the lectures and the prescribed reading. course A may not be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor.
Source: Harvard University. Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1913-14, published in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. X, No. 1, Part X (May 19, 1913) , p. 60.
__________________
Course Enrollment, 1913-14
[Economics] A (formerly 1). Professor Taussig and Asst. Professor Day, assisted by Dr. J. S. Davis, and Messrs. P. G. Wright, Burbank, Eldred, and Vanderblue.—Principles of Economics.
Total, 494: 1 Graduate, 1 Business School, 13 Seniors, 129 Juniors, 280 Sophomores, 24 Freshmen. 46 Others.
Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1913-1914, p. 54.
__________________
Examination Questions for Economics A, 1913-14
Mid-year and Year-end final exams for 1913-14 for Economics A have been transcribed and posted earlier.
__________________
Cover letter from Professor Bullock (Economics)
to President Lowell
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Cambridge, Massachusetts
February 20, 1913 [sic].
Dear Mr. Lowell:
Mr. John Wells Morss of our Visiting Committee has recently completed a very thoro investigation of the work done in the sections of Economics A. I enclose herewith a copy of the Report, which I think, will be of great interest to you. Last Tuesday I had the pleasure of an hour’s conference with Mr. Morss, in which he told me somewhat more fully about this investigation; and I think it may be worth your while to confer with him upon the subject.
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
C. J. Bullock.
__________________
Harvard University
THE SECTION MEETINGS OF ECONOMICS A
Notes by John Wells Morss
February, 1914.
When an amateur attempts to pass upon the work of professionals, a knowledge of his point of view is essential to one who would consider his conclusions. It therefore seems fitting to state that I was invited by the Department of Economics to make an examination of some of its work not because I was expected to reach results comparable to those expected from the examination now being conducted by the Department of Education, but because, as my invitation expressed it, the Department of Economics believed it “important to secure the opinion of some one who represents a different point of view, and brings to the work of inspection the experience of a man of business rather than of a student of education”. I have limited my examination to the work of the section meetings of the Economics Department, and shall limit this report to the work of the section meetings of Economics A, as that course has a large majority of the section meetings of the Department, and to consider them only greatly simplifies what I have to say. I have not compared my results with those of the Department of Education, and I have sought but little to obtain the views of those who conduct the section meetings as to their problems and difficulties lest they overwhelm my own observation.
Economics A, the introductory course to the subject most popular in Harvard College, has an enrollment of students this year of about five hundred and twenty-five. On Saturdays a lecture is delivered to the students in a body in the New Lecture Hall. On two other days of the week each student attends a meeting of the section to which he is assigned. There are twenty-one sections, each with a membership of about twenty-five. They are conducted by five instructors and Assistant Professor Day, all of whom will be referred to as the instructors. Twenty minutes or more of the one hundred minutes given weekly to the section meetings are devoted to writing an answer to a question set by the instructor. As twenty-one section meetings cannot be held at once, the same question cannot be put to all the students of the course; but the six different questions, prepared at a conference of the instructors, are all designed to serve the same purpose of testing the students’ knowledge and comprehension of recent work. I have not attempted to judge either questions or answers, but their usefulness seems to me to be unquestionable. After the answer is written the rest of the two meetings is devoted to a quiz with explanations and discussions based on the required reading which is usually from twenty to fifty pages of Prof. Taussig’s “Principles of Economics”. It is to this part of the work that I have given the most of my attention.
The attendance has been excellent at all the meetings at which I have been present. The maximum number of absences in a section of twenty-five does not ordinarily exceed two. One section had but five absences in six successive meetings beginning in the second week of the fall term. This record may not be equaled at meetings close to holidays and other special occasions, but on the whole the attendance is surprisingly good.
The preparation of the students is stimulated and tested by the questions asked of them by the instructor. So generally did it appear that substantially all the students of a section were called upon in an hour that I ceased after a time to attend to the point, though it seems plain that care should be used not to miss sluggish students assigned to seats in the back of the room. How generally the required reading had been done it was difficult to judge. Perhaps on the average three or four at each meeting answered that they were not prepared. At one meeting near the end of the year in another course than Economics A the preparation had been widely neglected, but that was a single case in my experience, and on the whole it seems that success is attained in the attempt to cause the students to work throughout the year with reasonable regularity.
The attention of the students seemed also satisfactory. Nobody went to sleep and apparently very few were near it. I saw no carving of the desks, though many results of such handiwork are visible. A half dozen raised hands would often indicate a strong desire to answer a question or join in the discussion. A considerable number of questions were asked in the class, some showing thought above the realization of ignorance. At some meetings a few students asked questions after the class, though the total number of those so doing was rather disappointing, considering the theoretical and stimulating nature of the subject.
The quality of the thinking done by the students did not seem to equal their attention. That they should show a lack of practical knowledge and of well considered opinions was to be expected in an elementary course; but they showed a striking incapacity for the simplest mental arithmetic, and on one occasion but few, if any, of them had had the curiosity, when studying the different kinds of currency, to look at the bills in their own pockets. And there was frequently illustrated the difference in result between reading and hard study. Often their ideas seemed hazy and too often a whole class seemed unable to answer a question adequately explained in the text. In other words, one who seeks the thoroughness required of a man is disappointed as is also he who expects to find among these students the indifference of an idle boy. When however one remembers that the average student of an elementary course in college is neither boy nor man, but in progress of development from one to the other, one is reasonably satisfied with the attitude and work of the students, and with their response to what is done for them.
In one particular however it seems that special effort should be made to improve the work of the students. In all the section meetings I attended comparatively few notes were taken. A reason may be that it is difficult to take notes of a running discussion; but the results of the discussions are often summarized by the instructor, and nobody can really take notes who can only report a slowly delivered lecture. Moreover in one case apparently not a single member of a section copied from the blackboard figures excellently illustrating the working of a clearing house. I for one should be glad to see lectures delivered to all the students of the College explaining the importance of note taking, and suggesting various practical methods. Further I would have the instructors of this course informally supplement such lectures from time to time by encouraging good note taking.
When the work of the instructor of a section meeting is considered, it is necessary early to realize that one of the most serious limitations under which he works is that of time. The maximum time available weekly for discussion in the section meetings is a short eighty minutes. The average number of pages assigned to be read in four successive weeks was thirty-three, and an experiment showed that it takes three minutes to read aloud one of those pages very rapidly. In other words there are but eighty minutes to discuss a text which cannot be read rapidly in less than one hundred minutes, and which is usually condensed in statement, closely reasoned and in many points debatable. There has therefore arisen a demand for an additional section meeting. This does not appeal to me. Economics A is a course which should be taken by every student in the College, and it should not require an exceptional amount of time from its students lest the number of them taking it be thereby limited. Moreover an additional fifty minutes would not solve the problem; the cry for still another hour would inevitably follow.
The work of the instructor is also rendered difficult by the exceptional nature of the course itself. Economics A is not only an introductory course, but is also the only course in Economics taken by a large proportion of its members. It embraces a great number of topics, each as a rule involving difficult questions of theory and based on a great variety of facts. The amount of ground to be covered is so great that of most topics only a cursory view can be had. It is impossible to pursue to any considerable extent the method of teaching by asking questions introduced into the Law School by Prof. Langdell. With that method, at least in the first year, but little ground can be covered, the facts must be few and certain, and the students either trained to reason closely or ambitious to become so trained. In Economics A the students are two or three years younger than in the Law School, and the facts and principles involved in a simple economic problem are generally of much greater complexity than those contained in the printed report of a law case. Moreover it is a rare person who does not believe that his general knowledge of economics questions is valuable. Therefore the attempt to teach elementary economics by questioning usually leads into a maze of disputed facts. Frequently therefore the instructor can ask questions only until the points are developed and then must make a statement relative to the matter under discussion. These statements are necessary and save much time, but one wonders occasionally if they are fully understood by the students, and whether a question or two after the statement would not furnish a useful test.
The variety, and to some extent the inconsistency, of the objects sought to be accomplished in the section meetings is another difficulty of the instructor. He seems called upon to see that his students do steady work; to check that work for deficiencies; to emphasize the more important, and explain the more difficult parts of a difficult subject; to stimulate intellectual interest and develop good mental habits; and, so far as time allows, to add to the contribution of others further facts and principles. In other words he must be a drill sergeant, an efficient and inspiring teacher, and an authority overflowing with his subject. An illustration of the problems caused by this diversity of objects presents itself when we consider whether it is better to ask single questions of one student after another, or to ask a considerable number of questions of one student before calling on another. If the latter course is followed, the subject can be more thoroughly and consistently developed, and the questioned student better tested and aroused. But then the poorer members of the class may fail to follow the line of questioning or may even regard the considerable time given to one man as an opportunity mentally to go to sleep. A rattling fire of single questions keeps the whole class wide awake.
An observer who has come to realize some of the difficulties of conducting a section meeting, and has seen different methods pursued by different instructors, is tempted to theorize and to select the methods which he thinks he would adopt if he were himself conducting a meeting. He would call upon his students in an order which they could not forsee, and would call on each one of them at least weekly to test his reading of the text. He would use the single question when the simplicity of the subject matter encouraged it, or the class seemed dull, and would seek the opportunity to develop with one student a more complicated problem by a series of questions. He would realize that the limitation of time made it necessary not to attempt to cover in the class all the ground covered by the text, but to plan carefully what topics should be touched upon and the amount of time to be given to each of them, even if his intention was not to hold rigidly to his plan, but to meet the needs of his class as it developed in the meeting. He would try to present in some measure of scale the most important points, although saving time on those which could not fail to be seized by the students because of their relative simplicity or general popular interest. In such an introductory course he would tend to emphasize reasons rather than conclusions, and theory rather than facts, although he would welcome an opportunity to explain and illustrate the actual working in detail of practical affairs. He would as a rule follow the opinions of the text and not complicate a problem by introducing too often his own opinions or those of other authorities; nor would he expect himself largely to contribute additional material to the discussion; yet he would avoid frequent references to the text by name, but endeavor to have a proposition rest not on the authority of the writer but on its own reasonableness. Realizing that a problem is half solved when the definitions of its terms are accurately determined, he would emphasize the importance of the exact meaning of words, and would not infrequently write on the blackboard a list of significant words and phrases as an outline for the work of the meeting.
But even if a method could be determined upon which would be better than any other, its creator would still be far from his goal. The very perfection of the method of one instructor may cause his class to bow to it and hardly ask a question, while the apparent deficiencies of another’s method seems to stimulate his class to ask questions until the ground is well covered. Again a method highly successful with one teacher cannot be effectively pursued by another; and the needs of the students, even of the students of the same section, vary greatly from time to time. Moreover almost every conclusion embodied in a method is a resultant of conflicting considerations and its application is a question of degree. One therefore is here led to an opinion often reached before in similar cases that good teaching is primarily a matter not of method, but of judgment, energy and skill in the teacher.
In studying the characteristics of the instructors of Economics A, one first notes that they are men of very diverse temperaments, experience and methods. So different are they that when I learned that they had a weekly meeting I thought that they might greatly help each other by consultation about their common work, especially as most of them obtain in in this course their first experience in teaching. I was distinctly disappointed when I learned that the object of their weekly meeting was mainly to prepare the questions for the written answer, rather than to consult about the next week’s teaching. Still much consultation, if attempted, might easily become formal or cramping, and it may be better that each should be left alone to work out his results, and that we should trust that freedom will continue to justify itself by its fruits. Whichever plan is followed, the probability that there will occasionally be employed an instructor of inferior quality is sufficiently great to raise the question whether it would not be desirable to have each section taught by different instructors in the first and second half years. This would guarantee to each section at least a half year’s good instruction, and in addition would give to the students the advantage of two methods and two points of view.
In conclusion I am happy to be able to report that in my opinion the instructors of the section meetings of Economics A, with all their differences, are men of an exceptionally high average of ability and earnestness, and that their instruction is notably good,–much better than I had expected to find. The expenditure in the past few years of additional money to better the grade of these instructors has been justified by results, and those responsible for it are entitled to congratulations.
Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers 1909-1914, Box 14, Folder 404.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons photograph by Bill McLaughlin : Lowell Hall, originally called “New Lecture Hall”, Harvard University.