The Division of History, Government and Economics played a pioneering role in implementing the curricular reforms at Harvard College initiated by President A. Lawrence Lowell around the time of the First World War. The Department of Economics was to play a leading role in the administration of the divisional tutors in history, government and economics.
President Lowell wanted to get away from the extreme laissez-faire implicit in the system of electives left by his predecessor, Charles W. Eliot, to combine elements of concentration with distributional requirements that would leave students a guided sovereignty to elect their courses. Divisional General Examinations and Tutors to provide individually tailored instruction and counseling were institutional means seen as necessary to escape “the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated”.
“…the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation…”
In the opinion of the faculty Committee on Instruction the tutorial system should be established to support the best and brightest students to achieve their individual potentials rather than as a support system to provide remedial instructional services for the “mediocre and lazy”.
“…there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.”
__________________________
The General Final Examination and the Tutorial System
The most important educational change, however, in Harvard College during recent years has been the establishment, as a requirement for the bachelor’s degree, of a general final examination on the student’s field of concentration; the problems which arise in connection with this plan are interesting and complex.
When the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1909-10 voted to require each student to concentrate at least six courses in some single field or in related fields of knowledge, it thereby indicated its belief that knowledge of a subject is of more importance than the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated and which were often soon forgotten. Provision was made, at the same time, against undue concentration by a system of distribution, which, however, need not be considered here. Yet the requirement of concentration proved not to secure, in all cases, the choice of courses well related, and least of all did it require, or sufficiently encourage, the student to articulate and complete his knowledge of his field, by himself, through work outside the classroom. The next logical step, therefore, was taken in the autumn of 1912-13 when the Faculty passed the following vote:
- That the Division of History, Government, and Economics be authorized to require of all students whose field of concentration lies in this Division, in addition to the present requirements stated in terms of courses for the bachelor’s degree, a special final examination upon each student’s field of concentration; and that the passing of this examination shall be necessary in order to fulfill the requirements for concentration in this Division.
- That students who pass this special examination may be excused from the regular final examinations in such courses of their last year as fall within the Division of History, Government, and Economics, in the same way that candidates for distinction who pass a public test may now be excused under the rules of the Faculty.
- That this requirement go into effect with the class entering in 1913.
- That the Division of History, Government, and Economics submit for the sanction of the Faculty the detailed rules for the final examinations and such a detailed scheme of tutorial assistance as may be adopted before these are put into effect by the Division.
The examinations thus established were first given at the close of 1915-16. Between that date and the end of the year 1919-20, these general examinations had been given to 444 men, of whom 26 (5.8+%) failed and therefore did not receive their degrees unless they passed the general examinations in some subsequent year; of the 418 who passed, 73 (17.4+%) won distinction and 345 (82.5+%) obtained a pass degree.
General examinations had been used in the Medical School since 1911-12, and in the Divinity School since 1912-13, so that considerable knowledge of the actual working of such examinations was available by the opening of the academic year 1918-19. Accordingly on December 3, 1918, the Faculty passed the following vote under which a committee of nine was established:
That a Committee be appointed to investigate the working of the general final examinations for degrees now used in various Departments of the University, and to consider the advisability of employing general final examinations on the fields of concentration in all Departments of Harvard College.
After studying the subject for some months the Committee came to the conclusion that the advantages of the general final examination, particularly as employed in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, might be stated as follows:
- The examination has secured “concentration” in related subjects.
- It has encouraged the mastery of subjects or fields rather than of courses.
- It has given the Division a survey of the student’s capacity at the end of his college course.
- It has provided a more satisfactory method of awarding the degree with distinction than the plan formerly in use.
The Committee therefore made the following recommendations, which the Faculty adopted April 1, 1919:
- That general final examinations be established for all students concentrating in Divisions or under Committees which signify their willingness to try such examinations, and that adequate means be provided to enable such Divisions and Committees to administer these examinations; it being understood that the control of the general final examinations shall rest with the several Divisions and Committees in the same manner as the control of the examinations for honors and distinction now given by them.
- That the new general final examinations be first employed for the members of the present freshman class.
- That, so far as possible, the adviser to whom each student is assigned, be a teacher in the student’s field of concentration.
All Divisions had previously indicated their desire or willingness to employ such examinations except the Divisions of Mathematics and of the Natural Sciences. The chief reason for the attitude of the Divisions declining appears to lie in the nature of the subjects which they represent, for Mathematics and the Natural Sciences have, by and large, fairly fixed paths of advancement for the undergraduate, so that an examination in an advanced course is, at the same time, an examination on all the work which has preceded, as may very well not be the case in Literary, Historical, and Philosophical subjects.
Beginning then, with the year 1921-22, general final examinations on the fields of concentration will be required of all candidates for the bachelor’s degree, save in the Divisions named above. The plan is an experiment, and the experience of at least ten years may be needed before its virtues and defects can be fully estimated; but in the meantime, the successful working of such examinations in the Medical School, the Divinity School, and especially in the Division of History, Government, and Economics under this Faculty, the welcome given the plan by the more serious part of the student body, and the interest in the experiment shown by other colleges, give grounds for entertaining much hope.
The very plan of a general final examination, however, requires that the student shall select his courses wisely, do work outside his formal courses, and by reading and reflection coordinate the details he has learned into a body of ordered knowledge of his subject, so far as this can be done in undergraduate years. In all this he requires guidance and stimulus. The Division of History, Government, and Economics, therefore, from the first, has employed Tutors whose business it is to guide and assist students, individually, in their preparation for the general final examination. Tutoring for this purpose was, on the whole, a new problem in American education, although Princeton University had made some important experiments with its Preceptorial system, and “advisers” for undergraduates had long existed here and elsewhere; moreover, the Oxford and Cambridge system of Tutors obviously could not be transplanted without change to this country because of the differences in secondary and college education. Therefore it was, and still is, necessary to experiment in methods and to develop men for the work. At first tutorial duties were superimposed on other teaching, thus increasing the total amount of instruction given by those who were appointed Tutors, but this plan proved unwise for reasons which now seem fairly clear, but which were not so easily seen in advance. More recently many Tutors have given all their time to tutorial duties, and in some cases this may always be a wise plan; but it appears probable that in many cases it will be unwise for a Tutor to be excluded wholly from giving some formal instruction in his subject by means of a “lecture” course or otherwise, for it is important that every teacher should grow in depth as well as in breadth of knowledge, and such growth can probably usually be best assured him by having him give a course in the subject which he is making especially his own. At present, then, the arrangement which seems most promising is to provide that, so far as possible, each Tutor who desires it shall use a certain proportion of his time in giving formal instruction with the usual classroom methods, the rest, usually the major part of his teaching, being given in the less formal but equally important work of a Tutor.
Tutorial work means work with the individual student. General suggestions and directions can be given to small groups about as effectively as to single students; yet since the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation, the Tutors must generally deal with individual students; and this is the regular method employed at the present time. The Tutor meets the students under his charge every week to discuss with them the reading which they have done, to help them solve their difficulties, and to give them suggestions for their future guidance. The good Tutor is in no sense a coach, but a friendly counselor whose knowledge and wisdom are put at the disposal of his students. Unquestionably the total amount of work now required of each student has been somewhat increased over that formerly exacted, but the amount is not so excessive as to call in itself for any remission of the present requirements of courses. The most important purpose, however, of this work done by the student outside his courses under the direction of the Tutor is to teach him how to learn and how to assimilate his knowledge. Ambitious and able students realize the value of such training and give themselves much of it, becoming candidates for distinction in their fields of concentration; the indolent and slow are content with a bare degree. When more experience has been gained the Faculty may well consider relaxing somewhat the requirements of four courses in the Senior year for candidates for distinction, whose previous records give promise of success; but the pass man deserves no increased opportunities for self-discipline since he will ordinarily have proved that he cannot or will not use them.
In this connection the question may well be raised whether all men should receive equal attention from the Tutors. That there should be equal opportunities for all until some have shown themselves indifferent or unequal to them is beyond doubt; but when the wills and abilities of men have been well tested, as should ordinarily be the case by the end of the sophomore year, it seems only justice to the willing and able to give them more attention than is bestowed on the men who are content with a pass degree. Of course a chance must be given the repentant laggard to climb into the more deserving, and therefore more favored, group during his last two years. But there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.
In the vote of April, 1919, the Faculty wisely left each Department or Division free to determine the nature of the assistance to be given students concentrating under it and the means by which such assistance shall be given. The Divisions of Philosophy and of Fine Arts propose to use Tutors, as the Division of History, Government and Economics has done from the beginning of the experiment; the several Departments of Languages and Literatures, ancient and modern, will employ advisory committees. But whatever names and methods are employed, the aim will always be to give the individual student assistance and encouragement in acquiring a body of well-organized knowledge in his field. In this direction apparently lies the next advance in the improvement of instruction in Harvard College.
CLIFFORD H. MOORE, Chairman.
Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1919-1920, pp. 100-104.
__________________________
Related previous posts
Harvard. Economics degree requirements, A.B./A.M./Ph.D., 1921-1922