The following exchange between the M.I.T. Dean of Humanities and Social Studies (John E. Burchard) and the representative of the chairperson of the Economics Department (Charles A. Myers covering for Ralph E. Freeman) gives us a short list of undergraduate courses that would have regularly had non-economics B.S. students attending to satisfy their distributional requirements in 1953. Dean Burchard’s informational request seems to be a fishing expedition with the hope of landing any evidence that some instructor in some course was helping to improve M.I.T. undergraduate writing skills. It is also interesting to see that sociology, psychology, and political science were all subjects administered by the economics department.
____________________________
Dean Reminding Economics Department about Information Request
May 6, 1953
Memorandum to Professor [Charles Andrew] Myers:
I asked Ralph [Evans Freeman] a while ago to get me some information but have not heard from him and imagine it got left and wonder if you could undertake this survey for me in the near future and give me an answer.
The problem is that those of us who were worried about the English style of our students at M.I.T. are pretty certain that we will never get a good overall performance on the mere basis of instruction in the first two years where writing is required and read and criticized. The burden of continuously upholding the standard obviously is going to rest with the professional departments and I have no doubt there are great inconsistencies in this throughout the Institute, and I also have no doubt most of them are pretty remiss in this obligation.
Before starting any campaign on this question, however, it is obvious that I need to know whether the house of my own School is in point of fact in order, or if not how far it is out of order.
I accordingly asked Professor [Howard Russell] Bartlett and Professor [Ralph] Freeman to get me an indication of the amount of writing required in the various subjects which might be elected by students in the School. In the History Department this was obviously limited to non-professional subjects and for the moment I am more interested in the general electives in the Department of Economics than I am in what policing you do of your own majors. It would be more helpful to know about both.
What Professor Bartlett did was write me a general answer which told me how many papers were required each semester, the approximate length, and how many written examinations. I wonder if it would be possible for you to dig out the same information for the various appropriate subjects in the Department of Economics and report to me fairly soon. I would like to be thinking about this problem during the summer.
Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies
Jeb/h
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Economics Department’s First Response to Dean’s Request for Information
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 11, 1953
Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard
Dear John:
This is in answer to your memorandum of May 6th. I guess this is something Ralph was unable to compete before he left and I thought I should get done promptly since I will be leaving tomorrow for the annual research meeting of the Committee on Labor Market Research of the Social Science Research Council in Minneapolis. George Shultz is one of the invited guests.
Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to list what the various people in charge of the various undergraduate subjects reported:
| 14.01 | [Economic Principles I] | ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 3 or 4 written hour examinations, mostly of the essay type |
| 14.02 | [Economic Principles II] | ([Edgar Carey] Brown) — 4 written hour examinations, no term papers |
| 14.03 | [Prices and Production] | ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 2 to 3 hour examinations; no term papers |
| 14.09 | [Economic Problems Seminar] | ([Paul Anthony] Samuelson) — no written exams, but 2 written papers, one long and one short, plus oral presentation of the content of the paper prior to the submission of the written paper |
| 14.51 | [International Relations] | ([Norman Judson] Padelford) — 8 written quizzes of 35 to 40 minutes in length; no term paper, except that sometimes there are written projects. |
| 14.61 | [Industrial Relations] | (Doug [Douglass Vincent] Brown and [John Royston] Coleman) — 3 hour examinations and 3 written case reports |
| 14.63 | [Labor Relations] | ([George Pratt] Shultz) — 3 written hour examinations and one term paper |
| 14.64 | [Labor Economics and Public Policy] | ([George Benedict] Baldwin) — 3 hour examinations and one written term paper |
| 14.70 | [Introductory Psychology] | ([George Armitage] Miller) — 2 or 3 written hour examinations, partly objective in character; no term paper |
| 14.72 | [Union-Management Relations] | ([Joseph Norbert] Scanlon) — 2 hour examinations and a special paper on a particular case |
| 14.73 | [Organization and Communications in Groups] | ([Alex] Bavelas and [Herbert Allen] Shepard) — 2 objective-type examinations and one written essay-type examination |
| 14.75 | [Experimental Psychology] | ([Joseph Carl Robnett] Licklider) — no examinations, but a written paper on the experiment, suitable for publication — this latter test is never quite met but students are expected to write with that end in view |
| 14.77 | [Psychology of Communication] | ([George Armitage] Miller) — 3 objective-type examinations |
| 14.91 and 14.92 | [The American Political System; Comparative Political and Economic Systems] |
([Jesse Harris] Proctor and [Roy] Olton) — 3 written hour exams, no term paper in the first term — 3 written hour exams plus a written term paper in the second term |
| 15.30 | [Personnel Administration] | ([Paul] Pigors) — 4 written cases, one term paper and one hour examination |
I think this pretty well covers the principal courses which are taken by undergraduate students in other departments. I think my own experience in teaching such undergraduate courses as 14.61 and 14.63 is similar to that of most of the staff, in that I have called attention to students of misspelled words, poor grammar, and generally poor organization and expression of written answers and papers. I really doubt if we can do much more or should do much more. It would be quite a task to go over each written examination with each student in detail, or even to do this after they have submitted a term paper. From time to time I have done this with some theses but not as a general rule, since the student is warned in advance that his grade will depend not only on content, but on expression.
I hope this gives you the information you need.
Sincerely
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers
m:g
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Follow-up Request by Dean
May 12, 1953
Memorandum to Professor Myers
Dear Charlie:
Your memorandum of yesterday answers my question about the writing in part.
I guess I agree, though I wish I didn’t have to, that people in the department cannot be expected to act as writing critics for students who are still defective in their English. Though I wish more people required papers and fewer examinations, this is obviously a matter of individual teachers’ methods.
The remaining question which I think is not answered is I believe a critical one, namely, does poor writing really result in a lower grade, and if it does is that single comment written on to the paper when it is returned with the grade to the student?
I hate to trouble you further but wonder if you would be able to explore this with the same group of people.
Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies
Jeb/h
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Economics Department’s Response to Follow-up Request by the Dean
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts
June 1, 1953
Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard
Dear John:
These are some further thoughts on your memo of May 12th, asking me to check again on whether poor writing really results in a lower grade in our courses and whether comments are written on the papers when they are returned with grades to the students.
Nearly everyone with whom I have talked here agrees that poor writing does result in a lower grade, if by “poor writing” is meant poor organization, hasty sentence construction, and confusing or fuzzy thinking as expressed in written words. Poor spelling apparently does not count so much, although Bob Bishop and I specifically do encircle misspelled words on written exams and papers. Comments on poor organization, etc., are specifically written on papers and exams when returned to students, and I know that many of us have stressed to students before writing exams and papers that their grades will depend in part on the way in which their material is organized and presented.
One further experience might be of interest in connection with your comment that you wish more people would require papers and fewer examinations. During the past term Jim Baldwin gave term papers in 14.64 and found that the pressure of senior theses on the students was so great that they did a very poor job on the papers. His grades reflect this, but he is bothered about the apparent conflict between the senior thesis and the term paper requirement in senior Humanities and Social Studies courses. Maybe we ought to place more emphasis on good writing in the senior thesis in the Department and in other Departments.
Sincerely,
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers
CAM:dg
Source: M.I.T., Institute Archives and Special Collections, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Office of the Dean, Records, 1934-1964. Box 3, Folder “103, Economics Department, General, March 1951-1956”.
For [first and middle names of instructors] and [course titles]: Course Catalogue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1952-53.
Image Source: (Left) John Burchard ; (Right) Charles A. Myers. MIT Museum Legacy Website (People Collection).