FOR TEACHERS

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I am commenting on your editorial, "The Case for the College" (CRIMSON of January 28, 1959), a thoughtful and provocative editorial which deserves the highest praise. The editorial itself is a partial refutation of one of its themes, namely, that formal academic requirements absorb too much of the energies of undergraduates, with resultant sacrifices to extra-curricular activities. On the basis of reading the CRIMSON over 40 years; I can only conclude that the CRIMSON reflects the improved quality of our better students.

As I compare the life of the average undergraduate today with 40 years ago, I think that he spends a larger part of the total day on studies and does a much better job. (Incidentally, census figures show a very large rise in the percentage of students on the labor market.) He is less interested in the spectacular sports and participates to a greater degree in sports. He is much more interested in the visual arts and, certainly as compared to the thirties' much less interested in politics. On the whole, I would say he makes better use of his time than a generation ago.

I do not agree that it would be better for the future business and professional man if he spent less time on studies: If he did, he would get less out of college and be less successful. President Lowell, many years ago, showed a high correlation of academic achievement and later success. A few years ago I studied this problem and found that a few hundred summas and high magna students in economics over 30 years had achieved much more than other Harvard graduates.

Undoubtedly the average quality of our students has greatly improved. I have heard administrators of colleges in the South and West complain bitterly about the trek of high quality students to the Eastern prestige schools. This tendency is also reflected in the recent National Defense Education Act, which to some extent takes away from the student the choice of his college. If he wants a fellowship or a loan from the Federal Government, he must apply to the institution. Hence the student's freedom of choice is thus restricted, with a view to slowing up the gains of prestige colleges.

I do not believe it is true that course requirements are increasing; rather the reverse. In fact, all over the country there is much agitation for more independent work on the part of students, partly because this type of education does him (her) the most good and partly because of the need of economy. In this connection, one must not forget that the four-year college in this country has to do some of the work that the secondary schools do in Europe.

The concern for the increased number of students going to graduate schools and particularly graduate schools of arts and sciences is overdone. It is all to the good if Harvard to some extent offsets the inadequate flow of able students to the graduate schools for the Ph.D.

I should also raise some statistical questions here. In general a Ph. D. does not necessarily lead to teaching As a matter of fact, in the last few years less than 50 per cent of the Ph. D.'s have gone into teaching, and in one field, chemistry, about one-quarter went into teaching.

Indeed, there is a serious shortage of teachers, and any contribution Harvard can make to increasing the supply of teachers is all to the good. We shall need twice as many college teachers in 10 years as we have now. I am very much impressed by the statistics in the Immediate Plans of the Class of 1958 published by the Office of Student Placement. Since my undergraduate days at Harvard, it has been said that the best students go to the Law School, the next best to the Medical School, and Arts and Sciences and Business then must make their selections. Actually, the 1958 Class gives an indication of a reversal of this trend. Twenty-five of the 36 highest honors group intend to go into Arts and Sciences and 11 into Medicine, with none to the other schools except one to Design.

Would it not be expected that the best students, on the basis of college achievement, should go to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences? This is where they seem to have a comparative advantage. Their academic distinction in Arts and Sciences points to exploitation in Graduate make the best use of their capacities.

My impression is, as you imply, that the Admissions Committee does not support the general thesis that students should be picked on the basis of their academic achievement alone. I recall hearing that there were 1200 students with aptitude scores in excess of 700 applying last year (700 means the top 1 per cent), and yet only 800 of these students were selected for admission to Harvard. Certainly this indicates a willingness to weight such evidence as personality, character, extra-curricular activities, and the like.

I disagree with the major theme of the editorial, namely, that Harvard should not train so many for the academic world. The greatest influence Harvard can have is in turning out large numbers of teachers. For every teacher trained we produce a multiple of business executives, engineers, statesmen, etc. The teacher in turn, of course, influences the world not only through the classroom but through his writing. A college that contributes a substantial proportion of the outstanding teachers and research men--and obviously the Harvard Ph. D. is going to devote a large part of his time to research even if he is a teacher --this kind of a college will make a unique contribution to our troubled world. Seymour E. Harris   Chairman, Department of Economics