Whitla Study Finds Liberal Education Contingent on Contact With Faculty

"Out of it and Antisocial"

"...as far as the actual class work itself went, the amount of personal contact in connection with the kind of work I was doing, that I had with professors and instructors was pracitically nil... In fact ... when I have been looking for a job ... it's been very embarrassing, because you just can't say to these people, at Harvard you just don't get to know the instructors very well. And you might say, well, this guy is just out of it and antisocial, and you just listen to reasons why he is unable to supply us with the names of three people... I have put down the names of some people on the faculty who I may have at one time had an office hour with or some sort of acquaintance. But I always have my fingers crossed with the idea that they might say, well, who the hell is this guy. I don't even remember him."--From a tape recorded interview by Dean Whitla, published in "Encounters With Learning."

Because debates on education at Harvard often sound coldly formal and abstract a study of learning as the interaction of human beings is a welcome thing. Learning should be a dialogue between men, as well as the imparting of a discipline; frequently what is of lasting value in a course is not its content, but the chance it has offered to meet a great teacher. In the most recent Harvard Educational Review there is an article by Dean Whitla, instructor in Education and Director of the Office of Tests, concerned with education as the interaction of human beings. Part of a forthcoming book, it is worth reading.

The article, "Encounters with Learning," deals with how students' personal contact with teachers relates to whether of not they graduated with a "liberal education." House Masters and Senior Tutors rated 70 "average" students (C plus to B marks)--50 from the Class of '52, and 20 from the Class of '59--on the "degree to which they possessed the qualities of mind and sensibility which mark the liberally educated man." Then the men were interviewed to see what the correlation would be of those rated high ("liberally educated") by the Masters and Senior Tutors, and those who, when interviewed, recalled close contact with some members of the faculty during their four years. The survey indicated that graduating "liberally educated" as defined above, and identifying with a teacher are closely related.

There could be nothing but an operational definition of what contsitutes a liberally educated man, so few would quarrel with Whitla on that score. It is quite another matter, however, to set up a tautology--even an operational one. The men whom House Masters are likely to rate liberally educated, are those with initiative in meeting people. Thus, in this portion of its results, what the survey shows is that students who meet people easily met the faculty often. Fortunately, this does not damage the usefulness of the survey, for the revealing parts of it are the students' own statements about their college experiences.

In taped sessions, most of the graduates revealed that they had come to Harvard expecting to achieve something beyond academic growth. They expressed vague expectations such as finding an identity or a direction for their lives to take. Whitla quoted one as saying, "what I wanted out of Harvard was something of a personal growth rather than actually an intellectual achievement, although I have had aspirations toward intellectual achievement, of course." In many cases, what they sought was a model, someone who would motivate them toward becoming a particular kind of person. Whether or not the student did in fact find a man on the faculty to identify with, he generally assumed that this process was a necessary part of finding his own identity. Thus a disappointed student said: "If there was one criticism I have of Harvard, it would be the lack of men I look up to as human beings. In my opinion, education to a certain extent should bring you into contact with human beings who you feel have travelled further than you have in a spiritual sense, not just in terms of intellect, but in terms of being a human being... I frankly didn't run into one person, one human being here that I could say I truly admired and wanted to be like. Lots of stimulated me with ideas, but that's entirely different from being the kind of person I understand Whitehead was Now perhaps if I had been a better student and gone into Honors...." And the students who did find a direction in which to go usually gave credit to an outstanding teacher who set them on their way.

These were average students and they of course had fewer contacts with the faculty than men with higher group rankings. They were impressed by various teacher who characteristic ways, though always it was the teacher who communicated enthusiasm whom they remembered well. Some of the graduates attacked scholars and researchers "I am really upset about ... philosophy ... becoming academic." Others remembered the excitement of heating researcher teach: "the people who are better organized and have a firm grasp of the material are the people who are really doing some exceptional things in their field ... are makes the whole field come alive or speak to you..." Yet even where the graduates disagreed on researcher vs. teacher, there was a consensus that the appeal of a good teacher was not only intellectual, but moral. They retained not so much the content of the lecture or course, but the style of thought and behavior of the teacher: "You're always going to forget what they say to you ... but you can never forget his love and his devotion for it, this you will never forget. At times you can recall some of the intensity with which he discussed the subject. Then you will be bound to do this on your own. You know, try to respond to his memory in a way."

Tutorial was a blessing, redeeming the careers of some but for others it was not enough. All the men the House Masters and Senior Tutors rated high reported fine tutorials; all the men rated low found tutorial disappointing. Whitla maintains that tutorial alone was not sufficient contact with a faculty member, especially since individual tutorial comes only in the senior year. Also many did not qualify for Honors tutorial.

Many of the students rated low felt that anonymity had been a cause of their weak efforts and low grades. Such men declared they had no faculty contact whatever, Whitla says, and they related this causally to their apathy and indifference. These average students in the survey. Whitla says, "could have made far more effort academically throughout their college years, and the lack of direction recognition, and personal challenge from the faculty seem in large part responsible for their marginal participation."

Beneath all that Whitla talks about is the assumption that education is not only (and perhaps not mainly) academic. He believes it is also the imparting of a set of ideas and values which serve the student for life. It is clear that he thinks Harvard is less aware of the human aspects of being educated than it could be. And, indirectly, one could tie in much of "Encounters with Learning" with a host of current Harvard issues: expansion in a college where students feel anonymous, the need for a good non-Honors tutorial program, and, above all, the need for recognition that the content of a college education may not be as important as the styles of thought and value that one selects from college teachers.

Another problem that the survey suggests should be a warning to the College: the receptivity of its students, and the frightening extent to which they are eager to submit their minds to the influence of a faculty member. It is sobering to think how many students will adopt a role, any role as long as it gives them a sense of direction.

The students in the survey had great expectations when they came to Harvard and a few probably had a heavy emotional investment in the college. One could say that such students were unrealistic, that no college in the world spoon-feeds epiphanies to its students; Harvard teacher many things, but cannot show you how to define yourself. Yet it is a serious thing when so many people here feel "like a number on an examination paper" at a time in their lives when they seek an identity above all.

Whitla's survey is an empirical support for a truism: that personal contact with the faculty means better-educated graduates--even by a present standard of "liberal education." Being a truism, it is apt to be ignored, and being true, it should not.

These were average students and they of course had fewer contacts with the faculty than men with higher group rankings. They were impressed by various teacher who characteristic ways, though always it was the teacher who communicated enthusiasm whom they remembered well. Some of the graduates attacked scholars and researchers "I am really upset about ... philosophy ... becoming academic." Others remembered the excitement of heating researcher teach: "the people who are better organized and have a firm grasp of the material are the people who are really doing some exceptional things in their field ... are makes the whole field come alive or speak to you..." Yet even where the graduates disagreed on researcher vs. teacher, there was a consensus that the appeal of a good teacher was not only intellectual, but moral. They retained not so much the content of the lecture or course, but the style of thought and behavior of the teacher: "You're always going to forget what they say to you ... but you can never forget his love and his devotion for it, this you will never forget. At times you can recall some of the intensity with which he discussed the subject. Then you will be bound to do this on your own. You know, try to respond to his memory in a way."

Tutorial was a blessing, redeeming the careers of some but for others it was not enough. All the men the House Masters and Senior Tutors rated high reported fine tutorials; all the men rated low found tutorial disappointing. Whitla maintains that tutorial alone was not sufficient contact with a faculty member, especially since individual tutorial comes only in the senior year. Also many did not qualify for Honors tutorial.

Many of the students rated low felt that anonymity had been a cause of their weak efforts and low grades. Such men declared they had no faculty contact whatever, Whitla says, and they related this causally to their apathy and indifference. These average students in the survey. Whitla says, "could have made far more effort academically throughout their college years, and the lack of direction recognition, and personal challenge from the faculty seem in large part responsible for their marginal participation."

Beneath all that Whitla talks about is the assumption that education is not only (and perhaps not mainly) academic. He believes it is also the imparting of a set of ideas and values which serve the student for life. It is clear that he thinks Harvard is less aware of the human aspects of being educated than it could be. And, indirectly, one could tie in much of "Encounters with Learning" with a host of current Harvard issues: expansion in a college where students feel anonymous, the need for a good non-Honors tutorial program, and, above all, the need for recognition that the content of a college education may not be as important as the styles of thought and value that one selects from college teachers.

Another problem that the survey suggests should be a warning to the College: the receptivity of its students, and the frightening extent to which they are eager to submit their minds to the influence of a faculty member. It is sobering to think how many students will adopt a role, any role as long as it gives them a sense of direction.

The students in the survey had great expectations when they came to Harvard and a few probably had a heavy emotional investment in the college. One could say that such students were unrealistic, that no college in the world spoon-feeds epiphanies to its students; Harvard teacher many things, but cannot show you how to define yourself. Yet it is a serious thing when so many people here feel "like a number on an examination paper" at a time in their lives when they seek an identity above all.

Whitla's survey is an empirical support for a truism: that personal contact with the faculty means better-educated graduates--even by a present standard of "liberal education." Being a truism, it is apt to be ignored, and being true, it should not.

Tutorial was a blessing, redeeming the careers of some but for others it was not enough. All the men the House Masters and Senior Tutors rated high reported fine tutorials; all the men rated low found tutorial disappointing. Whitla maintains that tutorial alone was not sufficient contact with a faculty member, especially since individual tutorial comes only in the senior year. Also many did not qualify for Honors tutorial.

Many of the students rated low felt that anonymity had been a cause of their weak efforts and low grades. Such men declared they had no faculty contact whatever, Whitla says, and they related this causally to their apathy and indifference. These average students in the survey. Whitla says, "could have made far more effort academically throughout their college years, and the lack of direction recognition, and personal challenge from the faculty seem in large part responsible for their marginal participation."

Beneath all that Whitla talks about is the assumption that education is not only (and perhaps not mainly) academic. He believes it is also the imparting of a set of ideas and values which serve the student for life. It is clear that he thinks Harvard is less aware of the human aspects of being educated than it could be. And, indirectly, one could tie in much of "Encounters with Learning" with a host of current Harvard issues: expansion in a college where students feel anonymous, the need for a good non-Honors tutorial program, and, above all, the need for recognition that the content of a college education may not be as important as the styles of thought and value that one selects from college teachers.

Another problem that the survey suggests should be a warning to the College: the receptivity of its students, and the frightening extent to which they are eager to submit their minds to the influence of a faculty member. It is sobering to think how many students will adopt a role, any role as long as it gives them a sense of direction.

The students in the survey had great expectations when they came to Harvard and a few probably had a heavy emotional investment in the college. One could say that such students were unrealistic, that no college in the world spoon-feeds epiphanies to its students; Harvard teacher many things, but cannot show you how to define yourself. Yet it is a serious thing when so many people here feel "like a number on an examination paper" at a time in their lives when they seek an identity above all.

Whitla's survey is an empirical support for a truism: that personal contact with the faculty means better-educated graduates--even by a present standard of "liberal education." Being a truism, it is apt to be ignored, and being true, it should not.