YALE NEWS PRIZE ESSAYIST ADVOCATES GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN DEPARTMENTAL SYSTEM AND MORE ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS

The following Essay, winning the contest run by the Yale News for a six weeks' trip to Europe, was submitted by Russell Lee Post Yale '27. The subject to be discussed was "What particular policy, plan, or improvement you would like best to see extended or inaugurated at Yale."

Yale cannot succeed with the revolution in present-day educational systems while the house is divided against itself. The administrative policy and the teaching system must undergo certain changes to answer the cry of men within the University for a more liberal type of education and for a voice in directing it. There are many sources of attack upon the present system. Some are unsound and easily disposed of; others are based on thoughtful consideration and merit action on their proposed demands.

First the sentimentalist who rabidly opposes the University. He disapproves the administrative policy for enlargement of the graduate schools. He asks for more consideration of the undergraduate body, and less attention to the schools for advanced study. In defense of the administration, it must be said that the graduate and undergraduate schools are symbolic. Neither could exist without the other. Men of the highest calibre would not be content to teach elementary courses without the resources of the graduate schools. We should lose their services. The greatness of Yale lies not in the superficialities acquired with the college or Sheff degrees. To keep pace with other universities, Yale must be more than a home of sweetness and light, more than a school of scientific devotees. On the other side of the question, there must be more attention to the undergraduate element through changes in policy brought about by breaking down the rigidity of the departmental system.

Degree Must Be Significant

The second type of attack is that of the dissenter who attaches to his Jacobinism a fervent howl for "liberal education." He proposes free choice in his selection of courses, with no bustles on this "lady" of ours. Herein there are several points to consider on both sides. The conservative element, if we waive any apprehensions of the undergraduates' tendency to "ride," through colleges, has more to justify the plan of adherence to specific requirements than has the vociferous liberal's plea for selection. In the first place, the degree must mean something. We don't want candidates at graduation presented with a medal for "spending" four years in college. Nor do we want them lop-sided brain specimens.

The student, upon completion of his course must have assimilated knowledge in many fields otherwise what of the "pursuit of perfection"? But we want profundity in learning as well as a smattering of facts. After Freshman Year, the undergraduate should be ready to choose the skeletal backbone which will constitute his major study. If he diverges from this track much more than is allowed him at present, he will graduate without acquiring what he is crying for a liberal education. Moreover, this same protagonist of free choice is demanding extension of the "honors" courses. This in itself is an excellent desideratum the ideal of educating a man in the ways of educating himself. But while the liberal demands more "honors" courses, in the same breath he shrieks "Paternalism!" Do not these two war-cries run counter to one another? Both are pleas for the university type of work and condemnations of the "little college" idea.

"Honors" Courses to Be Extended

The real reason why the better students dislike "paternalism" is because the teachers do all the work in the college instead of merely directing it, as they do in the graduate schools. The plea for the extension of "honors" courses, likewise, is a plea for the development of individual initiative and more advanced investigation; the motive is exactly the same as that of graduate work. The exceptional student however, should be given the opportunity to take "honors" courses. This means the expenditure of more money. The type of man the faculty requires to handle such work is hard to find. Not every teacher is equipped through temperament or training to do it well. If the undergraduate wants "honors" work, he must forego his disparagement of the large university, for the "tutor" and the courses alike have their origin and inspiration in the larger unit.

"Honors" courses will be extended in due time; the faculty will be enlarged and more money will be appropriated. But in the meantime, it is not mitigating this particular cause of undergraduate unrest for the blatant iconoclast to fire at our overlord, charging that he will not suffer his foot to be moved.

Must Retain Good Professors

While, then, we advocate extension of the "honors" courses in a more wealthy future, it is of greater importance that we find means to retain the best of our present faculty before looking elsewhere for teachers of these advanced courses. Why are we losing them? The answer is simple: their work is not appreciated or recognized. It will require an unprecedented loosening of the bustle to proceed with the necessary changes. The lady must cease her Machiavellian policies and take more of her handmaids into her confidence. She must not hide her plans from those whom they most concern.

Of course it is not possible to include the ballots of the undergraduate and alumni bodies in decisions of minor importance. But certainly all members of the faculty, professors, assistant professors and instructors should sit in faculty meetings and have some voice in affairs. Small wonder the less distinguished members of that august body are dissatisfied when they are ignored! Small wonder they pack up and go to a university which does not refuse to recognize their potentialities by a guarantee that they will be maintained for a reasonable length of time. Yale cannot afford to sacrifice good teachers to other universities. It is time to wake up and see why we are losing them.

This, then, constitutes the most essential alteration within Yale: relaxation of the departmental system. Instead of a hopelessly garbled collection of divisional bodies working against one another for "favors" from the university financiers, we must have a means of adjusting these incongruous elements to one another. And much in this regard depends upon those who sit in the chairs of the deans! These officers must exercise their power to co-ordinate the separate departmental divisions. They must be more than nominal supervisors of the system. Their authority must be recognized. The Freshman Dean, in particular, must have the support, financial and otherwise, promised when his office was made. The departments must be allowed to create more, many more, associate professorships to retain the services of the instructors and assistant professors. These men wish to be assured that the University desires their services as long as they will remain. Under the present system, few expressions of this sort are given. While the undergraduates demand more contact with their instructors and more "honors" courses, the departments quite properly demand scholarly work to justify promotion to a full professorship. The instructor hasn't time for both. Though he may be a better man to teach than the one who contributes countless ingenious notes to learned publications, if he devotes his efforts to the undergraduates, under the departmental system as it now exists, he cannot be advanced until some other university recognizes his strength and offers him assurance of a permanent job. There are, to be sure, a few exceptions in which Yale has acted in time to save her teachers. We must surmount this obstacle.

Deans Should Have More Power

By increasing the flexibility of the departmental system, by instituting more associate professorships to compensate those instructors whose work is known widely enough to merit full professorships, and by giving the deans power to regulate these advances, the essential of co-operation will be realized.

It is not possible to advocate "one's particular policy, plan or improvement" unless one considers all the foregoing as components of one change. The extension of "honors" courses, the change in the administrative policy and the other improvements proposed are so interrelated that they must all be inaugurated in due season. The whole question centers around the administrative policy. It is not the existence of the graduate schools but the inflexibility of the departmental system that makes Yale's present policy pernicious.

New Associate Professorships Needed

To maintain her present staff, Yale must create more associate professorships and recognize contributions of teaching as well as of scholarship. Further, the whole teaching force should have a voice in faculty affairs. Those at present excluded must be given hearing by the powers that be. As for methods of instruction, a continuation of the plan to make groups smaller and an extension of the "honors" courses when money and available men are at hand--these are the most desirable changes to be made for the betterment of Yale.

"It is not the excellence of graduate schools but the inflexibility of the departmental system that makes Yale's present policy pernicious."

"All members of the faculty . . . should sit in faculty meetings and have some voice in affairs. Small wonder the less distinguished members of that august body are dissatisfied when they are ignored!"

"To keep pace with other universities, Yale must be more than a home of sweetness and light, more than a school of scientific devotees."

"Yale cannot afford to sacrifice good teachers to other universities. It is time to wake up and see why we are losing them."

The above quotations are taken from the winning essay of the Yale News prize essay contest, which was submitted by R. L. Post, Yale '27.