THE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In the course of the year, CRIMSON editors have expressed views on teaching problems that are of much concern to the Economics Department.

Recently you suggested that there might well be a section of Economics 1 in which those trained in mathematics might participate. This seems to me a suggestion well worth considering, and we have this item on the agenda for the next meeting of the Economics 1 staff.

The CRIMSON has also commented on the Economics 1 section in Winthrop House. Insofar as House sections prove practical, we are prepared to extend this program to other houses. But there are problems of classrooms and hours and availability of an Economics 1 instructor in the house that may make this extension difficult. We are looking into the problem, first in our Economics 1 staff meeting and then in consultation with the masters and the Dean.

The George Watson had an interesting article on teaching problems vis-a-vis undergraduates. We are all sympathetic with the undergraduates who feel that they do not see enough of the faculty and especially the older members of the faculty. This was a less serious problem when in the interwar period we had a smaller student body and an excellent tutorial system. Unfortunately, the latter proved very costly.

In the Economics Department we are trying to make more of our senior staff's time available to undergraduates. For example, this year (1957-58) we are recommending five new half courses for undergraduates, inclusive of a course on population, speculation and investment (the last has often been asked for by undergraduates), social security, national income, managerial decisions. Senior professors are going to give the majority of these courses, and they are not likely to be large courses. We have also released Professor Galbraith from a large part of his graduate instruction so that he could give an undergraduate course in General Education. Hence, these new courses should give students an opportunity for closer contacts.

As the CRIMSON announced the other day, we are also requiring all honors students to take Economics 100. The average enrollment in these seminars is likely to be 10-15; and here again contact with three of our most able young men (assistant professors) will be increased. (But the CRIMSON was in error when they said that three members would be assigned to each section.)

Finally, undergraduates and especially the able undergraduates would do well to take more graduate courses where, on the whole, classes are relatively small. I was surprised to find that in the 1956-57 fall term of more than 400 enrolled in our economics graduate courses only 12 were undergraduates.

We are, of course, your servants. We are anxious to give you the best education we can. We want you to be exposed to all schools of economic thought and in the discussion of economic policies to all ideologies. Your college education, inclusive of income foregone, costs you or your parents at least $25,000. We want to make it worth your while. We welcome your suggestions.

We would also like to ge sure that you understand we are not turning out young economists or businessmen. Only about one-third of 1 per cent of those in Economics 1 are going to be economists and only about 2-3 per cent of our concentrators. Many of our graduates go into business or accept business posts. But our major contribution is to liberal education. Our curriculum takes these facts into account. Seymour E. Harris, Chairman   Department of Economics.

Professor Harris' letter was written on March 11 and has no reference to yesterday's letter on Economics 1.--Ed.