Imagens da página

sidered. Of course if the trend of the times proves so strong in the direction of vocational training as to reduce the college course to three years, either foundational and quasi-vocational courses in college will have to be curtailed, or the professional schools will have to organize their work on a broader basis than is now common among them.

Assuming that the present four years' college course will be able to hold its own, and that the social sciences are going to be given equal facilities with other subjects to develop whatever educational value they may have, what should the department of economics aim to offer in the way of advanced or specific courses? In the first place its aim should be to arrive at as rational a compromise as possible between those persons who demand that the college shall primarily provide “ liberal culture” and those who would in effect transform it into a trades school. Assuming that the various social science departments have provided the general foundational courses we have been discussing, and that they have succeeded in getting all the students to take some of these courses and a large proportion to take all of them, the advanced courses should be chosen in answer to the question, “ What is going to be the general vocational environment of the student?” Now just as the political science department will conclude that part of this environment is certainly going to be the problems of city government and another part of it business or commercial law with its background of the whole common law and equity, and that therefore courses covering these subjects should be offered, so will the department of economics conclude that in some way it must afford its students opportunity to gain a tolerable knowledge of the labor problem in all its phases, of the problems of capitalism and corporate organization, of economic and industrial legislation, of the organization of business—markets, transportation, middlemen, costkeeping, etc., etc.of money and banking, international trade, the tariff, of public expenditure and taxation, and, not to continue the list indefinitely, of schemes of social reform such as the various kinds of socialism, anarchism, and the single tax. Nor will it forget that the time is at hand when apparently the most intelligent citizenship is going to be armed with at least an elementary knowledge of accounting, since many of the most important questions of the day are questions of accounts. Nor again will it forget that one of the great vocations and resources of the country is its agriculture, and that the time is rapidly approaching when the old haphazard, wasteful methods of agriculture will have to give way to scientific farming. Granting that most college graduates at present will have nothing to do with agriculture, it seems probable that a course in the subject might not be without great“ cultural” and brain-stretching value to many who have never seen an Illinois cornfield or a Red River valley wheat ranch.

Whatever the courses offered, they will be taught with the orientating function at least as clearly in mind as the vocational. The college will not try to make bankers or financiers out of the men and women who take its courses in money and banking, nor business managers of those who take a course in business organization, nor tax commissioners of those who make a survey of that chaotic mass of antiquities which goes in most American commonwealths by the name of “tax system.” Students will select the courses dealing with the environment they expect to enter; they should get basic principles and a preliminary survey, which will perhaps make them technically better workmen later on, but surely give their work, whatever it is, a fuller and more human meaning for them. The theory held to in this paper would exclude most, if not all, of the detailed and highly technical courses offered by the young schools of commerce. Such courses belong to

. the vocational group, and can not be introduced into the college without crowding out foundational courses, and without impairing both the aim and the method of college education. That aim is to encourage broad civic and social efficiency in whatever vocation the college man or woman enters, and the method is to look at all subjects in their social perspective, broadly, not simply with reference to their effect on the weekly pay envelop.

Somewhere in the undergraduate course, either by the department of economics or of sociology, should be offered a course in social problems—not problems of charity organization (which belong to the schools of philanthropy) or problems of penology—but the great ever present questions of race, sex, marriage, divorce, population, city life, etc. These can not be treated with even superficial adequacy in the general course in sociology—social theory—nor do they belong there. In fact they can best be approached by students who have had or are having social theory, and can hardly be approached at all by those who have not had a general course in economics. It may be said that no undergraduate can get more than a vague, biased, and superficial view of such great and puzzling questions; but better that than no view at all, and no view at all is just what too many college graduates have-barring hearsay and prejudice.

To secure a wise choice of courses is one of the knottiest problems of departmental administration as well as of student election. The problem is complicated by many conditions. It is harder under co-education—at least if the needs of women are given as much consideration as those of men (they usually are not) and if women are to be encouraged to diverge from the old via sacra of classics and “culture.” Insufficiency of library facilities, of teaching force, and not least of all of a teaching consciousness on the part of professors and instructors, all may stand in the way of the proper functionizing of the social sciences in college education.

It is the belief that many teachers of the social sciences have neglected to take into view the educational bearings of their subjects in even the rough and imperfect way in which we have attempted it that prompts the writing of this paper. Notwithstanding the phenomenal growth of the study of the social sciences in colleges and universities, their educational value is not yet fully recognized. Here, as elsewhere, specialists are too often content to love their subject, and to get all they can out of the budget for it, to the utter neglect of any consideration with regard to its general position, its significance, or its value in the whole field of education. This is perhaps one reason why a great amount of college teaching is

to be classed with the poorest teaching in the world. A fit pedagogical method for a subject or any special part of a subject can be evolved only from the aim in teaching that subject at all. Teaching is teleological, if anything is. The social sciences—some of them at least, and preëminently elementary economics and sociology—stand in double need: first of having their educative value fairly appraised, and secondly of a pedagogical technique worked out carefully after a due determination of the aim in teaching them. The instructor may discourage his students from perpetually asking such questions as “ What is this subject going to do for me?” or “ Will this course help me in my business?” but he must at the same time recognize that this student solicitude over the actual value of a study or course is a healthy sign. Moreover he should now and then ask himself “What am I teaching this subject for?” and “ Am I teaching it in the best way to accomplish as nearly as may be the purposes for which I teach it?”—always of course assuming that he is not thinking primarily of his salary and that his teaching is not merely a disagreeable adjunct to bookmaking or research.

We should not have the temerity to say that college teachers of these subjects have been much less active in trying to determine their real educative value than have the teachers of other branches. Still the older subjects have gained a fairly determinate and well-fortified place in the curriculum. Economics, political science, sociology, etc., are younger and their nurses and sponsors have been too busy guiding their infants into a vigorous growth and development to pay much attention to any such tame non-essential as a

pedagogical method ” or an “educational aim.” We proceed too much in the blind faith that anything we hold as a central personal interest must be invaluable as an educative force, irrespective of how it is handled in the classroom. The classicists, the mathematicians, and to some extent the physical and biological scientists, calmly and confidently plant themselves on the rock of formal discipline in the fond old conviction that their respective subjects are the chief things needed to develop the mental traits that distinguish a truly educated man from a barbarian. The economist, the political scientist, and that dealer in mosaics, the sociologist, can not do that. Their subjects have neither the charm of medievalism, nor do they so much appeal to the desire to get the “practical," nor again do they have, or need, the great material equipment of laboratories which appeals so pertinently to the generosity of donors, state legislatures, and trustees. That the teachers of the social sciences have not altogether failed, however, in meeting, and to a considerable extent in creating, a very real and very large need for the study of their subjects is proved by the actual relative amount of time now granted to them in the curriculums of the better colleges. This very success, together with the rapid growth of the subjects themselves, has carried with it the danger of simply drifting, so far as the question of educational aims and method is concerned.

We must not drift. It is in large part because of our peculiarly American propensity for complacent, easy-going drifting that we as a people have some of the worst social problems any people has ever had to solve. Their solution will require not only organization, investigation, and coöperation, but leadership of the highest order. If the American college can not at least help to supply the leaders, both men and women, equipped with the necessary brains and the beginnings of the necessary knowledge of economic and social facts and principles, it will signally fail of one of its fundamental raisons d'être. Let it be remembered that the business of the college is to lay the foundations both for vocational efficiency and for social efficiency. The college today—at least, we are led to think, the small college not a part of some university—is too much given over to the conception that its prime function is ideal-building. Perhaps it is, but it is part of the fundamental position of this paper that ideal-building will not amount to much unless it is coupled to actualities by a knowledge of economic, political, and social life as it is. Ideal-building is likely to head off into dreams and mysticism, without giving us much concrete idea of how we are to actualize the “ earthly paradise.” Ideal-building, when di

« AnteriorContinuar »