Chapter 16

Thru the operation of the system many can and do shorten their course; too many, I feel. Too many who have neither "exceptional ability" nor "unusual industry," unless it be ability "to work the Prof." and industry in that laudable enterprise. The course that normally takes four full years can be shortened from a portion of a term to a full year. Prior to June, 1908, the "time saved" could reach to a full year and a half. True, no one had actually completed a course in two and a half years, but one young lady's time was only slightly in excess of that and the excess was fully overbalanced by the time she gave to outside work--to library assistance for remuneration, and to journalism. And that gait was being struck by others. It only remained to be seen how long the wind would hold out. It was clearly possible. But the faculty became alarmed. Clearly recognizing the above stated possibility and being wholly unwilling thus to lower its high standard, it passed a resolution that arbitrarily limits the number of credits a student may receive in a given time to such an extent as to prevent graduation in less than three years. But several have gained, and others are gaining, sufficient surplus to enable them to complete their work in three years. From fifteen to twenty per cent, it is estimated, are enabled to shorten their course to that extent. Now some of these are thoroly good students, and, assuming that the system is sound in principle, well deserve to profit thereby. But others are just ordinarily good students, scarcely above the rank and file. In addition to those who complete their work in three years, some thirty or forty per cent more shorten it by lesser amounts, ranging all the way down to an inappreciable period.

But aside from the system's failure in reaching one of its ends and its too great success in reaching the other, it has developed numerous and unfortunate evils that many regard as exceedingly serious, and revealed weaknesses that seem well nigh impossible to eliminate. Space allows scarcely more than an enumeration of these, but a mere enumeration is better than to deal wholly in general terms. (1) In the first place, I should say that the "Credit-for-quality" system of marking as used by us places before the students unworthy ideals. Students of university rank can be led to seek knowledge for knowledge's sake, truth for truth's sake. They can be taught to see farther ahead than the close of the term, and something more precious than an extra three-tenths of a credit. But this thought has already been sufficiently treated earlier in the article. (2) It leads to faulty methods of study and unsatisfactory final results. In the preparation of the lessons, a good recitation, rather than thoro understanding of the subject matter, is too apt to be the objective point. Many good students have told me that they find it difficult to resist the tendency to subordinate understanding to memory. (3) It may lead, often does, to unwise election of courses. Some teachers mark higher than others. Under the influence of our system students are very quick to learn these individual characteristics, and those who have developed the "itching palm" know how to profit by that knowledge. (4) It places students who receive extra credit for quality at a disadvantage in seeking to enter other institutions of learning. The credits thus gained will not be recognized. This would operate only in making the transfer during the undergraduate period, but it does there.[1] (5)

[1] Experience has shown that I was in error in the statement of this sentence. It has been found to operate to the disadvantage of our students entering other institutions in graduate as well as undergraduate departments. Graduate schools have become very particular, some of them not being satisfied without passing in review well nigh the entire former school life of an applicant, apparently to assure themselves that no short-cuts have been made. This fact is an interesting confirmation of the position of this article relative to the importance of content--when it pleads for quantity, as well as quality.

This entire matter is made clear by referring to one instance. Others could be cited. One of our graduates, Miss Ethel J. May, a very strong student, "profited" by the so-called "credit-for-quality" system to such an extent that she shortened her undergraduate period of study by an entire year, receiving her degree with honor. Then she taught for a few years with signal success, later returning for graduate work. For her Master's degree she spent an entire year in study, since the system did not operate in the graduate department. Again she taught with success, later entering the University of Illinois as an applicant for the doctorate. Here it was that her troubles began, and all because she had thus "profited" way back in her undergraduate days. She was told that the year "saved" would now have to be made up--that the period of study for her doctorate would have to be at least three years, and this in spite of the fact that she held the degree of Master of Arts from a state university of the first class, and was planning to continue along the same lines of work. After considerable discussion and institutional negotiation, this much of a concession was made: "If your work proves to be excellent, your shortage will be disregarded." So she went to work with that incubus, or stimulus--whichever you wish to regard it--over her. Neither she nor her committee knew how to plan her work, not knowing whether it was to be for two years or for three. And not until the very close of her year's work was her status determined--full credit then being granted for her former degrees. Miss May's sane comment now is, "I would not advise any one to try to shorten the regular four-year undergraduate period of study." (Author 1918)

It is demoralizing to both students and teachers. I refer to the inevitable outcome of such a system; some students (sometimes few and sometimes many) develop considerable skill in "working the Prof." Teachers offering elective courses are constantly under great temptation and students are shrewd enough to know it. And again, under the same count: it is freely claimed by both teachers and students that the cheating in examinations, of which we doubtless have our share (some claim much more than our share, tho personally I doubt it), is very greatly increased if not largely caused by our system of marking. In hopes of remedying this some of the students are now urging the adoption of the "honor system" of conducting examinations. (6) It is impossible to create uniform standards corresponding to our various grades. There are as many standards for each grade as there are instructors. A grade of work for which one instructor would give an "A" (1.3), another would give a "B" (1.2) and still another a "C" (1.0). Standards can not be fixt. To show how greatly they differ, in marking the work for the first term of this year one instructor gave only seven per cent of his students extra credit, while another thus rewarded more than seventy per cent of his. This range, however, is abnormal. But a range of twenty-five per cent to sixty-five per cent is not, even tho the two instructors have approximately the same students and do approximately the same grade of work. Other evils and weaknesses might be mentioned, but these are sufficient to show the tendency.

On the other hand, what strong paints can be urged as an offset? The only ones I have ever heard offered are: (1) it is an incentive, and (2) it does enable students to shorten the period of undergraduate work. I grant them both, but I hold that the incentive is a low one--much lower than we need to use--and that the shortening of the course is far from being an unmixt blessing.

Let me again refer to the matter of content, upon our value of which, to quite an extent, our estimate of the merit of the "Credit-for-quality" system must rest. The young people in our colleges and universities, in planning for lives of usefulness and success, place themselves in our hands for direction and guidance. Knowing that we are older, wiser, more learned, and more experienced than they, they ask our advice and, in the main, follow it. To the incentives we use in dealing with them, they respond; the motives we supply urge them on; the standards of value we erect for them, they use; and the ideals we place before them, they try to reach. All this places large responsibilities upon us. Are we wise in telling from fifteen to twenty per cent of these young people that three years is all the time that it is wise for them to spend in college work? They will all remain the full four years unless we plan differently for them. To be sure, there is no magic in the number four as numbering the years of one's college course, nor in three, nor in two, nor in any other number. But would not any normal student who spends four years in the college atmosphere, mingling with college people, both students and teachers, doing college work, drinking from the pure fountains of literature, of history, of philosophy, of science, of art, et cetera, be broader in range and more fully equipt for the varied and complicated duties of life and for life's enjoyment, than he would be with only three years thus spent? And is not the fourth year by far the best of the four? Why shall you and I discourage him from doing that which we know to be well for him and which he is willing to do? Why deny him the rare fruitage of that fourth year? Why say to him when he is just ready to enter into the enjoyments of his student life, "you would better go?" After all, is it not this very three-year student with his finer ability, his keener insight, and his greater industry who can most greatly profit by the extra year? Shall we not rather encourage him to stay longer and delve deeper and reach to the very heart of things? Whether looked at from the standpoint of the student's own advantage, or from that of the world at large, which is to profit by his equipment, is it not really the four-year or even the five-year student who would better be excused at the end of the third year? Instead of being in a hurry to send our choice students away, let us get them to do their high quality of work just the same, but to do it during four years instead of three. They are the very ones who will most readily respond to such appeals and they will so respond unless we put other notions into their heads. It is sometimes urged, in justification of the "Credit-for-quality" idea, that one student in three years can accomplish more, in gaining both knowledge and mental power, than another in four. There is no doubt about it. Some can do more in two years than others in four; some in one, and some with no college work can easily outstrip others with the best advantages. Shall we say to such an one, "you do not need to go to college--it would be time wasted"? By no means. Above all others we want him because he can most largely profit by what he gets, and we shall reap the reward later on. But supposing one student at the close of his third college year is better able to make his way in the world than another at the end of his fourth year, that is not the question at all. The function of the college is not to bring students to a level, but to develop each one to the utmost. Each should be considered separately and the question asked, "the longer or the shorter term--which will do the more for him?"

Some other developments here can hardly fail to be of interest. Originally planned to operate in our entire institution, exclusive of the College of Law into which it was not allowed to enter, this system has gradually been eliminated from all the colleges save the College of Liberal Arts and Teachers College. True, in these colleges of exclusion the matter of content figures more prominently than in the others--the curricula are more fixt--but that is far from being the only reason for the exclusion. And even more suggestive as touching the secondary school extension recommended by the article under discussion, is our recent action excluding the system from our preparatory department, now being transformed into a model high school for Teachers College. This elimination, likewise, was in part due to the fixt number of courses demanded of all secondary schools, but yet, not largely so. When this matter came up for decision it needed no emphasis upon that point to carry the recommendation. It would have carried without those conditions. The strongest advocates of the system did not, by a single word, urge its retention in the Model High School. All felt, seemingly, that it was not well suited to students of that grade.

NOTE.--The reason for repeating this article here is largely historical, tho interest in the matter discust occasionally crops out even yet. It will be of interest to some who have not otherwise heard of it to learn that the University of North Dakota long since discarded the system. It was voted out completely early in the year 1910. And thus was realized Professor Kennedy's apprehension exprest in his _Educational Review_ discussion of 1906: "We have, I grant, had our doubts and fears, knowing well that many a promising theory lies high and dry on the shoals of the past."

INDEX

Academies, 221

Adolescent, 46-49, 54-56, 67, 68, 74, 81, 85, 219, 231

Adults, 211, 212, 213

Aliens, education of, 25

Alien people, 21

Appleton's Cyclopedia, 165

Arithmetic, 154

Ayers, 120

Barnard, Henry, 220

Bay State, Old, 64

Binet, 57

Boards of Education, 45, 156, 195

Bowdoin College, 243, 250

Burbank, Luther, 166

Burns, Robert, 136, 138

Bureau of Education, 19

Butler, Nicholas Murray, 96, 97, 103

California, 233, 234

Carter, 218

Child, the, 43, 44, 45, 68, 116, 117, 121, 140, 141, 147, 151, 154, 195

Child Study, 43, 45, 49, 54, 58, 85

Child-Welfare, 49

Church, 133, 141-159

Civil War, 107, 222

College, 69-82, 104, 110, 165, 167, 217-237 Law, 260 Liberal Arts, 84, 99, 260

College, Preparation for, 71, 73 Teachers, 45, 219-238

Commissioner of Education, 27

Community Service, 73

Connecticut, 31, 220

County Training School, 219

"Credit-for-Quality" System, 243-260

Cronin, Dr., 125

Dante, 144, 145

Democracy, 29, 31-34, 41, 65, 171, 172, 173, 180

Department of Education, 20

Dewey, John, 42, 43

Diaz, President, 31

Dooley, Mr., 95

Dwight, Edmund, 31, 218

Education Boards of, 45, 84, 156, 195 Bureau of, 19 Department of, 108, 109, 218, 219, 223 Elementary, 65, 75 History of, 81, 82, 83, 84, 227, 228 Motive in, 38 Philosophy of, 81, 84 Physical, 50, 66, 155, 203 Principles of, 82, 83, 224 Professional, 81 School of in North Dakota, 82-85 School of, 83-85, 108-111, 218 Secondary, 75, 84, 85, 164 Universal, 24

Educational mesurements, 56

Educational psychologist, 56, 58, 59

Educational Review, 243, 251, 260

Educational Survey, 51, 52, 59

Elementary School, 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 105, 106, 107, 108, 230, 231

England, 30, 173

Entrance requirements, 44, 48, 76, 80

Ernest, Duke, 32

Euthydemus, 98

Eye, 115-118, 120, 121, 129

Federal Government, 28

Folk, Joseph W., 173, 174

Foster, President, 95, 102, 105

France, 32, 229

Frederick the Great, 30, 32

Frederick William I, 30

Froebel, 39

Garfield, ex-President, 90

Georgia, 24

Germans, 30, 31

Germany, 32, 120, 229

Gladstone, William Ewart, 173, 174

Gotha, 32

Government, the, 19

Grand Forks, North Dakota, 186-199

Greek, 99, 100

Gulick, 120

Harris, Dr. William T., 231

Harvard College, 65, 219, 224

Heeter, S. L., 124, 125

Herbart, 39

High Schools, 44-47, 53, 55, 63-86, 107, 108, 220, 223, 233, 234, 247, 248

High School Teacher, 46-49, 80-85, 178, 222, 223, 228, 233-238

Hill, James J., 166

History, 154, 155

History of Education, 81, 82, 83, 84, 224

Home, 26, 66, 133-159

Homer, 99, 100

Hyde, President, 243, 250

Illiteracy, 20-24

Individualism, Theory of, 39, 43

Iowa, Legislature of, 49

Jefferson City, 120, 123

Johnson, Hiram W., 173

Jordan, David Starr, 72, 177

Kennedy, Professor, 244, 251, 252, 260

Law, School of, 108, 110

Leadership, 75-81, 163-181

Lecture method, 99-103

Lincoln, 166

Literature, 232, 234, 258

Lloyd-George, David, 166

Locke, 203

Longfellow, 207

Los Angeles, 123

Louises, the, of France, 32

McAdoo, Mr., 218, 220

Mann, Horace, 218, 220

Massachusetts, 24, 25, 31, 65, 107, 220

Medical Inspection, 22, 27, 193, 194

Medicine, School of, 108, 110

Methods of Teaching, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85