that it gives a natural and not an artificial incentive to high
scholarship." By what process of reasoning he reaches the conclusion
that mere "marks and honors" are more "unnatural" and "artificial" than
the same marks and honors with a commercial tag appended, I fail to see.
The truth of the matter is, both are artificial. As incentives, both are
low, but it stands to reason that the latter is much lower than the
former. The best friends of the system here, in the University of North
Dakota, admit that, as an incentive, it is both artificial and low. Mr.
Secor goes on to say, "the system" (that is, the "Credit-for-quality")
"puts a premium on thorough-going scholarship by enabling the student to
come up for graduation without being forced to study so many subjects
that he is not able to do any of them well." If our secondary school
courses are so arranged as to force the student "to study so many
subjects that he is not able to do any of them well," then something is
radically wrong with the courses of study. But no evil can be remedied
by introducing a greater. As a matter of fact, the application of the
system does not lead to "thorough-going scholarship," at least not in
the University of North Dakota where, for five years, an honest and
faithful effort has been made to secure that result. In all our
discussions I have never heard one of its friends make that claim for
it, altho the charge has been repeatedly made that it is destructive of
scholarship. The writer goes on to say, "he" (the student) "may
substitute depth for breadth, if he so desires, and is encouraged to do
so." Shall we, in the secondary schools, encourage depth? Yes, to be
sure, relative depth, but not too much of it, and not then at the
expense of breadth. For is not the high school student in that stage of
his development when he responds to the sense of breadth rather than
that of depth? We could not make of him a student of research if we
should try. Let us not try.
In the last paragraph of the article referred to we find a hint of a
lack of thoro conviction on the part of the writer himself. "It may not
even be a workable scheme when put to the test," he says. Let me say
that here, after five years' use, it is not proving to be satisfactorily
"workable" even with students of college grade, and by a recent faculty
action it has been entirely eliminated from our preparatory department.
This lack of conviction on the part of Mr. Secor calls to mind an
interesting bit of history connected with the movement. As said before,
it did not originate in the University of North Dakota. Dr. William
DeWitt Hyde, President of Bowdoin College, is responsible for the
suggestion. He sketched the plan in an _Outlook_ article of August 2nd,
1902, but evidently lacking the courage of his conviction did not
introduce it into his own institution, preferring, seemingly, that the
experiment be made elsewhere. This has been, from the start, very
suggestive to me. I have some admiration for President Hyde's
shrewdness. The University of North Dakota fell into the trap thus
skilfully set. And it is easier to fall into a trap than to get out of
it. As a matter of fact, the system is more on trial now, after five
years' use, than ever before. Other institutions would do well to await
further developments.
In attempting to analyze the situation at the University of North
Dakota, let me again refer to Mr. Secor's article. He says, "The plan,
with some modifications, is at present being used in the University of
North Dakota and in Columbia University with results that are reported
to be highly satisfactory." To substantiate his statement he refers, in
a foot-note, to the articles in the _Educational Review_ from which he
got his information. Now, the conclusion that Mr. Secor reaches from
reading these articles is hardly warranted by the articles themselves. I
fear he read too much between the lines. Let us see: Professor Thomas
wrote of the Columbia system more than three years ago, and only a
couple of months after its adoption; nor does he say anything as to its
success,--in fact, he could not, for there was nothing to say. He merely
explained the new system and gave voice to his expectations. The
Columbia system may be proving "highly satisfactory," but surely that
article does not say that it is. And when the other article is analyzed,
the case is found to be somewhat similar. Professor Kennedy wrote on the
system in the University of North Dakota nearly two years ago, fully two
academic years, for the article appeared in December, 1906, before the
close of the first term of the year 1906-'07. Now two years in the life
of an experiment of this kind is a long time. And Professor Kennedy in
writing his article, did not put the case as strongly as does Mr. Secor
from reading it. All that he said of its successful working was: "We ...
thus far can truthfully say it is working itself out in desirable
results--in more and better work than under the old plan." From these
data, given when they were, Mr. Secor is certainly not justified in
saying that "the plan ... is at present being used in the University of
North Dakota with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory."
Professor Kennedy's statement was his individual judgment at the time he
wrote his article. A considerable number of his co-laborers would not
then have agreed with him. He probably would not write even as strongly
as that to-day. If he should, a still larger number would disagree. He
might write as strongly of his own belief in the theoretical soundness
of the system, but that is quite another matter. As a matter of fact,
during the last two years the weaknesses of the system have become so
much more apparent that many members of the faculty then favorable, or
at least hopeful, have at last come to despair of ever being able to
eliminate the objectionable features and strengthen the weak points
sufficiently to warrant its retention.
Professor Kennedy's article goes into detail as to the adoption of the
plan, and clearly states its various changes up to the date of his
writing. In our efforts, since then, to "improve" and "strengthen" it,
various other changes have been made so that, as a matter of fact, one
who knew it in its early history only would hardly recognise it as
planned for use next year (quite different in detail from that now in
use) save in the fundamental principle. That remains the same; the
institution desires to secure a better quality of work from its
students; it also desires to enable the student of exceptional ability
or unusual industry to cut short his period of undergraduate study. To
accomplish these ends it continues to use its so-called
"Credit-for-quality" system of marking. This is done, altho a large and
steadily increasing number of the faculty members feel that it does not
do the first and that it overdoes the second.
As to these ends: I think that no one on the faculty really feels that,
on the whole, we are getting a better grade of work than should
reasonably be expected without the system; or, to put it in another way,
no one would be bold enough to say that our students are doing better
work than the students of similar institutions that do not use the
system. On the other hand, it is true that some who have come among us
since the adoption of the system give the comparison the less favorable
turn.
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