Part 10 (2/2)

This lack of conviction on the part of Mr Secor calls tobit of history connected with the inate in the University of North Dakota Dr Williae, 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, seely, that the experiment be estive 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 develop to analyze the situation at the University of North Dakota, let ain refer to Mr Secor's article He says, ”The plan, with so used in the University of North Dakota and in Coluhly satisfactory” To substantiate his statement he refers, in a foot-note, to the articles in the _Educational Review_ froot his information Now, the conclusion that Mr Secor reaches fro these articles is hardly warranted by the articles themselves I fear he read too much between the lines Let us see: Professor Thoo, and only a couple ofas to its success,--in fact, he could not, for there was nothing to say He ave voice to his expectations The Coluhly 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 systeo, fully two academic years, for the article appeared in December, 1906, before the close of the first term of the year 1906-'07 Noo years in the life of an experi ti his article, did not put the case as strongly as does Mr Secor fro 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” Froiven when they were, Mr Secor is certainly not justified in saying that ”the planis at present being used in the University of North Dakota with results that are reported to be highly satisfactory”

Professor Kennedy's statement at the time he wrote his article A considerable nureed with hily as that to-day If he should, a still larger nuly of his own belief in the theoretical soundness of the system, but that is quite anotherthe 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 co able to elithen 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 ”ies 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” systee 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 systeh to say that our students are doing better work than the students of similar institutions that do not use the syste us since the adoption of the systeive 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 co lady's tihtly in excess of that and the excess was fully overbalanced by the tiave to outside work--to library assistance for re struck by others It only re the ould hold out It was clearly possible

But the faculty beca the above stated possibility and being wholly unwilling thus to lower its high standard, it passed a resolution that arbitrarily liiven tiraduation 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 so 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 centall the way down to an inappreciable period

But aside fro one of its ends and its too great success in reaching the other, it has developed nuly serious, and revealed weaknesses that seeh impossible to eliminate space allows scarcely more than an enumeration of these, but a eneral terms (1) In the first place, I should say that the ”Credit-for-quality” syste 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 ter 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 ood 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 Soher than others Under the influence of our system students are very quick to learn these individual characteristics, and those who have developed the ”itching pale (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 raduate 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 beco satisfied without passing in revieell nigh the entire former school life of an applicant, apparently to assure themselves that no short-cuts have beenconfirmation of the position of this article relative to the importance of content--when it pleads for quantity, as well as quality

This entireto 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” systeraduate 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 systeht 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 fro to continue along the same lines of work After considerable discussion and institutional negotiation, this much of a concession was e will be disregarded” So she went to ith that incubus, or stiard it--over her Neither she nor her co whether it was to be for two years or for three And not until the very close of her year's as her status deterrees 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 de to both students and teachers I refer to the inevitable outcome of such a system; some students (sometimes few and so the Prof”

Teachers offering elective courses are constantly under great teain, under the same count: it is freely clai in examinations, of which we doubtless have our share (some claim much reatly increased if not largely caused by our syste this so the adoption of the ”honor syste examinations (6) It is i to our various grades There are as rade of work for which one instructor would give an ”A”

(13), another would give a ”B” (12) and still another a ”C” (10)

Standards can not be fixt To sho greatly they differ, inthe work for the first terave only seven per cent of his students extra credit, while another thus rewarded e, however, is abnore of twenty-five per cent to sixty-five per cent is not, even tho the two instructors have approxirade of work Other evils and weaknesses ht 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-- of the course is far froain 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”

systees and universities, in planning for lives of usefulness and success, place the that we are older, wiser, more learned, and more experienced than they, they ask our advice and, in thewith thee them on; the standards of value we erect for them, they use; and the ideals we place before thee responsibilities upon us Are ise in telling fro people that three years is all the tie work? They will all remain the full four years unless we plan differently for theic in the nue course, nor in three, nor in two, nor in any other number But would not any nore ate 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 hi that which we know to be well for hie of that fourth year? Why say to him when he is just ready to enter into the enjoyo?” After all, is it not this very three-year student with his finer ability, his keener insight, and his greater industry who can reatly profit by the extra year? Shall we not rather encourage hier and delve deeper and reach to the very heart of things?

Whether looked at froe, or froe, which is to profit by his equipment, is it not really the four-year or even the five-year student ould 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 theh quality of work just the sa four years instead of three They are the very ones ill most readily respond to such appeals and they will so respond unless we put other notions into their heads It is soed, in justification of the ”Credit-for-quality” idea, that one student in three years can accoe and mental power, than another in four There is no doubt about it Some can do more in two years than others in four; soe 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 ely 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 developinally planned to operate in our entire institution, exclusive of the College of Law into which it was not allowed to enter, this systees save the College of Liberal Arts and Teachers College True, in these colleges of exclusion the ures more prominently than in the others--the curricula arethe only reason for the exclusion And eventhe secondary school extension recommended by the article under discussion, is our recent action excluding the syste transfore This elimination, likewise, was in part due to the fixt number of courses deely 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 systee its retention in the Model High School All felt, seerade

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, knoell that h and dry on the shoals of the past”