Freshman History Course at Yale
BY EDWARD L. DURFEE.
The scope and character of the elementary history course at Yale[1] is determined by a twofold necessity: first, that of giving a general survey of the main facts of historical development from the fall of the Roman Empire to modern times which shall be valuable in itself and profitable to the student, even though he were to pursue his historical studies no further; and second, that of providing a course which will fit into the general scheme of the history curriculum, and serve as an introduction to the more advanced courses which follow it. According to the present arrangement, the fields of English and American History are reserved for succeeding years, and as a result, the Freshman course is limited to the study of Continental European History, from 375 A.D. to 1870 or thereabouts.
Although I follow current local usage in speaking of this course as “Freshman History,” the name is not strictly appropriate; it is open to Sophomores, and even to upper classmen under certain limitations and restrictions. The name by which it is known in the catalogue, History A 1, better expresses the fact that it is the introductory course which is a necessary preliminary to all the other history work. As a matter of fact, the popular name is not seriously in error, for over four-fifths of the students pursuing it are Freshmen.
The amount of time allotted to the study of the different epochs is pretty evenly distributed. Beginning with a summary view of the Roman Empire and an analysis of the causes of its decline, the work of the first twelve weeks covers rather thoroughly the history of the Middle Ages to 1250 A.D.; the Renaissance, Reformation, and Religious Wars occupy the next third of the year; and the spring term has to suffice for the period from Louis XIV to the Congress of Vienna. At that point, the course practically ends, for the events of the nineteenth century are sketched very briefly, partly because time is lacking, but more particularly for the reason that a later and more advanced course treats that period in detail.
Experience has convinced the instructors that any course, particularly an introductory one, which deals in specious generalizations and vague trends of development to the exclusion of a thorough drill in concrete facts will, of necessity, be a failure; and so the methods of instruction are designed, first of all, to secure an accurate knowledge of events,—to make the student master the fundamental data upon which any real comprehension of a great movement as a whole must be based. Of course, this is equivalent to saying that we do not consider the lecture method adapted to the immaturity of first year students,—even the mixture of lecture and quiz recitations seems to offer too many temptations to irregularity and slovenliness. Consequently, each of our three exercises per week is devoted to a thorough test of the student’s industry by oral questioning and, at frequent intervals, by short written papers. The fact that the class is divided into small divisions, averaging only twenty men in each, makes the desired end comparatively easy of attainment.
In the matter of text-books, three or four are used, chosen for their supplementary excellencies, and with the additional object in view of developing in the student an elementary power of comparison and synthesis,—an ability to select facts from different sources and mould them into some sort of orderly cohesion for presentation in the recitation. The proof that he has done this is sought, not only in the recitation, but by inspection of his note-book, in which he is required to keep a condensed but carefully arranged digest of the facts gleaned from the various books.
As regards original sources, an experience lasting for a period of six years has forced upon the unwilling minds of the instructors the conviction that contemporary material, as a part of the required reading, cannot be used to advantage in a general course, so broad in scope as the one we are considering. The experiment was a thorough one and long continued,—in fact, the feeling that we ought to find a profitable method of using sources lingered long after the proof had been forced upon us that we could not, and it has produced no change in the general opinion that such work is of the utmost value where time is available to pursue it properly. But in this particular instance, that was precisely what we could not do, at least not without entirely changing the character of the course and modifying its relation to the rest of the curriculum. Source collections are therefore no longer among the required text-books, but are relegated to the domain of collateral reading.
Unity and cohesion among the different instructors and the various text-books is obtained by the use of a syllabus, blocked off into lessons, each containing in addition to an outline and the necessary assignments in the text-books, further references for reading in the larger standard histories and biographies. Nor is historical geography neglected, for each student must fill in with colors the successive maps of an outline atlas.
Casual mention of collateral reading has already been made, but there now remains to be described the method by which it is enforced and directed,—a method which, I think, is unique and which, judged by its results, would seem to be the most valuable feature of the course. In the fall term, which is by far the hardest, owing to the Freshman’s unfamiliarity with college methods of work and the difficult character of the text-books used, little is done in this direction other than to introduce him to the library, to point out to him the section in which the books are to be found that are especially reserved for this course, and to require him to do a fair amount of collateral reading upon some specific subject, a clear outline of which he must insert in his note book. But in the winter and spring terms a much more systematic and thorough drill is undertaken, a brief description of which follows:
Some time in January or February a topic is assigned to each student, comparatively restricted in its scope, chosen from the field of medieval history up to and including the Renaissance. Within two or three days, at a definitely appointed time, he meets his instructor in a conference lasting from twenty minutes to half an hour, and submits a list of books, magazine articles, essays, etc., which contain material bearing upon his subject. This list is to be as complete as the student can make it, and the first object of the conference is to discover if he has exhausted the possibilities of the library,—to find out whether he knows how to use the various catalogues, the more ordinary aids such as Poole’s Index, the A. L. A. Index to General Literature, etc., and whether he is familiar with the location of the reference shelves and the stacks accessible to him. Satisfied upon these points, the instructor selects from the list presented (and perhaps amended) a number of chapters, articles, or books, as the case may require, from which the student is to extract and collect in the form of notes material for an essay on his particular subject. The remaining portion of the conference period is occupied with describing and explaining to the student just how these notes are to be taken.
The method of note taking is the most important matter in connection with this first piece of work, for here, probably for the first time in his life, the student is introduced to this particular application of the card index and filing system. It is required that each note be taken upon a separate card, that each card shall have a head line appropriate for filing purposes, and that there be an accurate volume and page reference to the book from which each bit of information was taken. Emphasis is also put upon the fact that all the reading should be done and all the notes completed before the essay is begun, and that the essay should be written solely from the notes, without further reference to the books; for experience has shown that this is the best way of proving to the student himself whether his notes have been well or poorly taken.
It may be urged that twenty or thirty minutes will not suffice for thorough instruction in such a variety of matters; it certainly would be impossible if it were not for the fact that the whole process is simplified by providing each student in advance with a pamphlet which, besides explaining briefly all these points, contains also a condensed guide to the library. With the aid of this, the work of the instructor is reduced to the task of ascertaining by well-directed questions just what the student has done, and what he would do if he were confronted with certain problems which are sure to arise. And of course, each man is encouraged to consult the instructor informally at any time in connection with puzzling points that may crop up.
As before, a definite time limit is set for this part of the work, and at a second meeting, both the notes and the essay are handed in; and in addition, directions are at that time given for the construction of a formal bibliography. This differs from the preliminary book list which was submitted at the beginning of the work in the following points: in the first place, each book is to be properly and formally listed on a separate card; secondly, reference must be made on each card, not only to the pages which deal with the student’s particular topic, but to those where further bibliographical lists are to be found; again, he is at this time introduced to and taught to use the principal historical bibliographies, and required to enter on cards those which give lists of books on his subject, with an exact reference to the pages where these lists are to be found, without, however, copying any titles from these lists; and lastly, he must make an elementary classification of all his cards by dividing them into three groups,—bibliographies, sources and secondary works.
In the spring term the process is repeated with each student, certain modifications being introduced, however, which constitute steps in advance and prevent the men from viewing the second piece of work as a monotonous repetition of the first. For instance, the subject is chosen from the modern period; while the notes and essay are done in the same manner, a longer time is allowed, and, on the basis of a sharp criticism of his first theme, much improvement in these respects is expected; and the character of the bibliography is entirely changed.
The primary object of the first bibliography, it will be noticed, was to teach the student how to find all the books on his subject, how to use the library, catalogues, bibliographies, etc. In the case of the second, we endeavor to teach him how to find the best books; in other words, we require a selected and critical bibliography, and insist that no book be entered unless its card bears a statement of its comparative value by some recognized authority. To secure such statements the student must, of course, in addition to using the usual bibliographies critically and selectively, search for book reviews in the various reputable magazines, historical and otherwise. As an additional incentive, a prize, named for the Hon. Andrew D. White, is awarded to the author of the best piece of work.
This system was evolved from tentative experiments lasting three years, and has now been in operation, in its present form, for three more; and it seems to be the opinion of competent judges that it is an unqualified success. In the first place, it teaches the student a great deal, not only about particular phases of European history, but more especially about methods of work which will stand him in good stead in all his future courses; and while it demands much of him, the requirements are all so carefully graded and the work so progressive in character that at no time is he overwhelmed by the amount suddenly thrust upon him. And another feature that deserves emphasis is the care taken to prevent each man from slighting any part of the process; during the time he is at work on his two themes he must meet his instructor in no less than five personal consultations which punctuate at carefully chosen times the various stages of the work.
The obvious difficulty that the system demands too much of the instructor is met by the fact that the History Department, as well as the whole Faculty, have shown their appreciation of the results obtained by lightening the ordinary work of teaching to an extent that permits the teacher to carry this extra burden without undue effort.