ENPages
1
[?] 924
1 Sept. 1945
Dear Dr. Tresidder,
The answers you have received to your letter to Stanford Alumni in Military Service have undoubtedly been tremendous in number, and I am hoping that this one will not arrive so late as to be useless. Your questions are the kind that every alumnus with intentions of returning has had in mind, I'm sure, and the opportunity to make those thoughts known is sincerely appreciated.
On leaving Stanford in June, 1943, I had every intention of returning upon completion of service and during this intervening time I have only become more convinced of the importance and value of such intentions. The only change that did occur in my original plans was the hope of attending the Graduate School of Business; it didn't seem as though it would be feasible in view of the probable duration of war, and age at which I return. Opportunities afforded by the GI Bill of Rights, however, have made it possible to plan again on such a course, and though there is still a degree of uncertainty, I am looking forward to the idea with enthusiasm.
As yet, I am still undecided on any specific type of work for which I should like to prepare, although I intend to continue with Economics
2
major. I have given a good deal of thought to your question as to how work in this field should differ from the pre-war program, because it seems as though the general subject of Economics is notorious for its indefiniteness - there seems to be no method by which one "skill" can be evaluated. aboard this particular ship there is nearly an equal division of officers who have majored in the sciences and those who have concentrated on the social studies; the prevailing argument is that people who have majored in Chemical or Electrical Engineering, for example, are better prepared for a job, in the technical sense, than those who have studied in the field of Economics. The difficulty lies, I believe, in the lack of any accurate criteria for comparison in fields that differ so widely in their systems and subject matter, and yet it has occurred to me that there is at least one criterion, though crude and inconsistent, that gives some insight into the difference.
The development of most science courses is such that it compels the pupil to adapt certain study habits if he is to keep in stride with the subjects dealt with as the course progresses. With the regularity, both in volume and complexity, of homework assignments and out-of-class work, most such courses call forth a maximum of concentration, and a proper utilization of time. Economics courses invariably do not make those some demands upon the pupil, and, as a result, it gives him
3
-3-
attitude in the way he adapts himself to the work at hand. It is that criterion which I had in mind. Namely, the technique of organizing the assigned material -- the mechanics of studying.
I have no concrete suggestions as to changes in the content of Economics courses, but I do feel that too many pupils pass through admittedly difficult college courses without ever acquiring an efficient technique for dealing with work. For the most part, all but a select few of Stanford alumni who have been in the service have found themselves assigned to duties and environments that bear little relation to their chosen studies or their classrooms and libraries on the campus, so that the commonplace remark, "What did you learn at college?" has no application to their present work. Yet it is not a difficult job to distinguish between the college student who has gained from his college work the habit of handling his assigned duties with a definite system, adn the one who has depended upon last-minute cramming and hit-or-miss study methods for success in college. That technique, rather than particular skills acquired or courses studied in college, is what students have carried with them in their present services, and the quality and varieties of such techniques is unlimited. It would almost seem that if a college graduate gained only a little from his college work in the way of technical knowledge, but had mastered the technique of organizing the problem at hand, discerning significant material and difficulties, setting aside regular hours
4
given amounts of work and reading, he would truly have the earmarks of a successful college graduate.
The nature of most courses in Social Studies is such that a person of normal intelligence can maintain average grades and yet be lazy so far as study habits are concerned. If each course could be laid out in such a manner as to make necessary a greater effort on the part of the individual toward organization of material, deciding what is most important and what is supplementary -- in other words, the mechanics of his studying -- I believe that the pupil would be gaining the greatest amount of information from his courses, and at the same time laying sound foundations for real success in his future. The issue of study habits is, of course, a fundamental one in any educational system and yet no indoctrination along such lines is stressed prior to entrance into college. Undoubtedly, such indoctrination should begin long before that time, but under present circumstances, if an awareness of such techniques is not cultivated in the universities, a high percentage of students will continue to graduate from colleges with only haphazard hhabits of approaching their real work.
The time of returning to the Farm is still indefinite for most of us, I suppose, but it is a time we are all looking forward to with anxiety. To say that I hope things will be just as they were is probably repeating the hope of a great many alumni, but in view of the kind of campus we left, it is a very understandable wish.
Sincerely yours, Gordon R. Ewig.
Ensign Gordon R. Ewig LST926 SoFPO San Francisco, Calif.
