Page images
PDF
EPUB

Particularly as a result of our experiences, I am hoping that an educational bill will pass this session and that it will be so structured that help will be available to county and/or State units for staff and materials. As you know, we have only a nominal program at the State level and too little in the way of training at our institutions of higher training.

Since the American Psychological Association has worked some time in developing a program for consulting psychologists and has at this time some sound patterns for developing good counselors, I hope psychology departments in our area will be aided and urged to cooperate with education departments in developing such offerings. At the present time no college in Alabama has such a program. According to the last available report from APA only four institutions in our area even offer such opportunities. They are the University of Florida, Peabody College, the University of Maryland, and the University of Texas.

It is almost impossible for us to obtain counselors with any training. Adequately trained people are practically nonexistent.

Since the counseling concept is rather new in education and not fully understood by the public and/or some teachers, it is particularly urgent that something be done to give counselors status in their communities and schools. In my opinion salary increments and training opportunuities wil be effective program stimulants.

As a guidance person I am constantly working with the college scholarship program. A greater problem with us is convincing able high-school students that college is worth the effort. I would endorse a work-scholarship program or loan provisions. I am not too enthusiastic about large outright gifts at the undergraduate level. Graduate scholarships, particularly for those above the master's degree level, in subject matter fields would, I believe, do more for our schools. I would not limit scholarships to mathematics and science areas but would limit them to basic subject matter areas such as languages, English, history, mathematics, science, psychology.

Yours sincerely,

[blocks in formation]

DEAR MR. ELLIOTT: The Honorable Ralph W. Gwinn has asked me to submit for inclusion in the record of the hearings on scholarship and loan programs the following items:

1. A letter to the Honorable Ralph W. Gwinn from Pitirim A. Sorokin, director, research center in creative altruism, Harvard University, with attachment.

2. A letter to the Honorable Ralph W. Gwinn from Mr. Wilbur Young, State superintendent of public instruction, State of Indiana, with attachments. 3. A telegram to me, as minority clerk of the Committee on Education and Labor, from Mr. Vernon L. Nickell, superintendent of public instruction, State of Illinois.

4. A statement relative to State general scholarship programs.

5. A telegram to me, as minority clerk of the Committee on Education and Labor, from Mr. Frank H. Sparks, president, Council for Financial Aid to Education.

6. A letter to the Honorable Ralph W. Gwinn from Blanche Morton, editor, the Home News Publishing Co., Inc., Hialeah, Fla., with attachment.

7. An article entitled "Another Look at Scholarships" by Dr. Carroll V. Newsom, which appeared in the March 1958 issue of Challenge.

8. A letter to the Honorable Ralph W. Gwinn from Mr. Allan Farquhar, with attachment.

9. A letter to the Honorable Ralph W. Gwinn from Mr. William H. Wisely, executive secretary, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, N. Y., with attachment.

10. Extension of remarks of the Honorable Fred Schwengel, of Iowa, appearing in the appendix of the Congressional Record, September 11, 1957.

11. Treasury Department release A-207, dated Friday, April 4, 1958. 12. The following court decisions:

(a) Hill v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 6060, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued April 13, 1950; decided May 19, 1950.

(b) Coughlin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 126, docket 22487. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued March 11, 1953; decided April 14, 1953.

(c) Clark S. Marlor, petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, docket No. 24704, January 31, 1958. Reversing Tax Court (27 TC 624).

Your assistance in this connection will be much appreciated. With best regards.

Sincerely,

MELVIN W. SNEED,

Minority Clerk.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY,

RESEARCH CENTER IN CREATIVE ALTRUISM,
Winchester, Mass., February 20, 1958.

Hon. Congressman RALPH GWINN,

Room 541, Old House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. GWINN: The following lines taken away from my Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences (pp. 101, 102), sum up my opinion concerning the automatic or semiautomatic tests of personality:

"Healthy scepticism and great caution are needed in regard to these artificial tests. As merely supplementary tools they can be used. As the main tests to determine who is what and for what positions he is fit or unfit we must still rely on real life-tests of the integral type; a long-time, continuous study of his conscious vocal and written mental processes, and of his behavioral performances and achievements at home, in school, in his occupational pursuits, and in his interactions with various persons, agencies, groups, and institutions; and a similar, long-time study of his unconscious region as it manifests itself again in his speech reactions, in his writings, and in his overt actions. This continuous study may be somewhat supplemented by the real tests, which probe this or that quality through challenging experimental situations. The artificial, semiautomatic, or even semiexperimental short-time tests should not be given too important a role. At best they are but the supplementary tools for the integral study of that most complex and most mysterious.cosmos: human personality. Caution and skepticism-and once more, caution and skepticism--are prescribed in regard to them for any prudent society and for any real scientist and scholar." In the chapters of this book I gave the necessary minimum of proofs of these conclusions. My conclusions are probably the conclusions of the minority in this country. However, I must indicate that eminent leaders of social science in practically all European countries expressed in their reviews and letters a substantial agreement with my standpoint. The enclosed photostat of the review given in the London Times Literary Supplement is typical in this respect.

In their reviews and letters, such leaders of sociology and social sciences in Europe as Leopold von Wiese of Germany, Corrado Gini of Italy, J. Haesaert of Belgium, and George Gurvitch of Sorbonne, to mention but a few names, agree with all the essential points of my criticisms given in my book. If necessary, I could indicate 2 or 3 dozen eminent scientists and scholars in this country who also entirely agree with my standpoint. For your committee's hearing I could recommend calling such scholars as: (1) Prof. Robert Ulich, Harvard School of Education; (2) Emeritus Professor Florian Znaniecki, 810 West White Street, Champagne, Ill.; (3) Prof. Clement Mihanovich, Department of Sociology, St. Louis University; or (4) Prof. A. H. Hobbs of the University of Pennsylvania; (5) Professor M. C. Elmer, 427 Elmer Street, Edgewood, Pittsburgh; (6) Prof. Frederick Ellis, College of Education, University of Minnesota, If not entirely, then in most of the essential points these scholars probably would agree with my conclusions.

As a detail, in Russia-whether before the revolution or at the present time, these automatic tests have never been given such a great significance as they are given in this country.

As another detail, this volume of mine, Fads and Foibles * * * published in June 1956, has already appeared in Spanish translation, and this year it is expected to appear in French and German-and possibly also in Japanesetranslations.

Wishing to you and your committee a full measure of success in your important work,

Sincerely yours,

P. A. SOROKIN.
PITIRIM A. SOROKIN.

[From the London Times Literary Supplement, November 2, 1956]

THE LANGUAGE OF SOCIOLOGY

Pitirim A. Sorokin: Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., $10.

It is seldom that an eminent professor in a renowned and ancient university, after a long and honorable career which has earned him a worldwide reputation, has found it necessary to compose a studied condemnation of a vast range of the contemporary doctrine he himself has helped to create.

Professor Sorokin, for many years head of the department of sociology at Harvard University, has added just such a volume to the long list of works which have carried his ideas and established his reputation in many lands and in several languages. He has done so because he believes that the social sciences are in a blind alley from which there is no escape until they adopt a radical change of method and approach. They must, he holds, be redeemed from their bankrupt philosophical presuppositions. They must renounce pseudo-scientific methods which have been taken over and applied with little real understanding from the physical sciences by which they have already been abandoned or drastically revised.

The objects of his criticism abound in the research papers, scientific monographs, "standard works" and sociological text books which are pouring forth from American learned presses, often after powerful financial aid has been lavished upon their authors by research foundations and by university endowments. British and European developments are not included in his comprehensive indictment and their absence has some justification, because inadequate and indeed inept as some of our contributions have been, they are relatively free from some of the more glaring evils by which so much of the recent American literature has been disfigured. So harsh a judgment may seem cruelly wounding, but the situation has deteriorated so alarmingly that it is high time to call a halt.

In raising an American standard of revolt, Professor Sorokin invites general participation in a kind of civil war in which neutrality is impossible. It is no personal vendetta. His sharp sword serves the cause of truth and it should prove as effective a weapon as Occam's razor. To begin with, he himself is the first casualty. In a mea culpa of disarming frankness he confesses that he himself has made many of the blunders which he denounces. He has certainly not been guilty of them all; neither, probably, have all the other writers whom he criticizes. His collective crime-sheet is, however, comprehensive and, it must be admitted, unanswerable.

No one who has had occasion to examine selections of the current American outpouring of sociology can refrain from raising a cheer when he reads this catalog of some of its main shortcomings and blemishes. Who has not been amazed at the evident ignorance many of these contributions exhibit about previous work in this field from Plato and Aristotle onward? Who has not winced at the ponderous platitudes, the tautologies, the barbaric, incomprehensible style, the false air of precision sought through ill-defined or meaningless equations and pseudomathematical formulas, the question-begging use of scientific terms imperfectly understood and borrowed from a now outmoded and superseded physics, the importation of language from atomic theory or cybernetics, the reliance upon dubious psychological tests, the pathetically misplaced faith in psychoanalysis, the boastful claims to originality and the effort to gain credit for self or friends from pretended great discoveries which lead nowhere and are usually nothing but old views restated in new jargon?

Now at last these and other serious defects in current American sociology are collected, classified, and condemned by an authority not only familiar with

them, but to some extent once their dupe. Having been able to rise above them, thanks in part to his wider knowledge, but in the main to his broader sweep, and to his more enlightened philosophical vision. Professor Sorokin is well qualified to pass judgment. Not only does he see the dead end into which the social sciences have run, but he believes that he can point to the way in which they can be rescued. If he is mistaken in such a belief, now is the time for some critic to prove him wrong. None so far has succeeded in doing so. Few of those whom he criticizes are likely to be able to make a similar claim, for his indictment carries evident conviction, not because of his personal authority or views, but because error, ignorance and incompetence stand self-revealed to all disinterested inquirers whose allegiance is solely to the truth.

Fads and foibles are terms too mild for many of the follies he exposes. The sword of justice and avengement which he wields ought to fall heavily upon perversions which have every promise of blighting the hopes, stunting the minds and misleading with false doctrine the ingenuous young, enrolled in their hundreds of thousands in the sociological faculties of scores of American universities. Exposed as they now are to masses of indigestible rubbish masquerading as the latest pronouncement of science, it would be serious indeed if they were to be allowed to accept it, to repeat it and in turn, may be, to teach it; and shocking if they were forced to do all this as a price of success in their academic careers. For their sakes as well as for the advancement of learning Professor Sorokin has done well to publish his courageous and incisive manifesto. May it rally to his standard a goodly army of allies, "cultores veritatis, fraudis inimici," and loudly may the war cry resound "Quousque tandem * * *?"

Hon. RALPH W. GWINN,

STATE OF INDIANA, Indianapolis, April 11, 1958.

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Education and Labor,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN GWINN: We have completed 4 of 5 studies in Indiana concerning the teaching of mathematics and science and the need for Federal scholarships.

To date, all evidence reveals that Federal funds for examinations should not be allocated and there is no need for Federal scholarships if the States will assume their rightful leadership.

Please find enclosed a look at mathematics and science education in Indiana, two copies of GOP News and Views, and a press release that is going to all newspapers in the State of Indiana tomorrow evening for release.

I will be very happy to provide you with additional information if said information is needed.

Sincerely yours,

WILBUR YOUNG,

State Superintendent of Public Instruction. P. S.-I am also enclosing a copy of comments by Mr. W. M. Shanner, director, professional service, California Test Bureau.

SUMMARY REPORT OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEST RESULTS OF NINTH GRADE STUDENTS IN INDIANA HIGH SCHOOLS

The Indiana Statewide ninth grade testing program in the areas of science and mathematics is part of a larger overall evaluation program of science and mathematics in the Indiana high schools carried on under the direction of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Wilbur Young. The California Test Bureau, a private test publishing and research organization, was engaged to conduct the program and the testing was scheduled for the week of February 17-21, 1958. Test results for 43,582 ninth-grade students from 595 high schools are available. The following is a comparison of the performance of the ninth-grade Indiana students with national norms established by a nationwide standardization of the tests.

(a) Physical sciences: 53.3 percent of the Indiana students were above the national norm.

(b) Biological sciences: 48.2 percent of the Indiana students were above the national norm.

(c) Mathematics reasoning: 62.3 percent of the Indiana students were above the national norm.

(d) Mathematics fundamentals: 61.0 percent of the Indiana students were above the national norm.

In the typical situation one would expect 50 percent of the students above the national norm. A percentage greater than 50 percent indicates performance superior to the average expectancy.

In the school curriculum, the major portion of instruction in science takes place after the ninth grade in such specialized areas as physics, chemistry, biology, and the like. At grade 9 and lower grades the principal instruction in science is included in courses of general science. The data indicate that the Indiana schoolchildren are making an adequate start in science from instruction in general science.

The nature of the two mathematics tests are such that they measure the attainment of basic skills in arithmetic and mathematics as taught throughout the elementary school and junior high schools through the middle of grade 9. Thus, these tests are terminal or mastery tests in the fundamental arithmetic processes of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and the like. The test results indicate that in mathematics reasoning 28.7 percent, and in mathematics fundamentals 31.1 percent of the ninth-grade Indiana students perform as well as the typical high-school graduate. These test results indicate the arithmetic and mathematics foundation of Indiana schoolchildren upon which the more advanced instruction in the fields of mathematics, such as algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and the like may be added. The results suggest an excellent foundation for the Indiana schoolchildren in the field of basic skills in arithmetic and mathematics.

With the superior mathematics foundation and the adequate start in science, Indiana schoolchildren should experience no handicap in maintaining their superior performance throughout future instruction in specialized subject-matter fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and the like. Prepared by:

W. M. SHANNER,
Director, Professional Service,
California Test Bureau.

APRIL 10, 1958.

A LOOK AT MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION IN INDIANA SCHOOLS BY WILBUR YOUNG, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

A tiny, bleeping object catapulted out of this world by the Russians has sparked an educational war in this country. Many unfounded criticisms have been made of our science and mathematics education by foes of education. Because of these criticisms, I recently appointed a 14-member committee with Clarence Manion, a former dean of the Notre Dame Law School and a member of the commission on general education, to investigate and appraise science and mathematics education in the schools of Indiana. This committee appointment was necessitated because the schools were being the target for our failure to launch a satellite before Russia's Sputnick I. This committee has deliberately studied the entire situation to find out what the facts actually were in five aspects pertinent to the mathematics and science fields in the Indiana public schools. They are as follows: (1) Teacher qualifications, (2) high school offerings, (3) pupil participation, (4) achievement of pupils, and (5) the need for scholarships. To obtain pertinent data the committee used the records of the teacher training and licensing division, the statistical division and the research division of the State department of public instruction. In addition to this, questionnaires were mailed to all of the 707 Indiana high schools. An amazing 100 percent of the questionnaires were returned. The four studies have been completed and the fifth will be completed within a month.

The results of the first four studies have been completed and item 5 is being presently studied. According to Robert Pabst, director of the teacher training and licensing division of the Indiana State Department of Public Instruction, who personally checked the records, all mathematics teachers in Indiana have a minimum of 24 semester hours of college credit in mathematics. In the field of science various untrue rumors have been prevalent. It has been said that biology is being taught by coaches who were not qualified and physics and chemistry are being taught by individuals who have a considerable amount of professional training but very little academic training. The study reveals that approximately 80 percent of the biology, chemistry, and physics teachers have a teaching

« PreviousContinue »