worked well thus far, we are looking for ways and methods of improving it and should be glad for any suggestions which anyone who is teaching Sociology can make from his experience.

ALBION W. SMALL

It has been a question in my mind for a long time whether it would not be possible to do a better thing for undergraduates in the social sciences by breaking away entirely from departmental programs, and by adopting an introductory course which would be a proper foundation for all advanced work in social science.

Of course Sophomores have a certain smattering of information which would have to be classified under each of the social sciences. Although their acquisitions are usually not abundant enough so to preoccupy the ground that further knowledge in either of these territories would be superfluous, yet the situation is not precisely as though we were dealing with utterly blank minds. Conceding, therefore, that all Sophomores have picked up a certain quantity of scrap information about social facts, our problem is to find out the best way of putting them on the track of precise and scientific study.

Without arriving at an agreement, or without even settling on a precise proposition, a number of the men in the social science departments at the University of Chicago have lately been wrestling with this question. There is certainly in the air a suspicion that we are defeating our own purposes by taking our academic departmental divisions too seriously. Are there not certain things which every Sophomore should know if he is to get the most out of Junior or Senior or graduate work in either of the social sciences? May there not be a body of material and an outlook which every Sophomore might acquire which would serve him better than any strictly departmental work in the Sophomore year?

Instead of making a theoretical argument on this question I submit a concrete proposal. I suggest that the social science departments in all our fully equipped institutions agree to offer a course running through the Sophomore year to be known as Social Science I, to be prerequisite for more advanced work in each department, and to be based on Schmoller's Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre. The work might fairly be described as an outline of the evolution of human institutions. While it is intended as an introduction to economic theory, no one who is chiefly interested in other phases of society need fear that Schmoller's emphasis upon economic interests would give a Sophomore an essentially incorrect notion of the relative importance of the different divisions of human activity.

Here then is a conspectus representing the outlook of a man who is by common consent in the front rank of the economists of the world. Whatever

be our special academic interests, we can hardly differ on the proposition that a Sophomore who had taken this survey would have an enormous advantage over one who had not, in pursuing further study in the social sciences. It seems hardly open to question that our work in the different social sciences might be made much more effective if we could presuppose such a common background in the minds of our students. Without much abstract discussion of methodology Schmoller brings into view all the social factors, in their historical and in their contemporary aspects, which we have to distribute among social science departments for division of labor. There is not enough departmental sectarianism in the two volumes to make any of us sensitive. One of the European economists who ranks with Schmoller, but is not of his school, remarked to me a few years ago apropos of the Grundriss, "Yes it contains a little of everything except economics." It was the sneer of a rival, but it was not meant very seriously. It meant that this particular man would have introduced into the outline a much larger proportion of the psychology of the economic process. For the purpose which I now have in mind the change which the criticism called for would certainly not be an improvement.

Not speaking for the subject of sociology alone, but with the best judgment I am capable of with reference to the whole scope of the social sciences, I am convinced that we could not at present devise a measure which would do more to promote academic social science in general than the adoption of this suggestion.

JOHN LEWIS GILLIN, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

There is no

This discussion has been a most interesting one to me. doubt in my mind that equally important, perhaps, with the necessity of arriving at some conclusion as to what sociology is and what it is not, is the question of how it shall best be presented to college classes. It has come into our college curricula to stay. An increasing number of students demand that they know something about this new subject. It is important, therefore, that the best methods of teaching it should be known by all of us who have this important task to perform. To the younger men among us this is especially important, and it is to be hoped that future programs of this society will give a not unimportant place to the question as to how best to present the subject of sociology to students.

S. N. REEP

Professor Cutler has given us some very valuable suggestions regarding the organization of a department of sociology in an urban university; they are valuable because of the attempt to make the work fundamental and because it has gained the interest of the university community. There is one

point to which I wish to call attention which is not a criticism of Professor Cutler's paper. It is the distinction between the theoretical and practical which are often used interchangeably with abstract and concrete. In the minds of most students, and others also, theory may be good mental discipline but that which is really worth while is the practical. They do not distinguish social description, social interpretation, and social technology. All are dealing with social facts. The first describes them; the second finds their meaning; and the third studies the way by which new social facts may be evolved out of existing ones.

Now it seems to me that a fundamental course must be more than description and must precede technology. Mere description is not science and interpretation of social facts is necessary before there is a reason for any change.

I conclude therefore that a fundamental course in sociology is social theory or the interpretation of the meaning of social facts; and that the danger in outlining a fundamental course is not too much use of description but a weakness in interpretation due to too much consideration of "problems" which center the attention on technology.

J. E. CUTLER

A number of questions have been raised which it seems to me are worthy of further discussion. As we have already exceeded the time allotted to this session, however, I shall confine myself to two or three points and make my remarks brief.

The points made by Professor Kelsey are well taken. I am in hearty agreement with him. Those are points which we intend to bear in mind at Western Reserve.1

The plan proposed by Professor Small is one that was put into operation in an experimental way at Yale University some seven years ago. I was interested in it from the beginning and for a time I had a part in it. Its development has been of special interest to me. In many ways it has been successful. The subject-matter of the course has been shown to be of value; the course has been popular among the students. In some other respects, however, the plan can scarcely be said to have been successful. Still I had a predilection for this kind of an introductory course when I went to Western Reserve University to establish the Department of Sociology. After giving the matter serious consideration, however, I did not dare to organize such a course and follow this plan.

As a matter of fact, I was in the position which many of you have also occupied, I am sure, where it was expected that you would arrange for college students some work that was specifically and definitely sociologynot history, or economics, or philosophy, or psychology, or anything else 'The report of Professor Kelsey's remarks was not sent to the Journal.

than sociology. In this situation you are surrounded by fairly definite limitations. You must find for yourself and on your own responsibility some direct and effective way of introducing your students to the subject of sociology. The plan that I finally adopted is the one that I have described. I was of course aware that it was a plan somewhat different from that followed anywhere else; otherwise I should certainly not have made it the subject of a paper for this meeting.

Other considerations also may enter into this question of a proper introductory method. At Western Reserve University it was decided that the work in sociology should begin with the Junior year. A large percentage of our seniors are to be found in one or another of the professional schools -law, medicine, or engineering. These students who are pursuing a combination course with a professional school are entitled to consideration. They want to get some knowledge of sociology but they do not feel that they can give time to this subject unless it is clear that the knowledge that will be gained is of real value to them in connection with their professional work. It is necessary, therefore, that the courses in sociology be made definite, concrete and to the point; everything that is in any respect non-essential for this purpose must be excluded.

courses.

The courses in practical sociology have been organized to meet this situation. Students may begin the study of sociology by electing these If at any time the results appear to be unsatisfactory, the whole plan is of course subject to change without notice. Thus far the results have been satisfactory. But this plan has the merit of proceeding from the known, that which is near at hand and is a part of actual experience, to that which is more remote from ordinary experience, the more general, the more abstract. It therefore rests upon what is surely a sound principle. All students who propose to specialize in sociology, however, are required to elect both the theoretical and the practical courses. Social evolution and the general principles of sociology are to be studied as well as practical sociology. The emphasis placed upon the applied aspects of the subject does not necessarily imply that the more general and theoretical aspects are not of importance.

There is an additional reason why a department of sociology in an urban university should give special attention to practical sociology. As we all know, much social work is now being done without any recognized scientific basis and methods of work are being followed that are far from scientific. Many social workers are themselves lamenting the lack of coordination and of a common understanding about fundamentals which prevails even in connection with some of the best and most efficient work. Under these conditions the sociologist, if he familiarizes himself with the applied aspects of his subject, ought to be able to contribute something that will be of value. His department ought to inculcate a wider knowledge,

at least among college students, of the need in every community for a constructive social policy and of what is involved in the formulation and administration of such a policy; his department ought to assume at least a measure of responsibility for promoting the growth and extension of social work in proper directions and by proper methods. The sociologist is overlooking a splendid opportunity if he does nothing that will tend directly to make practical social work more scientific, more systematic, more comprehensive in its scope, more efficient.