© 1997 Lawrence University Press
Does Introduction of Electives into the Curriculum Signal Change in Milwaukee-Downer's Mission?
While the ultimate educational goals of the small liberal arts institutions did not change, the record indicates that they nevertheless gradually introduced electives into the curriculum. This was, indeed, a trend to which Milwaukee-Downer was no exception.
In the Milwaukee-Downer catalogue for 1900-1901, President Sabin announced the introduction into the curriculum of the "Group System." Daniel Coit Gilman had introduced this system at Johns Hopkins University in 1876 as a compromise between the fixed liberal arts curriculum, on the one hand, and the curriculum of completely free electives, on the other.
At Milwaukee-Downer, as at Hopkins, it involved election by the student of a prescribed combination of studies, starting with two "major courses," representing at least eighteen hours of work in each of two fields, such as Greek and Latin; German and French; chemistry and biology; English literature or history and either German, Greek, or Latin; science and either Latin, German, or French. In addition, each group had a more or less common set of "group electives," which included mathematics, language, science, philosophy, and history. Finally, each group provided for a specified number of credits in "free electives," which might be chosen from such specialized subject areas as History of Philosophy, Pedagogy, Harmony, History of Art, Art Work in Studio, and supplementary courses in Greek, Latin, French, German, mathematics, science, English literature, and history. The degree ultimately awarded varied according to the character of the major studies included in the group chosen.
It is significant that Ellen Sabin chose to follow the plan of electives instituted by President Gilman at Johns Hopkins rather than, say, that of President Charles Eliot at Harvard. The latter, which emerged as a plan of totally free electives, offered no guidance to the student in the form of a set or sets of required courses for the degree. Instead, the elective system at Harvard functioned according to the belief that the best education was one that gave students practice in making wise choices. As Eliot intended, it allowed students the freedom both to choose courses that were directed at narrow vocational or professional goals and to avoid courses that at other institutions were deemed indispensable to liberal education.
By contrast, Gilman's plan, while allowing students at Hopkins to keep "career" objectives in mind, really insisted that they follow some version of a broad program of studies that could serve as a foundation for subsequent advanced and professional training. The undergraduate curriculum at Hopkins did not provide vocational or professional training, per se. Nor did the curriculum at Milwaukee-Downer under Ellen Sabin, as was made clear in the catalogue statement of 1900-1901, introducing the Group System of electives into the school:
The aim of the Group System, as here outlined, is to secure broad culture rather than early specialization, offering in the selected major studies a firm central interest in studies pursued for two years in definite lines and also furnishing a basis for the most successful specialization after the completion of the college course, if such further study is desired.
To Sabin, securing "broad culture" meant proceeding beyond formal classical studies and developing in students a variety of interests and sympathies as well as awareness of different points of view. "Those of fine culture," she wrote, "have reverence, sympathy, outgoing love" that manifested itself in a broad spirit of service to society. Clearly, this represented a restatement by Sabin of what she believed to be the highest goal of undergraduate education: to train not only the mind but also the conscience, such that character would be built and devotion to social service would be inculcated. "Specialization," on the other hand, suggested to Sabin a "narrow, specific end and aim," which, if it were to be pursued at all, was more appropriately done after college, when proper foundations were already in place. She would thus have agreed heartily with President Gilman's assessment of what made a college a success; his words, indeed, could have been her own:
I believe that the merit of a college consists in what it does for the character of the students. If they are taught fidelity and accuracy; if they learn to appreciate the value of authority as well as the privileges of freedom; if their wills are trained to overcome difficulty; if their social, intellectual, and religious natures are developed; if the love of knowledge is quickened, then the college is a success.
Both Gilman and Sabin saw the mission of the college as the building of character; for them, "specialization," that pursuit of narrow vocational goals that later would be referred to as "career" training, was not the aim of undergraduate education.
Home Economics at Milwaukee-Downer: Implications for Women's Role
