Harvard 1926: The Life and Opinions of a College Class [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674865976, 9780674863293

Citation preview

T H E LIFE AND OPINIONS OF A COLLEGE CLASS

HARVARD 1926

THE LIFE AND OPINIONS COLLEGE CLASS

Cambridge HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1951

COPYRIGHT, 1 9 5 1 , BY THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Contents Preface Prologue A résumé of our origins W h y W e Went to Harvard A study in motivations and habit Bright College Years Or what happened to us at Cambridge Debits and Credits Some observations on the values and drawbacks of a Harvard education The Search for Jobs Seventeen per cent of us are still dissatisfied Progress under the Profit System The median annual income of the class is today not quite $12,000 Shall W e Grow Old Gracefully? Six out of ten have assets for their old age The Political Man Though still predominantly Republican, we consider ourselves more liberal than we used to be; but our resistance to socialistic ideas and our dislike of the Soviet regime have grown Our Religious Outlook There is little habit in our churchgoing Our Views on Current Trends in Education We still exalt the liberal and humanist traditions The Continuing Ties: I Money contributions; social and professional relations; the outer limbo [ ν ]

Harvard, 1926 PAGE

T h e Continuing Ties: II We find much to admire, a few things to deplore, in Harvard today

54

O u r Position in American Society

62

We place ourselves in the Upper Middle Class M e n of Distinction — with Aberrations

65

One in five is in a Who's Who; nearly as many have written books T h e First Symptoms of Middle A g e Not yet ready for the wheelchair, we are beginning to retire from the strenuous life

69

T h e Uses of Leisure

72

Veblen would have been confused Pour la Patrie One man in three served with the Armed during the war

76 Forces

T h e Marital Condition The divorce rate is high, but so is marital contentment

78

T h e W o m e n W e Married The distaff view

81

T h e Pursuit of Happiness It still eludes 1$ per cent of us

86

Appendix About the survey and its validity

94

[ vi j

Preface y

II ^ H I S volume, issued as a supplement to the usual I Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report of a Harvard class, -¿A- began with a suggestion from our former First Marshal, Marion Adolphus Cheek. Back in 1949, when our reunion seemed only a vague and pleasant future prospect and arrangements for it were just beginning to be discussed, Dolph reminded some of us of an almost forgotten fact about the Class of 1926. In our senior year in college we made the first study of the Harvard educational system ever undertaken by undergraduates, and on the basis of this study the Student Council, which our class then dominated, published a report that attracted nation-wide attention. This report embodied the first public proposal and concrete formulation of an idea which seemed so revolutionary, as well as so difficult and costly to carry through, that there appeared to be small chance of its adoption. Yet within five years after we left college our proposal had come into magnificent and almost miraculous being as the Harvard House Plan. Its realization in so short a time was made possible by two things we could not have foreseen. One was the dynamic championship of the idea by President Lowell. (I still recall our fear, while we were writing the report, that he would oppose our recommendation. W e on the committee were more surprised than anyone when we learned later that he had cherished the same idea for many years but had never put it forward. After the plan was in effect, he told me that the Houses in Cambridge owed their existence to our Student Council Report.) The other unexpected development was the princely gift to Harvard of some $13,000,000 by a Yale man, [ vii ]

Harvard 1926 the late Edward S. Harkness, who (as President Lowell also told me) read our report and in 1928 approached Harvard on his own initiative with an offer of the money to finance the program. A n astonishing superclimax of these events was that Yale, to which Mr. Harkness had first made his offer, only to have it turned down, now changed its mind and said, "Me too." So in 1930, as if to demonstrate that he had not gone over to the opposition, Mr. Harkness made a similar gift to finance more or less the same plan in N e w Haven. Thus the Harvard Class of 1926 left its mark on Harvard, and, without intending it, on Yale also. This last may perhaps be taken as proof of the force and power of ideas to penetrate even the most impervious barriers. Reflecting on this chain-reaction which our class had set in motion, Dolph Cheek suggested that we should not be content merely to publish the traditional Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report. W e should do that, of course; but we should also attempt something more, something of larger significance than the routine recording of such prudently screened autobiographical data as the members of the class might see fit to divulge. The question was: What should it be? T o explore the possibilities, Robert P. MacFadden, acting as a permanent officer of the class, called a small meeting in N e w York in the early spring of 1950. Those attending, who thereafter constituted a sort of unofficial committee, were: LeBaron Russell Barker, Cornelius DuBois, James H. Durgin, Milton Glick, Robert P. MacFadden, Lewis Nichols, William I. Nichols, and myself. Benjamin A . G . Thorndike became an ex-officio member when he, all unsuspecting, took on the onerous and thankless duties of supervising the traditional report and of bringing it to completion as a published book; and then, to make his punishment complete, of bringing out as a compan[ vili ]

Preface

ion volume whatever our committee might produce. Charles J. V. Murphy, who was abroad at the time, was also invited to join the group a little later when it was realized that a man of his special talents was indispensable to our purpose. After discussion and consideration of various proposals, it was unanimously decided to try to obtain from the class some of the kinds of information not likely to be reported in full, if at all, in the individual autobiographies. It was also agreed that the only way to obtain such information would be through a confidential investigation in which the members of the class would be encouraged to frankness by a guarantee of anonymity. It was thought that certain general subjects of interest to everyone ought to be covered, and that they should include as a minimum such topics as: our social and political views, past and present; our attitudes toward religion, including changes in attitude if they had occurred; our careers; our hobbies and extra-curricular activities; our incomes, facts about which might throw light on the financial value of college education in general and of a Harvard education in particular; our savings, if any, and our prospects, as a generation that has never known anything but high taxes, of being able to take care of our old age; our attitudes toward Harvard and toward the universal problems of education in a democracy; and, finally, our marital histories, together with pertinent data about our children and our home lives, which should indicate something about our relative degrees of success or failure, of happiness or unhappiness, in that aspect of human existence which the majority of men would probably rate as the most important of all. Such information, if it could be obtained, might give us a composite picture of what it means to be a Harvard man twenty-five years out of college. W e were fortunate in having among us, in Neil DuBois, a member of the class whose training and experience eminently [ ix ]

Harvard 1926 qualified him to undertake a survey of this kind, to analyze its findings with scrupulous and impartial accuracy, and to organize and present the results in a way that would reveal the significance of the facts. He was asked to handle the project as a professional assignment, giving it the same care and attention he would give to any other research project. He readily agreed to do it, on condition that the work of his organization, Cornelius DuBois & Company, should be put on a break-even, non-profit basis. Charlie Murphy was asked, and also consented, to take the results of the survey, as Neil would give them to him in a preliminary report, and write them up for publication. The present book is the outcome of these cooperative efforts. Of course, as always happens when a committee undertakes anything, the real work is done by only a f e w people. The others perform a useful function in standing on the side lines to lend encouragement. Without intending a backhanded compliment to the cheering section (in which I served), I want to take this occasion to single out for the praise they deserve the three men whose selfless labors made this book possible. If Ben Thorndike comes to the reunion with a look of permanent worry etched into his features, no one need wonder why. Throughout the eighteen months preceding that event he was the most harassed member of the class. N o exceptions. Consider the fact that all Harvard men are arrant individualists. Consider the further fact that there are 745 of these individualists still alive and kicking in the Class of 1926. Then think of Ben. He had the job of riding herd on all of us, begging, pleading, cajoling, wheedling, urging, and at last threatening to leave us out of the formal report unless, after innumerable reminders, we would please kindly consent to do just two little things: (a) have our pictures taken, and (b) send in our life [ χ ]

Preface histories — so that at last he and his cohorts in Boston and Cambridge, working against time, could organize the material, send it to press, and get the book out on schedule. On top of that he was expected to produce two books in the period heretofore required for one; and, through nobody's fault, the typescript for the present volume was delayed and not completed until well after the date set for it. Yet it was still necessary to have both books ready for the reunion. As this is written, it looks as if he will perform the double miracle. O rare Ben Thorndike! Charlie Murphy took on the assignment of writing this volume with the assurance of a man who for years has worked against deadlines and is not afraid of them. It is doubtful, however, whether he realized what he had let himself in for. Surely he had never before been required to take so much arithmetic and turn in into literature. The evidence of his success is between these covers and speaks for itself. He has made readable and consistently interesting what could have been merely statistical and dull. These pages bear witness to the subtle alchemy of the born writer: that capacity of sympathy and imagination that can take in the dry bones of fact and turn them out clothed in warm flesh and blood. Last but by no means least, a special accolade to Neil DuBois. During the year and more when the meticulous research was being done on which every single sentence in this book is based, he may have eaten, slept, carried on some semblance of family and social life, and he may even have done something to earn his living, but how he could have found time for these outside activities I do not know. I saw him often throughout this period and came away from each meeting with the feeling that I had been talking to a man with a mission, a dedicated man, and that the twin objects of his dedication were Veritas and the Class of 1926. He believed that what he was doing was [ xi ]

Harvard

1926

important, so he gave it everything he had; and what he had was imagination, limitless energy, respect for accuracy that amounted to worship, analytical ability of the highest order, and the know-how of his professional experience. T o watch Neil at work is to be given an object lesson in human cybernetics. The processes by which he arrives at his conclusions seem to the uninitiated as unfathomable as the operation of Professor Norbert Wiener's control-mechanisms, until the discovery is made that the mystery is one of complexity only, and that the complexity is in the putting together of innumerable small, precise, yet simple parts, each a logical step in the perfect order of the whole. Figures mean nothing to some people; many of us can take them or leave them. Neil can't. He always takes them, and when he gets through they aren't just figures any more. T h e y are hard facts, illuminating generalizations, unsuspected trends. In one way this volume is like an iceberg, in that eight-ninths of it is out of sight. That eightninths on which the whole thing floats was all Neil's province, and his alone. So, Gentlemen of Twenty-six, here is our book. W e may not like some of the things we find in it, any more than we may like what we see today when we look in the mirror. The analogy is apt, for here no portrait painter has flattered us, no photographer has prettied us up by taking out the lines life has written in our faces. Here, for better or worse, as more than sixty-one per cent of the entire class has put itself on record, is simply our composite self. EDWARD C . ASWELL

Chappaqua, New

York

March 77, 1951

[ ¿i ]

Prologue A résumé of our origins E, the surviving members of the Harvard Class of 1926, have now reached the halfway house between graduation and the Biblical limit of threescore and ten. The great majority of us are now between forty-five and forty-seven years old. At forty-six, according to the latest actuarial tables, the average white male can expect to last another quarter of a century. Half of us can expect to be on hand for the 50th anniversary — unless the atom bomb, or its hydrogen successor, meanwhile disposes of such quaint customs. Looking backward from this halfway point in our adult lives, we have mixed feelings about our accomplishments to date. Nineteen per cent have achieved greater success than they remember forecasting for themselves twenty-five years ago, and the rest of us divide almost evenly between those who feel they have done just about as well as they expected and those whose achievements have not yet measured up to the goals which they once considered attainable. Our actual accomplishments in terms of career, earning capacity, community status, and happiness at home are important parts of this report, based on the replies of 450 men to one of the most comprehensive inquiries ever undertaken.* Equally emphasized are our attitudes — political, social, religious, educational — and an attempt at self-analysis of the part which Harvard played in molding our lives. The overall aim of the analysis is to convey, through the composite lives and opinions of the group, a sense of what it means to be a Harvard man of our generation.

The majority of us were born, between 1903 and 1905, in the northeastern corner of the United States. Approximately half (49 per cent) came from New England, with Massachusetts supplying * For a discussion of survey methods and their validity, see the Appendix. [

I

]

Harvard 1926 most. Another 26 per cent originated in the Middle Atlantic States (New York predominating). The other sections of the nation, as well as several foreign countries, had the privilege of producing the remaining fraction. This intense concentration in the Northeast endows us as a group with a geographical pattern distinct from the distribution of the total population, and indeed from the prevailing distribution pattern of the American college population generally. The phenomenon is, of course, largely accounted for by Harvard's own position in Massachusetts. It is, moreover, fairly typical of Harvard graduates in general, except among the latest classes, which, reflecting the college's policy of reorienting itself as a national rather than a regional institution, are today drawing more and more men from the hinterland. However, the centrifugal influence that operated to draw us to Cambridge in the first place has for many of us long since waned. Whereas 46 per cent of us entered Harvard from Massachusetts, only 32 per cent live there now. The largest migration has been in the direction of New York, but distinct fractions have taken root in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, and one or another of the South Atlantic States. In the course of these migrations we have also undergone a certain change in our urban habits. The majority (55 per cent) of us grew up in cities of over 100,000 population. Now the majority reside in smaller communities — a reflection, probably, of the general population shift from big cities to the suburbs and other satellite communities. As for our backgrounds, seven men in ten were brought up in Republican homes. (The fathers of only 22 per cent were Democrats.) This is a much higher Republican ratio than is found among college graduates generally. A survey conducted by Time magazine, from which have been drawn many of the comparisons and contrasts used in this report, established the national Republican-Democrat ratio among the fathers of college graduates at 49 to 30 per cent, in favor of the former. From the same source comes the fact that only a quarter of all college graduates had college-educated fathers, but the fathers of the majority of us (54 per cent) were college-educated, and, attesting to the strength of the Harvard tradition, nearly half of them (actually 21 per cent) [ 2 ]

Prologue had themselves gone to Harvard. Eighteen per cent of the fathers had had only a high-school education, and the education of 26 per cent had stopped earlier than that. For a majority, the homes and neighborhoods we grew up in were those of a comfortable upper middle class, pretty much the same position in the socioeconomic scale as the one we occupy today. Our religious upbringing was primarily Protestant, with the Episcopalians (32 per cent) constituting the largest single group. Thirteen per cent of us were brought up in the Congregational Church, 10 per cent in the Unitarian, 5 per cent in the Presbyterian, and 5 per cent in the Methodist. The Jewish faith claimed 17 per cent, and the Roman Catholic Church 8 per cent. One per cent were the products of other religions and 4 per cent say they were raised without benefit of any religion whatsoever. For the great majority of us (69 per cent) education began in public grammar school. Almost all the rest went to private schools, with only 1 per cent attending parochial schools or being privately tutored. After the eighth grade, a separation occurred, with a slight majority (54 per cent) going to private preparatory schools, and 50 per cent to public high schools. (The overlapping is due to the fact that some went first to one, then the other.) This was the raw material out of which Harvard 1926 slowly evolved.

[ 3 ]

Why We Went to Harvard A study in motivations and habit OR approximately one man in three among us — the son, brother, nephew, cousin, or other relative of a Harvard man — family tradition, custom, or example determined the choice to follow an already familiar path, although a certain note of retrospective doubt is detectable in some of the general comments. One classmate notes almost ruefully: "I dutifully followed the family tradition in sheep-like manner." As for the rest of the class, those without previous Harvard associations, the impelling reasons that brought them to Cambridge were as different and diversified as their individual backgrounds. One man had an uncle who, after winning a scholarship to Harvard, was forbidden to take advantage of it by his parents, who feared that he would in consequence be forever marred by the Harvard manner. The uncle had always regretted the lost opportunity and, perhaps having no sons of his own, he turned to his nephew when the latter approached college age, persuading him to enter the class of 1926. In another instance, unique of its kind, a classmate was gained on the strength of a mother's suggestion to a wavering son that the fact that his own father was a Yale man was justification enough for going to Harvard — brutal reasoning, but not without merit. One way or another (excluding those who specified a Harvard background) one man in seven was persuaded by his family that Harvard was the only place for him. One in ten was inclined toward Harvard by the example of admired friends who were going there; and just over one man in twenty believes now that his original choice of boarding school had predetermined, perhaps unconsciously, his choice of college. Four per cent were influenced by proselytizing Harvard alumni (no kin) and the same number by non-Harvard teachers and other advisers. It is pleasant to report that in choosing Harvard the class in toto was not blindly following example. Nearly a third were attracted to Harvard primarily by its reputation as a center of learning, and

F

[ 4 ]

Why We Went to Harvard the individual explanations advanced in this connection are deserving of note. Said one: "I considered it the best college in the country." And another (less grammatically perhaps than one might wish) : " I could get what I wished educationally there better than anywhere else." And another: "It seemed the most adult college around." And another: "I wanted the best education available." One man already established at another college transferred hastily to Cambridge during his freshman year after noting that the most useful textbooks assigned to him for study were nearly all written by Harvard professors. " I simply decided," he recalls, "that instead of trying to absorb Harvard ideas secondhand, I'd be much better off if I went to Cambridge and sat myself down at the feet of the masters themselves." Only 3 per cent elected Harvard because of its scholarships, without which they could not have afforded to go, and for 6 per cent the economy of a college near home was compelling — although this reason in itself does not explain the choice of Harvard over Boston College or Boston University. Among the miscellaneous impulsions cited by another 10 per cent were (a) the admirable impression made by Dean Pennypacker in his talks before hinterland groups on the advantages of a Harvard education; (b) a shrewd judgment of one that it would be easier for him to get into Harvard Medical School from Harvard College than from somewhere else; (c) the refusal of Harvard-minded parents to pay a son's way through Yale, Princeton, or some other originally preferred institution; (d) the desire of Southerners, Mid-Westerners and Far Westerners to broaden their background by four years at an Eastern college; and (e) in several instances, an ambition to play on the Harvard football team — a Quixotic dream, if ever there was one. One music lover confesses, cheerfully, that his chief reason for entering Harvard was to sing in its Glee Club; and another classmate reports mysteriously that he was bribed, although he fails to say by whom, or by how much, or for what particular purpose. In summary form, here are the reasons for going to Harvard: [ 5 ]

H a r v a r d

1 9 2 6

Father was a Harvard man Brother went there Other relative went there "Family tradition" Influence of other Harvard graduates Influence of parents, family (non-Harvard) Influence of teachers, other non-Harvard adults Friends were going Prep school influence Harvard's reputation Nearness to home Scholarships Other answers N o answer

18% * 4% 6% 7% 4% 14% 4% 10% 6% 30% 6% 3% 10% 4%

Anybody who bothers to add up the percentages already cited will discover that they total more than 100 per cent. The discrepancy is due to the fact that quite a few, in their replies to this part of the questionnaire, supplied several answers. For example, a man who was persuaded to go to Harvard because his father had preceded him there felt himself equally drawn, for his own part, by Harvard's prestige in the field of learning. In any case, for these and various other reasons, 90 per cent of the class (on the basis of those answering the questionnaire) were on hand to register at Memorial Hall in September, 1922. One per cent were already there (having dropped back from an earlier class); and 9 per cent joined later, largely from other colleges.

* O u t of 21% more i m p e l l i n g .

w h o h a d H a r v a r d f a t h e r s ; w i t h t h e other 3 %

s o m e other reason w a s

still

Bright College Years Or what happened to us at Cambridge N the light of the unfortunate popular misconception, reflected most strongly in the Boston press, that the Harvard of our era was inhabited principally by gilded youth who passed their evenings at the Old Howard and their afternoons scooting around in Stutz "Bear Cats," it is heartening to note that nearly three men in ten worked their way through, wholly or in part, by taking outside jobs during the college year; and that nearly half the class took jobs during the summer vacations — although it is reasonable to suppose that some worked a good deal harder than others. There is considerable overlapping here due to the fact that a fairly large number of us (24 per cent) worked at paying jobs both throughout the school year and during the holidays. However, at least in this one respect, we had a somewhat easier time at college than the average American college student of the period. According to a Time cross-section of all American college graduates, the majority of whom were of a later vintage, 60 per cent of all college men supported themselves by outside work during the college year, and 76 per cent worked summers. An estimate for men of our age group, derived from the Time study, provides this contrast:

I

Worked during term Worked summers only Didn't work at all

Harvard '26 29% 22 48

All college men same age 61% 22 17

However, the economic drive as it affected '26 appears to have taken a few unexpected turns. One classmate who lived a life of undisturbed ease until the end of the junior year suffered the misfortune of being fired. In order to be readmitted on probation he took a summer job as earnest of his serious intentions. An unexpected consequence of his summary introduction to the world of enforced labor was a series of associations with young women [ 7 ]

Harvard 1926 with time on their hands. After that he was doomed. "When I returned for my senior year," he reminisces, "I continued to take jobs on and off, for extra spending money — Sex had reared its anything-but-ugly head." It will come as no surprise that approximately one man in four concentrated in English, approximately one man in seven in Economics, and almost that same proportion (actually 13 per cent) in History and Government. About one in ten chose Languages and the Classics. When to these groups are added the History-Literature and the History-Government combinations (3 per cent each), it is to be seen that the overwhelming majority of the class concentrated in the traditional fields. Only 13 per cent were sufficiently prophetic of the shape of things to come to prepare in any of the physical or human Sciences; another 10 per cent chose Engineering and/or Mathematics. Only 5 per cent, the solitary bearers of the dim light of aesthetics, concentrated in Fine Arts. While retrospection may incline us occasionally to a rather different view, the questionnaire nonetheless elicited the reassuring fact that despite the Harvard man's reputation for indifference, the Old College T r y had by no means expired in our particular generation. As regards extracurricular activities, better than three men in ten tried out for varsity sports; nearly four men in ten went in for other sports; one in four tried out for the college publications; one in five for the Glee Club or some other musical interest; and one in six for dramatics and debating. Only 13 per cent of the class admit to indulging in no outside activities whatever. So far the picture of the class that emerges from the survey, if not altogether flattering, is at least comforting. As young men we were fairly industrious, reasonably respectful toward Harvard's intellectual traditions, and moderately occupied with outside interests, the mark of the rounded man. It is only when we come to the question of Harvard's effect upon our religious attitude that a jarring note appears. Some people today profess to observe the beginnings of an apparent religious renaissance in the nation. If that be so, our college generation does not reflect it. While one man in three is today of the opinion that he continued while at Harvard to go to church no more often, and no less, than before, only a small fraction (3 per cent) were suffi[ 8 ]

Bright College Years ciently inspired by the atmosphere of Cambridge to take a more regular interest in religious observance, and six men in ten say candidly that at Harvard their church attendance languished; an intransigeant 2 per cent actually report that they never saw the inside of a church during their four years at Harvard. It was, in the case of one man, a direct reaction to compulsory chapel eight times a week in prep school. The Time national survey reveals by contrast that nearly half of all American college students showed no want of habit in their church-going while being exposed to higher education, and that only 38 per cent were adversely affected as we were. Perhaps a national cross-section of college students of our day would be found to have come from homes in which religion was a stronger force than in our own, but there is nothing in our statistics or Time's to confirm or refute such a theory.

[ 9]

Debits and Credits Some observations on the values and drawbacks of a Harvard education many believe today, in the sober light of experience, that the Harvard curriculum of our day fell far short of perfection, the prevailing opinion is that, regardless of where Harvard may have failed, it at least equipped us with the intellectual tools, and, more important, with a mature and inquiring mind, with which to cope with the harassing world. In any case, 24 per cent have decided, on reflection, that the best thing Harvard did for them was to provide a good education, or at least the groundwork for an education subsequently extended by postgraduate work; and 25 per cent have decided that the finest consequence of Harvard was the development of their minds, training them to think things through to a proper conclusion. It is an attitude that would have impressed Aristotle, and possibly even A. Lawrence Lowell. However, the general comments reveal that a Harvard education also produced dividends of a somewhat less exalted intellectual variety. Some 12 per cent hold that the college's best contribution was as a source of friendships that have since enriched their lives. One man is most grateful because at a Harvard football game he met the girl who became his wife — an unexpected byproduct of a non-coeducational environment. Six per cent feel that Harvard's most important role in their lives was to prepare them for their life work, although not all, when they say that, have vocational training in mind. (A man who took an engineering degree observes that by preparing at Harvard he escaped being one of the "M.I.T. illiterates.") What 14 per cent value most among Harvard's gifts is an urbane view of life, a sense of cultural values, the implantation of ideals and a social conscience. Almost equally, others speak warmly of its inculcation of a sense of selfreliance, meaning, presumably, their ability to settle with the world on their own terms, and 4 per cent thank Harvard most for teaching them to get along with people. One classmate feels HILE

[ 10 ]

Debits and Credits that Harvard had made him overbearing at the start, but in the end succeeded in rubbing out the objectionable trait the hard way, leaving a residue of self-assurance which he counts among his highest assets. Another says, "Harvard developed my poise and the feeling that I was qualified to belong in all but the most erodi te [ÍÍC] groups" — which, in view of the spelling, seems a doubtful statement. Five per cent value, before all else, the prestige of being a Harvard man; of possessing, through association, a link with a great tradition, a circumstance that has proved helpful to their business and social positions; and 3 per cent rate the cachet of a Harvard degree as being of first importance. A handful measure as the most valuable reward their association with certain outstanding Harvard "minds" — notably "Copey," Bliss Perry, George Lyman Kittredge, Irving Babbitt, and Kirsopp Lake. Chacun à son goût. The more eloquent say that: "Harvard broadened me, strengthened my cultural background, gave me confidence in my own ideas." "Harvard sharpened social consciousness in me, introduced me to the cultural achievements of Man." "Harvard gave me mental and moral strength that fosters independence of thought." Still others, of not quite so lofty outlook, are grateful for reasons peculiar to themselves: "Harvard taught me to be satisfied with nothing short of perfection." "Harvard taught me to hold my liquor." "Harvard taught me to question dogmatic teaching." "Harvard taught me to approach a controversial question with a minimum of prejudice." "Harvard taught me to be tolerant." Only three (of those who answered) were unable to find something good that Harvard did for them. Of these the first blames himself for not taking advantage of its resources; the second explains that he left the college too early in his career to have formed any decided opinion, one way or the other; and the third, although unable to isolate any particular benefit that he himself [

i'

]

Harvard

1926

might have derived from Harvard, concedes that by graduating he had pleased and made proud his mother. Here, then, is how the class stands, as a whole, on the question. Note that between the public and private school groups there is one marked difference: it is in the private school group that the bulk of men are found for whom the advantages of a Harvard education are social rather than intellectual. Taking all things into account, what do you think is the best thing Harvard did for you?

Total Developed the mind 25% Gave a good education 24 Broadened the outlook r4 Taught self-reliance 13 Founded good friendships 12 Showed us how to get along with people 4 Prepared for life work 6 Imparted prestige 5 Gave the cachet of a Harvard diploma 3 Made possible associations with great teachers 2 All other answers 9 No answer, don't know 8

Public high school graduates 27% 26 16 12 8

Private prep school graduates 24% 23 12 13 17

2 7 4 4

7 4 5 2

3 9 6

9 8

2

On the debit side ( " W h a t do you think is the worst thing Harvard did for you?") the class judgment, although more complicated in its subdivisions, is perhaps not unexpected. T h e most common complaint, registered by one man out of five, is that Harvard made us snobs, a condition that afterward gave rise to mild regret. One says: "Harvard gave me a condescending manner." Another: " I t left me with a feeling of superiority." Another: "Harvard made me self-centered, conceited, swell-headed and class-conscious." Some say that it made them indifferent to the points of view of others less well endowed; that it made them intolerant of imperfection. It is encouraging to report that with the advent of middle age at least some among us give evidence by confession that this feeling has, for the most part, disappeared. ( T h e unconfessed snobs, presumably, are beyond salvation.) And more than one man is

[

]

Debits and Credits generous enough to attribute part of the blame for this sad condition to his own earlier upbringing. As one puts the problem: "People told me that I was a stinking little snob for the first few years after college but I am not sure that I can blame Harvard for that entirely. I went there with quite a veneer which had been put on me in prep school. Harvard's fault was in not rubbing it off." The second most serious gripe, registered by one man in ten, is that Harvard failed to prepare us for the business world (although it might be argued, in rebuttal, that it never undertook a commitment to do so). Within this particular group of critics the feeling runs strong that the College of our day failed to teach anything practical; that it was totally lacking in down-to-earth courses that might have had some later application to the conditions of the business world. Others, perhaps more thoughtful, are troubled, as they glance backwards, by a missing intangible: a feeling that Harvard had momentarily lost sight of the hard facts of the real, the continuing world; that it had somehow lulled us into the baseless belief that the world was less complicated than it really proved to be; that, finally, it had failed fully to awaken its sons to the strange new ferment working in our times. Five per cent, perhaps in an excess of self-pity, maintain that Harvard, by overemphasizing the virtues of leisure, made them indolent and lazy. Three per cent hold that by making them dissatisfied with the undoubted imperfections of life, muddling their outlook, and rattling their faith in religion, the College left them with an irremediable residue of inner discontent. Offsetting the lone example of the disciplined classmate who is grateful to Harvard for teaching him to hold his liquor like a gentleman are a baker's dozen who accuse the College of endowing them with a lasting thirst, not always slaked with discretion. One man taxes it for ruining his Southern accent, making him suspect among his own kind; another for giving him a Harvard accent, with equally lamentable results. One insists that his digestion was ruined by a steady diet of New England boiled dinners; and another, perhaps the saddest case among us, blames Harvard for putting upon him unknowingly a peculiar stamp, a kind of hex, that "made me an object of ridicule by a type of American which resents Harvard." [

13

]

Harvard 1926 In contrast with the happy 13 per cent who acquired their selfconfidence at Harvard in one form or another, is a minuscule minority (4 per cent) who think, now, that they were made to feel socially inadequate, transformed into introverts, haunted thereafter by an unshakable inferiority complex. Almost as many say that exposure to the undergraduate clubs and intimate association with the sons of wealthy families stimulated in them tastes beyond their means — corroborating the old rule that it is dangerous to cultivate a taste for champagne on a beer pocketbook. Several think that Harvard suffers from being too deeply imbedded in its New England atmosphere. T w o or three found it too big and in consequence they never got over the feeling of being lost. Nine per cent, the "Happy Few," found nothing whatever too wrong with Harvard. Only 2 per cent, the Irreconcilables, judged their four years a total loss; and only 1 per cent go so far as to say that they were actually unhappy at Harvard, and therefore detest the college. When the answers to this question are analyzed in terms of secondary school backgrounds, an interesting sociological fact emerges. The sense of social inadequacy, understandably, was most marked among those who entered Harvard from public high schools; conversely, those who had prepared at private schools are inclined to blame Harvard for leading them to drink, making them indolent, for not arousing their curiosity, and so on. The belief that Harvard's worst shortcomings were its failure to prepare us adequately for the world of business, and its dubious gift of snobbery, is equally shared by both. The indictment, by categories, follows:

Snobbery Failed to train us for business realities Encouraged indolence Gave rise to a sense of social inadequacy Left us dissatisfied with things as they are Exposed us to the wealthy Encouraged a habit of drinking

[

Total 11% II

14

Public high school graduates 11% II

Private prep school graduates 10% II

Î

3

7

4

8

2

3 3 3

4 3

2

I

]

Î

5

Debits and Credits Wasted our time Soured on Harvard Other answers Nothing harmful N o answer; don't know

2 1 11

1 1 10 9

4 * 12 9 29

8

28

28

In a separate questionnaire wives of the class were asked what they considered to be the best thing that Harvard did for us — and the worst. Their answers in some respects provide confirmation of what we ourselves believe: The best thing Our view 25% 24 14 13 12

Developed the mind Provided a good education Imparted a broadened outlook Endowed us with self-reliance Armed us with good friends

The wives 13% 27 13 12 7

Thus our mates, whatever their opinions in other perhaps more important matters, at least agree with us on what is best in a Harvard education, even if they are not too impressed with our minds and our friends. As to the worst thing that Harvard did to us, they echo our own view that snobbery deserves to be put at the top of the list, but, being women, they are more or less indifferent to our complaint that it failed to give us a practical education:

,

The worst thing

Our view 21%

Snobbery Failure to train us for business Indolence A sense of social inadequacy Our dissatisfaction with things as they are Exposure to the wealthy T h e drinking habit A waste of time

II

5 4 3 3 3 2

"

V

The wives 19% 4 0

4 0

3 3

5

There are miscellaneous wifely complaints about Harvard for inculcating in her sons an accent, indifferent table manners, a stuffiness toward the opposite sex, general sloppiness, a too-bookish attitude, inquisitiveness, a passion for Indian pudding, and su*Less than Yi of i%. [ 'S

]

Harvard 1926 per-casualness — all of which are blamed on Harvard. In one extreme case a wife blames Harvard for her husband's habit of wearing nothing but plain maroon ties (of which he has fortyseven). Another cannot stand hearing Harvard discussed at every meal. Several women voiced the familiar complaint that the Harvard reputation made it hard for their husbands to get off to a good start with large numbers of people who are prejudiced against the Harvard type — whatever that is.

For all the gripes, nearly nine men in ten (88 per cent) are glad they went to Harvard rather than to some other college — an index of loyalty and appreciation which compares to Harvard's advantage with a corresponding 83 per cent of all college graduates who were asked a similar question (by Time) about their own colleges.

[ 16 ]

The Search for Jobs Seventeen per cent of us are still dissatisfied HEN the good and the bad are added up, and the total is struck, it is plain that we were, on the whole, satisfied with what Harvard had done for us, perhaps even a trifle self-satisfied. Alas, the world, with its burden of trouble, its vast depression, its interminable confusions, lay in ambush. A mere whiff of the golden Twenties, then the Crash. Turmoil was our legacy. B y Commencement day 14 per cent of us had already left Cambridge, and a smaller number had dropped back into a later class. A largish fraction lingered on or transferred to other universities for graduate work.* For about half of us, however, work in the economic or professional sense began in 1926, immediately after graduation. While a farsighted 49 per cent had already made up their minds what they intended to do and actually started out resolutely in the planned direction, one man in five had no clear idea of what was to become of him, and one man in four, f o r one reason or another, was obliged to make his start in a field quite different from that of his original inspiration. During the next five years — years that witnessed the cataclysmic finale of the Coolidge era of prosperity and the onset in Mr. Hoover's administration of the Great Depression — the behavior pattern of the class as we struggled, each according to his needs and resources, to come to terms with a world in violent upheaval, resembled nothing so much as a batch of hatching trout dumped into a stream, some finding at once a secure lodgment under a grassy bank, or behind a protecting rock, the rest darting and twisting through the wild, unfamiliar water, resting briefly * Fourteen per cent of the class took one year's graduate study before starting paid work, 1 0 per cent two years', n per cent three years', and 1 3 per cent (chiefly doctors) four years' or more. One fellow, an anonymous genius or dilettant, claims to have done not a lick of work until 1939. A few returned for graduate work, full- or part-time, after a year or more of business or teaching. In all, 63 per cent took graduate courses immediately or later: 39 per cent at Harvard only, 18 per cent elsewhere only, 6 per cent both at Harvard and elsewhere.

[ I? ]

Harvard 1926 in one refuge, only to abandon it for another. By 1928 one man in four of those at work had already changed jobs and in that year more than one-third of the workers made a change. Up to this point, half or more of job changes were shifts or promotions within the same organization. Starting in 1929, when changes again occurred among more than a quarter of those working, most of the shifts were to other organizations. By 1930 the total accumulated number of changes equaled the number of men working, and by 1936 there had been an average of two changes per worker. The question immediately arises as to how this amount of shifting might difFer from a normal pattern for college graduates. There is no norm. Some classes are graduated into peace, some into war, some into depression, some into boom times. The Time study has not yet been analyzed from this point of view. The only comparison at hand is with Princeton '35, which graduated into a period of recovery. During its first fourteen years, that class had slightly fewer total job changes than Harvard '26 did in its first fourteen years, bridging the entire depression. Considering the state of the times, these nomadic moves, especially after 1929, doubtless reflected in certain degree the unhinging consequences of the Depression that provided, for many of us, one of the most searing memories of our early manhood. Still, the malaise of American business was by no means as decisive an influence in this restless shifting about as might be supposed. Actually, no more than four men out of a hundred were jobless longer than two months in either 1930 or 1931; even in 1932 and 1933, the black years of the Depression, the figures rose only to eight and six out of 100.* The principal reasons for the continuous job-changing were, on the one hand, a search for better opportunities in other organizations in the same line of business, and, on the other, a belated decision to shift into a different line of work. This restlessness began to subside in the mid-thirties and thereafter we appear to have settled down, at peace with or at any rate reconciled to our fate, until the advent of World War II, when the phenomenon of change (most conspicuously from business * B y 193 s only 2 per cent were out of jobs for longer than two months. figure has never risen above 3 per cent in any one year. [

I8

]

Since then the

The Search for Jobs into the armed services) repeated itself, with a further wave of change occurring during the first postwar year. Today only six men out of ten find themselves still in the same career in which they started; 4 per cent of us have made a slight but unimportant deviation from the initial path; and 34 per cent have passed most of their adult lives doing something quite different from that in which they started twenty-five years ago. As might be expected, those who chose the law and medicine have hewn more steadfastly to the line of their original inspiration than have the rest of us. Of the former, 67 per cent, and of the latter, 61 per cent, had already decided upon their careers before they left college, and almost none in either group have any thought of changing the direction of their endeavors. An equal consistency marks the careers of the teachers, once that profession was adopted, although a smaller ratio (only 32 per cent of those today so engaged) had intended to make their initial start in the field. As for the rest of us, which is to say about seven men out of ten, about half have ended up, at middle age, earning a living at some job that was not seriously in their minds when they left Harvard. Here, in percentages, are the fields of endeavor in which, for better or worse, we are now lodged: Agriculture Manufacturing Transportation, communication, public utilities Other industry (mining, construction, etc.) Wholesale and retail trade Finance, insurance, real estate Service companies Schools, churches, institutions Government service Professional practice Retired N o answer

1% 18% 2% 2% 8% 19% 6% 15% 4% 22% 1% 2%

When the above grouping is further analyzed in terms of the kinds of jobs that we now hold, whether managerial, self-employed, entrepreneurial, or clerical, the fact develops that nearly half of us (46 per cent) belong to what is known as the Professional Class. That is to say, the largest number of us live, if not exactly by our wits, then by virtue of some special learning, technique, or skill, whether as doctors (7 per cent), lawyers (15 per [ 19 ]

Harvard 1926 cent), teachers (9 percent), authors and journalists (3 per cent), engineers (4 per cent), economists or accountants (2 per cent), or, among others, architects and clergymen ( 1 per cent each). As shown on the above table, nearly half of this professional group (chiefly the lawyers and doctors) are in private practice. The rest are either connected with schools, hospitals, and churches (14 per cent), or are salaried specialists on the payroll of a corporation or institution (8 per cent), or work for local, state, or Federal government (2 per cent). Better than one man in three (36 per cent) is now either a manager or executive, predominantly in manufacturing (13 per cent). Ten per cent have attained this exalted rank in finance, insurance, and real estate, and 5 per cent in either the wholesale or retail trade. One man in ten ( 11 per cent) calls himself an entrepreneur, and is either sole proprietor of or partner in his business organization. Three per cent are salesmen, 1 per cent each are clerical, farmers, retired, or not answering. When the skills of the class are added up, we are seen to be a surprisingly versatile lot. If through some fell mischance in this Atomic Age the entire adult male population in the United States were to be wiped out except for the class of '26, we would be found to possess in our aggregate skills the means to make a fair start toward repairing our shattered society. One or another of us is equipped to bring babies into the world (if women were left to bear them), and cope with practically all human ailments of the body or mind; to teach art, music, psychology, dentistry, law, medicine, and indeed practically the entire range of the university curriculum (if any students were left to be taught) ; to design and build houses, skyscrapers, and factories and to advise on their decoration; to buy and sell property on a large scale; to direct a museum; to draft laws and manage a community; to design another atomic bomb; to lend money and dun for it; to give advice on investments, insurance, and the proper conduct of business; to draw up wills and contracts; to paint portraits or landscapes on commission; to write novels or biographies, and to publish them; to perform marriages, deliver funeral orations, and shrive souls. All the same, a microcosm that consisted merely of ourselves [ 20 ]

The Search for Jobs would be something less perfect than Atlantis. So far as the questionnaire suggests, there would be no one to dig ditches, run an elevator, operate a lathe, lay bricks, repair a television set, press clothes, cobble a worn pair of shoes, or hoe the corn. There would be sore need on our desert island of an Admirable Crichton. Barring some tremendous upheaval in American life, it is likely that, for most of us, our careers are set, for the remainder of our working lives, in their present courses. While 17 per cent are still dissatisfied with their present jobs, and 10 per cent are contemplating a possible change to another field, the great majority (86 per cent) expect to continue in their present occupations or along some closely related line.* Four-tenths of the class, after deliberation, have a premonitory feeling that more responsibility, and presumably a larger role in business affairs is in prospect for them. Fifty per cent, however, peering into the future, think that they have now about as much responsibility as they will ever have. For many there are no higher rungs on the particular professional or executive ladder they have climbed.

* Apparently we are more discontented than most Americans of our generation with our present jobs. The degree of dissatisfaction registered by this survey is higher than is usually found in studies of this kind. The ratio among industrial workers, for example, usually runs from only 3 to 1 1 per cent unless job conditions are very bad indeed.

[

]

Progress under the Profit System The median annual income of the class is today not quite $12,000 ow well have we done in the role of Economic Man?

H

The table below reflects, in terms of annual income, the varying fortunes of INCOMES the Class(ofsince YEARLY thosegraduation: reporting)

%

sj

0

S Reporting Year Income * Ù S 1927 '28

I!

I!

69, O •Kl

9% η

g S § S W» Ο

78%

68%

83

53

2

37

33

16

10

17% 5

4% 6

II 2~

S FE

Is

2%

§sQ Median t !I,J66 1%

2

I

¿5. Ο

1,907

'29

86

'30

90

21

II

4

I

2,598

90

3' 28

32

'31 '32

32

II

4

I

90

28

32

25 22

3

I

2,703 2,691

'33

89

24

31

24

13 16

3

2

'34

92

17

29

29

20

3

2

'35

93

32 32

5 8

3,811

4

'37 •38

94

8

«9 18

24 28

3

93

13 IO

24

'36

3°

32

4

92

6

«5

32

31

9 10

4,324 4,648

'39

92

6

13

27

35

14

5

4,789 5,378

'40

93

4

II

16

94

3

9

29 28

35

41 '42

36

18

5 6

5,77 6,239

94

4

7

26

38

6,484

93

3 3

37 40

6,546

93

25 22

7

'44

7 6

19 20

6

'43

21

9

6,953

'45 '46

90

3 I

5

18

12

15 11

37 36

25

94

30

'4

7-513 9,072

'47

94

I

3 2

'48

94

I

2

8

'49

94

I

2

8

5°

2,398

5

2,837 3,268

38

31

17

35

31

23

9,763 10,805

33

32

24

",549

32

31

28

11,911

* T h e variation in the percentage of those reporting income in different years might suggest that those who have not done so well were chary of supplying figures, and that therefore the true income of the class as a whole should be set a trifle lower than the median figure. However, analysis of the reports shows that (except in 1927-29) the majority of the non-reporters belong to the small group (see page 24) whose income in 1949 was largely unearned. Since the non-reporters appear to be distributed at both ends of the income range, the median figure in all probability is valid. t In income studies the median is nowadays judged to be a sounder figure than the familiar

[ 22 ]

Progress

under

the Profit

System

N o w let us see how w e have fared individually on the median curve with respect to occupations: I N C O M E B Y OCCUPATION

Rank in median income f

Occupation group Lawyers in private practice Teachers * Manufacturing executives Banking and finance executives Doctors in private practice Misc. business and industry exec. Engineers Banking, finance: Owners and partners Retail executives Misc. business and industry sales Miscellaneous professions Manufacturing, proprietors Advertising agency executives Lawyers on business payroll Brokers: Owners and partners Insurance: Owners and partners Wholesale executives Insurance executives Economists and accountants Publishing executives Government service Wholesale and retail selling Artists, designers

of Class 1949 9th 12% 23rd 8 3rd 7 10th 7 8th 5 15 th 5 14th 4 4th 3 12th 3 15th 3 22nd 3 ist 2 2nd 2 6th 2 2 7 th 10th 2 2 5 th 18th 2 18th 2 I 2 th 2 2 IJth 2 21 St 2 18th

>943 10th 23rd 4th 8th 18th , 7 th 8th 2nd I 2 th 20th 22nd ist 3rd 14th 5th I Ith 5th 13 th 2 ist jth 14th 19th 14th

'931 1931 7th 20th 23rd 20th 8th 4th 6th 8th I 2th 23rd 13 th 5th nth 13 th ist ist ι oth 6th 16th 13 th 16th nth 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 14th 13 th 9th ι oth 18th 16 th 4th 9th 14th n t h 19th 16 th 4th 7th 19th 18th 21 St 22nd 21 St 18th

NOTE: In addition to the occupations listed above are thirteen more or less eclectic fields (journalists, architects, writers, medical researchers, gentlemen farmers, etc.) each holding about ι per cent of the Class. W h i l e a ranking of these groups on the median curve might further disclose the contrasting play of opportunity and reward in the world as w e have found it (and as it has found us), it might at the same time be too revelatory of individual situations. T h e first and hardly astonishing fact that leaps from the above table is that certain occupations have proved a great deal more lucrative than others; that while those w h o are now banking and average. When the latter is used, a few very large incomes may have undue weight. The median is the figure right in the middle; half of the men studied have incomes higher than that, half have lower. * Excluding those now in business or government.

[

2

3 ]

Harvard

1926

financial entrepreneurs made the most money during the first five years, they have since been passed by the advertising executives and the manufacturers. The lawyers and doctors in private practice, after a grubby beginning at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, now appear to be coming slowly into their own; but the comparatively modest rewards apportioned out to our economists, salesmen, teachers, government employees, artists and designers give rise to melancholy reflection. For 45 per cent of us the income received is wholly earned. However, 22 per cent of the Class now derive at least 15 per cent of their present income from investments, trusts, or other independent sources of capital; and 4 per cent depend upon such income rather than their direct exertions for 75 per cent or more of their total income. The relationship of earned and unearned incomes within occupations breaks down as follows: R A N K I N G OF OCCUPATION G R O U P S IN E A R N E D AND U N E A R N E D I N C O M E ,

1949

Estimated 1949 Estimated 1949 earned income* unearned income

Occupation group L a w y e r s in private practice

8th 22nd 2nd 12th 6th 13 th 16th 5th 10th 14 th 23rd ist 3rd 4th 7th 9th nth ι jth 17 th 18th 19th 20th 21 St

Teachers Manufacturing executives Banking and finance executives Doctors in private practice Misc. business and industry executives Engineers Banking, finance: Owners and partners Retail executives Misc. business and industry sales Miscellaneous professions Manufacturing, proprietors Advertising agency executives L a w y e r s on business payroll Brokers: Owners and partners Insurance: Owners and partners Wholesale executives Insurance executives Economists and accountants Publishing executives Government service Wholesale and retail selling Artists, designers

14th 23rd 6th 7th 18th ι jth 9th 4th 22nd 13th 12 th ist 2nd nth nth 16th 3rd 21 St 20th 5th 10th 19th 8th

* Earned income is estimated for each occupation group by applying to its 1949 median total income the percentage of income which was reported as earned in that year.

[

H

]

Progress under the Profit System No doubt many fascinating conclusions might be drawn from a closer study of the inner relationship of earned and unearned income within our group, but the purposes of this survey will be satisfied with a simple observation concerning the influence upon the choice of career. Those of us who have become publishing executives, artists, designers, government employees, engineers, wholesalers, bank executives and miscellaneous professional men appear to depend more heavily than do other occupation groups on unearned sources of income. So, among the smaller groups not ranked in the above table, do library and museum directors, gentlemen farmers, and doctors who devote their time to teaching or research. The sum total of our personal experience confirms the old adage that money begets money; and while the cycle of shirtsleeves to shirt-sleeves in three generations will no doubt eventually bring about a general leveling among our descendants, the self-accumulating property of capital is, for those who possess it, an agreeable phenomenon. Those among us who today have the largest total incomes also command the largest proportions of unearned income. Thus:

A l l earned 85% to 99% earned Less than 85% earned

Of those with total incomes under $7,500 58% 19 19

Of those with total incomes $7,500 to $14,999 51% 26 20

Of those with total incomes $15,000 and over 33% 25 39

The same relationship reappears when median incomes are tabulated according to the proportion of earned income: Of those depending 95% or more on their earnings in 1949 Median income in

931

1937

'943 '949

$2.475

4.ΌΟ

5.55° 9i72î

Of those depending more on unearned income in 1949

$3-3ï°

6,050 8,550 15,000

Those who worked their way through college, to finance the whole or part of their education, and who presumably lacked prospects of inheriting money, today have, by and large, smaller [ 25 ]

Harvard 192 6 incomes than do those who were spared that necessity. However, a certain compensation has meanwhile been at work. Of those who did support themselves at Harvard, 44 per cent now have incomes of $10,000 a year or more — a high proportion by anybody's standards, although far below the figure (61 per cent) for the rest of the Class. Interestingly, as regards earning power at maturity, whatever advantage may have accrued at College from having gone to the "right" school seems by now to have been dissipated. Whereas 56 per cent of those who went to private preparatory schools are now in the $io,ooo-a-year class, so are 49 per cent of those who went to public high schools. There is a somewhat sharper difference between Republicans and the rest of the Class. Fifty-nine per cent of the Republicans report incomes of $10,000 or more in 1949, compared with 45 per cent of the Democrats and Independents. Our current median income of $11,911, however inadequate it may now seem to some of us in the light of rising taxation and costs of living, nevertheless reflects favorably upon the innate capacity of the Class. A Time study in 1947 of the family incomes of all United States college graduates established a national median of $5,386 for all graduates, and of $6,777 for graduates in the 40-49 age bracket (our bracket) — the same year in which our median reached nearly $10,000. Our Class is, therefore, in this one respect, well above the average of all United States college graduates, and, for that matter, above the average for all Harvard men. A study by the National Opinion Research Center shows that only 35 per cent of all Harvard graduates had incomes of over $10,000 in 1947 and 1948, whereas 48 per cent of us reached that level during the first year and 54 per cent by the second. With respect to our current standing in the United States income scale, a comparison with the 1949 figures of the Federal Reserve Board (as compiled by the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center) shows us to be in an even more strikingly favorable position: Incomes

Under $1,000 $1,000 to $2,000

Harvard '26 1%

[ 26 ]

All U. S. families

13% ÍÍ

Progress under the Profit System $2,000 to $3,000 $3,000 to $5,000 $j,ooo to $10,000 $10,000 and over Median income

8

2

8

33 56 $».549

31 19 4

$3,100

Let us not turn complacent. It is entirely possible, in the light of actuarial data, that as a group we have reached or are close to the peak of our earning power. The Census Bureau's tabulations show that income for family heads reaches a peak in the age group 45 to 54, and declines rapidly thereafter. The Time study reveals the melancholy fact that after about fifty a decline also sets in upon incomes of college graduates. If this is indeed to be our fate, the question of how much we have put aside for eventual retirement and old age takes on imminent importance. For at least four out of ten the answer, alas, is not reassuring.

[ 27

]

Shall We Grow Old Gracefully? Six out of ten have assets for their old age ERE the survey tells its own bleak tale of the dichotomy in human nature between the thrifty Squirrel and the improvident Cricket of the celebrated fable. Forty-two per cent of us are covered, in greater or less degree of adequacy, by some form of Old Age Retirement or Pension Plan, outside of Social Security; 21 per cent have inherited resources which they call enough to take care of themselves in their old age — enough meaning, presumably, a sufficient income to maintain a tolerable way of life; 12 per cent believe they have managed to save enough from income to take care of themselves; and 20 per cent have managed to save a good part but not their whole future need as they measure it. But — forty-six per cent have not saved nearly enough; 16 per cent have not been able to save anything at all; and six per cent are silent on the subject. Cross-tabulation of these three questions shows that 39 per cent of the entire Class have none of the three sources of old age income: they share in no retirement or pension plan; they have received and expect to receive no inheritances; they have saved too little for comfort. The higher the income, the larger is the percentage commanding inherited resources and the greater the savings out of income.

H

Income under Have enough inherited resources to take care of old age Have been able to save enough out of income A good part but not the whole need N o t nearly enough Nothing at all

11% J 11 57

$7,500 to $1$,000 and over $'4,999 18%

31%

10

11

23 48 16

27 38 8

A definite affinity exists between Republicanism and inherited wealth. Whereas 25 per cent of our Republicans have inherited or will inherit enough resources to safeguard them in old age, only [ 28 ]

Shall We Grow Old

Gracefully?

17 per cent of our Democrats and Independents have been so bulwarked. However, the Democrats and Independents have shown themselves to be just about as frugal as Republicans in the business of savings, despite their lower incomes. Fourteen per cent of the Republicans and 11 per cent of the others say they have been able to put away enough out of income for their old age; 20 per cent of the former and 19 per cent of the others have saved a good part of their presumed needs; and 61 per cent of the former and 66 per cent of the rest are convinced they have so far saved not nearly enough — or nothing at all. W e were asked specifically how much we have been able to save out of income during the last five years. The answer: Nothing Under $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 or more N o answer

33% 16% 10% 23% 19%

The larger savings have naturally gone with the larger incomes. Of those with incomes of less than $7,500 in 1949, 45 per cent have been able to save nothing at all during the last five years and only 15 per cent have managed to save $5,000 or more. Of those earning over $15,000 a year, only 25 per cent have saved nothing, and 58 per cent have been able to put away $10,000 or more in five years. The Class has also made substantial savings in the form of life insurance. The median amount is $25,000 for the whole Class. The amounts carried: None $1,000 to $10,000 $11,000 to $20,000 $21,000 to $40,000 $41,000 to $80,000 $81,000 and over

6% 17% zz% z6% 21% 7%

However, to judge from our present outlook upon the world ahead, many of us are inclined to regard the question of old age and our heirs as perhaps academic. We are more worried about war with Russia than the general public is, according to Dr. [ 29 ]

Harvard

1926

Gallup's questioning on the same subject. W e have also given more thought to the danger of atomic bombing: 87% of us are worried about war with Russia 82% think that, if there is a war, it is quite likely that United States cities would be bombed 34% have been giving a lot of thought to the danger their families would be in from atom bomb attacks; and another 53% have given some thought to the possibility

But what we think can be done to avoid danger is something else again: 35% say the best thing to do is to keep away from large centers of population j % think it would be best to move to some remote region — to N e w Zealand, or the deepest part of Mammoth Cave 4% think building shelters and encouraging community action is the answer 2% think that rearmament is the only hope ι % trust more in prayer 6% say that there is nothing to do but sit tight and do what w e are told 8% say they have no idea what could be done, and 20% say that nothing at all can be done; there is no sure escape for us

[ 30 ]

The Political Man Though still predominantly Republican, we consider ourselves more liberal than we used to be; but our resistance to socialistic ideas and our dislike of the Soviet regime have grown UR adult lives have been spent under seven administrations

— two Republican and five Democratic. Our introduction to public affairs proceeded under the mellow auspices of Mr. Coolidge's presumably perpetual prosperity. Then came Mr. Hoover, with his "two chickens in every pot," and the promise of the approach of the Millennium. Then came the Depression, and Mr. Roosevelt with his New Deal, and a cleavage of thought within the nation on a scale unknown since the Civil War. Now we have Mr. Truman and the Fair Deal — and still no end in sight to the violent social unrest that permeates the United States of our generation. Ours indeed was a legacy of trouble; and its stamp, as we shall see, has been deeply imprinted upon our philosophy. Yet, while views regarding many aspects of politics have undergone profound change, we still cling, most of us, to the old allegiances. The majority of us, as was established earlier, were the products of a predominantly Republican atmosphere. One-third of those with Republican fathers have, for one reason or another, deserted that party and turned Democrat or Independent. At the same time, 30 per cent who were sired by Democrats are now Republicans. In consequence of this two-way crossing over, the Class as a whole, though not quite so solidly Republican as were our parents, nevertheless remains at this halfway point 56 per cent Republican, 26 per cent Independent, 16 per cent Democrat, with ι per cent scattered among various splinter groups. (There is one self-avowed Communist.) In its political affiliations, the Class is considerably more Republican than college graduates in general. But lest anyone conclude that Harvard 1926 represents the acme (or nadir) of Republican[ 31 ]

Harvard

1926

ism, consider the case of Princeton 1935, which is 72 per cent Republican. Furthermore, Ρ '35 has grown increasingly Republican over the years — from 67 per cent in its senior year to 72 per cent last year, whereas Η '26 has become no more Republican than it was in college. In the junior year we were at least 57 per cent Republican * and are only 1 per cent less so now. Rock-ribbed is hardly the word, however, for our particular brand of Republicanism. It appears that six men in ten (61 per cent) voted at least once between 1933 and 1940 (the critical years of the N e w Deal, between Mr. Roosevelt's first shattering assault upon Republican policies and the injection of the Third Term issue) for Democratic candidates. Forty-seven per cent had done so earlier, and 57 per cent voted for Democrats after 1940. None of these figures would be possible had not many Republicans voted against their party. On the other hand, a trend study shows that the majority of us have voted for Republicans — 76 per cent before 1932, 78 per cent from 1933 to 1940, and 81 per cent during the past decade — and none of these figures could have been obtained without help from outside the party. The vote for Socialist candidates has slowly but steadily declined — 8 per cent before 1932, 7 per cent between 1933 and 1940, and 5 per cent since. At the same time a small minority among us have in every election paid our respects to practically all the other known parties — Communist, Farmer-Labor, Liberal, Progressive, including the forgotten party on the ticket of which a member of rz6 presented himself in 1932 as a candidate for the Presidency. W e have, in any case, taken our civic responsibilities seriously. We vote almost as conscientiously during the off years in state and local elections as we do during the years when the nation's fate is at stake. The voting records show that: 73% 88% 80% 89% 80%

of of of of of

us us us us us

voted voted voted voted voted

in in in in in

1945 1946 1947 1948 1949

* According to a straw vote taken by the Crimson in the fall of 1924, when our Class was in its junior year, Harvard undergraduates registered these presidential preferences: Coolidge 57 per cent; Davis 24 per cent; LaFollette 19 per cent. Undoubtedly some of the LaFollette partisans were of the Bull-Moose or Progressive-Republican ilk.

[

]

The Political Man According to Dr. Gallup, only 14 per cent of all American voters and 39 per cent of all college graduates ever take the trouble to write to their Congressman to oppose or espouse particular legislation. We are somewhat more articulate and persevering on this score, with 59 per cent of us having so addressed ourselves to the legislative branch from once to several times, including a possibly pestiferous 3 per cent who are always at it. On the theory that the man least qualified to render judgment on his own political philosophy is the man himself, it would perhaps be unwise to attach too much importance to the opinion entertained by slightly more than half of us (52 per cent) that our political ideas are today more liberal than they were when first we left Cambridge, or to the belief of 29 per cent that they have on the contrary become more conservative. A sturdy 17 per cent are sensible of no marked change in their political thinking whatsoever, and a thoughtful 1 per cent have decided, sensibly, that while they are more liberal about certain aspects of politics than they used to be, they are also more conservative about other aspects.* It is natural that our Democrats and Independents should be prone to attribute to themselves an ever more liberal outlook upon politics. But our Republicans, proving that liberalism is not a party monopoly, are equally sure that they too have become less conservative. Witness: Present political views vs. those held in the past

More liberal More conservative N o change

Republicans

47% 32 20

Democrats and Independents

57% 27 14

However, to be more liberal does not necessarily imply a slow drift toward socialistic ideas. With many the attitude reflects a disillusionment with the policies of both major parties, as is shown by the general commentaries. C L A S S M A T E A: "In 1948 I could not take either Dewey or * The Time survey of a cross-section of United States college graduates, based on a similar if not identical question, reveals that 37 per cent have decided that with the passing of the years their political views have turned more liberal, 25 per cent think they have turned more conservative, and 38 per cent are unconscious of any marked change.

[ 33 ]

Harvard 1926 Truman and gave my vote to Norman Thomas as a protest but not in the hope he would be elected." CLASSMATE B: "I can best describe my political views by stating that I am a violent anti-New Dealer and an equally violent anti-Taft Republican. M y voting habits have been consistent with my political views even to the extent of holding my nose when I cast my ballot for former Governor Landon." CLASSMATE C: "Politically I have grown a lot more tolerant. I am still basically a Republican, but I wonder how well we Republicans would have done with the national economy during the last twenty years. After all, the most rabid Republicans are those who made out the best financially during the Democratic regime." CLASSMATE D: "I am fundamentally a very strong believer in the freedom and dignity of the individual in the best and broadest sense. This philosophy has flowered in this country. I am bitterly opposed to any group or theory which seeks to weaken or destroy this philosophy. W e can and are doing a better job in life, but we do not have to adopt socialism to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people." CLASSMATE E: "I have always considered myself a 'progressive,' but opposed to all forms of state socialism, including the creeping paralysis caused by the Keynes infection. I have long been attracted to the Scandinavian experiments with 'Socialism' — without, however, coming to any final conclusions or opinions with respect to them yet." CLASSMATE F: "I consider myself more liberal than I used to be but it was Columbia Teachers' College that did this." CLASSMATE G reports a practical difficulty in explaining his sudden shift in political affiliation: "I have to vote Democratic — no Republican candidates in the South." However, it is only when one studies our intellectual approach to Socialism and relates this to our changed attitude toward the U.S.S.R. that the schizophrenic nature of our political thinking emerges in full view, with our innate tolerance pulling us steadily toward the liberal ideal, while a revulsion against totalitarian tyranny is persuading us more and more to reject the doctrinaire [ 34 ]

The Political Man systems that in our youthful years were associated with liberal progress. During the first impressionable years after college, no less than 36 per cent of the Class avow they were attracted, mildly or powerfully, toward socialistic ideas — a very high number considering the predominant Republican tinge of the Class. Not quite half (46 per cent) were opposed, mildly or powerfully, to such doctrines; and 18 per cent were more or less indifferent to the entire question, or, in any event, find it difficult, through the haze of memory, to recall being impressed, one way or the other. Today nearly as many of us (32 per cent) are still sympathetic to Socialist ideas, although not quite so strongly as before. More significant, however, than the continued attraction of socialistic principles for this large minority has been the sudden steep incidence among the rest in the curve of opposition to the same doctrines. On this point the survey is explicit. Whereas those who previously were mildly sympathetic are still so in the majority, over a third are today antagonistic. Those who did not use to think much about Socialist ideas now are more against than for them. Those who were mildly against such ideas before are still against them, only more so, and those who were strongly against them are still (82 per cent) strongly against them, although some have relaxed their antagonism and 5 per cent have backslid. In all, 7 per cent of the Class are more sympathetic now toward Socialist ideas than they used to be. But 30 per cent are less so. Let us now turn to the history of our attitude toward Soviet Russia over the past fifteen years. Logically, those who in the beginning had Socialist leanings were, for the most part, also well disposed then to the Soviet regime. (However, even the nearSocialists, reflecting the contemporary ideological divisions, were divided between those who, on the one hand, preferred pure Socialist doctrine to the Kremlin model, and those who, on the other, preferred the latter to the former.) A total of 47 per cent were at one time at least mildly sympathetic toward Socialist ideas, toward the Soviets, or both. Here is the fever chart on the attitudes toward Russia:

[ 35 ]

Harvard 1926 Our attitude toward the U.S.S.R.

Russia i$ years ago

Strongly sympathetic Mildly sympathetic Did not think much about it Mildly against Strongly against

5% 27 22 20 25

Today 1% 3 1 6 88

In the ι per cent listed at the top of the right-hand column is our only self-avowed Communist (anonymous). Statistically, he seems able to count for alliance upon only three "fellow travelers." The red tinge in our present political spectrum would therefore seem to be so slight as to be practically invisible, a mere shadow edging the pink. At the same time, the evidence of our liberalism runs like a thread through the general comments that this question evoked: C L A S S M A T E X (who was originally sympathetic to the Soviet regime, only to become disillusioned by what he saw during a short trip through the U.S.S.R. in 1930): " I am strongly against the strong-arm brutal means used by Russia or any other nation or individual for purely selfish ends. The word 'sympathetic' is not exactly apropos. I am sympathetic with all peoples' problems, whether the people be philanthropists in the basic sense or ruthlessly self-seeking, much as I disapprove of this latter type." C L A S S M A T E Y : "In all my adult years the weight of public information in this country has been to the effect that Russia is the enemy, that Communism is bad, that the Reds are the enemies. Only for three years during the war was there a moderation of this. I find it difficult to blame the Russians for adopting the same attitude. However, the fruits of this are of course distasteful to me, i.e., totalitarian behavior and Russian expansion in the Baltic and Asia. Be that as it may, if we do not find a way to make peace with the Russians we are in for another 30 years' war." C L A S S M A T E Ζ (still strongly against the Russians): " I tried deliberately not to have strong opinions on Russia but to get all the facts I can without coloring. I feel that knowledge of Russia is the strongest support of our ideologies and that the knowledge must be unprejudiced as much as possible to be of real use to us. The conflict will not be solved in the present customary terms and we must be alert to the new turnings in the unfolding of his-

[ 36 ]

The Political Man tory. If we are unable to resolve the conflict in time, we will drag each other down. I am trying to look for solutions arising from newer ideas than the disastrous ones we are concentrating upon now." When our individual attitudes vis-à-vis Socialism and Soviet Russia have further been correlated with current political affiliations, the following emerges:

Views on Socialism Strongly sympathetic Mildly sympathetic Did not think much about it Mildly against Strongly against

Soon after College t ι Rep. Dem. & Ind. (2S2) 088)

Now f Rep. Dem. &

1% i8 20 27 32

*% "4 2

22% 3J 14 20 8

Dem. & Ind.

*% 17 29 25 28

9% 40

13% 40 3 18

23 60

M Now

Fifteen years ago Rep.

^ Ini.

Rep.

Dem. èr Ind.

Views on Russia Strongly sympathetic Mildly sympathetic Did not think much about it Mildly against Strongly against

M 15 21

*%

#

2 4 93

ι % 7 I 9 82

An interesting phenomenon lies imbedded in the above statistics. That the Democrats and the Independents were in the past and today still remain more inclined toward Socialist ideas, and two decades ago were more sympathetic to the Soviet Union, will hardly surprise our Republican brothers. But let the latter mull over this fact: One-third of those who were once sympathetic to Socialist ideas call themselves Republicans; so do one-fourth of those who are still sympathetic. One-third of those who were once sympathetic to the Soviet Union call themselves Republicans; so do one-eighth of the handful who are still sympathetic, strongly or mildly. With a view to establishing more surely the true political center of gravity of the Class, in regard to the apparent liberal norm, three test questions were asked concerning certain recent governmental issues that have cut across basic political beliefs. •Less than y2 of i%.

[ 37 ]

Harvard 1926 The first had to do with Federal housing: Q . A r e y o u f o r or against the idea of Federal financial aid to states and cities to help build low-rent housing for people w h o cannot afford houses built b y private builders?

Fifty-eight per cent of us are for the idea, 39 per cent against, with one man noting that he was for the idea when national finances permit but certainly not now. The second question dealt with Federal health insurance: Q. H o w do you feel about a Federal program of health insurance under which medical bills would be paid for b y payroll deductions the same w a y as Social Security is handled?

Twenty-six per cent are for it, 72 per cent opposed. The majority of opinions is summed up in two comments: "I am not favorably impressed by the British health program and I feel that private medical societies, such as the Blue Cross, are doing a good job." "I believe that medical expenses today are entirely too high, that there is a lot of profiteering in medicine; that hospitals are too inefficient; that many doctors charge exorbitant fees. But I doubt that socialized medicine would work out well." The last question touched on Federal responsibility for unemployment: Q. D o you think it should or should not be up to the government to see to it that there are enough jobs for everyone w h o wants to work?

Forty-five per cent think it should be up to the government to provide jobs, 53 per cent think that it should not. One man wants to make it clear that the government should not compete with private business by making work; another that the government should make jobs only under extreme conditions and at rates of pay that would encourage workers to transfer to private employment. When the responses to this set of questions are correlated, like the earlier questions relating to Socialism and the U.S.S.R., with current political affiliations, the strong support for the affirmative on all three issues is found among the Democrats and the Inde-

[ 38 ]

The Political Man pendents. But again much deviation appears among the Republicans from the wonted line of orthodoxy. All three questions produced, from inside the Republican ranks, sizable minorities that subscribe to the so-called liberal view, with 44 per cent answering "yes" on the question of Federal Housing, 12 per cent answering "yes" on Federal Health Insurance, and 32 per cent answering "yes" to a Federal Employment Program. This conspicuous leavening of fundamental Republicanism with liberal, New Deal, Fair Deal and even near-Socialist ideas is easily one of the most striking facts to emerge from the survey. Even allowing for the doctors (who voted almost en masse against Federal Health Insurance) we are unmistakably less conservative in our politics than we used to be, less hidebound than the stereotypes of successful businessmen — but also much less red than the Chicago Tribune''s stereotype of a Harvard man. A man's political and social attitudes can also be determined obliquely by asking him how he feels, in terms of like or dislike, about each of a number of conspicuous public personalities connected with controversial matters. Such a list was submitted to us, and our reflexes, as will be seen below, were wholly in character with our general political philosophy: MORE LIKED THAN DISLIKED BY T O T A L CLASS

Liked by Mixed or • " , Liked more by Republicans Liked Disliked neutral Rep. Dem. & Ind. George Marshall 84% 3% 12% 89% 79% Arthur Vandenberg 77 3 20 82 72 Herbert Hoover 74 8 17 93 52 Harold Stassen 58 10 31 72 39 Robert Taft 60 18 20 79 37 Harry Emerson Fosdick 49 7 40 59 37 James Byrnes 51 13 34 56 46 Thomas Dewey 49 24 25 66 28 Liked more by Democrats and Independents Albert Einstein 69 4 26 62 78 David Lilienthal 48 17 32 33 68 Robert Hutchins 45 16 34 40 53 Eleanor Roosevelt 48 33 17 33 67 No party difference James Conant 83 4 12 86 81 Warren Austin 66 3 25 68 65 Stephen Wise ji 6 36 53 47

[ 39 ]

Harvard

1926

NEUTRAL AND MIXED FEELINGS, OR BALANCED LIKES AND DISLIKES Liked more by Republicans Eugene Grace Thomas Watson Francis Cardinal Spellman Liked more by Democrats and Norman Thomas George Aiken David Dubinsky Walter Reuther Philip Murray Wayne Morse Franklin D. Roosevelt No party difference T . S. Eliot Henry Kaiser

8 12 27 Independents 22 37 3 17 24 31 34 32 30 29 29 30 46 4*

29 23 20

II 4

34 31

2

48* 35* 44

40 31 34

16 12 18

40 36* 36 31 38 38 10

28 11 23 21 19 12 22

48 25 42 51 44 41 67

43* 43

33 29

36 32

MORE DISLIKED THAN LIKED Liked more by Republicans Joseph McCarthy Ezra Pound Joseph Pew Liked more by Democrats and John L. Lewis Henry Wallace Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. Harry S. Truman No party differences Whittaker Chambers Joseph Grundy

12 59 19 45 7 33 Independents 10 77 10 73 12 57 20 52

21 28 32*

17 23 10

6 14 3

11 16 29 25

6 2 6 9

'5 20 20 35

12 2

14 26*

II 2

13 2

69 41

Here again our inherent Republicanism is confirmed. Our liking for Senators Taft and Vandenberg, Governor Dewey, and Mr. Stassen is wider than had been previously encountered among American college graduates in general. Fewer of us like President Truman, Mr. Wallace, Governor Byrnes, or Mr. Lilienthal. However, our deviation ends there, except for our special regard for Mr. Conant. The proportion among us who like such liberal Republicans as Senators George Aiken and Wayne Morse coincides with the national alumni norm; so it does with regard to such public figures as Mr. Einstein, Mr. Fosdick, and Dr. Hutchins, and the union leaders, Messrs. Dubinsky, Murray, and Reuther. * For these men, sizable numbers (over 10%) reported "Never heard of him," or gave no opinion. [ 40

]

The Political Man The seven in the list whom we admire most are General George Marshall (an eminent public rather than political figure), President Çonant (also non-political), Senator Vandenberg (a liberal Republican who personified the non-partisan approach to American foreign policy), Herbert Hoover (who stands for hard-shell Republicanism), Albert Einstein (a more subtle figure, a man of science and occasionally of politics), Mr. Warren Austin (a Republican liberal), and Senator Robert Taft (Mr. Republican himself). Those who are most disliked are Mr. John L. Lewis (hardly a surprise in view of our occupational history), Mr. Henry A. Wallace (too far left for our politics), Mr. Whittaker Chambers (see below), Senator Joseph McCarthy (who may offend our tolerance), Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. (a Republican reflex), and Mr. Truman (ditto). The late President Roosevelt falls almost in the middle, the dislikes exceeding the likes by only a small margin. The individual commentaries gratuitously supplied by some of our classmates suggest some of the bases of our private judgments: About Henry Wallace: "I liked him before he let himself be used by the Commies. Now that he has apparently had a change of heart, I have reserved judgment until I can see how he behaves." About Ezra Pound: "I believe he is a good poet but it is impossible to like a Fascist psychopath." About Senator Taft: "I don't like his politics or blind spots but respect his integrity and personality." About John L. Lewis: "I dislike him violently but he has certainly done a good job for the United Mine Workers." About Franklin D. Roosevelt: "He was a great man, with faults." Our collective attitude toward Mr. Whittaker Chambers is accompanied in many, but not all, cases by vehement condemnation of his adversary, Mr. Alger Hiss. There is a suggestion of "a plague on both your houses" in the modal attitude. The Hiss case was selected for special questioning because Harvard 1926 was vicariously very close to this cause célèbre. We are Alger Hiss' contemporaries; some of us had gone through Harvard Law School with him; and many of us (47 per cent the survey reveals) had in our salad days shared at least in a mild form [ 41 ]

Harvard 1926 his imputed sympathies with Socialist ideas, with Soviet Russia, or both, which provided overtones for the trial. Not surprisingly, seven in ten of us followed both the Hiss trials closely, and only six per cent failed to follow them at all. Our views about the case were asked in these terms: "Do you think the Alger Hiss case resembles that of Aaron Burr, Dreyfus, Benedict Arnold — or how would you describe your views of the case?" With allowance for some confusion as to whether or not Aaron Burr was in fact proved guilty of treason, the answers line up as follows: 4 3 % draw a parallel with Benedict Arnold or in their own words call Hiss clearly guilty 3 % call him "guilty but just a fall g u y , " laying the major blame elsewhere 1 0 % liken Hiss to Burr 2 % think Hiss was probably but not certainly guilty ι j % are still in doubt, some saying they still do not know the true facts; some that the trials were badly or farcically handled; others that if they had been jurors they would have been too confused to enter a verdict either w a y n % say that the closest parallel is the Dreyfus case, or in their own words enter a verdict of not guilty * 4 % gave unilluminating answers, such as "much ado about nothing" 1 2 % could not answer the question at all

The views that divide us on this controversial episode, a memorable landmark in the intellectual schisms of our times, recur again and again in the individual comments: "The public would have viewed it as less serious had it been judged when committed." "It's a case of a man being tried in one generation for beliefs he had in an earlier generation." "I think Hiss misguided but results could be just as serious as if he were a deliberate traitor for his own selfish ends." "I have no fixed opinion of the Hiss case itself, other than that someone is lying. It is unfortunate that some of our able intellectuals have dabbled in the absurd theories which have led them into strange company and curious friendships." * This answer was given by 5 % of the Republicans and by 1 9 % of the Democrats and Independents.

[ 42 ]

The Political Man " A n example of some of the brassy, brilliant men that Harvard has been turning out." " A misguided, warped mind." " T h e fellow had a fuzzy idea of international cooperation with our great good ally." " T h e sad product of a spoilt, wealthy family trying to get idealistic about mankind when he knew nothing at all about mankind." " A glaring example of the ethical bankruptcy of our generation — to which Harvard has contributed in many ways." "He is just a Harvard man." One classmate wonders whether some of the publicly professed ex-Communists are merely pretending to have left the party, and are serving its ends b y ostensibly becoming informers against men in positions of trust. "Thus," he adds, "was T r o y tricked by a man who pretended to be a turncoat Greek."

[ 43 ]

Our Religious Outlook There is little habit in our churchgoing

Τ

•^HE falling away from the habit of regular attendance at church, first marked among us at Cambridge, apparently continues. The majority of us go to divine services less often than we did as children; and for most of us a visit to a church is a rare occurrence. 13 16 50 21

per per per per

cent cent cent cent

of us go every week go pretty regularly go a few times a year or less often than that never go *

However, this widespread absence from church does not denote a total straying away from the old faiths, although, as we shall see, there has been some of that, too. Better than five men in ten (52 per cent) still consider themselves close enough to church affairs to claim that they have their own minister, priest, or rabbi, whom they know well enough to be able to say whether he went to Harvard (7 per cent) or to some other college. Moreover, six in ten among us (59 per cent) believe in an omniscient Deity; four in ten (41 per cent) in life after death; and 15 per cent in original sin. W e come close to unanimity only in the conviction of 94 per cent of us that most men are fundamentally decent. Since this is the belief upon which democracy must rest, it is noteworthy that 97 per cent of our Republicans hold this view, compared with 91 per cent for the Democrats and the Independents. A consistent affinity appears to exist between religious beliefs and political beliefs. Our Republicans are more religious than the rest, go to church more habitually, believe more in an omniscient Deity, in life after death, and in original sin.f There is no ready explanation for this difference. * In this respect also we stand somewhat apart from other Americans. Among the solid Ohio citizens investigated by DuBois, two and a half times as many attend Sunday church service every week as is the case with us; and in the Time cross-section of all American college graduates, 30 per cent have this habit (against our 13 per cent) and only 9 per cent never go at all (against our 21 per cent). t The actual figures: 53 per cent of the Republicans (and only 26 per cent of the others)

[ 44 ]

Our Religious Outlook O u r present c h u r c h affiliations f o l l o w :

Catholic Baptist Congregational Episcopalian Methodist Presbyterian Quaker Unitarian Other Protestant Jewish N o religion, agnostic, atheist, nothing Other answers D o not know — or no answer

Brought up as 8% 3 13 32 5 5 I 10 4 '7 4 I

Now consider themselves 6% I 6 28 2 4 C) 8 10 '5 14 I 4

T h e r e has been, it is plain, a definite, if small, dwindling in all groups; nevertheless, the general tendency among us has been to continue in the same faith: Of the Episcopalians, 71 per cent are still Episcopalians Of the Unitarians, 50 per cent are still Unitarians Of the Congregationalists, 38 per cent are still Congregationalists Of the Catholics in the class, 65 per cent are still Catholics Of the Jewish, 81 per cent are still Jewish On the other hand, of the 18 men who said they were brought up with no religion at all, 11 have acquired one along the way

believe in the hereafter; 73 per cent of the Republicans (and only 41 per cent of the rest) believe in an omniscient Deity. There is no party difference, however, in the belief that most men are corruptible, a view akin to original sin but more widely held by 50 per cent of the Republicans and 52 per cent of the remainder. A total of 47 per cent of us, cutting across all groups, believe that most men are both corruptible and decent. • L e s s than Vi of 1%.

[ 45 ]

Our Views on Current Trends in Education We still exalt the liberal and humanist

traditions

ν blocking out the task for the University's Committee "On the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society,"· President Conant said: " T h e heart of the problem of a general education is the continuance of a liberal and humane tradition. Neither the mere acquisition of information nor the development of special skills and talents can give the broad basis of understanding which is essential if our civilization is to be preserved. The student in high school, in college, and in graduate school must be concerned, at least in part, with the words 'right' and 'wrong' in both the ethical and the mathematical sense. Unless he feels the import of those general ideas and aspirations which have been a deep moving force in the lives of men, he runs the risk of partial blindness." Since our own youth, the processes of American education have been in violent revolution, with those who are all for specialization contending with those who hold bravely to the humanities. W e are, for the most part, products of the liberal tradition, and with the idea of determining our present views on what contributed the most important elements in a general education, we were asked the following question: "Whether you have children or not, what do you think is the most important thing for children to get out of education in grammar school, in high school, in college?" The response was as follows: Most important Fundamentals Learn to study Learn to think Get along with others Practical education Character Friends Broad general education Liberal arts Less than y 3 of

Grammar school

High school

33%

8% 23

Η

9 2 7 2

7 2

18

College *% 9 28 II

6 8 3

19 9 6

18

12

1%.

[ 46 ]

Our Views on Current Trends in Education From the above it may be deduced that at the grammar-school level we hold the teaching of the three R's and the other classical fundamentals to be of first importance; at the high-school level, the inculcation of the desire to learn and the forming of good working habits (with the technique of learning to get along with others, learning to think, and grounding in the fundamentals of lesser importance); and at the college level, learning to think.* This last attribute we put before a practical education, and even a broad general education. The teachers among us are more inclined than the rest to emphasize the importance of beginning to learn to think for oneself before entering college. It would be hard to quarrel with this view. Yet, oddly enough, our doctors do, and the low opinion that they as a group attach to the business of learning to think at any age compared with the value placed thereon by the rest of us (who, for purposes of distinction, will be called patients) is pitilessly revealed in the following table: On the importance of learning to think in . . .

Grammar school High school College

Doctors

Patients

3% 13 10

10% 19 30

Are we to judge from this that doctors — all doctors, or only our doctors — hold that learning to think is of minor importance in education? Or could it be that since more patients than doctors are being educated in American schools, doctors are reluctant to encourage too much thinking? Truly there is food here for thought, while we are still able to think. From the answers to the question it is plain that we rank the combination of a broad general education and the humanities before a strictly utilitarian education. In this sense we are still firmly in the classical tradition. However, a nostalgic attachment for the ways we knew best could have been expected to produce this response; and with a view to subjecting our attitude to a more * Sizable groups also mentioned the importance of discipline at grammar school (8 per cent), of adequate college preparation and a command of English at high school (7 per cent), and a broad outlook on life and an ability to cope with the world at college level (7 per cent). Small but highly vocal groups urge that more attention be paid to spiritual development at all stages of education.

[ 47 ]

Harvard

1926

direct test, the question was put from another direction in the following terms: If a son of yours were going to college next year, on which of the following kinds of education would y o u like him to concentrate? ( 1 ) Professional or technical education which, in a world increasingly specialized, trains a student for a particular job, profession or business; (2) General liberal arts education which trains a student's mind and gives him a broad general background in many fields of knowledge to develop general resourcefulness rather than to train him for any particular job or profession.

Only 27 per cent favor the first for their sons; 65 per cent would prefer that he chose the second. The attitude of the majority was most eloquently expressed in the following comment: "Admitted this is an age of specialization, then a boy should go to M.I.T. and do it up brown. If he is going to Harvard, let him get a good liberal grounding which I think will make him a better citizen, and then concentrate later when he can put his whole mind on it. He will undoubtedly be surpassed by many of the trade school boys but he will have something they will never have and to hell with his dinner pail." In this crucial matter we clearly have no serious quarrels with Harvard. In September, 1949, Mr. Elmo Roper asked a similar (but not identical) question in his national cross-section survey for Fortune, and analyzed it a little differently. He found that only 8 per cent of people in general would prefer to have a son spend threequarters or more of his time in liberal arts, while 43 per cent would rather that he devoted three-quarters or more of his time to a professional or technical education. Even the college graduates in this sample voted in the same direction, only 14 per cent desiring major emphasis on liberal arts and 48 per cent wanting it to fall on vocational training. Despite the minor differences in the way the question was put, it is clear that we lean much more toward liberal arts education than does the ordinary citizen or even college graduates in general.

[ 48 ]

The Continuing Ties: I Money contributions; social and professional relations; the outer limbo the Class Treasurer's report discloses that 66 per cent of us have contributed money to Harvard at one time or another from 1926 to 1949, this survey has produced the frank but undeniably disappointing admission that only one man in five (21 per cent)* considers that he has rendered any other service of consequence to the College since graduation. A dedicated few (3 per cent) have taught at Harvard, some briefly, others for longish periods. A smaller fraction ( 1 per cent) lingered on as athletic coaches, or served with the University Secretariat as publicity men, lawyers, and business administrators. A handful have been active in the Overseers' Visiting Committees. Others have labored on various fund-raising committees. And still others have helped the University materially by presenting books, pictures, and presumably precious manuscripts (their own or collectors' items) to the archives. Quite a few have decided, hopefully, that their undeniably arduous efforts on behalf of the Class reunion committees and their local Harvard Club constitute a truly unselfish service to the University. Some have been active on regional scholarship committees, helping to raise their funds, to screen local candidates, and to persuade worthy boys to go to Harvard. T w o of our colleagues list among their services to Harvard the sending of their sons to Cambridge, a point upon which posterity will no doubt provide the final opinion. Among the varied answers supplied to this particular question was in one instance the stark enigmatic term B R I D G E , leaving one to wonder whether the respondent meant to suggest that he has provided or is planning to provide the College with a new span across the Charles or merely intends to suggest that his generous services to his Alma Mater includes playing on the bridge team for the glory of the Harvard Club of New York. HILE

* About the same percentage and perhaps largely the same men have contributed nearly 8"o per cent of the money.

[ 49 ]

Harvard 1926 Nearly half of the Class (47 per cent) now belong to a Harvard Club. And, proving that the passage of a quarter of a century has by no means eroded the social associations that began at Harvard, 46 per cent of those who answered the questionnaire report that they had been in touch with at least one classmate during the preceding week before the survey. The pattern of our present gregariousness may be surmised from the following statistics showing the nature and extent of our mutual associations during the week thus nominated by chance: During these seven days, 12 per cent of us entertained classmates in our homes, or received visits from classmates under the family roof; 11 per cent visited the other man's home; 19 per cent lunched with classmates; 17 per cent talked with a classmate in an office, either conducting business or interrupting it; 16 per cent had chance meetings with classmates on the street; 24 per cent had occasion to talk to a classmate over the telephone; and a final 8 per cent met or talked with classmates under other circumstances. Some of us, no doubt chiefly the fund-raisers and insurance agents, have been more attentive than the rest in preserving the old ties. Four per cent had seen or been in touch with at least six former classmates during the sample week; 5 per cent had been in contact with four or five; 8 per cent with two or three; another 18 per cent had viewed or talked with only one classmate; and half of us had traveled the busy highway for seven days without ever once setting eyes upon a classmate, or even hearing a cheery cry of recognition across a tavern, or from the crowds at the crossroads. The bonds of friendship are undeniably loosening, and the slow parting becomes widest when one surveys the associations reported over a three-months period. One in ten (9 per cent) has been in touch with at least twenty classmates during this span; one man in five (21 per cent) has had dealings, social or business, with at least ten; one man in three (32 per cent) has momentarily touched the lives of at least five; but nearly three men out of ten (27 per cent) have had no contact whatsoever with the rest. The contemporary decline in the once admired art of letter writing between old friends may be judged from the fact that only one man in three claims to have exchanged letters with a class-

[ 50 ]

The Continuing Ties: I mate during the last three months, and most of these admit that the correspondence was confined to one or two persons. However, a study of the helping hand in the relationships of the Class elicits a somewhat more gratifying picture. On one occasion or another one man in five (22 per cent) has been helped by classmates in obtaining business clients or customers; one man in ten has been helped by the rest in finding a job; and nearly two in ten (17 per cent) turned to a classmate for assistance in the resolution of some personal problem, with marital and family difficulties ranking first, and business and legal matters coming next. Helping hands have been extended to classmates who, having moved to new communities, were unable to find a place to live, or desirable office space, or schools for their children, and who otherwise were beset, temporarily, by emotional and nervous difficulties, financial trouble, and even alcoholism. The record shows that 37 per cent of us are indebted, one way or another, to classmates for some kind of assistance. On closer examination, this pattern of professional and business relations reveals that 22 per cent of us have taken care of classmates, for hire presumably, as their patients, clients, customers. Conversely, 14 per cent have submitted their persons to classmates for pills, wart-removals, and other medical services; 12 per cent have gone to lawyer classmates for wills, divorces, contracts, or a habeas corpus·, 11 per cent have hired 1926 brokers to handle their investments or speculations. Half or more of these relationships have continued to the present time, but not so the boss-subordinate relationship. That has almost disappeared. Thus: Professional and business relations with a classmate As As As As As As As As

my my my my my my my my

lawyer doctor broker boss partner employee or subordinate publisher or editor patient, client, or customer

* Less than Yi of 1%.

[ SI ]

Now 6% 8 8 * 4 2 * 15

Ever 12% 14 11 2 6 j 2 22

Harvard 1926 Professional and business relations with other Harvard contemporaries Now In the past As my lawyer 12 10 As my doctor As my broker A s my boss A s my partner A s my employee or subordinate As my publisher or editor As my patient, client, or customer

10

8 6 4 5 6

6

8 4 10 3

I

17

IJ

Our present degree of corporate interdependence with one another and with other Harvard contemporaries is shown in the following composite pattern (with duplications eliminated): Professional relations, now, with classmates and Harvard contemporaries As As As As As As As As

my my my my my my my my

lawyer doctor broker boss partner employee or subordinate publisher or editor patient, client, or customer

15% ij 13 4 8 7 1 21

In addition, 7 per cent report that their minister, priest, or rabbi is a Harvard man, and 3 per cent that their psychiatrist or psychoanalyst is a Harvard man. Unfortunately, the questionnaire, through oversight, neglected to list such additional relationships as "fellow worker," or professional associate in the same school or hospital. Undoubtedly these listings would have shown that the continuing intimacy is somewhat broader than now appears. But it is doubtful that even this additional evidence would greatly diminish the number of those who have no associations at all, business or social, with their classmates. For there are still those who say, in gloomy retrospection: "Except for a few friends from various classrooms, I know almost no Harvard men of my day at all well, and those few friendships were made mostly in four years' participation in a minor sport. I was acquainted with only a handful of men in our own Class. I lived at home at first and was extremely lonely later on when I moved into the dormitory. "Why anyone outside my little group should have felt inclined

[ 52 ]

The Continuing Ties: I to make my acquaintance, I cannot say. Certainly nobody did. Although I acknowledge that everyone else's lack of interest in me was largely my own fault, I feel a touch of resentment nowadays when I receive one of those form letters from Class officers (must be nice fellows, but I can't remember their names), addressing me by my first name. " I believe that less Harvard indifference and some program designed to draw everyone in the Class into the fold would have resulted in a better showing in our contributions to the Harvard fund. I love Harvard, however, even if I don't love the Class of '26."

[ 53 ]

The Continuing Ties: II We find much to admire, a few things to deplore, in Harvard today

I

•Η HE ineffable sense of tolerant well-being that permeates our general social outlook is most marked in our attitude toward Harvard today. B y and large, we are satisfied with its evolution under President Conant since our own departure from its calm precincts and have no serious quarrel with the manner in which the College has adjusted itself to the changing mainstreams of American thought. As regards our aggregate impressions of how well or how badly Harvard is functioning today, the survey shows: V e r y favorable Slightly favorable N o particular opinion Slightly unfavorable V e r y unfavorable

Class of ι $26 43% 26 17 12 2

Harvard graduates in general * 65% 20 9 5 1

Among the things w e like best about it are ( 1 ) the general educational program, (2) the spirit of academic freedom that animates its administration, (3) the House Plan put into effect since our time, and (4) the educational leadership, which may be taken as a general approval of President Conant's approach to higher education. Among the things we like least are ( 1 ) the calamitous disintegration of Harvard's prestige on the football field, (2) the disquieting reports of pinkish leanings within the faculty and among the undergraduates, and (3) certain teaching methods. When the answers to this section of the Survey are broken down, the sense of intellectual tolerance that lightens our innate conservatism emerges in an agreeable light. Twelve per cent among us single out the new "general education" program and the broad liberal curriculum now available at Harvard as the most admirable contribution of the present administration. Ten per cent are impressed most of all b y the atmosphere of "intellectual free* As surveyed by the National Opinion Research Center.

[ 54 ]

The Continuing Ties: II dorn," "academic freedom," "freedom of thought," "freedom from regulation" that they discern there. And Harvard's continuing academic and intellectual leadership is viewed with the highest satisfaction by 8 per cent who profess to observe therein evidence that Harvard not only has succeeded in keeping well abreast of the new ideas in American life, but remains a courageous breaker of new ground in the field of thought. Others (3 per cent) are pleased with the College's ready responsiveness to the changing intellectual climate of the times; still others (4 per cent) by its steadfast adherence, even in the process of change, to its own high standards and to the ancient disciplines, and by its respect for human intelligence in all of its infinite permutations. Six per cent commend, above everything else, Harvard's "liberal outlook," the high liberal content (in the classical meaning of that much-abused term) of its curriculum, and the tolerance that suffuses its academic outlook. Four per cent are particularly gratified by its habit of treating scholars not as passive and reluctant receptacles for an inpouring of facts, but as individuals who are expected to think for themselves. This they measure as Harvard's most beneficial influence upon the contemporary scholar, who in consequence learns self-reliance and intellectual independence. Some (1 per cent) attach prime importance to the fact that as Harvard has become more heterogeneous, drawing to itself students of more diversified backgrounds than was the case when we were there, the atmosphere has become more democratic, more vital, less insulated from the world. And an equal number observe with pleasure that Harvard is becoming less and less a somewhat provincial N e w England college and more and more a national institution. As for the House Plan, not so long ago a subject of violent controversy, 9 per cent of us now judge it a fine and successful idea, and almost nobody finds fault with it. The increasing emphasis on research has impressed 3 per cent, and like many others they note with approval the continuing expansion and the rising prestige of the Graduate Schools. A perspicacious fraction reserves its huzzas for the Library, for the closer bonds with Radcliffe, for the continued exclusion of fraternities and the gradual de-emphasizing of the importance of clubs, and for the liberal attitude shown by a recent class in electing a Negro as Class Marshal. Six per cent sub[ 55 ]

Harvard 192 6 scribe to the man-and-boy-on-a-log theory of education, and aim their plaudits at the faculty. All the same, we share a slight but unmistakable conviction — more a feeling than a bias — that Harvard since our day has departed a trifle too much from the old conception of a general liberal education, in favor of a practical one, although this belief is confined to a small minority. Thus: " When we were in college" T o o much emphasis on practical subjects T o o much on liberal education About right Don't know N o answer

3% 20 75 1 1

"Nowadays" 10% 17 j6 12 6

Now these particular responses reflect with remarkable fidelity our current occupational groupings. The lawyers, teachers, and doctors, by and large, are less inclined than the rest of us to disapprove of holding to the liberal tradition. On the other hand, those of us who are now immured in somewhat subordinate jobs in industry, or who are engaged in such fundamentally empirical occupations as agriculture, are prone to favor stronger emphasis upon a practical education. In this minority distrust of the current trend in the curriculum toward the practical, we stand apart from the prevailing view of Harvard graduates. A survey by the National Opinion Research Center shows that whereas 10 per cent of our Class hold this opinion, only 3 per cent of Harvard men in general have been moved to protest the trend. This subject appears, in any case, to have stimulated considerable reflection among the more thoughtful. The Harvard of our day, one man has decided, was passing through a transitional stage "wherein the searching mind was not free to choose, nor was it prevented from too narrow early specialization." Another carries the thought a step further: "In Eliot's time you could go through the catalogue and pick any courses you wanted and thus could get some insight into many. This was not possible during our time because of concentration. Now the general education program makes possible getting to know something about a wide variety of fields without having to commit oneself to spe-

[ 56 ]

The Continuing Ties: 11 cialization in each. Too early specialization is still the most serious weakness of our American education, I feel." The catalogue of Harvard's present shortcomings, though much shorter, is not lacking in vehemence. Heading the list of indictments (by 14 per cent) is the sorry performance of Harvard's football team, to which the epithet "lousy" is widely applied. However, none of us is a Joe Alumnus of the sports cartoons, shouting for victories, whatever the cost. Rather we long for a more intelligent solution to the present shambles than the practice of blindly offering up our team for the inevitable Saturday slaughter. (Actually, 3 per cent draw comfort from the fact that Harvard has kept athletics in what they regard as a proper perspective, and they would deplore any deviation from the strictly amateur status.) The wrath of 9 per cent is focused upon the presumed presence of "too many Reds" at Harvard. In this particular matter we stand divided more perhaps than in any other. In contrast with the many among us who applaud the existing administration for its tolerant attitude toward ideas, an irreconcilable minority is convinced that this attitude is leading the College to perdition; that it is altogether too easy-going with its "Commies" and "parlor pinks," and that the left-wing views and connections, especially of certain members of the Faculty and in the Graduate Schools, have brought the College unfavorable notice. One man has, in fact, decided that the surest way to qualify for a government appointment nowadays is to "go to Harvard and turn Left." However, most of us (71 per cent) are of the opinion that the political climate of the Faculty is all right — a view shared in approximately the same percentage (according to the National Opinion Research Center) by other Harvard graduates, among whom the younger ones are more likely than the older to regard the present staff of professors as too conservative. It is the teachers among us who wish that their counterparts at Harvard were less traditional in their politics. And one independent thinker, having observed that professors incline to the radical rather than the conservative view, is reconciled to Harvard professors' sharing the same views. Our attitude on the general question of academic freedom of expression on the great political controversy of the day — social[ 57 ]

Harvard 192 6 ism versus capitalism — was tested with a question that Mr. Roper had previously used in a Fortune questionnaire — a question offering alternative answers: W h i c h of the following statements is closest to your views as to the position Harvard and other colleges ought to take about capitalism and socialism?

Class of '26 Allow the professors to give only the arguments in favor of capitalism to students Require any professor who discusses the subject to give the arguments for both sides, but let him express his own opinion only if it is favorable to capitalism Require any professor to give the arguments for both sides, then let him express his own opinion whatever it is, but try to have professors with differing opinions on the faculty Require any professor to give the arguments for both sides, but do not allow him to express any opinions of his own

r

Roper

Survey *

College graduates

Total sample

*%

2%

2%

7

6

6

74

44

27

15

44

37

NOTE: 3% of us declined to subscribe to any of the four statements, most of these holding that no restraints whatever should be applied to teaching; that professors should be left free to teach in their own way.

From the above it can be seen that we are at one with the American public in believing that colleges should present both sides of this vast and thorny question to students, but in contrast with the latter we are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing professors full freedom to intrude their own opinion. Thus in this matter also we are to be found arrayed with the liberal view — an attitude even more eloquently expressed in the following general observations: By classmate L: "I feel very strongly about this question. I also realize that if they are worth a damn, professors will not be able to conceal their own opinions and should not. I think the only saving grace of our system is the freedom of choice and the under* Less than yi of 1%.

[ 58 ]

The Continuing Ties: II graduate must be allowed his. If he chooses wrong it is not entirely the university's fault, since parents, high schools, and general environment are just as great an influence. I think our greatest weakness now is lack of intelligent parental guidance." By M: "I firmly believe in the freedom of opinion and the freedom of expression for everyone, including college professors. To mean anything this freedom must include the right to expound unpopular or even erroneous views. The real question, I think, is whether the teacher is a conscious or duped agent of the Soviet empire. Theories about capitalism and socialism are harmless and beside the point. What we call capitalism is the reality of an existing society, with all its human faults, and what we call socialism is an abstract theory, so the two are not at all comparable. But men have to learn that for themselves and academic talk on either side of the issue seems reasonable in a university. What should not be tolerated is the presence of an agent, and no excuse if he is a dupe. The problem boils down to identifying the agents, admittedly not an easy task. A serious effort to get rid of these would be bound to harm some feebleminded do-gooders who have played to the edge of communism but still insist that they are technically political virgins." By N: "As a capitalist without capital, I feel that socialism and communism, both idealistically pure, cannot function without tremendous restraints imposed by the state to curb those who still would be motivated by selfish purposes. Since power corrupts (like money), and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the abuses of socialism and communism would be worse than the defects of capitalism. I believe that the pages of history do not contain a successful example of socialism or communism that does not end in the prostration of individual thought, effort and initiative. I further believe that any man qualified to teach at Harvard college, if he professes socialistic or communistic beliefs, and familiar with such historical experience is either a knave or a fool and his professorial rank should not be used as a lever to foist such dangerous nonsense on the pliable minds of those under him." By Ρ: "I disagree with the way these questions are put. I do not want Communists on the faculty. At the same time I do not want hobbles put on the professors. Using the term 'free' as we tradi[ 59 ]

Harvard

1926

tionally have in this country, I want the professors to be absolutely free. What this means is this: I will tolerate any faculty member (who is professionally qualified to hold his job) who expresses his opinions openly, freely and honestly; at the same time, experience has shown that Communism is promoted by a conspiracy, in which lying as a tactic is approved, in which the end product — as far as history has so far shown — is a ruthless and bloody tyranny. T o repeat: I want no Communists on the faculty. I will accept anybody else (professionally qualified) whether I agree with him or not." By Q: "I believe every college today should see to it that the students are given a clear and full understanding of what the capitalistic system in this country has accomplished in relation to what socialism is doing to freedom, standard of living, etc. in other countries, however." As in other matters, some of us find fault where the rest of us discern only merit. Nine per cent are vaguely displeased with current teaching methods, some of these complaining about too much emphasis on scholarly or scientific research and not enough on the Humanities. Almost as many (6 per cent) view with scepticism what they regard as an undue emphasis on mere "brains," to the detriment of the average Middle, the "Gentleman's C " range of our era. This exaltation of the intellect, it is felt, has made it too difficult for otherwise worthy men to hold their own, and, in any case, has brought on a diminution in outside social activities that were once so congenial a part of college life. T w o per cent complain that Harvard has become too specialized; 3 per cent that it has not yet succeeded in throwing off the snobbish attitude; 4 per cent that it has grown too big and unwieldy. Others are disappointed because (a) the appearance of the Yard has deteriorated; (b) the tuition fees have been raised; (c) godlessness and materialism still flourish; (d) girls have been admitted into undergraduate classes. T w o per cent blame President Conant for all that is wrong with Harvard. Despite these faults, despite the waning of our direct ties with the College itself, Harvard's hold upon the minds and souls of her sons persists. Thirty-four per cent of us have had occasion in the recent past to advise some member of our families about going to [ 60 ]

The Continuing Ties: II Harvard, and the great majority of these (79 per cent) have, in effect, advised the boy to go there, by all means. More importantly, 55 per cent have been approached in this connection by boys not joined to them by blood ties; and a still higher majority (83 per cent) have, without serious qualms, tendered the same counsel. (A small group of 3 per cent seem to have wavered, sometimes advising yes, sometimes no.) Interestingly, this percentage of approval is found equally among us who entered Harvard from public high schools and those who entered from private schools, suggesting that the vague social differences that made for a certain discontent twenty-five years ago no longer loom large. The comforting conclusion to be drawn from this section of the survey is that if we were basically disgruntled about Harvard today, few would now be advising another generation to follow us there.

[ 61 ]

Our Position in American Society We place ourselves in the Upper Middle Class EVERAL years ago Dr. George Gallup, the well-known polltaker, asked a cross-section of American voters what class of society they considered themselves to be in. The majority (52 per cent) called themselves Middle Class and only 3 per cent put themselves above that. A similar question addressed to us elicited a totally different answer.* Twenty-two per cent, using various terminologies, rank themselves in the Upper Classes; 38 per cent rank themselves in the Upper Middle; while only 34 per cent put themselves in the Middle, and a mere 1 per cent put themselves in the Lower Middle, Laboring or Lower classes. Our notion that we and our associates are above average in standard of living, brains, wealth, and social position or status might be put down as another indication of snobbishness were it not borne out by statistical fact. The Class, as we have already seen, is definitely established in the upper income brackets and it is obvious, from the terminology used, that the 60 per cent who think of themselves as being above the national Middle are most influenced by money and their standard of living. Seven per cent, however, base their judgment on professional and other top-ranking occupations; four per cent measure their position among the élite in terms of education and intellect; and a mere two per cent — perhaps the real snobs — answer in terms of social position — what one man describes as "the top-drawer of society, if not of wealth." With regard to these different standards of status, the survey discloses that the Republicans are somewhat more inclined to base their judgment upon economic criteria, whereas the Democrats and Independents place a higher premium upon professional and intellectual attainments — the Aristocracy and perhaps the Snobbery of Brains. But despite different criteria they arrive at the same end result: six out of ten are above the Middle Class. * The actual question was, "Considering everything, to what class in society do you think most of your friends belong?" In research this is known as a projective type of question, designed to induce people to talk about themselves without being self-conscious, boastful or self-deprecating.

[ 62 ]

Our Position in American Society This might be described as our own subjective rating of ourselves. A n objective rating, also produced b y the survey, provides confirmation of the economic status. Ever since the late Sinclair Lewis wrote "Main Street" and "Babbitt" the American scale of living has been stereotyped b y material possessions — the automobile, telephone, vacuum cleaner, and the gleaming porcelain of refrigerators, washing machines, and the flush toilet. Of these mechanical adjuncts of civilization, we have managed to accumulate an ample share: 98 per cent of us have radios. have automobiles. 94 ; have more than one car. 40 98 have telephones, have vacuum cleaners, 95 have electric or gas refrigerators, 97 have radio-phonograph combinations, 70 have washing machines, 71 have dish washers, 28 have more than one bathroom, 73 have electric toasters, 95 have television sets, 24 have gas or electric ranges, 97 have a full-time maid, 28 have a part-time maid.

42 69

have 10 or more of these i j items.

N o t only do we have a lot of such possessions, but w e take them for granted; and where others might regard them as luxuries, we look upon them as essentials. In this respect, here is how w e compare with a group of citizens in a small Ohio city (studied by DuBois) who, though actually above average, call themselves Middle Class: Class of 1926

Automobile Second automobile Telephone Radio-phonograph combination

Essential, an absolute necessity for this family 61% 8 80

Desirable fora decent standard of living

31%

32%

9 »9

56

28

[

63

]

Ohio town Essential, an absolute necesrìty for this family

Desirable for a decent standard of living 30%

2

26

Harvard 1926 Washing machine Dish washer Second bathroom

#

39

í

22

32 H 34

73

20

4

3 4

Our differences in attitude are no doubt based, in large measure, upon the habit of possession. Compared to a national cross-section of American citizens, we have eight times as many second bathrooms, and more than twice as many cars per 100 families. When our present holdings of refrigerators, telephones, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, extra bathrooms and automobiles are related to a national urban cross-section, the tantalizing idea emerges that it must have been a society like our own, rather than the national cross-section, that Sinclair Lewis had in mind. For the comparison shows that 85 per cent of us have a score of five or more in a scale constructed from the number of items listed above, whereas only 41 per cent in the cross-section have so high a score. We are also above average in the percentage (75 per cent) who own the homes they live in, with an additional 3 per cent owning summer homes but renting for the bulk of the year. Some 6 per cent obtained their homes by parental gift or inheritance. Seven per cent no longer own the homes they once bought or built. A total of 79 per cent have undergone the Blandings-like thrills and agonies of buying or building, including an intrepid 22 per cent who have done so more than once. A familiar lament: "It will be paid for in another 15 years." By whatever the standard of measurement, material or occupational, about three men in ten (29 per cent) feel that they have moved somewhat higher in the socio-economic scale than the place their parents occupied. Perhaps for them the standard of measurement is mirrored in the statement of 32 per cent, in answer to another question, that the neighborhood in which they now live is nicer than the one in which they grew up. Only 5 per cent have a consciousness of slipping back in the social scale, and 7 per cent feel that their present neighborhood surroundings are inferior to those they knew as youngsters. * Inference: We send our laundry out about twice as much as the Ohio citizens.

[ 64 ]

Men of Distinction — with Aberrations One in five is in a Who's Who; nearly as many have written books if to confirm our social judgment of ourselves, we certainly share with Mr. Babbitt the Middle and Upper Middle Class habit of joining. Nine in ten of us are today members in one or more organizations, ranging from purely social clubs (to which 52 per cent belong) to labor unions (to which only 2 per cent belong). Half of us are members of one or another professional society (American Medical Association, Bar Association, and the like), and a quarter belong to businessmen's associations (Chambers of Commerce, Sales Executives' Clubs, and such). The desire to join is commonly accompanied by a desire for self-expression. Perhaps it was primarily before these business and professional groups that approximately two-thirds of us have delivered formally scheduled speeches during the last couple of years. Showing that as a group we take our organizational connections seriously, six in ten have been active in committee work of one kind or another, and nearly as many (55 per cent) have held elective offices in one or more organizations. The same sense of responsibility — and gregariousness — seems to have induced 13 per cent to run for public office, and 10 per cent of us, a truly impressive total, have actually been elected by our fellow citizens. To be sure, most of the political offices for which we presented ourselves were local — usually Justice of the Peace, member of the School Board, or State Representative — but we have also had candidates (successful or otherwise) for Congressman and for Governor. Our most ambitious candidate, who created his own and now forgotten party and ran for President, failed by all too many million votes. In consequence, we have so far missed our chance of matching the distinction of the class of 1755 (which produced John Adams), or the later classes which produced John Q. Adams and the two Roosevelts. The other forms of distinction that have accrued to us include listings of 8 per cent in Who''s Who in America, and of an addi-

[ 65 ]

Harvard 1926 tional 13 per cent in one or another of the various Who's Who volumes. Better than two in ten (23 per cent) are in the Social Register. Perhaps one of the most remarkable statistics about us as a group is the high proportion of those who have written and published books, including some extremely successful ones. According to Dr. George Gallup, one-fifth of all the men in the country have at one time or another harbored the idea of writing a book, if only they could. With us, however, the same ambition has been not only entertained by 25 per cent, but has been successfully realized by the majority who were so impelled. Nearly two in ten (18 per cent) have already actually written books, and fully five-sixths of the writers can display published copies of their works.* Nor are we by any means approaching the end of our literary output: 9% have written and published books and expect to write more 6% have written and published books but do not expect to write another 2% have written books which were not published but expect to try again 2% have written unpublished books, do not expect to try again 7 % have never written a book yet but expect to write one

In addition, within the recent past, two in ten have published articles in professional journals, one in ten in trade papers, and one in ten in general magazines. In further communicating ideas to his fellow men, one man in four has talked on the radio in the last couple of years, and whether for the purpose of trying to communicate ideas, or merely in the process of being pumped, 38 per cent have been interviewed by the press during the same period. However, not all of our public activities are of so distinguished a character. Thirteen per cent of us have at one time or another been in jail. For the editors of this report this is undoubtedly the most aggravating statistic of all because, not anticipating such a high figure, they neglected to ask why. From marginal comments the editors can account for some of these detentions as being the result of motor vehicle violations. And in one questionnaire ap* This outpouring of books can be compared with that of the Princeton Class of 1 9 3 5 , which was only slightly smaller in numbers. That Class is presumably now at the height of its youthful vigor, but the satisfaction of having a book published has so far been experienced by only 0.167 per cent. Of course, the other 99.833 per cent still have eleven years in which to catch up to us.

[ 66 ]

Men of Distinction — with Aberrations pears an obscure hint of embezzlement. Others are doubtless explained by youthful indiscretions and binges which are part of the Class folklore, of which the most spectacular was the secreting of a stink bomb in the ventilating system of the N e w York Stock Exchange, a gesture of social protest that resulted in the perpetrator's spending some time in the public workhouse. The popular picture of the Republican as a Solid Citizen, as staid in his private life as in his politics, is not borne out by our aggregate experiences. The fact that fractionally more than 13 per cent of our Republicans have been in jail, compared with fractionally less than 12 per cent of the Democrats, points out a difference too small to establish beyond statistical doubt that Republicans are more pronounced law-breakers than Democrats. It only shows that they have at least equal proclivities for getting into trouble. Our other aberrations include the acknowledgment by one per cent that at one time or another they have "gypped" on income tax; by another one per cent that they have sired illegitimate children; by five per cent that they have kept mistresses (among whom is one who asks plaintively, " H o w do you stop something like this?"); and by 15 per cent who admit to having been heavy drinkers. Befitting Men of Distinction, most of us seem to be at ease with glass in hand. T o be sure, ten per cent of us never drank, and another seven per cent drink so little that it doesn't matter to them. At the other extreme are found 19 per cent who have never stopped drinking since leaving Cambridge. Between these extremes lie the great majority of us, sometimes bibulous in great or less degree, sometimes on the wagon. As of this writing, eight per cent are on the wagon. How long they are likely to remain aboard may be judged from the past history of the half of the Class who have tried this personal noble experiment: LENGTH OF THE LONGEST RIDE ON THE W A G O N

A 6 ι ι 3

year or more months to a year to 5 months to 4 weeks days or less

'5% 9

17 6 2 [ 67

]

Harvard 1926 The struggle against fleshly appetites appears almost hopeless for many where tobacco is concerned. At the time of writing in the questionnaire, 20 per cent of the Class reported that they have sworn off smoking, at least for the moment. Their chances of conquering the habit can also be judged from the past history of the 56 per cent of the Class who had tried to swear off. Twenty per cent stopped smoking for a year or more; 21 per cent estimated their longest period of abstinence in months, 12 per cent in weeks, three per cent in days. One per cent has so far been unable to get beyond the first few hours.

[ 68 ]

The First Symptoms of Middle Age Not yet ready for the wheelchair, tue are beginning to retire from the strenuous life ROM all that has gone before, it can be seen that we have arrived at middle age more successful on the whole, in a material sense, than perhaps we had reason to expect, with a secure if not yet eminent position in the community, with our ideals reasonably intact, maintaining amidst the clashing ideologies of our times a tolerance that might bring an approving nod from the great teachers who tried to communicate it to us, and only just now conscious of the first premonitory warnings of an approaching old age not yet adequately provided for. Happily that period of jeopardy is not yet, and so far as the survey shows, we are still a long way from being profitable patients for the gerontologists •— the new-fangled specialists in geriatrics, a field we might from this point on investigate. Since graduation 48 out of the Class are known to have died, six have vanished from our ken without a trace, and a few who could not have answered the questionnaire are known to be in a hospital or sanitarium. The rest of us, for the most part, are in good health, the prevailing complaints being of a minor nature, such as baldness, athlete's foot, an annoying blurring of the type employed in newspapers and telephone books, a mysterious disappearance of the pigment in the hair, and the acquisition of a few store teeth. T o be sure, one in ten concedes that he is beginning to feel not quite virile enough to risk "yes" for an answer, but the prevailing view is that the affirmative comes only half as often as we feel it should at our age. As the subjoined report shows, only a few of us have so far experienced heart trouble, high blood pressure, prostate trouble, or cirrhosis. Have had Arthritis Athlete's foot Baldness

50%

[ 69 ]

12

Harvard

1926 Have had

Bursitis Cirrhosis Deafness Diabetes D.T.'s Eye trouble False teeth Gray hair Heart trouble High blood pressure Nervous breakdown Obesity Pneumonia Prostate trouble T.B. Ulcers Varicose veins V.D.

η

Have novi 2 *

3 2

*

13 2 6 5 3 14 3 2 6

2 5

.,

18 16 43 3 3 •

7

•

I I 3 2

•

Since the doctors among us should diagnostically have an advantage over the rest of us in respect to health, their answers were separately analyzed. It appears, surprisingly, that a phenomenal 74 per cent have in the past been prey to the itches of athlete's foot. T h e y are also slightly grayer and slightly balder than the rest, and have much more trouble with their eyes, but none of them diagnoses himself as obese — on what the rest of us might visually judge to be clear evidence to the contrary. T h e fact that one man in twenty has had a nervous breakdown may at first glance be disquieting, but the figure corresponds closely with the national average estimated b y medical authorities. B y itself it tells only part of the story. T w e l v e per cent have had occasion to repair to either a psychoanalyst or psychiatrist, and 26 per cent have inclined to the idea that perhaps they should have consulted one (or should do so n o w ) — some ( j per cent) because of nervous tension, some (4 per cent) because of marital difficulties, and other handfuls because of their o w n sexual problems or their wives', w a r neuroses, lack of self-confidence, alcoholism, inferiority complexes, and (to quote certain specific complaints) : " T o help me face and get over a lot of nonsense m y parents taught me and I taught myself." *Less than

of i%. [ 70 ]

The First Symptoms of Middle

Age

"Because I didn't like my work." "Because my wife thought it might help me to think more clearly and make more money." " T o help me in a perpetual effort at self-improvement." "Because I am confused about some things and not particularly successful." "Because I am too self-centered and discontented with the world in general." "Because of a feeling that the world is too wrong to be real." "Because I am a perfectionist and worry my fool head off about unimportant matters." The two prime signs of middle age are, first, that one man in four has taken to reading the obituaries (although less than one in a hundred has so far adopted the elderly man's habit of reading them first), and, secondly, that we have begun gradually to desert the more violent sports: 8 4 % of those w h o have ever played squash have given it up; so have 80% of those w h o have ever played touch football or polo; 6 1 % of the tennis players have given up singles, and a smaller number have given up doubles too; 5 1 % have given up badminton and horseback riding; 4 2 % of the skiers have given up their sport; so have 3 8 % of the skaters; 3 7 % of those w h o once played Softball have given it up; and 3 5 % of the golfers have ceased to play (but a f e w of these commented that they gave it up because they were bored with it).

Despite the retreat from the Strenuous Life, 92 per cent still take part in one or more sports — swimming, hunting, fishing, sailing, skeet-shooting, even mountain climbing: evidence that senescence is still a long way off.

[ 71 ]

The Uses of Leisure Vehlen would, have been

confused

UR hobbies and means of relaxation reflect an increasingly sedentary life. W e were asked to name our favorite way of spending our spare time and a second choice. The answers:

O

Reading Outdoor sports Gardening, working out of doors Carpentry, woodworking, workshop Being with my family and children Loafing, relaxing and sleeping Conversation with friends

Favorite 28% 22 9 5 6 4 3

Second choice 19% 20 9 2 2 2 6

But the specific interests are myriad — going to football and baseball games, cards, stamp and coin collecting, writing (as a hobby), listening to music or playing (for personal enjoyment), research and study, Churchill-type painting, amateur photography, going to the theater and movies, traveling and motoring, listening to radio and television, chess, church work, boy scouts, flying, training horses, yogi exercises, bird-watching, dabbling in politics, prestidigitation, Alcoholics Anonymous, walking and hiking, figuring how to make money, drinking, thinking, social work, barbershop quartets, billiards, eating out, cooking, community projects, dancing. (Only one per cent list sex as the favorite way of spending leisure time and two per cent call it their second choice.) The current pattern of our hobbies, indoor sports, and outdoor sports is as follows: Hobbies Music Photography Gardening Model-building Collecting Bird-watching

41% 34 47 6 18 9

Dog-raising Painting pictures Painting furniture, walls, etc. Home workshop Some other hobby *

7% 6 24 27 23

* These include politics, historical research, building stone walls, wood chopping, Biblical research, building a house, bookbinding, camping, star-gazing, cattle ranching, ίο-mile runs, catching typographical errors, home movies, tying trout flies, making mobiles, Oriental cal-

[ 72 ]

The Uses of Leisure Outdoor sports within the year

Indoor sports within a month Canasta 34% Bridge 39 Poker '4 2 Pinochle Twenty-one 3 Cribbage 7 Cross-word puzzles !9 6 Double crostics 10 Chess 6 Checkers Backgammon 6 Dominoes 4 2 Craps 2 Roulette G i n rummy 13

Golf Fishing Sailing Softball Tennis singles Tennis doubles Polo Swimming Diving Ping-pong Squash Hunting Badminton Skating Skiing Skeet-shooting Riding Mountain climbing T o u c h football

33% 37 30

13 20 24

I

75

22 27 4

13 9

21 12 6 12 13 3

W e are practically all (99 per cent) daily newspaper readers. And the things inside the newspaper that interest us are, in order of importance: Editorials Sports Columnists Financial news Comics Obituaries Book notes Amusements Social news

70% 63%

58% 57% 48% 20% 23% 22% 13%

Researchers into reading habits would almost certainly cast a jaundiced eye at the high percentage who claim to have read newspaper editorials within the past twenty-four hours. They have learned to be suspicious of people who say they read the editorials more than the comics. And basis for scepticism was unwittingly provided in the fact that, when asked what part of the newspaper they read first, twice as many named the comics,* and six and a ligraphy, amateur dramatics, tropical fish. One man makes a hobby of studying murder trials. (His answers on some other questions: his marriage was the biggest mistake of his life, his wife the most annoying thing in it, and he wishes he were widowed. Caveat uxor.)

[ 73 ]

Harvard

1926

half times as many named the sports pages as named the editorial page. Nine men in ten (92 per cent) have read at least one book during the last couple of months. T h e religious and the art-of-living species of books that today dominate best-seller lists have appealed to only 10 per cent each, whereas: 58% read novels 38% " mysteries 36% " biographies 34% " current history 14% " practical how-to-do-it books 36% " other kinds

The extent of our combined travel abroad in peacetime is indicated by the following table: 23% have visited 10 or more foreign countries 32% " " 5 to 9 21% " " 2 to 4 18% " " only ι, usually Canada 6% have never been outside the United States

Over half of us have been to Canada, France, and the British Isles; between a quarter and a half have been to Mexico, Cuba, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium; and between 10 per cent and a quarter have been to Panama, Czechoslovakia, and Spain; between five and nine per cent have been to Japan, China, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, North Africa, the Balkans, and the Scandinavian countries. Other countries that we have visited include Brazil, India, Palestine, Siam, the U.S.S.R., the Netherlands East Indies, Malaya, Australia, N e w Zealand, Argentina, and South Africa. W e have also managed to get about our own country: 8% have been at least twice to each of 37 or more states 26% " " " " " " " " 2j to 36 states 50% " " " " " " " " 1 3 to 24 states 16% " " " " " " " " 12 states or less

T h e last group includes a provocative one per cent that names * L'il Abner is the favorite, with a two-to-one margin over Terry and the Pirates, Dick Tracy, and Blondie. A haughty five per cent feels that a Harvard education should raise a man's intellect above the comics.

[ 74 ]

The Uses of Leisure only one state or none at all. Since by definition we have all been in Massachusetts, the only inference to be drawn, in view of the large amount of foreign travel, is that the Class contains one per cent of the George Apley type of Bostonian who travels to Europe and to Worcester by way of Dedham.

t 75 J

Pour la Patrie One man in three served ivith the Armed Forces τ should be a source of pride that eight in ten of us (actually 83 per cent) "did his bit" for the community in some way during the war, from service with the fighting forces or the cloakand-dagger enterprises of the OSS to some prosaic job with a government war agency or even as an air-raid warden in the home town. One man in three was in the fighting services. Thirteen per cent were in the Army, 10 per cent in the Navy, five per cent in the Air Force; and the rest were scattered among the Marines, Coast Guard, and the Office of Strategic Services. Another 16 per cent moved into one or another of the multiple civilian war agencies, including W P B (in its tortured personifications), OWI, and OPA. Nearly two in ten ( 18 per cent) were attached to war industries, chiefly in some administrative or executive capacity; and 37 per cent served faithfully, if without much spiritual satisfaction, in local civilian defense organizations. For us, as for most of our contemporaries, the war provided a significant landmark on the road of our maturity. It isn't merely that it led many of us toward foreign lands. (War duties took one man in four out of the country, with Great Britain, France, Canada, North Africa, Germany, Belgium, and the Philippines drawing the most, in that order.) The meaning of the war, so far as our private lives are concerned, is that it has left its stamp upon us. Three men in four now feel that as a result of that experience their lives have in some way been altered, for better or worse. A goodly number (34 per cent) measure the change in terms of personal philosophy. They have decided that their viewpoint about a lot of things is no longer what it was. A smaller number (21 per cent) emerged from the war to find themselves with rather different interests. For one reason or the other, and perhaps because of both, we look back upon that period with mixed feelings. Some (23 per cent) think they are literally the richer for the experience of war; at least with these men it led to better jobs afterwards. Slightly more (24 per cent) are convinced that they

[ 76 ]

Pour la Patrie lost ground because of it — a worse job in the case of four per cent; and 16 per cent philosophize that it affected their marriages, as often for the worse as for the better. And a somewhat embittered two per cent observe that because of the war their taxes have been increased, the value of the dollar has gone down, and with it their standard of living. In any event, the war seems to have aroused in most of us, more than anything that had happened before, a sharpened awareness that time was passing, life was changing, and the world we had always taken for granted was receding rapidly from view. Some, in their comments, note wistfully the weakening of idealism in modern life; as many others seem to have discovered as a result of their war experiences new wellsprings of faith. If one of us hates the war because it destroyed his trust in international integrity, another is grateful to it for having made him appreciate for the first time the American heritage of freedom. Some, with young sons, returned home anxious in the time that remains to be closer to their heirs, to whom our generation seems destined to bequeath so many dilemmas. T w o men met their present wives during the war; one acquired several important new clients as a result of his war connections; several feel that the war, by thrusting them into new positions of responsibility, brought out in them a versatility and resourcefulness of which they had not previously been aware. " I grew up at last" — so cries one, with satisfaction. The experience cut deepest among those who served with the Armed Forces. It is among them that are found the majority who are most acutely conscious of the occurrence of some irreversible change in their careers; of having come back to a worse job, or of having sustained a setback in their fortunes, or of having experienced a pronounced change in their married lives. (Of this group 17 per cent believe their marriages changed for the better, an equal number for the worse.) By contrast, those who labored only with the home guard or who did nothing at all seem hardly to have been touched by the turmoil. If they are not sensible of any marked improvement in their fortunes, neither do they feel that they are any the poorer. Their marriages were affected hardly at all; only one in eight discovered new interests. (No doubt there is a moral here, but it eludes the editors.) [ 77 ]

The Marital Condition The divorce rate is high, but so is marital contentment OST men, when asked, will say that tHey have a happy married life. Our answer is the same, under cover of anonymity.

M

58% 22% 8% 3%

But:

say that they are very happy about their family or home life say that they are contented about it say that they are adjusted to it say that they are resigned to it

4 % say that they are somewhat discontented about it 3 % say that they are actively resentful about it 2 % say that they don't know or are not answering

W e arrived at our present married bliss rather more slowly than the norm for American men. At age 22, according to United States Census figures, 27 per cent of all males in the United States are already married. A t the end of the year 1926, when our own median age was 22,* only seven per cent of us had yet been married to our present wives. In the next seven years, another 52 per cent of us took the so far unrevoked step. After 1933 the annual rate of new marriages declined, but at least one occurred as late as 1950. In our current marital status we differ not at all from other college men of the same age. Class of 1926 Single, never married Married Separated Divorced Widower

6%

91

Male college gradmtes age 40-49 6% 90

2

Of those who are not now married almost all wish that they were. Nineteen of the twenty-six bachelors wish that they were married; so do fifteen of the sixteen who were at the moment separated, divorced, or widowers. Of the men now married 97 per * Up until that time a majority of us had had no sexual experience with women. According to Dr. Kinsey, this prolonged virginity is quite typical of college men, though not of men whose education stopped when they were younger.

[ 78 ]

The Marital Condition cent would stay married if they had the choice, but whether or not they would all stay married to the same women is another question. The divorce rate among us has been higher, and there have been more multiple marriages, than is the case with college graduates in general, or with graduates of the same college generation:

Among those who have married:

Class of 1926

Married twice or more Divorced once or more

13

College graduates in general

College graduates age 40-49

6%

8%

5

8

Furthermore, one man in six confesses that although he has never been divorced, he might have been but for finances, social pressures, religious scruples, responsibility to children, and the high cost of alimony. One man says that none of these things kept him from seeking a divorce, only that he was too proud to admit that he had made a mistake. One-half of those who at one time or another considered divorce are now apparently glad that they did not take the step: they are now, in fact, contented with their family and home life, and some are very happy about it. Nine in ten of those who have married and 85 per cent of the total class have children. From the aggregate number it appears that the Class and its wives have almost, but not quite, reproduced themselves, the average being 1.98 children per member of the Class, or 2.34 per member who has had any children at all. But we're not finished yet. One man reports "no children yet but one on the way," and another reports "one in the nursery and one in the oven." The following table shows our output of children as compared with that of other college graduates: No. of children among those who have married

None

1

3 or more

* 22% have three children. 8 % have four children.

Class of 1926 10%

17

40 33 *

Male college graduates age 40-49 17%

21

34

28

2 % have five children. 1 % have six or more (the largest number being eight).

[ 79 ]

Harvard 192 6 The Class census of children by age groups per 100 men answering the questionnaire is as follows: Under 5 6-11 12-17 18 and over Total

Boys 12.6 30.7 38.0 21.1 102.4

Qirls 12.6 26.9 37.8 18.4 95-7

Total 2J.2 57.6 75.8 39-5 198.1

Only three per cent of the Class so far report any grandchildren. Eight men have one grandchild; four have two; and one has three.

[ 80 ]

The Women We Married The distaff view

Τ

•^HE wives answering the separate questionnaire addressed to them revealed, under cover of secrecy, a present age distribution ranging from thirty-six to fifty-three, with a median of forty-four. Perhaps because women are more sensitive about gray hair than men, 84 per cent say that they now have at least a little as against only 43 per cent acknowledged by their husbands. Originally, in the gray-free courting past, brunettes outnumbered the blondes nearly two to one. Only 7 per cent of us married redheads. In the half of the total marriages which occurred after 1932, only 12 per cent of the brides were blondes, compared with 29 per cent in marriages which occurred before that date. This is a sociological phenomenon upon which the editors do not presume to comment. For 93 per cent of our present wives, the marriage to us was their first; for the remaining 7 per cent, all married since 1932, it was the second marriage. There is a popular myth that smart men are likely to choose dumb women. Presumably, Harvard's entrance requirements being what they are, we can be defined as at least comparatively intelligent. Yet, in contradiction to the myth, and in confirmation of Darwinian theory,* 70 per cent of us chose women bright enough to enter college, and 52 per cent of our wives — threequarters of all who entered college — achieved the bachelor's degree (with a handful also earning a master's degree or doctorate). Alumnae of Smith, Wellesley, RadclifFe, and Vassar are the most prevalent among our wives, with a large assortment of others ranging westward to Stanford and eastward to London and Poitiers. Three-quarters of all our wives (74 per cent) have held fulltime jobs, mostly before marriage. When they bury us, as most of them can actuarially expect to do, we can rest in the grave with * Despite the recent rise in women's enrollments in colleges, Princeton '35 selected brides with somewhat different educational attainment: 4 1 per cent graduated from college.

[ «I ]

Harvard

1926

some confidence that intelligence and an earlier knowledge of the world of affairs will no doubt enable our widows to provide means supplementary to the life insurance and inadequate savings that will be our legacy to them. The wives were asked how many members of the Class of 1926 they know besides their husbands, and how many Harvard men altogether. The answers: 1926 Don't know any others ι to j others 6 to 10 li to ι j 16 to 20 21 to 2 j More than 25 Just a few Lots of them Don't know

Total Harvard men 10% 27 24 12 8 5 9 ι 2 3

None ι to it to 21 to 31 to 41 to More

10 20 jo 40 50 than jo

o 16% 21 17 3 6 37

Thus all the wives can speak about Harvard men with some knowledge, and about two-thirds can speak on the basis of knowing more than a score. Having qualified these wives as experts, we asked what adjectives they would apply to Harvard men generally and which of these they would apply to their own husbands. The average wife came up with exactly three and a half adjectives, just over half of which were obviously intended to be complimentary, and 20 per cent were unmistakably uncomplimentary. The remainder were two-edged or merely descriptive. Discarding such one-of-a-kind appellations as wonderful, terrific, socially acceptable, awful, ungrammatical, and thick-waisted, we can obtain a composite description of ourselves by ranking the characteristics of Harvard men according to the number of women using each kind of adjective. First the bouquets: 37 per cent of these charming and intelligent women use words like intelligent, keen, alert, bright, clever. 34 per cent call us courteous, friendly, gentlemanly, decent, sympathetic, etc. 20 per cent believe us to be cultured, cultivated, educated, wellrounded, discriminating, well-informed.

[ 82 ]

The Women We Married 18 per cent say we are liberal, progressive, tolerant, broadminded, fair-minded, unprovincial. 17 per cent measure us in terms of personal liking, such as charming, pleasant, interesting, beguiling, witty, personable, likable, humorous. 15 per cent call us poised, confident, or level-headed. 10 per cent attribute to us the characteristics of honesty, loyalty, integrity, dependability. 8 per cent praise our patriotism, public spirit, civic-mindedness. 8 per cent call us capable, competent, creative, adaptable, hardworking, and independent. T h e Opposition benches are equally at home with the thesaurus of abuse: 16 per cent call us snobbish, clannish, snooty, class-conscious, uppity, or patronizing. 11 per cent say we are stuffy, humorless, pompous, bombastic, undemonstrative, boring, and poor mixers. 10 per cent are of the opinion that we are opinionated, provincial, biased, narrow-minded, limited, parochial, or hidebound. 9 per cent call us conceited, cocksure, self-satisfied. 6 per cent say we are smug and complacent. 6 per cent use words like arrogant, rude, sarcastic, or cussed. 4 per cent just call us intolerant. A certain subtlety can be discerned in some of the adjectives that might at first glance be considered flattering. In the upsidedown semantics of our times it is hard to tell precisely what a woman has in her mind when she calls a Harvard man intellectual, or merely bawdy. It is barely possible that this particular woman might enjoy a b a w d y sense of humor — the Elizabethans did. A n d intellectual — that word could be two-edged, and so could be almost all the adjectives gingerly catalogued in the following list: 11 per cent call us intellectual. 8 per cent call us conservative. 6 per cent call us cosmopolitan, j per cent say we are serious. 4 per cent say we are aggressive. 3 per cent use each of these words: reserved, sophisticated, superior. 2 per cent use each of these adjectives: ambitious, bookish, casual, dignified, individualistic, positive, proud, self-contained, self-assured, and suave.

[ 83 ]

Harvard 1926 i p e r c e n t use e a c h o f these 3 2 o t h e r s ; b a f f l i n g , b a l d ,

bawdy,

bibulous, brainy, c o c k y , convivial, critical, curious, idealistic, n a ï v e , n o n - c o m m i t t a l , p e r s i s t e n t , p i p e - s m o k i n g , ished,

precise,

risible,

proper,

scholarly,

looking,

tired,

prosperous,

smart, traveled,

studious, tweedy,

quiet,

successful, urbane,

pol-

Republican, superiorand

well-

groomed.

There were 91 cases in which adjectives applied to Harvard men generally were not conferred by the wives upon their own husbands. It is heartening to note that half of these adjectives were uncomplimentary. For example, out of the 9 per cent who call Harvard men snobbish all but 2 per cent exempt their own husbands, and the husbands are also exempted either in whole or in the majority from the adjectives "arrogant," "boring," "clannish," "humorless," and "smug." In some of the other cases, however, a certain note of bitterness can be detected. Three per cent of the wives exempt their husbands from the adjective "confident"; 2 per cent say that Harvard men generally are "thoughtful" but not their own husbands; and 1 per cent exclude their husbands from such terms as "interesting," "bright," "educated," "uncollegiate," "witty," "prosperous," "ambitious," and "liberal." More than half the class wives (58 per cent) have decided that Harvard men make very good husbands; * 28 per cent think they make good ones but not very good; and 4 per cent say that they are not quite up to par. The remaining 13 per cent did not answer this question, many excusing themselves with the explanation that they are not in a position to generalize. But one comment should be particularly gratifying to all 10,000 men of Harvard. It is that of a wife who says that Harvard men make much better husbands than Princeton men, and that she ought to know because she had been married to a Princeton man before. Harvard men also make good fathers, with 52 per cent of the wives rating them very good; 31 per cent good; 2 per cent not quite up to par. Only 1 per cent found them bad fathers. * Wives who know more than the average number of Harvard men are more likely to call them confident, liberal, arrogant; they are less likely to call them cultured, courteous, intelligent, kind, or snobbish. The ones who know the most Harvard men are also somewhat less likely to rate them as very good husbands generally. Those who have been married longer than the average are more likely to call Harvard men aggressive, competent, confident, and gentlemanly; less likely to call them charming, honest, and liberal — and they are also less likely to exempt their husbands from the word snobbish, and from other derogatory phrases. The ones who have been married a shorter time, perhaps still basking in the glow of a more recent marriage, are more likely to rate Harvard men as very good husbands.

[ 84 ]

The Women We Married And there's one woman who falls right in the middle. This particular wife is typical of the whole group in color of hair and degree of grayness, in age, in occupation, in education both at college and high school, in year of marriage, in home ownership. She at first refused to generalize about Harvard men as husbands because she had tried only one of them. As an individual she rated him very good, both as a husband and as a father. And then came this comment: "Come to think of it, an education from Harvard, or any college of good standing, does encourage some objectivity, which is necessary to being married somewhat happily — ditto to being a father."

[ 85 ]

The Pursuit of Happiness It still eludes ι j per cent of us HE state of happiness being a highly desirable, if not essential, aspect of the human condition, it should be of considerable moment to most of us to discover how, as a group, w e have fared in this respect. A key to a man's state of mind is the catalogue of the things in his life that he most regrets. W e were asked what has been the biggest mistake that we have made so far. A significant aspect of this question is that it was borrowed bodily from a nation-wide Gallup poll, and in consequence our judgment on our worst mistakes can be compared with the national norm. Here again, it is plain, we depart from the typical Americans. Where the latter, including the college graduates among them, are inclined to blame themselves twice as much for not educating themselves more wisely or widely, as they do for choosing the wrong job, or other forms of career mistakes, we reverse the pattern. Our answers:

T

Taking the wrong job, going into the wrong kind of business or profession Mistakes made while acquiring an education, failure to take advantage of it, failure to go on to graduate school Marrying the wrong woman, marrying too soon, getting married at all N o t marrying, not marrying sooner N o t having more children, and failure to start raising a family soon enough Failure to take advantage of opportunities, being too retiring, unambitious, easy-going, trusting people too much Overwork, taking on unnecessary obligations Living in the wrong place N o regrets Couldn't single out any one mistake A l l other comments N o answer

19% 13% 8% 3% 2%

j% 1% 3% 2% 7% 17% 19%

The catalogue of miscellaneous major blunders includes: illadvised speculation in 1929; getting back into the market too soon [ 86 ]

The Pursuit of

Happiness

after the crash; failure to sell short; overeating; starting to smoke; neglecting the home for business; voting for Franklin D. Roosevelt and not voting for Franklin D. Roosevelt; wasting time; taking too little part in community life; too much diversification of interests; relying too much on the advice of older people; placing too much confidence in business associates; joining the Communist Party; too much sex in earlier years; buying too large a house; drinking too much; a youthful indulgence in arson; and, in one instance, misappropriation of funds — that hint of embezzlement referred to earlier. Life consisting, even under the best of circumstances, of an unconscionable number of inconveniences, the next question was: What do you consider to be the most annoying thing in your everyday life? The answers: Finances, high cost of living, shortage of money, too many bills Inconsiderate people, stupid people People in the office, my secretary, dumb colleagues, associates, superiors Traffic, crowds, noise Commuting N o t enough time, too little free time Answering the telephone, unwanted phone calls, and interruptions Getting up in the morning T h e N e w Deal, the Democratic administration T h e subways Necessity of earning a living Routine, petty details Shaving M y own inefficiencies and indecisions T h e family and children M y wife; my wife's criticism and chatter M y job Taxes 111 health, colds, indigestion, headaches Clients, patients, and customers

8%

6% 5% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2%

2% 2% 2%

In addition to these more general annoyances, a miscellaneous ι ι per cent of the Class supplied the following items: road hogs, cocktails, parties, too many neighbors, the international situation, radio and television commercials, steam heat, mirrors too low to look into, revolving doors, questionnaires, living in too small an

[ 87 ]

Harvard 192 6 apartment, competitors, insomnia, canasta, in-laws, blasphemy, and a nagging feeling that civilization is going to the dogs. Here, too, we depart somewhat from the Gallup norm. We are less bothered than our fellow citizens by "stupid" and "inconsiderate" people (perhaps another manifestation of tolerance); despite our predominant Republicanism, we are less irritated by the New Deal; but despite our relatively higher incomes, we are more irked by financial problems and the high cost of living. If our annoyances seem trifling, our sources of greatest satisfaction are solid. We rank them in this order: 32% 11% 10%

M y family, m y home life M y wife, m y marriage M y children Coming home from work M y job, m y work M y friends M y health

5%

18% 4%

There are others (2 per cent) who say that the most satisfactory thing in their lives is to be able to help other people, and smaller groups who find the deepest pleasure in the following things: Opportunity for spiritual enrichment A sense of accomplishment or achievement, of "contributing m y share," and of having these achievements recognized b y others T h e variety of activities and problems, the fact that life is full, swift, and interesting around the clock Freedom to pursue personal interests, opportunity to do what w e like, the sense of personal independence Freedom from debt, an adequate salary T h e community T h e cocktail hour Leisure time and week-ends G o o d food A capacity f o r enjoyment Just being alive A n d one cryptic judgment: " A certain woman"

We now come to the general question of happiness. Samuel Johnson has said, "No one can enjoy happiness without thinking that he enjoys it." The question was put in this form: "Balancing [ 88

]

The Pursuit of

Happiness

one thing against another, and taking them all into account, do you consider yourself happy?" T h e affirmative answers are a reassuring 83 per cent.* A few (2 per cent) are unable to decide whether they are happy or unhappy. And 15 per cent say they are not happy, or think they are not; and if they think not, then by Dr. Johnson's definition, they must be unhappy. T h e possible ingredients of a modern man's state of happiness are endless; but with a view of isolating the more obvious ones that might bear directly upon our own collective situations, w e were asked how w e felt about our present situation in the community, our present state of health, our business and careers, and our home lives and our families, in terms of being either resentful, somewhat discontented, resigned, adjusted, contented, or very happy about them. T h e composite answers: Business Position and career in the progress community I am actively resentful about I am somewhat discontented with I am resigned to I am adjusted to I am contented with I am v e r y happy about

State of health

1%

4% 22

'3 4 '4 44

4 II

33 23

22

Family and home life 3%

8 6 15 36 32

4 3 8 22

58

It is plain that the biggest source of discontentment, like the judgment on the worst mistake, is connected in some w a y with our position in business or the rate of progress in our careers; and that the principal source of the greatest happiness, like the judgment on daily satisfactions, is the family. T o explore further the role of the job as an ingredient of happiness, or its absence, three questions were asked: " W h a t do you think is the one most important thing in making a person happy in his job? " W h a t is the second most important thing? * There are no direct comparisons for this figure. T h e best that has been found after diligent searching is the report from Princeton '35 that 67 per cent of that class are happier now than they were at Princeton — a statistic which contains its own commentary.

[ 89 ]

Harvard

1926

" W h a t one thing is most likely to m a k e people u n h a p p y in their j o b s ? " H e r e are the answers t o the first and second questions: Most important Interest in the job, a true liking f o r it, and enjoyment in it A sense of achievement; belief in the organization; a feeling that the job is worth while and that one's contribution really counts; pride in doing a good job Aptitude f o r the job; the knowledge that one is being allowed to make full use of abilities Being appreciated by and having the respect of others; fair treatment; an opportunity to get ahead; being advanced on merit; recognition of one's contribution Adequate pay Sympathetic bosses and management; good w o r k ing conditions; a cooperative, understanding employer; confidence in one's superiors Congenial associates; decent people to work with; cooperation f r o m fellow workers; getting along with them Responsibility; a chance to make one's own decisions; having authority; being one's own boss A sense of security in the job General contentment; happy home life All other answers (including a clergyman who says, " T h e realization that I am offering glory to G o d " )

30%

Second most important 10%

17

6

12

4

10 8

11 26

6

12

y

16

y 4 3

3 4 2

2

2

It is f u r t h e r illustrative of o u r general outlook, t h o u g h

not

unique a m o n g men, that b e f o r e adequate p a y w e rate interest in the job, the sense of achievement, an aptitude f o r the job, and the appreciation of others.* T h e third question, relating t o the p r i m a r y causes of u n h a p p i ness in the job, b r o u g h t f o r t h just about the same

findings

in

reverse: * Industrial workers answering the same question (put by DuBois) also ranked a decent wage below the satisfaction of having a good boss, good working conditions, steady work, and being interested in their job. It is their wives who attach first importance to the paycheck.

[ 90 ]

The Pursuit of Happiness Most important Lack of interest in the job; dull routine; too much regimentation; a yearning for something better Lack of appreciation from others; non-recognition of merit; no chance for advancement; the feeling of being stuck in a rut Lack of aptitude for the job; unsuitable work; the wrong job Unsympathetic bosses and management; a nagging boss; an unintelligent superior Inadequate pay Absence of security; fear of ending up at the bottom Uncongenial associates; office politics; bickering; friction T h e lack of a sense of achievement or accomplishment; the feeling that the job isn't worth doing; being a small cog in a big wheel General unhappiness L a c k of responsibility; no opportunity to make decisions A l l other answers

18% 17 13 11 11 8 7 7 2 1 7

Among the miscellaneous sources of discontent in the job the sense of private frustration is uppermost. But a sombre thread of self-reproof runs through the comments. Several, talking about people in general, appear projectively to blame themselves for overweening ambition; one or two for setting false goals for themselves; a few for being subjected to too much pressure; and others for their own laziness. One man telescoped his answers to all three questions as follows: "I do not believe there is one general most important thing for being happy or unhappy in a job. If a man has a large family and no independent means, the level of his pay may well outweigh all other considerations. If another man has some means, or is used to receiving ample pay, social conditions might be very important. If another has a clearly defined bent, such as fine art, or science, he is not likely to be happy in a job which does not make use of that bent." When the answers to these three key questions are analyzed in relation to a man's degree of contentment or discontentment with his business and career progress, the same answers turn up about equally among those who are resentful or discontented, among those who are resigned or adjusted, among those who are contented or very happy about their careers. There is only one significant exception: those of us who are contented or very happy in our jobs are more apt than the malcontents to talk in terms of [

91

]

Harvard 1926 being interested in the job, or liking our work. But the small minority who relate happiness in the job to general contentment may well be close to the truth. Men who are contented or happy in their careers tend also to be contented or happy about their position in the community, their family and home life, and the state of their health. All four attitudes are highly correlated. When the various scales of attitude are cross-tabulated, the family emerges as the greater source of satisfaction, and the job as the lesser. For example, 53 per cent are relatively more contented about their family and home life than they are about progress in their careers. Only one-fifth as many show a reverse pattern. By the same kind of test the family also takes precedence over community status and health, while business progress trails them. The four specific attitude scales are also directly related to the total feeling of happiness: Generally happy

Generally not happy

Feeling about Health Resentful and discontented Resigned or adjusted Contented V e r y happy Feeling about Position in

$% 21 38 33

24% 24 28 2j

9 19 46 26

43 18 32 6

21 14 36 28

53 24 18 1

4 8 23 6j

24 29 21 24

Community

Resentful and discontented Resigned or adjusted Contented V e r y happy Feeling about Business and Career

Progress

Resentful and discontented Resigned or adjusted Contented V e r y happy Feeling about Family and Home

Life

Resentful and discontented Resigned or adjusted Contented V e r y happy

With us the sense of happiness or contentment about home life is also interwoven with marital history: [ 92 ]

The Pursuit of Happiness 10%

of those w h o are very happy in this respect have been married more than once, compared with 1 9 % of those w h o are less than contented. of those w h o are very happy have had a serious problem with uxorial frigidity, compared with 1 8 % of those w h o are less than contented.

9 % of those w h o are very happy have been divorced at least once, compared with 28% of those w h o are less than contented. 6%

of the very happy ones say that they might have been divorced if it weren't for financial, religious, or social pressures, compared with 66% of those w h o are less than contented.

Or, having regard to the effect of divorce upon a feeling of happiness, the situation might be expressed this way: in the group who describe themselves as very happy, a majority of those who ever considered divorce have actually been divorced and remarried; in the less-than-contented group, a large majority of those who have ever considered divorce have not done anything about it. And children have something to do with the question too — the very happy marriages contain more children. It is noteworthy also that the minority who call themselves unhappy go to church much less often than do the happy majority, although even the happy majority don't go very much, as we have seen. Instead, the unhappy few are more prone to put their faith in psychiatry: 53 per cent of them, against 20 per cent for the happy ones, have either consulted a psychiatrist or feel that they ought to. One man observes that he knows very well why he's unhappy — "I haven't had a vacation in four years and expect to feel better soon, thank you, because I am just starting off on one." And one who wasn't quite sure whether he was happy or not had this to say: "It would be pretentious to say I'm unhappy. I deserve to be and rather expect to become so, but cheerfulness will always break through."

[ 93 ]

Appendix About the survey and its validity of every fact in the foregoing report would require the budget-smashing printing of some two hundred pages of detailed tables. The questionnaire from which most of these tables were derived was a twenty-page affair containing 134 numbered questions. At this date it can be confessed that in order to keep the questionnaire from appearing as long as it actually was, there were many instances where several related questions were combined under one number, and that actually each member of the Harvard Class of 1926 was asked for upwards of 600 separate pieces of information, ranging from a simple check mark to indicate whether he plays chess, to a statement in his own words of what he thinks is most important for children to get out of their high-school education. There have been plenty of questionnaires addressed to college men both while in college and afterwards, but none has come to hand which attempted to cover as much ground as this one did. Before the survey itself came Operation Guinea Pig, a necessary step in any sound research project. A draft (the third) of the questionnaire was mailed to a selected handful of classmates, whose answers, when analyzed, provided a means of evaluating each question for clarity and pertinence. The final questionnaire, based on the pre-test experience, was ready for mailing early in August, 1950. The following returns were received: OCUMENTATION

D

Number of questionnaires mailed originally Returned for bad addresses Net mailing Questionnaires received, too facetious to use Entirely or nearly unanswered Too late for tabulation Usable replies

739 5 734 = 2= 6= 9= 450 =

100% 0.3% 0.8% 1.2% 61.3%

The question is always properly raised in direct mail investigations as to whether the people replying are truly typical of the entire group. T o what extent do 450 questionnaires truly represent the Class of 1926? This question was approached in two ways. First, on the statistical advice of Dr. Raymond Franzen, Harvard '17, the replies were analyzed for internal consistency, comparing the first group of 150 questionnaires (the easiest ones to get in) with the third group of 150 questionnaires (which required considerable prodding to get in). The theory is that the questionnaires which required the most

[ 94 ]

Appendix prodding would most nearly approximate the characteristics and the views of the men who failed to answer at all. This analysis showed no real differences in attitudes toward Harvard, membership in Harvard Clubs, recent contacts with classmates, church attendance, belief in the corruptibility or decency of mankind, hobbies and interests, marriage history and family size, political and social attitudes, occupation, income, savings, or a general feeling of success or failure. Some biases were, however, suspected as a result of this analysis and fortunately the suspicions in some cases could be verified. Richard Edsall agreed to undertake an analysis of men replying or not replying, or at least of those who said they had, the list being compiled from the postcards in the possession of the Class Report Committee (see below). He found these facts by checking back to the Senior Album and to previous anniversary reports: ι. The men who went to public high schools as against private prep schools were less likely to answer the questionnaire. 2. Men who indulged in no extracurricular activities at all while in college were less likely to answer the questionnaire. 3. Those men who spent less than the four full years at college were less likely to answer the questionnaire. Those biases are all of one piece. The men who felt less close to the class or less a part of Harvard were less likely to respond to any class communications, including the current survey. In this connection, Edsall's comment is important: "There is no point in merely noting the fact that the classmen who attended public school were less likely to reply unless we figure out why, and what to do about it in the future. The only possible reason I can see for men who attended public high school being less likely to answer this confidential questionnaire, is that they felt less involved, possibly less accepted by the class and its leadership while they were in college. All four of the officers during our Freshman year were graduates of private schools. All four the Sophomore year were private school graduates. T w o out of the three during the Junior year came from private schools. There were 24 class officers in our Senior year, and the class album gives information on the school background of 23 of them. Twenty-two out of the twenty-three were graduates of private schools. "The Class of 1948 had eleven officers its Senior year. Six of them came from private schools, five from public schools. While this is not in direct proportion to the class membership as a whole, it is a much fairer and more balanced representation of the public school graduates than what we had in 1926.1 think this is a very gratifying trend. It is also very interesting to note that the First Marshal in 1948 was Jewish, and the Second Marshal was a Negro. I cannot imagine either of these things occurring in 1926 or any other year at that time. [ 95 ]

Harvard 1926 "It seems pretty clear that in our day at Harvard the private school men were in general running things and not giving adequate representation to the men from public high schools. This could well explain the fact that the graduates of public high schools are less likely to respond today to our questionnaires. "But there is something that we of the Class of 1926 can still do about this. Many of us have sons who may go to Harvard some day, a few of them are already there. W e can still do our best to see that any sons of ours who go to Harvard help to prevent any such condition of allowing the private school graduates to run class affairs. "Incidentally, lest anyone suspect me of bias in this comment about private school graduates running the class while we were in college, I would like to note the fact that I was one of the private school graduates myself. "All in all, I think it is clear that the results of the confidential questionnaire can be taken as a pretty good composite picture of the class with these exceptions — they do not properly reflect our members who graduated from high schools, nor those who spent less than four years as undergraduates, nor those who completely devoted themselves to studies and did not engage in any extracurricular activity. This last point seems entirely natural, almost inevitable, because the men who didn't go in for sports or organizations in general were those less interested in social and class activities. "Of course this analysis does not mean that, merely because one graduated from high school or spent less than four years as an undergraduate or engaged in no extracurricular activities, therefore that person necessarily did not send in a reply. A large number of all these groups did send in replies. Sixteen per cent of those who did reply had two out of three characteristics that seemed to make men less likely to reply, and 3.9 per cent had all three of those characteristics. However, among those who did not send in the confidential questionnaire, 26.3 per cent had two of three characteristics and 7.8 per cent had all three of the characteristics making people less likely to reply, showing again clearly that these three things made men less likely to fill in the questionnaire." There are two other suspected biases which Edsall had no means of checking from the class lists: the men with stronger religious beliefs (which is not the same thing as church attendance) appear somewhat less likely to answer, and there is also a clue in the internal analysis and in comments received by the Class Report offices that some men failed to answer because they thought the questions were too flippant or too personal on some subjects. These two biases may be related to each other. In any event, wherever there was a suspected bias, cross-tabulations were run looking for possible effect of this bias on answers. In only

[ 96 ]

Appendix two cases was the bias large enough to be statistically significant, and even in those two cases the overall conclusions of the report are not affected. One of these two biases is that the more religious members of the class are more likely to be Republicans, so that perhaps the Republican majority, as reported here, should be slightly larger. And, so far as the other kind of bias is concerned, the only statistically significant difference is that public high school graduates are more likely than private school graduates to be consulted about going to Harvard by young men not related to them; but when they are consulted, both groups give the same advice. The differences between groups within the class in their answers to the questions were subjected to statistical tests before any conclusions were drawn from them. Any gambler knows that, in tossing a coin a limited number of times, heads and tails will seldom turn up in exactly a fifty-fifty proportion. The laws of chance will cause differences, sometimes in one direction, sometimes in the other; usually a small difference, but occasionally a larger one. The same laws of chance can cause differences between random selections of people within a larger group. It was therefore necessary to make sure, for example, that income differences between Republicans and others in the class were actually larger than might have been found by chance in a purely random division of the class. And for another example, when the class doctors failed to say that it is important for college students to learn to think, a computation of the probabilities was required to make sure that we were dealing with a genuine (if unexplained) psychological phenomenon, and not with a chance variation. These and all other internal comparisons cited without qualification in the report have been thus validated. A statistic about the questionnaire: the replies of 450 men required the punching of 144,000 holes in 1800 punch-cards. But in spite of this volume of information, the survey leaves many questions unanswered. If the Classes of '27 and '28 wish to undertake a similar project, we of the Class of '26 can suggest to them quite a few questions to which we now wish we had the answers. Since many of the questions were highly personal, it was recognized that extraordinary precautions should be taken to assure the anonymity of respondents. Accordingly, the answered questionnaires were to be mailed unsigned direct to Recording & Statistical Corporation in New York, which was to handle the machine tabulations. And a postcard saying, "You can check me off the list — I've finished and mailed the Confidential Questionnaire" was to be signed and mailed to the Class Report Committee in Boston. Still further precautions were found to be necessary: the detailed examination of the individual questionnaires and the editing and coding of comments were handled by DuBois staff members who had no personal knowledge of any members of the [ 97 ]

Harvard 1926 Class, and hence could not guess identities from any combination of answers. The same precautions were followed at Recording & Statistical Corporation. Now that the analysis is completed, the original questionnaires have been destroyed. The tabulating punch-cards, however, have been preserved and are being offered to the Laboratory of Social Relations at Harvard for possible further analysis of certain questions. All tabulations, computations, and other records of the survey are filed in the offices of Cornelius DuBois & Company at 17 East 42nd Street, New York.

[ 98 ]