An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

I DO not see why I should write about the Amherst report in the midst of these more provocative reports from inventors and revolutionists, except perhaps that the mountains look higher if there is a mouse standing nearby. Our report dealt simply with the question of whether Amherst should plan to become larger or not. We were not asked to plan a new college or to work out any major changes. We were asked merely how to make the college consistent, since for ten years the enrollment had actually been around I050 but the approved official maximum size was 965. We also were asked if and how we were going to contribute to the absorption of the presumed flood of future students, of which we might be able to take .oooi per cent as our share. A committee of the faculty looked into this problem for hours and hours and hours and had a very pleasant time together. It was the first committee which ever looked at the problem of size of Amherst without coming to the conclusion that the college should become smaller. Instead we decided that the college could become somewhat larger. I might say that previous reports were always clear in their conclusion, but I examined them all and never was able to find out the basis on which this conclusion for contraction had been reached by any previous committee, except that intimacy among the students and close relations with the faculty were alleged to be an important feature of a very small college. We were not impressed with the notion that everybody knows everybody else in a small college and that this relationship has some special value. As we examined it, we felt that perhaps a college of more than twenty souls lost what one might call intimacy and that there was no particular advantage in being able to call people by their first names when the number got up into double figures. There are other advantages of the small college, but none which we felt would be threatened by an increase in the size of the Amherst student body even if it meant a jump from I,OOO to I,500 students. We did, however, go a little further to look at various possible ways in which Amherst might accommodate more students, thinking of different methods of utilizing our resources. In connection with this we considered the problem of greater utilization of our physical resources. The business advisors suggested that we had a campus which was not fully used and that we ought to figure out ways of using it more of the time. So we began examining various possible alternative schedules. We were also interested in the possibility of our educating students in three years. I must say that we came to the conclusion that there was very little economic advantage in using the Amherst campus for students through the summer in the normal way with normal charges because we would probably lose money, even though we didn't have to pay anything for buildings and grounds. Assuming that we would have to expand our faculty proportionately and that we would not raise our tuition rate except proportionately to a longer school year, then the direct costs of extending the period would probably be more than we would collect as tuition. We already were giving scholarships to a third of our boys, and we would probably have to give even more scholarships for this added part of the summer, at least under present financing procedures. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that Amherst boys as a rule seem to earn substantial sums during the summer period. We are supported very largely by returns on endowments and by gifts, and these we receive for twelve months and spend over nine. These sources of income presumably would not expand if we had a larger student body except after a long period of time.' Some day this larger alumni body might give more to the college, but we were not impressed with this as a sufficient gain to justify running the college on a twelve-month basis.

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsUnited States Imports and World Trade. Henry G. Aubrey Willard L. ThorpWillard L. Thorp Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Political Economy Volume 66, Number 3Jun., 1958 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/258045 Views: 1Total views on this site Copyright 1958 The University of Chicago PressPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsTariff Procedures and Trade Barriers. G. A. Elliott Willard L. ThorpWillard L. Thorp Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Political Economy Volume 65, Number 4Aug., 1957 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/257945 Views: 2Total views on this site Copyright 1957 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsRailroad Purchasing and the Business Cycle. John E. Partington Willard L. ThorpWillard L. Thorp Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Political Economy Volume 39, Number 2Apr., 1931 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/254208 Views: 1Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.