To the Editor of the Crimson:

Some days ago The Harvard Progressive published the second of two articles by "Karblen Bunde" (Karl Marx, Thorstein Bunde Veblen) in criticism of the teaching of specified undergraduate courses in economics.

His first article, of general criticism, was commented on by several teachers of economics in the April issue. We feel there should be at least a hint from others (graduate students) in the Department of their disagreement with some of Mr. Bunde's judgments.

Our views are based on our experience in advanced courses; and are applicable to other courses only to the extent that good teaching in one division implies good teaching in the other. We think Mr. Bunde's conclusions bear usually a likeness to truth: many of his comments seem reasonable, though marred by a lack of ability to weigh merits in a difficult and complex field against weakness, by a lack of the tolerance and appreciation which would make for a truer kind of truth than his sometimes thin reasoning confidently attains.

There is one professor to whom we feel he is especially unfair. We should not recognize Professor usher's teaching from Mr. Bunde's description. His lectures on the place of invention in social history, on the German historical school, and on the concept of progress--to name a few--have been high points of our year in the Department; and reflect what we conceive to be Professor Usher's capacity for original, careful, and profound analysis. His topic method of treatment has been a useful too in a vast field which responds badly to the integrated treatment we have suffered under elsewhere. As for the reflex of economic forces upon social events, Professor Usher has emphasized them repeatedly as he passed from topic to topic; and at the beginning of the year expressed his extent of agreement and disagreement with the specific theory of the economic determination of history. We remember with appreciation his humane and genuine interest in all subjects and in his own students.

We are sorry if Mr. Bunde's year in economic history was not well spent; we think that ours was.

We may also express our dissent with his valuation of another teacher with whom we happen to be acquainted. We feel that Professor Chamberlain is not only a good, but an excellent teacher, who in 101 made a subject of much inherent difficulty consistently interesting, and sometimes intriguing. He is, as clearly, outstanding in fairness and friendliness. Mr. Bunde probably much underestimates the continuing value of Professor Chamberlin's work in Monopolistic Competition.

Mr. Bunde's judgments are often interesting and acute; and the sum effect of his criticism will probably be good. The Economics Department will not pay very much attention to Mr. Bunde's strictures, which will be well; but they may pay a little attention, which will also be well.

Seven Graduate Students in Economics.