The past dozen years have seen the ascendancy of the Economics Department to Harvard's no. 1 field of concentration. But its ever growing responsibility to the College has not aroused the Department to the necessity for gathering the loose ends of its organization into at least a semblance of order.

Ec A is perhaps as satisfactory a course in Robinson Crusoc economics as can be found. If furnishes that whole set of "tools of analysis," of sweeping assumptions and jargon, which the student will find indispensable ballast as he goes on in economics. The non-concentrators, however--and by requirement of the Division they are numerous in the course--are left with their tools in mid-air, without the slightest hope of ever touching the ground of reality. To carry out its dual function with justice to all, Ec A could profitably use more case material, and risk an occasional reference to government, unemployment, communism, and even Ft. Knox.

Not even in its present form is Ec A intended to complete the theoretical groundwork of the concentrator. For that purpose the Department offers two basic courses in theory--Ec 2a, a half-year course, and Ec 1, open only to candidates for Honors. While 2a is too dull to be controversial, Ec 1 is a sprightly study in confusion. Discussion is lively and disorderly; agricultural tractors are freely converted into printing presses; and everybody catches on just in time to earn the expected A or B. Anchored only to the graphs on the blackboard, Ec 1 floats freely in the realm of abstractions. If, as must be supposed, the course was intended to furnish a solid theoretical basis for the study of applied economics, it can only be regarded as a pleasant but thorough failure.

A different sort of "vacuum" approach is taken by the Department in the field of applied economics. Here one course is taught in apparent ignorance, or at least disregard, of the other. Some overlapping is inevitable where subject matters are related; but greater care in administrative coordination could well reduce the abundant duplication of material in Ec 41, 43, and 45, without destroying the unity of each. Even more noxious is the overlapping of lectures within one and the same course, which is quite current in 41, and not unknown in 45 and 61. Closer collaboration between the different lecturers in each course would readily cure the evil.

By far the most glaring loophole in the Harvard Department of Economics is in the field of labor and social reform. The field is represented by exactly one and one-half courses: 81 (Labor) and 11b (Socialism). Since the dismissal of progressive Ray Walsh in 1936, 81 has been the lame duck of the Department; until this year it was so hopelessly bound up in generalities as to leave the C.I.O. entirely unmentioned. Ec 11b is--partly by nature of its material--the only course which lays sufficient emphasis on the dynamic aspect of economics.

The case of the Harvard Economics Department is not beyond hope. Of late, its sturdy front of conservatism has been cracked in spots by the spirit of reform. Shots of realism have been injected into Ec 61 and 81; and even Ec 1 works this year under what may approximate a "plan." An indelibly indicated trend is unmistakable; and, other factors remaining equal, the total utility of the Department may well be expected to rise.