The Jan. 18 letter by Daniel Cohen ‘67 and subsequent responses (letters, March 7) have stimulated me to offer an alternative view. There may be areas of study for which Cohen’s procedural approach may be appropriate, but certainly not the one for which I was responsible.
I taught urban economics for 22 years, focusing on socioeconomic issues rather than mathematical models – economics of urbanization and its evolution, slums, sprawl, transport systems, crime, and cultures. Within this subject matter, there are profound problems and questions to be raised – and rarely definitive or consensual answers or policies.
In my lectures my goal was not to provide answers, but rather to provide frameworks within which the important socioeconomic questions could take coherent form – and to motivate my students into identifying both the detailed issues involved and formulating their own approaches to possible solutions.
To this end I gave my class a final exam during the first lecture, along with the course outline. Students’ marks were based upon selecting three of the questions and writing essays of 2,000-plus words presenting their understanding of the issues, the reasoning underlying their approach to finding a solution – and thorough references to support their answers. One-on-one discussions were encouraged. The exam papers were due at the last lecture. Grades were awarded to each student on his or her own merit. The overall performance of every class was invariably near the top of the grade scale.