1947, Harvard: "Faculty Decision Drops War Science Majoring"

[billcorr]

Faculty Decision Drops War Science Majoring | News | The Harvard Crimson

Another wartime expedient was liquidated yesterday when a meeting of Faculty of Arts and Sciences members voted to abolish the

www.thecrimson.com

Faculty Decision Drops War Science Majoring
Action, Effective in Semester, Establishes Physical Science As New Concentration Field
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED
January 8, 1947

Another wartime expedient was liquidated yesterday when a meeting of Faculty of Arts and Sciences members voted to abolish the War Service Sciences field of concentration, effective next term.
To replace the War Service Sciences major, a field of concentration in Physical Sciences will be established. Administration by a Faculty committee and conformation to normal distribution requirements were specified for the new program.

Requirements for concentration demand that each students pass a total of seven approved courses selected from astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, meteorology, mineralogy, geology, applied science, and physics.

Included in the program are Mathematics A, Physics A, or B or D, Chemistry A or B, and at least three courses not regularly open to Freshmen, of which at least two must be other than military science or naval science courses.

Not more than two courses in military science or naval science may be counted among the seven courses and then only with the approval of the committee. Mathematics C may not be counted for concentration, nor may more than one of the two available half-courses in the philosophy of science (Physics 15, Physics 16) be selected.

A proposed amendment to the rule that not more than two courses regularly open to Freshmen may be used to meet concentration requirements grants the Committee on Educational Policy the authority to make exceptions in programs of concentration submitted by departments to the Committee on Educational Policy.
As an added measure, returning Harvard veterans were allowed to obtain degrees as "War Service Science majors" on the strength of in-service science credits.
Yesterday's motions to drop the program, presented by the Committee on Concentration in War Service Sciences, was recommended to the Faculty by the Committee on Educational Policy.

 

[billcorr]

This man got a degree in War Science:

(Stumbled across this field of study when reading up on "Some Like It Hot")

 

[MProulx]

The end of an era the begining of a new one.

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The end of an era the begining of a new one.

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

Yeah they should't have given academic majors for free to the returning veterans. This soft treatment made these men weak and they went on to create the '70s oil crisis.

(Translation: I'm struggling to see the relevance of this crap adage here.)

On topic: I never really thought about it, but I suppose it makes sense for universities to offer more military minded education in middle of a major war (during peace such education being left largely to military academies). I wonder if it was the usual practise world around at the time?

 

[Rubidium]

Many US universities (especially land-grant universities*, which trace their origin back to the Morrill Land-Grant Act during the Civil War, or its 1890 extension) still have "Military Science" programs. They are mainly for their Reserve Officer Training Corps programs (the director is generally officially a "Professor of Military Science"), and generally don't offer it as a full-fledged major (although it may be a minor). Ironically the service academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc.) don't have separate "Military Science" programs, because everyone is headed for the military and takes appropriate courses as part of their core curriculum.

*The idea of using land-grants to promote a system of universities focused on "practical" arts like agriculture and engineering, and affordable to the common man, had been floated before the Civil War, but the South had been opposed to spending federal funds to educate mostly Yankees, so it went no-where until they seceded. Even then, the Morrill act that created the program included military science as a third focus area, so that it could be justified as a war measure.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

Strong men create hard times, hard times create weak men, weak men create good times and good times create strong men.

I find mine a bit less silly but only a little bit.

 

[billcorr]

Yeah they should't have given academic majors for free to the returning veterans. This soft treatment made these men weak and they went on to create the '70s oil crisis.

A bit of a Rorschach's test, eh?

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

A different interpretation pertaining to the World War II veterans might be:

"Hard times" = Depression + WW2

"Strong men" = those people who survived that era

"Good times" = Going to school on the G.I. Bill (USA), starting businesses and families, going back to work.

"Weak men" = their children...children of the '60s. "Flower Power" “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out”

"Hard times" = _____________ (moral dissolution?)

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Strong men create hard times, hard times create weak men, weak men create good times and good times create strong men.

I find mine a bit less silly but only a little bit.

To twist more correct version out of that adage I'd go with: Good times can obscure and permit weakness, while hard times may allow strong more opportunity to stand out. But I don't think that's quite right either, e.g. see the best Roman emperors thread and debate there that some of them are undervalued simply because they were dealt a bad deck.

A bit of a Rorschach's test, eh?

Apt, given that Rorschach's test is largely nonsense.

 

[MProulx]

Strong men create hard times, hard times create weak men, weak men create good times and good times create strong men.

I find mine a bit less silly but only a little bit.

It is much more silly.
Weakness does not beget goodness. Weakness brings about stuggle.
Weak men will never bring anything good to this world. All human advances came from someone who had to strength to rise above and create change in a world of weakness. Not someone cowering in a corner because they didn't want to make waves.


On topic, It was a reference to the late 40s-50s being good times, where the need for "war science" was no longer needed but in that same respect, when men of war are no longer needed, men become weak and the cycle repeats. The desire to end war shouldn't come at the cost of educating people about war. The best war is the one that isn't faught because it has no weak ground to fester in.

 

[Barsoom]

It is much more silly.
Weakness does not beget goodness. Weakness brings about stuggle.
Weak men will never bring anything good to this world. All human advances came from someone who had to strength to rise above and create change in a world of weakness. Not someone cowering in a corner because they didn't want to make waves.


On topic, It was a reference to the late 40s-50s being good times, where the need for "war science" was no longer needed but in that same respect, when men of war are no longer needed, men become weak and the cycle repeats. The desire to end war shouldn't come at the cost of educating people about war. The best war is the one that isn't faught because it has no weak ground to fester in.

Apart from all the other nonsense, the factual basis for your statement is wrong. The post-WW2 era saw the establishment of the US national security apparatus, putting the country on a permanent Cold War footing. It is also the era when strategic studies and security studies established themselves, first in think tanks and gradually in civilian universities.

Many US universities (especially land-grant universities*, which trace their origin back to the Morrill Land-Grant Act during the Civil War, or its 1890 extension) still have "Military Science" programs. They are mainly for their Reserve Officer Training Corps programs (the director is generally officially a "Professor of Military Science"), and generally don't offer it as a full-fledged major (although it may be a minor). Ironically the service academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc.) don't have separate "Military Science" programs, because everyone is headed for the military and takes appropriate courses as part of their core curriculum.

*The idea of using land-grants to promote a system of universities focused on "practical" arts like agriculture and engineering, and affordable to the common man, had been floated before the Civil War, but the South had been opposed to spending federal funds to educate mostly Yankees, so it went no-where until they seceded. Even then, the Morrill act that created the program included military science as a third focus area, so that it could be justified as a war measure.

Military science is a rarety in universities around the world. AFAIK the UK is the only country that kept War Studies programs throughout the whole post-WW2 era up to the present. Students could go study military strategy and tactics in military history programs, explosives and ballistics in physics, logistics management, aerospace engineering, navigation and maritime science, etc. etc. So rather than dissolving into nothingness, the field was divvied up by adjacent academic disciplines.

One reason for this is the impossible range of subjects in a military science field. Research methods and other academic skills vary too widely between all those different fields to make a comprehensive package that can also be taught in 3 or 4 years for a bachelor's degree. In this sense the splitting fits an overall trend to academic specialization in the 50s and 60s which placed increasing emphasis on research methods. It doesn't mean the research topics disappeared and certainly doesn't mean their graduates didn't get to work for the military.

Some military academies resisted this trend for a while but that cost them academic standing. Accreditation as a university-level degree program depends on getting valuation from organizations representing those universities; in my experience they're quite happy to accept a focus on educating officers but they're not willing to compromise on academic standards. West Point figured out it was simply easier to split its military training off from its academic coursework and make its students pass two separate curricula; that way all the military training didn't need to be accredited while the scholarly pursuits could fully adopt the university standards, including specialization. Other military academies either accepted vocational school status or they gradually adopted the same dual framework.

 

[Rubidium]

Military science is a rarety in universities around the world. AFAIK the UK is the only country that kept War Studies programs throughout the whole post-WW2 era up to the present. Students could go study military strategy and tactics in military history programs, explosives and ballistics in physics, logistics management, aerospace engineering, navigation and maritime science, etc. etc. So rather than dissolving into nothingness, the field was divvied up by adjacent academic disciplines.

One reason for this is the impossible range of subjects in a military science field. Research methods and other academic skills vary too widely between all those different fields to make a comprehensive package that can also be taught in 3 or 4 years for a bachelor's degree. In this sense the splitting fits an overall trend to academic specialization in the 50s and 60s which placed increasing emphasis on research methods. It doesn't mean the research topics disappeared and certainly doesn't mean their graduates didn't get to work for the military.

Some military academies resisted this trend for a while but that cost them academic standing. Accreditation as a university-level degree program depends on getting valuation from organizations representing those universities; in my experience they're quite happy to accept a focus on educating officers but they're not willing to compromise on academic standards. West Point figured out it was simply easier to split its military training off from its academic coursework and make its students pass two separate curricula; that way all the military training didn't need to be accredited while the scholarly pursuits could fully adopt the university standards, including specialization. Other military academies either accepted vocational school status or they gradually adopted the same dual framework.

The world as a whole, yes. As I noted, it's not uncommon today in the United States, where ROTC is integrated into many universities, and often includes a "minor" in Military Science (or Naval Science for NROTC). It's only part of the curriculum (and administered as its own program within the university) but still part of the university with classes and the like. No one majors in Military Science in those programs, but they may still graduate with a minor in that program to go with their major in a traditional academic field, and other students theoretically may enroll in their classes (which have a separate "Military Science" or "Naval Science" listing in the course catalog) if interested, and there are faculty assigned to the Military/Naval Science Departments. This tendency is particularly true of land grant colleges, which were required to include military science in their curriculum as part of the original Morrill Acts that funded them. If you go to the course catalog of any land-grant (and many other colleges; ROTC programs are common) you'll see a "Military Science" section with courses listed for students to enroll in. As ROTC cadets will join as very junior officers (2nd Lieutenants in land/air services, Ensigns in the Navy), the focus of these classes is mostly on leadership/team management, although there is also some introduction to things like strategy and the like.

I suspect part of this difference may be due to how US undergraduate education is structured compared to most other countries. US colleges/universities expect that students will take a significant number of courses outside their major (and indeed, generally require them to) in a way that is different from many other countries. It's also why a bachelor's degree in the US is invariably at least 4 years (unless you have earned undergraduate credits beforehand, such as through an Advanced Placement test, and even then many institutions limit how many of those can count towards early graduation). In this context, adding a parallel set of course requirements for future officers is easier than it is in other educational systems (which tend to have fewer "electives" built into their baccalaureate programs).

The US service academies offer academic majors and keep much of the nonacademic side of the professional military training (drills/parades/etc.) as its own, separate entity (often with a separate chain of command entirely from the academic side), but even the academic side obviously includes a heavier focus on military topics (for instance while many US colleges require a history course of all their graduates, I suspect the US Naval Academy is the only one to require one specifically in naval history of all their first year students), and many of the faculty are active-duty military.

And of course at the Graduate/Post-Graduate level you have the various Staff Colleges which are their own entities.

 

[Barsoom]

The world as a whole, yes. As I noted, it's not uncommon today in the United States, where ROTC is integrated into many universities, and often includes a "minor" in Military Science (or Naval Science for NROTC). It's only part of the curriculum (and administered as its own program within the university) but still part of the university with classes and the like. No one majors in Military Science in those programs, but they may still graduate with a minor in that program to go with their major in a traditional academic field, and other students theoretically may enroll in their classes (which have a separate "Military Science" or "Naval Science" listing in the course catalog) if interested, and there are faculty assigned to the Military/Naval Science Departments. This tendency is particularly true of land grant colleges, which were required to include military science in their curriculum as part of the original Morrill Acts that funded them. If you go to the course catalog of any land-grant (and many other colleges; ROTC programs are common) you'll see a "Military Science" section with courses listed for students to enroll in. As ROTC cadets will join as very junior officers (2nd Lieutenants in land/air services, Ensigns in the Navy), the focus of these classes is mostly on leadership/team management, although there is also some introduction to things like strategy and the like.

I suspect part of this difference may be due to how US undergraduate education is structured compared to most other countries. US colleges/universities expect that students will take a significant number of courses outside their major (and indeed, generally require them to) in a way that is different from many other countries. It's also why a bachelor's degree in the US is invariably at least 4 years (unless you have earned undergraduate credits beforehand, such as through an Advanced Placement test, and even then many institutions limit how many of those can count towards early graduation). In this context, adding a parallel set of course requirements for future officers is easier than it is in other educational systems (which tend to have fewer "electives" built into their baccalaureate programs).

The US service academies offer academic majors and keep much of the nonacademic side of the professional military training (drills/parades/etc.) as its own, separate entity (often with a separate chain of command entirely from the academic side), but even the academic side obviously includes a heavier focus on military topics (for instance while many US colleges require a history course of all their graduates, I suspect the US Naval Academy is the only one to require one specifically in naval history of all their first year students), and many of the faculty are active-duty military.

And of course at the Graduate/Post-Graduate level you have the various Staff Colleges which are their own entities.

True, US undergraduate education is structured differently and lasts longer compared to other Western countries, but other countries do have majors and minors, you just normally take one of each. This difference is indeed in the balance between the number of courses you take for the major vs. how many outside of the major. US universities have a laudable goal of educating the whole person instead of creating only narrowly focused specialists. However, university students in Europe come in with a degree from a gymnasium or grammar school or some other type of high school that focuses on fast learners, so they have a stronger basis than US high school graduates. More to the Military Science point, I'm not sure how this makes a difference. There are minors outside the US, including in Strategic Studies, Conflict Studies and so on; so why not a minor in Military Science?

I think the answer has more to do with other countries not having an ROTC program. And I think the main reason for that is simply the size of our militaries compared to the US. Even when we created reserve officers out of draftees, the Netherlands sent them to the military academy. There used to a second officer school but its focus was on turning NCOs into officers (as well as training NCOs). We do have graduate and post-graduate courses for advanced officers. There are other models of military education, for example the UK military academy at Sandhurst only offers a post-graduate degree but not a university-equivalent one; but no one else, to my knowledge, offers ROTC-like programs at regular universities.

If you want to know what happened to Military Science after WW2, then, other countries' military academies are best compared to West Point and Annapolis. To my knowledge all of the ones that retained university status (as well as those that regained it, like ours) have the same split between academic education and military training. They don't offer any courses equivalent to ROTC Military Science courses because their content is already being taught in the non-academic part of the program. I think the reason Military Science courses were retained in ROTC programs at civilian universities precisely because they didn't have that option. The infrastructure at those universities is not built to accommodate cadet barracks and they don't have the extra staff needed for 24 hour oversight, so they lack the usual means to instill esprit de corps outside of academic classes.

Now, I have to say I taught ROTC cadets while I was doing my PhD in the US and I've taught for quite a long time at the Netherlands Defense Academy but I don't have any experience with ROTC outside of the classroom. If you do, please inform us.

 

[JodelDiplom]

The end of an era the begining of a new one.

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

Seems to be a quote from a fictional work of entertainment.

Personally, I prefer star wars as the go to source for whenever I want to cite catchy trash philosophy.

 

[MProulx]

om a fictional work of entertainment.

Pretty much every quote you'll ever see is fictional with a historical person attached to the quote. For that fact, pretty much everything we are taught is either embellished or fictional. Starting with religion and ending with world history.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Pretty much every quote you'll ever see is fictional with a historical person attached to the quote. For that fact, pretty much everything we are taught is either embellished or fictional. Starting with religion and ending with world history.

Ah, that famous Napoleon quote. Fact: He really said it and he's not a fictional person.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

This man got a degree in War Science:

View attachment 598595

(Stumbled across this field of study when reading up on "Some Like It Hot")

Walter Matthau should have a Naval Studies Degree from Yale to balance this out.