EH.T: 2006 EHA Teaching breakfast.Notes on 2006 EHA Teaching Breakfast.

The folllowing are based on notes taken at the 2006 EHA teaching breakfast this past Saturday in Pittsburgh. I did the best I could based on my jottings but hardly claim this complete or fully accurate. Notes on 2006 EHA Teaching Breakfast. Prepared by David Mitch, Department of Economics, University of Maryland Baltimore County. NOTE THESE ARE BASED ON NOTES TAKEN AT THE BREAKFAST. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO GET CORRECTIONS FROM PARTICIPANTS. THIS IS NOT BASED ON A RECORDED TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT WAS SAID. The following describes the proceedings of the Teaching breakfast conducted at the 2006 EHA meeting in Pittsburgh. Will Hausman, chair of the EHA Teaching Committee called the breakfast to order at 6:50 a.m. on Saturday, September 16. The following were in attendance: Price Fishback, Michael Haines, William Hausman, Joshua Rosenbloom, Richard Sutch, Susan Carter, Winifred Rothenberg, Joyce Burnette, Andrew Mitchell, Gavin Wright, Alan Olmstead, and David Mitch The breakfast focused on using the Millennial edition of the Historical Statistics of the U.S. in teaching economic history. In preliminary more informal discussion, mention was made of a website at the University of Virginia entitled something like Gateway to the Historical Census. This was recommended as a way of providing students information on the methods that have been used to compile the census. Will Hausman indicated that he typically assigned each student in his class a given state to work on. Michael Haines commented on errors in census data and issues having to do with how units of observation are defined. Susan Carter and Richard Sutch then proceeded to give an overview of the Historical Statistics project. They noted that the 5 volumes weighed in at a total of 29 pounds. They reviewed the history of previous editions of the Historical Statistics. They mentioned that in 1990 a Cliometrics Data Committee contacted census officials regarding coming out with a new edition and how that led to a group of scholars with the imprimatur of the Census Bureau to work on developing the Millennial edition of the Historical Statistics. They pointed to the 70 introductory essays included in the volume, mentioning that these were aimed at a general audience. While these essays were not specifically intended for undergraduate students, they were meant to be comprehensible and accessible to them. They also mentioned the decision to put notes on data sources adjacent to the tables they referred to rather than at the back of chapters in order to raise the likelihood these notes would be consulted. Winifred Rothenberg asked why the Colonial period statistics were put separately from other data series. Richard Sutch replied that scholars compiling other data series were generally not experts in the Colonial period . He said that Colonial data had its own distinctive sources and problems, mentioning in particular issues related to currency units. He also noted that this had been done in previous editions. He said similar considerations were behind the decision to put Confederate statistics in a separate section. At this point, Gavin Wright made a presentation about a data analysis assignment he gives to students in his undergraduate economic history course. Until now, this assignment has been based on the 1976 Bicentennial edition of U.S. Historical Statistics. The assignment is: To assemble historical data for the purpose of addressing some question about the American economic past, and to use the data to generate at least one original table and one original graph. The table and graph should be accompanied by a brief statement of what you believe the data show for American economic history. The assignment to be turned in including table, graph, and text is not to exceed 5 standard pages. The assignment sheet he passed out included a list of 16 possible topics. He said that he developed the assignment out of frustration with getting term papers in which students cited numbers but had not gone to the sources of the numbers or thought about how the numbers had been constructed. The assignment did not entail archival work. But he found that once he asked students to look into how numbers had been constructed they typically got into data construction issues more fully. He found that by requiring students to construct one original table and one original graph that this forced them to think about the decisions required to do this. This included issues such as the units to be used to label axes and how to allow for inflation and price changes over time. Although the assignment was only 5 pages, students had to give some explanation for the choices they made in constructing their table and graph. He noted that knowledge of econometrics does not make one better at finding or understanding data sources. He was a bit dissatisfied that most of his current suggested topics and issues were not historical. He wanted to use the assignment to get students to go beyond thinking in terms of timeless generalities. He would like to come up with more specific historical puzzles and challenges with the assignment. He also made some comments on how he has students go beyond what is in the published historical statistics volume. He tells students they should not just repeat the numbers straight out of the published volumes. They should go to the sources notes for the numbers they use and think about some way of changing the numbers and making some possible revisions. Turning to the on-line edition of the Millennial historical statistics, Gavin Wright and Richard Sutch did not recommend using the on-line graphing capability. They thought it was too limited. Instead they recommended down-loading the numbers and working with a spreadsheet. They thought the step of downloading was a good exercise and then using the spreadsheet to develop graphs was a good set of tools for students to master. Richard Sutch mentioned that the decision was made to put raw data in the historical statistics. That way students would have to do further calculations to answer the questions they were using the numbers to address. The calculations would generally be elementary but some calculations were required. He also mentioned an assignment that Roger Ransom assigned in which students were asked to do calculations to construct a graph and write a paper on the story behind the graph. Price Fishback mentioned asking students to write about what a graph means. Josh Rosenbloom mentioned the issue that measurement generally requires theory and discussed assignments involving union membership in which students were asked to think about how the reason why one is trying to measure union membership would influence how the measures were constructed. He talked about how he urged students to read the source notes behind union membership figures and to identify what the source notes indicated about the choices that had to be made in compiling statistics. He said he spent a full class period going through this. Susan Carter mentioned that she had found topic selection was part of the learning experience. She requires each student to pick a topic that does not overlap with other students. Students post topics to avoid overlap. She has found that even with as many as 100 students, each student can find a topic that does not overlap with others. Discussion then turned to the distinctive features of using the on-line version of the Historical Statistics. Josh Rosenbloom mentioned that the on-line search feature was helpful. It was mentioned that having on-line access helped avoid the congestion issue with only one or a few hardcopy versions available in the reference section of libraries. Some people mentioned that one could do graphing on screen with the on-line version. Some people mentioned difficulties in getting pricing information for the on-line version from Cambridge. Susan Carter acknowledged that she had heard of these difficulties and that they were working on them. She encouraged people to email her if they are having problems getting pricing information. The point was also mentioned that it can take time for libraries to get the on-line version up and running; there could be lags of a few months. It was also mentioned that there could be lags in negotiating the price of the on-line version. Finally it was mentioned that investments should be made in training librarians to use this resource. The meeting adjourned at 8 a.m. so participants could go to the first morning session. >