EH.Net Mailing List Archive: EH.Teach

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

David Mitch (mitch at umbc.edu)

Tue Sep 19 20:26:25 EDT 2006

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.