Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Examination Questions. Economics Courses, 1912-13

 

 

For the academic years 1912-13 through 1915-16 there are complete (or at least nearly complete) sets of examinations for many departments, including economics available at hathitrust.org. In this posting we have final examinations for all economics courses but three for the 1912-13 academic year. Since courses are only identified in these collections by number, I have provided the course titles, instructors’ names and course registration figures available in the annual Harvard Presidential Report for that academic year.

The three courses for which no final examination questions (perhaps the grade was not even determined by examination) were:

Economics 13. Statistics. Theory, method, and practice. Professor Ripley. (6 Graduates, 1 Senior, 3 Radcliffe: Total 10)

Economics 24. Topics in the Economic History of the Nineteenth Century. Professor Gay. (4 Graduates, 1 Senior: Total 5)

Economics 33 1hf. Tariff Problems in the United States. Professor Taussig. (5 Graduates, 3 Seniors: Total 8)

FINAL EXAMINATIONS
1912-13

Economics 1. Principles of Economics
Economics 2a lhf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century
Economics 2b 2hf. Economic and Financial History of the United States
Economics 3. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises
Economics 4a 1hf. Economics of Transportation
Economics 4b 2hf. Economics of Corporations
Economics 5. Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation
Economics 6a lhf. Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems
Economics 6b 2hf. The Labor Movement in Europe
Economics 7. Theories of Distribution and Distributive Justice
Economics 8. Principles of Sociology
Economics 9. Principles of Accounting.
Economics 11. Economic Theory
Economics 12 lhf. Scope and Methods of Economic Investigation
Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848
Economics 16. The History of Modern Socialism
Economics 23. Economic History of Europe to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century
Economics 31. Public Finance
Economics 32 2hf. Economics of Agriculture, with special reference to American conditions

 

________________________________________

Economics 1. Principles of Economics.

Professor Taussig and Dr. E. E. Day, assisted by Messrs. Heilman, Jones, Burbank, Crosgrave, and Eldred.
1 Graduate, 21 Seniors, 93 Juniors, 307 Sophomores, 21 Freshmen, 38 Other. Total 481.

 

[p. 38-39]

ECONOMICS 1

  1. To what extent and in what manner do the following contribute to the formation of capital: (a) a government loan; (b) the stock exchange; (c) commercial banks; (d) the corporate form of business organization?
  1. Explain “margin of cultivation.” Distinguish between the intensive margin of cultivation and the extensive margin of cultivation. What is the relation between (a) the margin of cultivation in agriculture and the price of a bushel of wheat; (b) the margin in gold mining and the value of an ounce of gold?
  1. Assume that a monopoly produces a commodity under conditions of constant cost. What determines the extent to which the monopoly price will be above the price which competition, if existent, would establish? Illustrate by diagram.
  1. The rentals from a New York office building amount to $50,000 a year. The building is worth $200,000. To provide for insurance, depreciation and such fixed items, $10,000 is expended annually. The current rate of interest upon investments of equal security is 5%. What is the value of the land?
  1. What is “dumping “? What induces it? To what extent is it dependent upon (a) monopoly conditions; (b) tariff barriers?
  1. Explain briefly why (a) the rates of wages are generally higher in the United States than in Germany; (b) higher for plumbers than for unskilled laborers; (c) for domestic servants than for women employed in shops and factories. Suppose a socialist community apportioning wages on the basis of equality of sacrifice: would these differences persist?
  1. How are the wages and the number employed within a particular industry affected, immediately and ultimately, by the invention of labor-saving devices in that industry?
  1. Explain: (a) railroad rebates; (b) over-capitalization; (c) public service industries; (d) “reasonable restraint of trade”; (e) stoppage at the source.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 2a lhf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.
Professor Gay, assisted by Dr. M. T. Copeland.
16 Graduates, 14 Seniors, 44 Juniors, 17 Sophomores, 3 Freshmen, 5 Other. Total 99.

 

[p. 39-40]

ECONOMICS 2a1

  1. “The effect of Peel’s measures of 1842-1845 was to demonstrate how much the trade and industry of the country might be encouraged by the readjustment of fiscal burdens.” Explain.
    Is a similar readjustment needed in England at the present time? Why or why not?
  1. (a) How was the capital for the construction of railroads prior to 1870 obtained in the different European countries? Why?
    (b) Why was the railroad policy of Prussia modified after 1870? With what results?
  1. Compare the organization of the wool manufacturing industries in England, Germany, and France at the present time, explaining to what the differences are due. How far are these differences typical?
  1. Compare the English and Belgian methods of relieving the recent agricultural depression.
  1. In which industries have Kartells been formed in Germany? Why? Compare with the movement for combination in England.
  1. Explain the statement in regard to English agriculture that “after the middle of the eighteenth century the two revolutions, the industrial and the agricultural, which are indeed only manifestations of the same scientific and commercial spirit, go hand in hand and supplement one another.” Does this statement apply also to Germany? Why or why not?
  1. Discuss briefly —

(a) English ” Friendly Societies.”
(b) Pitt’s Sinking Fund.
(c) Zollverein.
(d) French shipping subsidies.
(e) Charter and line traffic.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 2b 2hf. Economic and Financial History of the United States.
Professor Gay, assisted by Dr. M. T. Copeland.
18 Graduates, 22 Seniors, 50 Juniors, 27 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 6 Other. Total 124.

 

 

[p. 40-1]

ECONOMICS 2b

  1. “The most important feature of life in a newly settled community is its commercial connection with the rest of the world.” Why? How is this illustrated (a) by the history of the American colonies and (b) by the history of the West?
  1. What were the causes for the decline of the American merchant marine? What attempts have been made to assist its recovery? With what results?
  1. Compare in its main features the economic history of the decade 1830-40 with that of the decade 1880-90.
  1. Compare the conditions which stimulated industrial combinations in the ’90’s with those which resulted in railroad combinations in the ’70’s.
  1. Within the last twelve months the New England Cotton Yarn Company, the U. S. Finishing Company, and the International Cotton Mills Corporation have each undergone reorganization. What was the earlier history of these companies and how far did that history foreshadow the necessity for such reorganizations?
  1. If you were to establish a mill for manufacturing silk goods at the present time, how would the conditions which you would meet in that industry differ from those which confronted a silk manufacturer forty or forty-five years ago? Why have these changes taken place? How far are they typical of the general industrial development of the United States during this period?
  1. (a) Comment on the following statement, which was made in a speech in Congress in 1846. “It is a protective tariff which gives to American industry the only effectual guaranty that it will not be brought down to a level with the degraded labor of Europe. It furnishes the only security that our standard of wages is not to be measured by the cost of production in those countries where the life of the laborer is but an incessant struggle for bread.”
    (b) Judging from the history of the years 1893-1900, as well as from present conditions, is the present year more or less opportune than 1909 for a downward revision of the tariff? Why?

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 3. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises.
Dr. E. E. Day, assisted by Messrs. Ise and F. E. Richter.
3 Graduates, 31 Seniors, 67 Juniors, 16 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 1 Other. Total 119.

 

[p. 41-42]

ECONOMICS 3

  1. What factors favored the monetary rehabilitation of silver in the United States during the 70’s? Which of these factors are still operative? Explain the disappearance of the others.
  1. What banking abuses were most common in the United States early in the nineteenth century? When and how, if at all, have these since been eliminated?
  1. What is the relation between the Bank of England rate and the London market rate of discount when (a) funds are abundant; (b) funds are relatively scarce? In what ways does varying the Bank rate accomplish the protection of the English banking reserves?
  1. What is meant by a free gold market? Are the following such: London; Paris; Berlin; New York? In each case, why or why not?
  1. How will the rate of sterling exchange in New York be affected by: (a) a crop failure in the United States; (b) hoarding of specie in Europe; (c) a slump on the New York Stock Exchange; (d) a banking panic in this country?
  1. “The call-loan market . . . furnishes to the banks of the country under the present organization of banking, their only means of mobilizing their reserves, of liquifying their assets, and of securing flexibility in their lending power.” Explain and criticize. How, if at all, should this feature of our system be changed?
  1. In the equation of exchange given by Professor Fisher, what is the relation of M, M’, V, and T (a) during a period of rising prices; (b) during a period of settled prices?
  1. Describe the crisis of 1873 with reference to: (a) its general antecedents; (b) its more important causes in the United States; (c) its final outbreak in this country; (d) the territorial extent of the reaction; (e) the severity and duration of the subsequent depression.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 4a 1hf. Economics of Transportation.
Professor Ripley, assisted by Mr. Crosgrave.
6 Graduates, 2 G.B., 36 Seniors, 85 Juniors, 24 Sophomores, 3 Other. Total 156.

 

[p. 42-3]

ECONOMICS 4a

  1. Compare the lease with stock ownership as a means of combination, stating the advantages and disadvantages of each.
  1. Show how recent interpretation of the Federal law may conceivably affect the status of railway traffic agreements.
  1. State very briefly the point raised in the following cases: —

(a) Portland Gateway.
(b) Illinois Central car supply.
(c) Alabama Midland (Troy).
(d) Orange Routing.

  1. Have any of the above points been since corrected by legislation; if so in what manner?
  1. Give reasons for the following differences in net capitalization per mile of line:

Union Pacific $65,000         Reading $170,000
Pennsylvania    86,000        Erie            170,000

  1. What particular circumstance materially affects the success of Government ownership and operation:

(a) In Germany?
(b) In Italy?
(c) In Switzerland?

  1. What is the present attitude of the Federal courts toward the proper basis to be used in the determination of reasonable rates?
  1. How effective practically has been the ” Commodity Clause” of the law of 1906?
  1. To whom properly belongs the surplus earnings of a railroad over and above a rate of return requisite to provide an adequate supply of new capital for future development? State your own view, but set forth your reasons fully.

 

________________________________________

 

 

Economics 4b 2hf. Economics of Corporations.
Professor Ripley, assisted by Mr. Crosgrave.
6 Graduates, 20 Seniors, 86 Juniors, 15 Sophomores, 3 Other. Total 130.

 

 

[p. 43-4]

ECONOMICS 4b

  1. Why was the dissolution of the “Tobacco Trust” more difficult than that of the Standard Oil Company? Explain fully.
  1. Indicate certain differences in the eye of the law between monopolization and restraint of trade.
  1. Herewith are two balance sheets of companies A and B respectively. Comment upon them, contrasting one with the other. Which apparently denotes the greater financial stability?
Co. A
Assets Liabilities
Plant $3,500,000 Preferred Stock $5,000,000
Merchandise 1,800,000 Common Stock 15,000,000
Bills Receivable 700,000 Accounts Payable 600,000
Cash 1,400,000
Good-will and Patents 13,200,000
$20,600,000 $20,600,000
 

Co. B

Assets Liabilities
Factories $15,000,000 Capital Stock $65,000,000
Securities owned 18,000,000 Debentures 15,000,000
Merchandise 20,000,000 Surplus 3,000,001
Accounts Receivable 30,000,000
Franchises and Good-will 1
$83,000,001 $83,000,001

 

  1. Name, with briefest possible description in each case, and in order of seriousness, at least five distinct forms of unfair competition in trade.
  1. Do all the foregoing forms of unfair competition affect thgeneral public as well as direct competitors? Does this factor apparently influence the attitude of the courts?
  1. What was the essence of the U. S. Steel Bond Conversion plan? What became of it?
  1. Contrast administrative and judicial forms of controlling monopoly, pointing out the merits of each.
  1. Outline the plan of reorganization of the National Cordage Company. Was it typical of industrial reorganizations in general?
  1. What are the three leading objections to the so-called “holding company “?
  1. Outline what most appeals to you as a feasible plan for dealing with the existing trust problem. State concisely in definite propositions covering all points at issue.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 5. Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation.
Professor Bullock.
6 Seniors, 14 Juniors, 4 Sophomores, 1 Other. Total 25.

 

[p. 44]

ECONOMICS 5

  1. Explain and discuss critically the methods employed in the taxation of land in Germany, France, Great Britain, Australia, and the United States.
  1. Compare the general property tax with the general income tax, considering both the theory and the practical operation of these taxes.
  1. Compare the French, Prussian, and British systems of direct taxation.
  1. Compare the British system of indirect taxation with those of France and the United States.
  1. Discuss the taxation of mortgages in the United States.
  1. What changes in the taxation of personal property have recently occurred in the United States?
  1. Compare the British, Prussian, and Italian income taxes. .
  1. Outline what you consider a satisfactory theory of the just apportionment of public charges.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 6a lhf. Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems.
Professor Ripley, assisted by Mr. Crosgrave.
3 Graduates, 44 Seniors, 19 Juniors, 4 Sophomores, 2 Other. Total 72.

 

[p. 45]

ECONOMICS 6a

Answer the first five briefly

  1. What is sabotage?
  1. What is the ” extended ” closed shop?
  1. What is the principal practical difficulty in the “general strike”?
  1. Is it met by the adoption of any positive policy in France by the “syndicates”?
  1. In the syndicalist programme what is to be the unit in the reorganized state?
  1. Contrast collective bargaining under sanction of the law with its adoption by private arrangement; (a) from the point of view of advantage to the employer; (b) from that of the workman.
  1. What are the four main features of the New Zealand legislation. (Each in a sentence.)
  1. What is the principal demonstrated weakness in the above legislation?
  1. What are three disabilities of the individual workmen in negotiating a wage contract?
  1. Wages for women in domestic service and in manufactures seem out of line with one another. What main difference helps to explain this?
  1. What is the present condition of affairs respecting the closed shop in the United States? Outline the course of events for two decades.
  1. How does the law of conspiracy enter into the decision by courts in labor disputes? How has Great Britain settled it?

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 6b 2hf. The Labor Movement in Europe.
Asst. Professor Rappard.
5 Graduates, 12 Seniors, 9 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 3 Other. Total 30.

 

[p. 45-6]

ECONOMICS 6b

Arrange answers in order of questions. Students who wrote theses will omit the first three questions.

  1. Enumerate five of the effects which Engels says the Industrial Revolution had on the manufacturing population of England. What were Engel’s chief sources of information?
  1. How does Sombart distinguish between (a) Rational Socialism (Utopian Socialism and Anarchism) and (b) Historical Socialism?
  1. What effect, according to Marx, does machinery have

(a) Upon real wages?
(b) Upon nominal wages?
(c) Upon “relative surplus-value”?
(d) Upon “absolute surplus-value”?

  1. Why is it customary to mention the English enclosure movement in dealing with the history of labor in Europe in the 19th century?
  1. What were the historical relations between the doctrines of Godwin, Malthus and Darwin?
  1. What was Chartism? Saint-Simonism? Which was more radical? More socialistic? Give reasons.
  1. Write a biography of Marx (300 to 500 words).
  1. Compare the views of Marx and Vaudervelde on ” Capitalist Concentration.”
  1. Give chapter headings of a thesis on “The Socialist Movement in Germany, 1860-1890” in six or more chapters.
  1. Distinguish between (a) Socialism (b) Anarchism (c) Syndicalism.
  1. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs … To every laborer the entire product of his labor … At first sight, these two formulas are absolutely contradictory. We believe, however, that it is possible and necessary to reconcile them and to complete each by the other.” — Vaudewelde.
    How does the author do this? What practical suggestions does he make for arranging distribution in the socialist state?
  1. What difficulties does Skelton think a socialist state would encounter

(a) In administering the government?
(b) In determining what commodities should be produced?
(c) In distributing wealth?

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 7. Theories of Distribution and Distributive Justice.
Professor Carver.
3 Graduates, 7 Seniors, 13 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 1 Other. Total 25.

 

[p. 47]

ECONOMICS 7

  1. Explain and illustrate the principle of marginal utility and its relation to the value of consumers’ goods.
  1. Explain and illustrate the law of variable proportions and its relation to the value of the factors of production.
  1. Discuss the various criteria of justice in the distribution of wealth.
  1. Explain and illustrate exactly what you understand by self-interest.
  1. How would the single tax probably affect the demand for labor? Would its effect probably be stronger on unskilled than on skilled labor? On skilled labor than on business talent?
  1. How do mechanical inventions affect the demand for capital and for different grades of labor?
  1. Describe one communistic society, giving some account of its origin, the causes of its success if it succeeded and of its failure if it failed.
  1. Outline a program for raising the wages of all the lower grades of labor.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 8. Principles of Sociology.
Professor Carver.
10 Graduates, 41 Seniors, 74 Juniors, 18 Sophomores, 4 Other. Total 147.

 

[p. 47-8]

ECONOMICS 8

  1. What, in your opinion, is the ultimate test of progress? Give your reasons.
  1. Compare the views of Buckle and Peschel as to the influence of geographical surroundings on religion.
  1. What is the relation between the institution of the family and the institution of property?
  1. What place has the genius in social progress? Give your own opinion and state the views on this question of authors whom you have read.
  1. Outline the leading forms of waste labor and of waste land, giving briefly the reasons why each form of waste exists at the present time.
  1. Compare the views of Mill and Ross as to the limits of social control.
  1. What, according to Ross, is the relation of resentment to social order?
  1. What are the reasons for the existence of the ballot? How far would these reasons justify the extension of the ballot?

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 9. Principles of Accounting.
Asst. Professor Cole, assisted by Mr. Eliot Jones.
7 Graduates, 8 Graduates of Applied Sciences, 62 Graduates of Business School, 147 Seniors, 50 Juniors, 2 Sophomores. Total 276.

 

[p. 48-50]

ECONOMICS 9

Save one hour for the last question. It will count as one-third of the paper.

  1. Show by journal entries what should be debited and what credited for the following transactions:

(a) Granting a discount to a customer, for early payment of a bill, so that, though the amount of the bill was $100, he pays but $95.
(b) Paying a lawyer $50 for trying to collect a bill that proves uncollectible, and writing off the debt ($250) as bad.
(c) Collecting $75 as full payment, including interest to the amount of $17, for a debt previously written off as bad.
(d) Giving a friend whose credit at banks is not very good, because he is a new-comer in town, and for whom, therefore, you do not wish to endorse notes, your own note for $1000, with the understanding that he will discount it at a bank, and taking in exchange your friend’s note (for the same amount and time) which you intend to keep until maturity.
(e) Discounting at a bank your friend’s note mentioned in (d), because you find his credit has improved in the public mind and you need the money. [Discount $7.]
(f) Returning to the manufacturers, as unsatisfactory, goods billed at $500 and bought to be sold at $650.
(g) Delivering goods from the store as part payment of clerks’ wages, and allowing 5% discount to clerks. [Retail price $50, clerks’ price $47.50.]
(h) Issuing a stock dividend of $50,000.
(i) Selling a new $2,000,000 issue of stock for $2,100,000. [Corporation’s books.]

  1. A bond table gives the value of $10,000 of bonds for January 1 as $10,366.27, and for July 1 as $10,323.60. On the latter day you collect $250 interest. What entry shall you make for the interest?
    Assuming that the valuation of the bonds was determined on a 4% basis, how could you prove the correctness of the July 1 valuation if you knew that the valuation for January 1 was correct?
  1. Define and discuss the purpose of the following: —

(a) a machine rate,
(b) a life-insurance reserve,
(c) a national-bank redemption fund,
(d) a stores ledger,
(e) a machine ledger,
(f) a controlling account.

  1. Would expense burden enter into a plan of cost accounting for (a) a department store, (b) a hospital, (c) a college, (d) a gas company? Explain briefly how, or why not, in each case.

Remember in solving problems that time and confusion are often saved by the use of journal entries as guides in determining which accounts are affected.

  1. The balance sheet a year ago was as follows: —
Plant $125,000 Capital Stock $140,000
Accounts Receivable 33,000 Bills Payable 10,000
Merchandise 19,000 Accounts Payable 24,000
Cash 5,000 Surplus 8,000
$182,000 $182,000

An abbreviated tentative income sheet for the year just closing gave the following figures: —

Wages $85,000 Other Expenses $71,000
Materials 54,000 Gross Income 240,000

No items relating to the care of property were included in the “other expenses,” and they are now to be provided for. Such items are found on the debit side of the trial balance as follows:—

Depreciation $5,000 Replacement $4,000
Repairs 8,000 Additions 12,000

Supposing the only changes in the balance sheet are those caused by the items shown above (profit or loss and care of property) and that cash absorbs the net effect of changes not otherwise indicated, show the income sheet and the balance sheet for the new year.

  1. Prepare such a tabular statement or statements as an accountant should give to his employers or clients for a business yielding the following figures on three trial balances (of ledger balances) taken at the times indicated.
Trial balance at the opening of business, Jan. 1, 1912 Trial balance, Dec. 31, 1912, before the books are closed Trial balance at the opening of business, Jan. 1, 1913
Dr. Cr. Dr. Cr. Dr. Cr.
Capital Stock $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Bills Payable 30,000 40,000 40,000
Accounts Payable 35,000 37,500 37,500
Surplus 7,000 7,000 9,000
Dividends declared 10,000 10,000
Real Estate and Plant $135,000 $137,500 $137,000
Accounts Receivable 88,200 80,200 80,200
Goods in process 17,000 17,000 20,000
Finished Goods 25,000 25,000 23,000
Raw Materials Inventory 15,000 15,000 35,000
Raw Materials 57,000
Wages 7,000 52,000 2,000
Taxes 200 2,300 200
Insurance 1,000 2,200 1,000
General Expenses 7,500
Sales 113,200
Cash 8,000 2,000 2,000
$289,200 $289,200 $397,700 $397,700 $298,700 $298,700

If you give more than one statement, prepare one at a time, and leave the reconciliation between statements until all are complete.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 11. Economic Theory.
Professor Taussig.
20 Graduates, 1 Graduate at Business School, 4 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 1 Other. Total 31.

 

[p. 50-3]

ECONOMICS 11

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions]

  1. Explain the connection between

(a) the rent of mines;
(b) Carey’s doctrine that the total rent received by land-owners is less than interest on the total investment for improving land;
(c) the earnings of barristers or opera-singers;
(d) the earnings of ” successful ” business men.

  1. “Men are not equal. . . . Those capable of organizing and leading industrial enterprise are in a minority, and are indeed few; hence they can put a price on their services which would be impossible if there were many. Their services are not worth more on this account, but they can get more for them. Because the community needs their services, and cannot perhaps get along without them, they can, if they like, put ” famine prices ” on the commodity (organizing and directing talent) which they have to sell; while, on the other hand, those who have only labor or physical skill, though they are just as necessary, are many, and hence can about as readily be taken advantage of as the others can take advantage.” What have you to say? Can the ” famine prices ” be justified?
  1. (a) “There are, in fact, few no-rent men in actual employment; and the reason for this is clear, since work involves a sacrifice, and it does not pay to incur the sacrifice unless the earnings be a positive quantity. In those times and places in which child labor has been employed, with little regard for the welfare of the victims, labor that was not at the no-rent point, but very near it, has been pressed into service. But, where the sacrifice entailed by labor is, in some way, neutralized by a benefit that work confers, labor which creates literally nothing may sometimes be employed. Lunatics or prisoners may be kept at work, in order that they may secure fresh air and exercise, even though the amount of capital that they use, if it were withdrawn from their hands and turned into marginal capital, would produce as much as it does when it is used by them. In such a case the product imputable to their labor is nil.
    The existence of any no-rent labor enables us to make the rent formula general and to apply it to every concrete agent of production.”
    (b) “The productivity of any capital, whether human or external, will differ with the capital. Men differ in quality, i. e., in productive power, as truly as lands or other instruments differ. Some men have a high degree of earning power and some have not.
    Some men can work twice as fast as others. Some men can do higher grades of work than others. The result is that we find men classified as common manual laborers, skilled manual laborers, common mental workers, superintending workers, and enterprisers.
    Just as we can measure the rent of any land by the difference in productivity between that and the low-rent, or no-rent, land, in exactly the same way we can measure the difference in productivity between men. There is no grade of workmen called the “no-wages men,” but there would be such a grade if it were customary for their employer to pay for their cost of support (as the employer of land pays for its cost), so that only the excess above this cost were to be called wages.”

Compare the two trains of reasoning; give your opinion; and state by what authors the passages were written.

  1. “If the proprietor of superior land were to say, ‘I will take no rent for it,’ this would not make wheat cheaper. The supply would not be changed; for the same quantity would be raised, the marginal amount raised on the no-rent land would be needed and would be bought at the former price, and all other parts of the supply would command the same rate. … It is a striking fact — but one hitherto much neglected — that similar conclusions apply to the product of every other agent ” [capital and labor]. Do similar conclusions apply? Who do you think is the author of this passage?
  1. What three grounds explain, according to Böhm-Bawerk, the preference for present goods over future? Which of them does he conclude to be the most important? State Fisher’s criticism; and give your own opinion on the controverted question.
  1. “In the present condition of industry, most sales are made by men who are producers and merchants by profession. . . .For them, the subjective use value of their own wares is, for the most part, very nearly nil. … In sales by them the limiting effect which, according to our theoretical formula, would be exerted by the valuation of the last seller, practically does not come into play.” — Böhm-Bawerk.
    What is the ” theoretical formula “? and what is the importance of the qualification here stated?
  1. In what sense are the terms “demand” and “increase of demand ” used in the following passages:

(a) “The democratization of society and the aping of the ways of the well-to-do by the lower classes have greatly increased the demand for silk fabrics.”
(b) “The lower price of sugar after 1890, when sugar was admitted free of duty, at once caused an increase of demand.”
(c) “The cheapening of a commodity may mean an increase of demand such that the total sum spent on it will be as great as before, even greater than before.”

  1. Explain the essentials of Veblen’s theory of crises, and state wherein you think it most tenable, wherein least so.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 12 lhf. Scope and Methods of Economic Investigation.
Professor Carver.
2 Graduates, 1 Radcliffe. Total 3.

 

[p. 53]

ECONOMICS 12

  1. Explain verbally, and show by means of an outline, the relation between private and public economics and the main subdivisions of each.
  2. Into what main departments would you subdivide the subject of economics if you were going to write a general text book for college classes. Give your reasons.
  1. What are the characteristic methods of reasoning, methods of collecting information, and methods of exposition in economics? Mention examples, or give illustrations of each. What are the special advantages of each? To what class of problems is each especially adapted?
  1. Comment upon the following: —

“The economist may thus be considered at the outset of his researches as already in possession of those ultimate principles governing the phenomena which form the subject of his study, the discovery of which in the case of physical investigation constitutes for the inquirer his most arduous task; but, on the other hand, he is excluded from the use of experiment.” (Cairnes, pp. 89-90.)

  1. What, according to Warner, are the characteristic methods of determining the causes of poverty? What are the merits and defects of each method? Give illustrations.
  1. Comment upon the statement that “political economy depends more upon reasoning than on observation.” Is this the same as saying that the greatest present need is for sound reasoners rather than for close observers? Would either statement apply to all possible conditions and to all classes of problems?
  1. Discuss Clark’s reasons for describing capital as a sum of money.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848.
Professor Bullock.
7 Graduates. Total 7.

 

[p. 54]

ECONOMICS 14

  1. What significant analyses of economic structure and functions were made by the mercantilists?
  1. Discuss the development of economic opinions as reflected in the writings of Hales, Bodin, Montchrétien, Mun, Petty, Boisguilbert, Cantillon, Vanderlint, and Hume.
  1. Explain the structure and purpose of the “Wealth of Nations,” and give a brief analysis of the doctrines of the first two books.
  1. Discuss the treatment of the subject of population by Aristotle, the Schoolmen, Cantillon, Smith, and Malthus.
  1. At what points did the economic theories of Ricardo differ from those of Adam Smith?

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 16. The History of Modern Socialism.
Asst. Professor Rappard.
4 Graduates Total 4.

 

[p. 54-5]

ECONOMICS 16

  1. Fill out the blanks in the following table according to the Marxian phraseology and theory.
Con-stant capital Vari-able capital Rate of surplus value Capital con-sumed Indi-vidual rate of profit Value of commo-dities pro-duced Cost price of commodities prod-uced Average rate of profit Price of com-modities Deviation of price from value
90 10 50% 20
80 20 50% 10
70 30 50%
  1. “The theory of value which Marx presents is a variation of the familiar labor-value doctrine.” Discuss.
  1. State the Marxian theory of rent.
  1. What is meant by the Bernstein-Kautsky controversy? State three of the principal points involved, with the arguments advanced on both sides.
  1. What, according to Skelton, are the distinctive features of Utopianism? How does Shelton classify the Utopian doctrines?
    What, according to Skelton, are the two “quite distinct interpretations” of which the Marxian materialist conception of history is susceptible?
  1. “In spite of himself, Marx was the last of the classical economists.” How does Shelton justify this assertion?
  1. “Had the third volume of ‘Capital’ appeared at the same time as the first, little would have been heard about ‘exploitation’ from socialist platforms.” Why not, according to Skelton?

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 23. Economic History of Europe to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century.
Dr. Gray.
4 Graduates, 1 Radcliffe. Total 5.

 

[p. 55]

ECONOMICS 23

  1. Discuss the origin and early expansion of capital in Italy, the Low Countries, Germany and England. (One hour.)
  1. Compare the development of copyhold in England with that of Meierrecht in Germany. In what way were agrarian conditions in southwestern Germany different from conditions in the north-west at the beginning of the sixteenth century.
  1. Trace the growth of the mercantile system in England. Has Cunningham’s treatment any bias? Explain.
  1. Describe fully four of the following documents: —

Notularium Johannis Scribae.
An English Pipe Roll.
Royal licenses to export English wool in 1273.
De institutis Lundonie.
Chrysobullium Alexii I.

 

________________________________________

 

Economics 31. Public Finance.
Professor Bullock.
6 Graduates, 1 Junior. Total 7.

 

[p. 55-6]

ECONOMICS 31

  1. How far does the present British system of taxation conform to the maxims of Adam Smith?
  1. How far does the present French system of taxation conform to Smith’s maxims?
  1. How far does the present Prussian system of taxation conform to Smith’s maxims?
  1. How far would the single tax on land values conform to Smith’s maxims?
  1. Compare the general property tax in Switzerland with the same tax in the United States.
  1. What changes in the general property tax have occurred in the United States in recent years?
  1. Discuss fully the opinions of Leroy-Beaulieu or Eheberg concerning the income tax.
  1. Discuss fully the opinions of Leroy-Beaulieu or Eheberg concerning the inheritance tax.

 

________________________________________

Economics 32 2hf. Economics of Agriculture, with special reference to American conditions.
Professor Carver.
8 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior. Total 11.

 

[p. 56]

ECONOMICS 32

  1. What are some of the larger characteristics which distinguish rural from urban life?
  1. Where would you draw the line between large scale and medium scale, and between medium scale and small scale farming, and what are the principal advantages and disadvantages of each?
  1. Exactly what is the distinction between intensive and extensive farming, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
  1. To what system of culture does the horse as a draft animal belong, and what are some of the characteristics of that system?
  1. Where do we find the larger percentage of tenancy in this country, where land is highly productive or where its productivity is low? How would you explain the situation?
  1. Give your ideas as to the function of the middle-man, and to what extent and how that function may be performed by the farmers themselves.
  1. What are the advantages of diversified farming as compared with specialized farming?
  1. Give your ideas as to how country life may be made more attractive to men and women of education and culture.

________________________________________

Sources:

Harvard University Examinations. Papers set for final examinations in history, history of science, government, economics, philosophy, social ethics, education, fine arts, music in Harvard College. June, 1913. Cambridge, MA.

Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1912-13, pp. 57-58.

 

 

Categories
Columbia Courses Curriculum

Columbia. Report of the Dean of the School of Political Science, 1901

I reproduce here the report of the Dean of the School of Political Science at Columbia University for the academic year 1900-01 in its entirety so we have a fairly complete accounting of the graduate education activities of the entire administrative unit within which the Columbia economics department was embedded at the start of the twentieth century. The document provides enormous detail from course registration totals through seminar participants by name and presentations through the work of those on fellowships and finally to the job placements of its graduates. The structure of the report can be seen below from the links to its individual sections:

Course Registration Data
Seminar in European History
Seminar in American Colonial History
Seminar in American History
Seminar in Modern European History
Seminar in Political Philosophy
Seminar in Constitutional Law
Seminar in Diplomacy and International Law
Seminar in Political Economy
Seminar in Political Economy and Finance
Seminar in Economic Theory
Statistical Laboratory and Seminar
Seminar in Sociology
Work of Fellows
Publications under the Supervision of the Faculty
Educational Appointments
Governmental Appointments
Other Appointments

_______________________________________

[p. 114]

 

SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF THE DEAN
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1901

To the President of Columbia University in the City of New York:

SIR:

I have the honor to submit the following report of the work of the Faculty of Political Science for the scholastic year 1900-1901. During the year 268 students have taken courses of instruction under the Faculty of Political Science, of whom 18 were women. Of these 68 students were also registered in the Law School, and 13 in the Schools of Philosophy, Pure Science, and Applied Science.

In the Report of the Registrar will be found tabular statements of the courses of study offered in the School, together with the attendance upon each, as follows:

Group I—History and Political Philosophy [page 270,  page 271]

A. European History. pages 270-271
B. American History, pages 270-271
C. Political Philosophy, pages 270-271

1900_01_HistPolPhilRegistrations1

1900_01_HistPolPhilRegistrations2

Group II—Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence [page 291]

A. Constitutional Law, page 291
B. International Law, page 291
C. Administrative Law, page 291
D. Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, page 291

1900_01_PublicLawRegistrations

Group III—Economics and Social Science [page 264]

A. Political Economy and Finance, page 264
B. Sociology and Statistics, page 264

1900_01_EconomicsRegistrations

[p. 115]

WORK IN THE SEMINARS

Seminar in European History

Professor Robinson. 2 hours fortnightly. 6 members.

The topic treated was the Development of the Papal Primacy to Gregory VII. Each student gave two or more reports on the various phases of the subject, dealing chiefly with the sources.

 

Seminar in American Colonial History

Professor Osgood. 2 hours a week. 27 members.

This course has been conducted as a lecture course and seminar combined. A paper was presented by each of the students and was discussed in the seminar. Among the subjects treated in these papers were:

Royal Charters and Governors’ Commissions;
Royal Instructions to Governors;
Salaries of Governors;
Agrarian Riots in New Jersey from 1745 to 1790;
Pirates and Piracy;
Paper Money in the Colonies;
Career of Robert Livingston;
Relations between the Executive in New York and the English Government;
Policy of the British Government toward the Charter Colonies subsequent to 1690.

A number of papers, also, were presented on subjects connected with Colonial defence.

 

Seminar in American History

Professor Osgood. 1 hour a week. 6 members.

In connection with the work of this Seminar the following Master’s theses have been prepared, read, and discussed:

System of Defence in Early Colonial Massachusetts, Sidney D. Brummer.
The Administration of George Clark in New York, 1736 to 1743, Walter H. Nichols.
The Relation of the Iroquois to the Struggle between the French and English in North America, Walter D. Gerken.

[p. 116]

Relations between France and England in North America from 1690 to 1713, Samuel E. Moffett.
France and England in America from 1713 to 1748, Henry R. Spencer.
Conflict between the French and English in North America, Walter L. Fleming.

 

Seminar in Modern European History

Professor Sloane. 6 members.

The following are the subjects which were discussed and upon which papers have been presented:

The Treaty of Basel, Guy S. Ford.
Hanover in the Revolutionary Epoch, Guy S. Ford.
The 18th Brumaire, Charles W. Spencer.
Beginnings of Administration under the Consulate, Charles W. Spencer.
Origins of the Continental System, Ulrich B. Phillips.
Development of the Continental System, Ulrich B. Phillips.
Napoleon and the Caulaincourt Correspondence, Ellen S. Davison.
Caulaincourt in Russia, Ellen S. Davison.
Custine in Metz, Walter P. Bordwell.
Hardenberg and Haugwitz, Paul Abelson.

 

Seminar in Political Philosophy

Professor Dunning. 1 hour a week. 1 member.

William O. Easton presented an elaborate paper on the Political Theories of Spinoza with Reference to the Theory of Hobbes.

 

Seminar in Constitutional Law

Professor Burgess. 1 hour a week. 27 members.

The work in this Seminar during the present year has been the study of the cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving private rights and immunities under the protection of the Constitution of the United States. Each member of the Seminar has prepared an essay upon the cases relating to a given point under this

[p. 117]

general subject, and has read the same before the Seminar, where it has been subjected to general comment and criticism.

 

Seminar in Diplomacy and International Law

Professor Moore. 2 hours a week. 12 members.

Papers were read as follows:

Decisions of the Courts in the United States on Questions Growing out of the Annexation of Territory, William H. Adams.
The Southwestern Boundary of the United States, James F. Barnett.
The Development of the Laws of War Walter P. Bordwell.
Treaties: Their Making, Construction, and Enforcement, Samuel D. Crandall.
The Diplomacy of the Second Empire, Stephen P. Duggan.
Blockades, Sydney H. Herman.
Diplomatic Officers, William C. B. Kemp.

 

Seminar in Political Economy

Professor Mayo-Smith. 1 hour a week. 9 members.

In addition to reading and discussing Marshall’s Principles of Economics, in which all the members of the Seminar participated, papers were read upon the following subjects:

Trusts in the United States Hajime Hoshi.
Trusts and Prices, Robert B. Olsen.
The Industrial Employment of Women, Charles M. Niezer.

 

Seminar in Political Economy and Finance

Professor Seligman. 2 hours fortnightly. 20 members.

The subject of work in this Seminar during the first term was “The Foundations of Economic Philosophy.” During the second term a variety of subjects was discussed. Each member of the Seminar also made a report at each meeting on current periodical literature in economics, including the literature of the following countries: United States, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan. The papers read were as follows:

[p. 118]

Natural Law and Economics, Robert P. Shepherd.
The Economic Motive, Holland Thompson.
The Law of Competition, Walter E. Clark.
The Theory of Individualism, Enoch M. Banks.
Social Element in the Theory of Value, John W. Dickman.
Theory of Insurance, Allan H. Willett.
Theory of Monopolies, Alvin S. Johnson.
Economic Doctrine of Senior, Albert C. Whitaker.
Bounties and Shipping Subsidies, Royal Meeker.
Legal Decisions on the Labor Question, Ernest A. Cardozo.
Commercial Policy of Japan, Yetaro Kinosita.
Early American Economic Theory, Albert Britt.
The Movement toward Consolidation, Robert B. Oken.

 

Seminar in Economic Theory

Professor Clark. 2 hours fortnightly. 12 members.

Papers were presented on the following subjects:

Labor as a Measure of Value, Albert C. Whitaker.
Value Theories of Say and Ricardo, Robert P. Shepherd.
Rent and Value, Alvin S. Johnson.
Monetary Theories, John W. Dickman.
The Influence of Insurance on Distribution, Allan H. Willett.
Early Socialism, Enoch M. Banks.
Louis Blanc, Royal Meeker.
Fabian Socialism, Albert Britt.
Commercial Crises, Ernest A. Cardozo.
Speculation, Yetaro Kinosita.
Labor Unions in North Carolina, Holland Thompson.
Welfare Institutions, Walter E. Clark.

 

Statistical Laboratory and Seminar

Professor Mayo-Smith. 2 hours fortnightly. 5 members.

The work of the year was devoted to developing the mathematical theory of statistics with practical exercises.

 

Seminar in Sociology

Professor Giddings. 2 hours fortnightly. 12 members.

The following papers were read and discussed.

Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Massachusetts, Edward W. Capen.

[p. 119]

Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Connecticut, William F. Clark.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial New York, George M. Fowles.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Pennsylvania, Andrew L. Horst.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Virginia, Robert L. Irving.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of North Carolina,Thomas J. Jones.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Kentucky, Edwin A. McAlpinJr.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Indiana, Daniel L. Peacock.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Wisconsin, Albert G. Mohr.
An Analysis of the Mental Characteristics of the Population of an East-Side New York City Block, Thomas J. Jones.
A Statistical Study of the Response to Lincoln’s First Call for Volunteers, Andrew L. Horst.
The Charities of Five Presbyterian Churches in Harlem, Robert L. Irving.
The Poor Laws of Connecticut, Edward W. Capen.
Parochial Settlement in England, Bertha H. Putnam.
A Critical and Statistical Study of Male and Female Birth Rate,s Daniel L. Peacock.

 

WORK OF FELLOWS

During the year the following persons have held Fellowships in subjects falling under the jurisdiction of this Faculty:

1. William Maitland Abell, Political Science.

Yale University, A.B., 1887; A.M., 1898.,New York University, LL.M., 1894. Columbia University, graduate student, 1898-1901; Fellow in Political Science, 1899-1900.

Mr. Abell, Honorary Fellow, continued his work in the Seminar in Constitutional Law, and made excellent progress in the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation.

[p. 120]

2. Walter Percy Bordwell, International Law.

University of California, B.L., 1898. Columbia University, graduate student, 1898-1901.

Mr. Bordwell, the holder of the Schiff Fellowship, worked under the direction of Professor Moore upon his Doctor’s dissertation: “The Development of the Laws of War since the Time of Grotius.” He also took part in the Seminars of Professors Moore and Sloane, presenting a paper in each of these Seminars. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

3. James Wilford Garner, Political Science.

Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College, B.S., 1892. University of Chicago, graduate student, 1896-99; Instructor in Bradley Polytechnic Institute, Peoria, Ill., 1899-1900. Columbia University, graduate student, 1900-01.

Mr. Garner worked under the direction of Professor Dunning in American Political Philosophy. Professor Dunning reports that his “Study of the Tendencies Manifested in the Amendments of State Constitutions from 1830-1860” is a noteworthy contribution to science. He also attended the Seminar in Constitutional Law and worked there upon the cases decided by the Supreme Court in the interpretation of private rights under the Constitution of the United States.

4. Alvin Saunders Johnson, Economics.

University of Nebraska, A.B., 1897; A.M., 1898. Columbia University, graduate student, 1899-1901; Scholar in Political Economy, 1899-1900.

Mr. Johnson read a paper in Professor Seligman’s Seminar on “The Theory of Monopolies.” He worked also in Professor Clark’s Seminar, and, in consultation with Professor Clark, upon the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation, “The Classical Theory of Rent.” He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

5. Thomas Jesse Jones, Sociology.

Marietta College, A.B., 1897. Student at Union Theological Seminary, 1897-1900. Columbia University, A.M., 1899; graduate student, 1897-1901.

Mr. Jones worked under the direction of Professor Giddings upon his Doctor’s dissertation, “A Sociological Study of the Population of a New York City Block.” Professor Giddings reports that this dissertation promises to be one of the most minute investigations of modern city life yet undertaken. Mr. Jones also made the annual revision of the list and description of social settlements in New York City which is regularly expected of a Fellow in Sociology. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

[p. 121]

6. Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, History.

University of Georgia, A.B., 1897; A.M., 1898. Tutor in History, 1899-1900. Columbia University, graduate student, 1900-01.

Mr. Phillips worked under the direction of Professor Dunning upon a “Study of the Political History of Georgia,” in connection with which he planned to make researches during the summer in the historical collections at Savannah, Atlanta, and other points in the State. Mr. Phillips also presented several papers on various phases of American Political Philosophy in connection with the course on that subject. He also worked in the Seminars of Professors Sloane and Robinson and presented reports in each.

 

7. Jesse Eliphalet Pope, Economics.

University of Minnesota, B.S., 1895; M.S., 1897. Columbia University, graduate student, 1897-1901: Fellow in Economics, 1898-1900.

Mr. Pope, Honorary Fellow, worked in Seminar with Professor Seligman, but took a less active part than he desired, owing to his having obtained a professorship in Economics at New York University. He had, however, passed his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree in May, 1900, and was busy through the winter in preparing his Doctor’s dissertation.

 

8. Charles Worthen Spencer, American History.

Colby University, A.B., 1890. Chicago University, Fellow in Political Science, 1892-94. Columbia University, graduate student, 1894-95, 1900-01. Colgate University, Professor of History, 1895-1900.

Mr. Spencer worked under the direction of Professor Osgood upon the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation, the subject of which is “New York as a Royal Province, 1690-1730.” He also read two papers in Professor Sloane’s Seminar, and participated generally in the work of this Seminar. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

9. Earl Evelyn Sperry, European History.

Syracuse University, Ph.B., 1898; Ph.M., 1899. Columbia University, Scholar in History, 1899-1900; graduate student, 1899-1901.

Mr. Sperry worked under the direction of Professor Robinson, and besides preparing several reports for the Seminar in European History, completed the first draft of his Doctor’s dissertation upon ” The Celibacy of the Clergy in the Mediaeval Church.” He also passed, in May, the oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

[p. 122]

11. Albert Concer Whitaker, Economics.

Stanford University, A.B., 1899. Columbia University, Scholar in Economics, 1899-1900; graduate student, 1890-1901.

Mr. Whitaker worked in Seminar with Professor Seligman and also with Professor Clark. He made considerable progress in the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation upon “The Entrepreneur,” and passed, in June, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

 

PUBLICATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE FACULTY

Of the Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, under the editorial management of Professor Seligman, there have appeared during the year six numbers.

Vol. XIII.

No. 1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. By Professor Isidor Loeb.
No. 2. Political Nativism in New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco.
No. 3. Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woolley.

Vol. XIV.

No. 1. Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. By Prof. Alexander C. Flick.
No. 2. Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By Allan H. Willett.

Vol. XV.

No. 1. Civilization and Crime. By Arthur Cleveland Hall.

The sale of these monographs and volumes has increased considerably during the past few years and some of the early volumes are now out of print. The foreign demand has also developed to such an extent that arrangements have now been made with agents, both in London and Paris, for placing them upon the European market.

The Political Science Quarterly has continued to prosper. With the close of the year 1900 it completed its fifteenth annual volume. In order to make available for students the great mass of scientific matter contained in these fifteen volumes, a general index has been prepared, to be published in a separate volume. This index will appear during the summer.

[p. 123]

Two very successful public meetings of the Academy were held during the winter. The first was addressed by Professor Goodnow, who had served as a member of the Commission to Revise the Charter of New York City. Professor Goodnow presented a careful analysis of the report and recommendations of the Commission. The second meeting was devoted to a discussion of Trusts by Professor J. W. Jenks, who gave the chief results of the investigations made by him on behalf of the Industrial Commission.

The History Club has about thirty members, and, with invited guests, an average attendance of about fifty persons. During the year it has held eight meetings, of which three were conducted solely by the students. At the other meetings papers were read by James Ford Rhodes, Frederic Harrison, Professor Robinson, and Professor George B. Adams.

I reported in 1899 that a number of former students of the School of Political Science had obtained positions either as teachers or in the administrative service of New York State. I have the pleasure now to report that during the past two years a much larger number have obtained first appointments, or have been advanced to better positions, not only as teachers and as state officers, but also in the Federal Civil Service. The lists appended are probably incomplete, but they will serve to show the widening influence of the School. The dates immediately following each name indicate the period of residence in the School.

 

I.—EDUCATIONAL APPOINTMENTS

Carl L. Becker, 1898-99, Univ. Fellow, 1898-99,
Instructor in Political Science and History, Pennsylvania State College.

Ernest L. Bogart, 1897-98,
Associate Professor of Economics and Sociology, Oberlin College, Ohio.

Lester G. Bugbee, 1893-95, Univ. Fellow, 1893-95,
Adjunct Professor of History, University of Texas.

William M. Burke, 1897-99, Univ. Fellow, 1897-99; Ph.D., 1899,
Professor of History and Economics, Albion College, Michigan.

[p. 124]

Charles E. Chadsey, 1893-94, Univ. Fellow, 1893-94; Ph. D., 1897,
Lecturer on History, University of Colorado.

Walter E. Clark, 1899-1901,
Tutor in Political Economy, College of the City of New York.

Walter W. Cook, 1898-1900, A.M., 1899,
Instructor in Constitutional and Administrative Law in the University of Nebraska.

Harry A. Cushing, 1893-95, Univ. Fellow, 1894-95; Ph.D., 1896,
Lecturer on History and Constitutional Law, Columbia University.

Ellen S. Davison, 1899-1901, Cand. Ph.D.,
Lecturer on History, Barnard College.

Alfred L. P. Dennis, 1896-99, Ph.D., 1901,
Assistant in History, 1900-01, Harvard University; Instructor in History, Bowdoin College.

Stephen P. H. Duggan, 1896-1900, A.M., 1899; Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor in Political Science, College of the City of New York.

Charles F. Emerick, 1896-97, University Fellow, 1896-97; Ph.D., 1897,
Professor of Political Economy, Smith College, Mass.

Henry C. Emery, 1893-94, University Fellow, 1893-94; Ph.D., 1896,
Professor of Political Economy, Yale University.

John A. Fairlie, 1897-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1898,
Assistant Professor of Administrative Law, University of Michigan.

Guy S. Ford, 1900-01, Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor of History, Yale University.

Delmer E. Hawkins, 1899-1900,
Instructor in Political Economy, Syracuse University.

Allen Johnson, 1897-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1899,
Professor of History, Iowa College, Grinnell ; also Lecturer on European History in the University of Wisconsin, Summer Session, 1901.

Alvin S. Johnson, 1898-1901, University Fellow, 1900-01; Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant in Economics, Bryn Mawr College.

Lindley M. Keasby, 1888-90, Ph.D., 1890,
Professor of Economics and Social Science, Bryn Mawr College.

James A. McLean, 1892-94, University Fellow, 1892-94; Ph.D., 1894,
Professor of History and Political Science, University of Idaho.

Milo R. Maltbie, 1895-97, University Fellow, 1895-96; Ph.D., 1897,
Lecturer on Municipal Government, Columbia University.

Charles E. Merriam, Jr., 1896-98, Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1900,
Docent in Political Science, University of Chicago.

Walter H. Nichols, 1899-1901, Cand. Ph.D.,
Professor of History, University of Colorado.

Comadore E. Prevey, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; A.M., 1899; Cand. Ph.D.,
Lecturer on Sociology, University of Nebraska.

Jesse E. Pope, 1897-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Political Economy, 1900-01, New York University; Professor of Political Economy, University of Missouri.

[p. 125]

Charles L. Raper, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D..
Lecturer on History, Barnard College, 1900-01; Assistant Professor of Economics and History, University of North Carolina.

William A. Rawles, 1898-99, Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology, University of Indiana.

William A. Schaper, 1896-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1901,
Professor of Administration, University of Minnesota.

Louis D. Scisco, 1899-1900, Ph.D., 1901,
Teacher of History, High School, Stillwater, Minnesota.

William R. Shepherd, 1893-95, University Fellow, 1893-95; Ph.D.. 1896,
Tutor in History, Columbia University.

James T. Shotwell, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant in History, Columbia University.

William R. Smith, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor in History, University of Colorado.

Edwin P. Tanner, 1897-1900, A.M., 1898; University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Teacher of History, High School, Stillwater, Minnesota.

Holland Thompson, 1899-1901, University Fellow, 1899-1900; A.M., 1900,
Tutor in History, College of the City of New York.

Francis Walker, 1892-94, University Fellow, 1892-94; Ph.D., 1895,
Associate Professor of Political Economy, Adelbert College, Western Reserve University.

Ulysses G. Weatherby, 1899-1900,
Professor of Economics and Social Science, University of Indiana.

 

2.—GOVERNMENTAL APPOINTMENTS

Frank G. Bates, 1896-97, Ph.D., 1899,
State Librarian, Providence, R. I.

John F. Crowell, 1894-95, University Fellow, 1894-95; Ph.D.. 1897,
Expert Agent on Agricultural Products, Industrial Commission.

John H. Dynes, 1896-98, A.M., 1897; University Fellow, 1897-98,
Student Clerk, Division of Methods and Results, Twelfth Census.

Charles E. Edgerton, 1898-99,
Special Agent, Industrial Commission.

Frederick S. Hall, 1896-97, Ph.D., 1898,
Clerk, Division of Manufactures, Twelfth Census.

Leonard W. Hatch, 1894-95,
Statistician, Bureau of Labor, Albany, New York.

Isaac A. Hourwich, 1891-92, Ph.D., 1893,
Translator, Bureau of the Mint, Washington, D. C.

Maurice L. Jacobson, 1892-95,
Librarian, Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, Washington, D. C.

William Z. Ripley, 1891-93, University Fellow, 1891-93; Ph.D., 1893,
Expert on Transportation, Industrial Commission.

Frederick W. Sanders, 1895-96,
Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico.

Nahum I. Stone, 1897-99,
Expert on Speculation and Prices, Industrial Commission, Washington, D. C.

[p. 126]

Adna F. Weber, 1896-97, University Fellow, 1896-97; Ph.D., 1899,
Chief Statistician, Bureau of Labor, Albany. N. Y.

Walter F. Willcox, 1886-88, Ph.D., 1891,
Chief Statistician, Census Office, Washington, D. C.

 

Dr. Max West, 1891-93; University Fellow, 1892-93; Ph.D., 1893, should figure in both of the preceding lists; for he has been appointed Chief Clerk in the Division of Statistics, Department of Agriculture, and has also become Associate Professor of Economics in the Columbian University, Washington, D. C.

The direction of organized charity is a field of labor for which our students in Sociology receive an excellent training; and I am glad to report that Mr. Prevey, whose appointment as lecturer in the University of Nebraska is noted above, has also been made General Secretary of the local Charity Organization Society. I have also to report that Mr. Thomas J. Jones, a student in the School during the past four years and Fellow in Sociology, 1900-01, has been appointed Assistant Head Worker in the University Settlement, New York City.

“To give an adequate economic and legal training to those who intend to make journalism their profession” has always been announced as one of the objects of the School of Political Science; and a considerable number of our graduates have become editors. It is more difficult, however, to keep track of journalists than of teachers and governmental officers, and the only recent appointment in this field of which I have been informed is that of Dr. Roeliff M. Breckenridge, Ph.D., 1894, as financial editor of the New York Journal of Commerce.

 

Respectfully submitted,

John W. Burgess,

Dean.

June 10, 1901.

 

Source: Twelfth Annual Report of President Low to the Trustees. October 7, 1901.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Curriculum Fields

Chicago. Advanced General Survey Courses in Economics. Memo, 1926

The memo of this posting was written by the head of the Chicago department of economics, Leon Carroll Marshall. I have chosen this to begin a category “Fields”. The groups named below were tasked with preparing bibliographies, not for use in the survey courses, but to make explicit the level of preparation expected of students in those courses. Cox and Mints by the following summer apparently established “Money and banking” as a field distinct from business finance (a memo in the same folder dated August 9, 1927).  It is also interesting to note that Marshall seems to have thought it important to pair economics and business in as many fields as he could.

______________________

November 30, 1926

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall to All Persons Mentioned Herein:

The problem attacked in this memorandum is that of carrying through effectively our arrangements with respect to our advanced general survey courses—courses that in the past we have sometimes referred to as “Introduction to the Graduate Study of X,” although we are not now following this terminology.

The following background facts will need to be kept in mind:

  1. We are to have introductory point of view courses designed to give an organic view of the Economic Order. These courses are numbered 102, 103, 104.
  2. Our next range of courses is designed primarily to deal with method. This range includes: 1. Economic History; 2. Statistics; 3. Accounting; 4. Intermediate Theory.
  3. The foregoing seven courses are the only courses for which we assume responsibility as far as the ordinary [Arts and Literature] undergraduate is concerned. It may well be that from time to time some member of the staff will be interested in giving for undergraduates a course on some live problem of the day, but this is an exceptional matter and not a matter of our standard arrangement.
  4. Our best undergraduates may move on to the type of courses referred to above in the first paragraph, such as courses 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. In general the prerequisites for admission to these courses (as far a undergraduates are concerned) would be a certain number of majors in our work plus 27 majors with an average of B. Under the regulations which the Graduate Faculty has laid down, students who have less than 27 majors could not be admitted to these courses except with the consent of the group and Dean Laing.

 

It is highly essential that our work in these advanced survey courses such as 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. shall:

  1. Really assume the method courses mentioned above: really be conducted at a level which assumes that the student possesses certain techniques.
  2. Really assume an adequate background of subject-matter content.

 

Will the person whose name is underscored in each group undertake (as promptly as reasonably may be) the responsibility of conducting conferences designed

  1. To lead to explicit definite arrangements looking toward the actual utilization of the earlier method courses in these advance survey courses
  2. To prepare a bibliography that can be mimeographed and placed in each student’s hands who enters one of these advanced survey courses. This bibliography is not to be a bibliography of the course (that is a separate matter) but a bibliography of what is assumed by way of preparation for the course. Whether a somewhat different bibliography should be made for the Economics course and the Business course in a given field is left for each group to discuss. Personally I hope that it will be a single bibliography for the two. Mr. Palyi suggests the desirability of a bibliographical article (worthy of publication) for each field. This seems to me an admirable suggestion—one difficult to resist.

 

Will each leader of the group referred to below please put the outcome of your discussion in writing and send to the undersigned? It is to be hoped that you will find other matters to report upon in addition to the foregoing.

GROUPS

  1. The Financial System and Financial Administration

Meech, Mints, Cox, Palyi

  1. Labor and Personnel Administration

Douglas, Millis, Stone, Kornhauser

  1. The Market and the Administration of Marketing

Palmer, Duddy, Barnes, Dinsmore

  1. Risk and Its Administration

Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints

  1. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration

Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas

  1. Government Finance

Viner, Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. Population and the Standard of Living

Kyrk, Douglas, Viner

  1. Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production

Mitchell, Daines, McKinsey

 

The following fields are not included in this memorandum either because of specific course prerequisites or because of obvious difficulties in the case:

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Administration
  2. Statistics and Accounting
  3. Economic History and Historical Method
  4. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity.

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 22, Folder 6.

Image Source: Leon Carroll Marshall. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-04114, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Regulations for Ph.D. candidacy and general examination, 1916

This posting provides the menu of subject choices for the general examination to be admitted to Ph.D. candidacy in economics at Columbia as of 1916. We see that the history of economics and economic theory were still joined at the hip and that economic history was a compulsory field. Also interesting to note: the optional field “The labor problem”  included “Socialism”; two graduate courses in another social science or philosophy were required as was an ability to read at least one of French and German plus one additional language. 

To denote insertions in pencil, I have used bold-italics within square brackets. For text to be cut, I have included the original text, crossed-out.

__________________________________

[p. 410]

May 25, 1916

[…]

Professor Seligman, on behalf of the Committee on Instruction, recommended that the Faculty approve of the regulations governing admission to candidacy and the final examination for the doctorate of Philosophy as proposed by the various departments giving work under the jurisdiction of the Faculty of Political Science. This recommendation was adopted by the Faculty. The regulations of the several departments are as follows:

[…]

[p. 413]

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO CANDIDACY FOR THE DOCTORATE OF PHILSOPHY

Each [The] applicant for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Ph.D. whose subject of major interest lies in the field of Economics must satisfy the Department

  1. That he is qualified in the general principles of Economics as taught in Columbia College or a full equivalent thereof.
  2. That he is qualified in such advanced or graduate work in the general field of Economics as is represented by approximately six full graduate courses in Columbia University or the equivalent thereof.
  3. That he is qualified in two full graduate courses as given at Columbia or the equivalent thereof under one of the following Departments:

Politics

Psychology

Public Law

Anthropology

History

Sociology

Philosophy

  1. That he is able to read French and German and to use these languages in seminar work and in research. In the discretion of the Department another language may be substituted for French or German.
  2. That he is able to express himself in correctly written English.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

Every student [The candidate] presenting himself for the degree of Ph.D. under the Department of Economics will be examined in the following three topics:

1) The history and theory of Economics

2) Statistics

3) Economic History

He will also be expected to present for examination four out of the following eight topics:

1) Public finance

2) Money and banking

3) The labor problem (including Socialism)

[p. 414]

4) Trade and transportation

5) Corporations and trusts

6) Business economics, including accounting, business organization and allied topics

7) Insurance

8) Agriculture

He will also be examined in such cognate fields as are intimately related to the special topic of his dissertation.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of The Faculty of Political Science, May 25, 1916.

Image Source: Museum of the City of New York. Kent Hall, Columbia University (1910). McKim, Mead & White.

 

 

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics General Examination. Lauchlin Currie and Harry D. White, 1927

Few characters in the history of economics are quite as titillating as those who serious historians have concluded indeed passed confidential materials to the Soviet Union, namely, Lauchlin Currie and Harry Dexter White. Before they grew up to be card-carrying members of the economics profession, they too were once graduate students. Here from the Harvard General Examination for the Degree of Ph.D. we have their respective examination committees, academic histories, subject fields, and thesis subjects/advisers.  

Lauchlin Currie received his Harvard Ph.D. in 1931 with the dissertation “Bank Assets and Banking Theory.”

Harry Dexter White was awarded his Harvard Ph.D. in 1930 with the dissertation “The International Balance of Payments for France, 1880-1913.”

________________________________

 

From:
Division of History, Government and Economics, Examinations for the Degree of Ph.D., 1926-27, pp. 10-11.

 

21. Lauchlin Bernard Currie.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, April 11, 1927.

Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Burbank, A. H. Cole, Usher, and Wright.

Academic History: St. Francis Xavier College, 1921-22; London School of Economics, 1922-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. B.Sc., London, 1925

General Subjects.

1. Economic Theory.
2. Economic History since 1750.
3. Public Finance.
4. International Trade and Tariff Policy.
5. History of Political Theory.
6. Money, Banking, and Crises.

Special Subject: Money, Banking, and Crises.

Thesis Subject: Monetary History of Canada, 1914-26. (With Professor Young.)

[…]

23. Harry Dexter White.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, April 14, 1927.

Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Dewing, Elliott, Monroe, and Usher.

Academic History: Columbia University, 1921-23; Stanford University, 1924-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-.   A.B., Stanford; A.M., ibid., 1925. Instructor in Economics, Harvard, 1926- .

General Subjects.

1. Economic Theory and its History.
2. Money, Banking, and Crises.
3. Economic History since 1750.
4. Economics of Corporations.
5. History of Political Theory.
6. International Trade.

Special Subject: International Trade.

Thesis Subject: Foreign Trade of France. (With Professor Taussig.)

 

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. HUC7000.70. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. Folder “1926-27”.

Image Source: Laughlin Currie and Harry D. White from Harvard Class Album 1934.

Categories
Harvard

Harvard. Ph.D. General Examination Fields. Charles Beardsley, 1904

Historians need to deal with “missing values” in their archival work on a daily basis. For instance in the Harvard Archives there is a box with the promising title “Examinations for the Ph.D.” What you find in that box are officially printed lists of candidates (with their respective academic histories) and their general examinations by academic year in which the examiners and thesis advisers are identified together with the six fields covered in the general examination as well as the “special subject” field and the thesis subject. That is the good news.

The bad news is that these printed lists suffer significant gaps in coverage. In this box we find information for the academic years 1902-03 through 1904-05, 1906-07 through 1913-14, 1915-16, 1917-18 through 1918-19, and finally 1926-27. This gives me hope that perhaps in some departmental folder (not necessarily in the economics department) there still are copies of some of those missing listings to fill in the gap and/or extend the range of the examination lists.

This posting provides us the general examination information for Charles Beardsley, Jr. who it turns out was never awarded a Ph.D. from Harvard. More about Charles Beardsley’s life is found in my earlier posting taken from the Secretary’s Report of the Harvard Class of 1892 (1912).

________________________________

 

From:
Division of History and Political Science Examinations for the Degree of Ph.D., 1903-04, pp. 1-2.

 

  1. Charles Beardsley.

General Examination in Political Science, Wednesday, February 24, 1904.

Committee: Professors Ripley, Lowell, Haskins, Carver, Bullock, Gay and Dr. Sprague.

Academic History: Harvard College, 1888-92; Graduate School, 1893-94, 1896-97, 1902-03; Harvard, 1897[sic, he received his A.B. in 1892] (A.B.); Harvard, 1902 [sic, he received his A.M. in 1897] (A.M.).

(A) General Subjects.

1. Constitutional History of England since the beginning of the Tudor Period.
2. Modern Government and Comparative Constitutional Law.
3. Economic Theory and its History.
4. Applied Economics: Money and Banking, International Trade, Taxation and Finance.
5. Economic History of the United States, with special reference to the Tariff, Financial Legislation, and Industrial Combinations.
6. Sociology, including the Labor Question.
7. (Special subject.)

(B) Special Subject: Tariff Legislation and Controversy in England since the time of Adam Smith.

(C) Thesis Subject: “Huskisson’s Tariff Reforms in England.” (With Professors Taussig and Gay.)

Source: Harvard University Archives. HUC7000.70. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. Folder “1903-1904”.

A catalogue of the doctors of philosophy and of science and of the master of arts and of science of Harvard University, who have received their degrees after examination, 1873-1898, p. 68.

Image Source: John Harvard Statue (1904). Library of Congress. Photos, Prints and Drawings.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Curricular Suggestions and Comments. 1945

In my examination of departmental records at Columbia, Chicago, Harvard and M.I.T. I have found relatively few written reflections on the rules/regulation/courses of the graduate programs. Today’s posting provides a memo of miscellaneous ruminations by Arthur F. Burns, Carter Goodrich and Carl Shoup who served as members of the Columbia Economic Department’s Curriculum Committee in 1945. Having a major field of comparative economic systems myself, I found Arthur Burns’ rather dismissive remarks about whether the graduate program should add a course in that field noteworthy.

_____________________________

April 30, 1945

To the Members of the Department of Economics:

During the year the Curriculum Committee has given thought to problems growing out of the Department discussions of last spring. Although the Committee is not prepared to place definite recommendations before the Department, I think it desirable that the members of the Department review certain suggestions and other changes that have been considered by the Committee. These suggestions, with comments of Committee members, are enclosed. There should be opportunity to discuss these at our meeting on me second. May 2.

Frederick C. Mills

_____________________________

SUGGESTIONS FOR CURRICULAR AND OTHER CHANGES
with comments by Committee Members

 

  1. We should formulate a more definite statement of requirements to be met by applicants for admission to the graduate department of economics.
    (Can we agree on basic requirements? Should we include mathematics, accounting, statistics, history, economic principles, English composition, psychology, one laboratory science?)

 

A. F. Burns

I doubt if much progress in this direction can be made this year or next. For one thing, there is likely to be slight unanimity among the staff. For another, each of us will have difficulty in convincing the others unless judgment be implemented by a canvas of experience. What do other graduate departments do? Would there be any advantage in drawing up a sample list of former graduate students in the department and analyzing the undergraduate training of those who proved especially “successful” and those who “got nowhere”?

 

Carter Goodrich

This is the point on which I am most doubtful of the general tendency. I do not believe we can agree on “basic requirements”. Even on recommendations I think we should be most cautious. We may be justified in making a strong recommendation for things we consider specific prerequisites, – perhaps economic principles, mathematics, accounting or statistics. I should see no justification for such specifications as “one laboratory science”. If we are to make a recommendation regarding preliminary training in economics, I feel strongly that it should be accompanied by a recommendation against over-specialization in economics at the undergraduate level. An excellent statement of this general point of view is contained in the Princeton catalog in a passage referring to pre-professional training.

 

Carl S. Shoup

As I see it, the Department faces two general alternatives. First, it can continue to admit graduate students who have had little or no economic training during their undergraduate days and who must therefore be given some general courses on a fairly elementary level. Owing to the number of students involved, these courses would presumably be of the traditional lecture type. Students who have already had substantial training in economics might be excused from these courses to take instead either special seminars designed for first-year students, or the usual advanced seminars. This alternative is inviting in many ways, but I fear that, inevitably, two undesirable consequences would follow: (1). Since our resources are not unlimited, even though they may be expanded from the present level, the use of some resources to give the rather elementary lecture courses would, necessarily, decrease the time and effort that the faculty members could otherwise give to the students entering with a good background in economics; (2) The fact that the graduate department would be supplying a pretty complete series of lectures in the various subjects on this level would tend to discourage the better undergraduate schools from maintaining high standards in their economics teaching. This would particularly be the case if students coming here with good undergraduate training in economics were required or allowed to attend these general lecture courses, and I think that experience indicates that this is what would happen: Word would get back to the undergraduate colleges that there is no particular point in working too hard on students who hope to go on for graduate economics work since they will have to, or will be induced to, or will allow themselves to spend a good deal of time in the graduate school going over, at much the same pace and with much the same intensity, the same material they covered in their undergraduate courses. To a certain extent, I believe this hypothetical situation I outlined has already developed in fact it will simply be intensified if we do not set up some sort of professional standards for admission.

The other alternative is to require that a student show a certain degree of proficiency in the elementary subjects of economics before he is admitted to the graduate school. This might be done simply on showing of courses taken and grades given, but I should prefer to work toward a system of entrance examinations without any requirements at all concerning specific undergraduate courses. We would be more sure that we were getting people with the kind of background desired and we would also thereby allow individuals to qualify, if they were able enough to do so, on the basis of study without taking courses. Assuming that the department had the same total resources and manpower is under the first alternative, these resources could then be thrown wholly into the training of graduate students in small groups through individual conferences, on research projects, etc. The resulting rise in the standard of our graduate teaching and in the quality of our product, as embodied in the successful Ph.D. Candidates — and also indeed, in those who get the Master’s degree — would, in my opinion, be marked. Moreover, since all of the graduate students would have shown proficiency in the elementary branches of economics, the could and should be encouraged to branch out in allied fields of graduate work: philosophy, psychology, etc. This alternative, however, has the disadvantage of borrowing from the graduate school able students who have taken little or no economics in their undergraduate days. I look upon this I look upon this as a necessary cost that must be paid if we are really to step up, in any marked degree, the quality and intensity of our graduate training. I wish it did not have to be paid, but I think that we shall be unrealistic if we think that we can change the present situation greatly without incurring that cost. It would, of course, still be possible for an able student, who had decided that he wanted to switch to economics, to get enough economics to pass the entrance examinations by six months or so of intensive study by himself. Only the very able ones could do this, but I doubt whether we should make much effort to get the merely average student who has had no economics at all in his undergraduate days.

 

 

  1. Standards of admission to graduate study in economics should be reviewed with the Office of Admissions. Tightening up may be possible, but fairly liberal principles of admission should prevail for the present.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I Agree.

 

Carl Goodrich

Yes

 

Carl S. Shoup

If we follow the first alternative outlined in number 1 above, I should agree that the general standards of admission should be tightened up somewhat. If the second alternative is followed, the nature of the qualifying examinations would pretty much settled this question.

 

  1. A nuclear program of first-year courses is to be planned. Provision should be made for some flexibility, but most students would be expected to take three or four basic first-year courses (including theory, statistics, money and banking, and economic history). Requirements in these courses would be fairly rigorous, and all students would take examinations and receive letter grades. A special reading course might be taken in view of a basic course by the student already reasonably well-prepared in that subject.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree with some interpretations and qualifications. (a) The essential thing is that in his first year a student attend to certain basic courses (a list to be discussed). (b) If a student has had satisfactory training at college in any one or all of these courses (the latter, of course, is rather unlikely), he should not be required to take them again. (c) Whether letter grades are to be given in these courses should be decided on the basis of the general policy in regard to letter grades. Note also that there are bound to be second-and third-year students in the basic courses. (d) Special reading courses are a very doubtful educational expedient, unless the faculty is willing to give real time to the work.

 

Carter Goodrich

On the whole, yes, as long there is 5 to provide flexibility and provided that at some stage we really encourage a considerable number of our students to take relevant work outside the Department.

 

Carl S. Shoup

The program of first-year courses is necessary only under the first alternative in number 1. A student who is already reasonably well prepared in a subject should not, I think, be required to take even a special reading course. He should, instead, be admitted at once to the advanced seminars.

 

 

  1. M.A. candidates should be required to have letter grades of B or better in courses carrying 21 points of credit. Department members should be requested to test first-year students systematically and grade rigorously.

 

A.F. Burns

I am inclined to agree, but I do not expect very much from this proposal. It may merely mean that we will now say B where we formerly said P.

 

Carter Goodrich

Like Walton Hamilton on monogamy, “I suppose I’d vote for it but I’ll be damned if I’d electioneer for it.”

 

Carl S. Shoup

I suggest that we give only a “P” grade with the understanding that the passing level is “B” rather than “C”. Under the first alternative in number 1, I would be willing to go so far as to require passing grades in all of the thirty points, both for candidates for M:A. and for those who are not taking the M.A. but want to go on to the Ph.D. If we are to assume real responsibility for the product that we turn out, I do not see how we can afford to give a degree to anybody who is not good enough to pass all of the courses that he takes. (Do the medical schools give degrees to people who are unable to pass all of the courses?)

 

  1. We should provide seminar courses for first-year students of outstanding ability and satisfactory preparation. Admission would be by consent of the instructor. Admission would be restricted to men of clear promise. Such a man might have a first-year program consisting of three basic courses and two seminars.

 

A. F. Burns

I think it is desirable to admit qualified first-year students to seminars. But it would be unwise and impractical to run one special seminar for first-year students and another for second-year students. It is an artificial distinction. (However, it might be well to organize a seminar for M.A. students who are writing their theses, one requirement (among others) for admission being that a student have a definite topic that he already has done a little work on and that he expects to complete within the year. This suggestion raises serious questions as to administration, teaching load, etc.)

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes. These seminars would not in all case have to be for first-year students only.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This problem is covered in the discussion under number 1 above. I should add that even under the second alternative, I should visualize fairly frequent and rigorous examinations of some kind or other to be sure that the graduate student was not losing his grasp of his tools of analysis and his basic information, and was, indeed, improving them as he went along.

 

  1. There should be a rigorous weeding out of graduate students at the end of the first graduate year. At the end of the spring term a committee of the department should review the records of all candidates for degrees. Only those of clear merit should be permitted to carry forward studies for the doctorate. We should have a restricted group of second and third-year graduate students of high ability.

 

A. F. Burns

I agree heartily.

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, decidedly.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree with this proposal, whether under the first or second alternatives in number 1 above.

 

  1. We should consider introducing comprehensive written matriculation examinations, to come before more than 45 residence credits have been acquired.

 

A. F. Burns

I feel handicapped because I don’t know precisely what matriculation means or involves. Would the comprehensive examination come six months after a student has been encouraged to try for the doctorate? If so, is the interval too short?

 

Carter Goodrich

Not with this timing. It would be too late for the privileges of matriculation and I think too early for a comprehensive test. Possibly such examinations might supplement the oral on subjects and replace certification.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree that it is desirable to have comprehensive written examinations from time to time through the graduate work (see comments under numbers 4 and 5 above).

 

 

  1. Doctoral candidates should be required to pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position. This year should be given to rigorous research training, under the supervision of the department.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree if “Rigorous research training” means the writing of a dissertation on the premises, or at least working on it for a year under the supervision of the department. But there is a good deal to think through before making a definite proposal. For example, would the orals have to be taken before this research year?

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, as an ideal to press for as rapidly as possible. In my judgment, this is the direction that promises the most significant improvement.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This is an excellent idea; if doctoral candidates would pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position, many of our difficulties at the thesis level would disappear.

 

 

  1. A sum equivalent to approximately 10 per cent of the departmental budget for salaries should be allocated to research. This would be available to members of the department for employment of research assistants on research activities approved by a departmental committee on research, and for meeting other research costs. It is to be expected that some portion of this research fund could be used for the employment of doctoral candidates during their period of internship.

 

Arthur F. Burns

Clearly, financial provision for research work is important. I am not sufficiently familiar with the needs of the department (even its boundaries: is the college included?) to have any judgment as to a specific figure. The whole problem should be surveyed before definite recommendations are made.

 

Carter Goodrich

I am not sure of the ten per cent, but I like the general idea. Something of this sort must be done to make 8 possible.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I do not think there would be a marked increase in the research work under this proposal (to allocate, say, 10 per cent of the departmental budget to research) since it does not touch what seems to me the real problem; namely, the desire of many faculty members — especially in the younger group — to supplement their University salaries by research fees and salaries. It is possible that the solution may be found in some form of split salary schedule whereby the faculty member is paid a certain basic amount, viewed as compensation chiefly for teaching services, and, upon application, might be granted an additional amount as compensation for devoting his time to unpaid research, thus foregoing outside paid activities. The tendency to grant the supplementary amount almost automatically to anybody who happened not to be doing outside work would be a real difficulty, but it might be met by having the supplementary amounts granted only upon approval by some outside board, specially constituted for this purpose.

 

 

  1. The department should consider adding the following courses to its curriculum:

1. First-year graduate course in money and banking
2. A course in accounting, designed to meet the needs of economists
3. A course in comparative economic systems (to be given in cooperation with the School of Business)
4. An additional course in international economics (subject matter to be adapted to that of the present course on international trade).

 

Arthur F. Burns

10a. Definitely yes

10b. Probably yes. But the man must precede the course.

10c. Probably, no. Who is an expert on such questions? I can’t think of any. I doubt if the department ought to try to develop one, and I doubt if it would succeed if it tried (the man, if he is any good, would soon specialize). If there is a gap here, we might perhaps try a lecture course to be given by several specialists and coordinated by some instructor. This has at least the negative advantage that the department’s hands will not be tied.

10d. Probably, yes. I would want to know the scope of the course before expressing a more definite opinion.

 

Carter Goodrich

Certainly d, probably the others.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I should like to discuss these prospective courses further before venturing an opinion, especially with respect to the first-year course in money and banking. I believe there is no unnecessary duplication in this field already than in almost other part of our curriculum.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives.Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1. Folder: “Committee on Instruction”.

Categories
Economists Harvard Transcript

Harvard. Coursework of Frank W. Fetter for A.M., 1923-24

Frank Whitson Fetter (born May 22, 1899 in San Francisco, CA; died July 7, 1991 in Hanover, NH). A.B. from Swarthmore College (1920), A.M. from Princeton (1922), also A.M. from Harvard (1924). Ph.D. from Princeton (1926). His father was Princeton economics professor Frank Albert Fetter.

During the course of his career Fetter taught at Princeton, Haverford, Johns Hopkins, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Dartmouth.

The 1942 copy of his A.M. course transcript below matches an undated transcript (or report card) from the Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for the academic year 1923-24 found in the same folder at the Duke Economists’ Papers Project.

 

____________________________

[Course titles and instructors]

From Economics Group I, Economic Theory and Method

11 Professor Taussig — Economic Theory.

 

From Economics Group III: Applied Economics

37 1hf. Professor Persons — Commercial Crises

39 2hf. Asst. Professor Williams — International Finance

 

From Economics Group V: Course of Research in Economics

20 Professors Taussig, Carver, Ripley, Bullock, Young, and Persons — Economic Research

 

From History, Group IV. American History

17a 1hf. Professor Turner—The History of the West.

39 2hf. Professor Turner—History of the United States, 1880-1920.

Source: Harvard University Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College for 1923-24. History, p. 103; Economics, p. 107.

____________________________

Harvard University
The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

24 University Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts
November 30, 1942

Transcript of the record of Mr. Frank Whitson Fetter
1923-24

 

COURSE GRADE
Economics 11 (1 course)

A

Economics 20 (1 course)

A

Economics371 ( ½ course)

A

Economics 392( ½ course)

A minus

History 17a1 ( ½ course)

A minus

History 392 ( ½ course)

A

Mr. Fetter received the degree of Master of Arts in June, 1924.

The established grades are A, B, C, D, and E.

A grade of A, B, Credit, Satisfactory, or Excused indicates that the course was passed with distinction. Only courses passed with distinction may be counted toward a higher degree.

 

[signed] Lawrence S. Mayo
Associate Dean

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Frank Whitson Fetter Papers. Box 50, Folder “Student Papers, Transcripts, grades, Harvard University (1923-1924).

Image Source: (ca. 1937) John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.

 

Categories
Chicago Curriculum

Chicago. Memo on survey of views of recent Ph.D.’s. 1930

From the 81 Chicago economics Ph.D.’s as of Summer Quarter 1930 there were 40 responses to a survey conducted by the Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees. The chairman of the department Harry A. Millis wrote a memo summarizing (perhaps “spinning”) the results for his colleagues that he dutifully forwarded to the President of the University of Chicago. He chose to ignore responses of those who received their Ph.D.’s before 1920. Perhaps those responses were indeed irrelevant for the task at hand, but this historian of economics would have appreciated hearing what the earlier Ph.D.’s had to say too. 

____________________________________

The University of Chicago
Department of Economics

December 11, 1930

 

President R. M. Hutchins
Faculty Exchange

Dear Mr. Hutchins:

 

Possibly you will be enough interested to read the enclosed memorandum I have sent to the members of the staff in Economics. In it I tried to bring together the significant things obtained from the questionnaires turned in by the forty persons who had taken the doctorate in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

H. A. Millis

HAM-W
Encl.

____________________________________

December 1, 1930

Memorandum to:     Staff in Economics
From:                         H. A. Millis

The Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees has transmitted to the Chairman of the several departments questionnaires filled out and returned by persons who have taken the doctorate in their respective fields. As you know, the object of the questionnaire was to secure reactions to and opinions on a number of matters involved in the existing program of graduate work and training. Each chairman has been requested to study his bundle of questionnaires and to present to his department such matters as seem to call for consideration.

Of the 81 persons taking the doctorate in Economics previous to last summer quarter, 40 returned questionnaires partially or completely filled out. Fifteen of the forty had taken the doctorate before Professor Laughlin retired so that for the most part they were writing of program and procedures passed into history. The remaining twenty-five had taken the doctorate within the last ten years (in 1920 or a subsequent year). Special attention has been given to the questionnaires returned by these twenty-five; on most point the other questionnaires have no value. Indeed, the questionnaires returned raise few questions and, taken as a whole, they do not contain a great deal that is valuable.

The Department is to be congratulated on the fact that all of the returns from those taking the doctorate in 1920 or more recently were more or less complimentary and appreciative of the training received. Not one could be said to be adversely critical in general. Yet, if special attention is given to questionnaires carefully filled out (a large number were not filled out at the points here involved), there are several suggestions worthy of consideration, most of them involving implicit criticism.

As would be expected, the absence of mature, full-arrived men in certain lines was regretted ([Clifford A. Curtis (1926), Garfield V. Cox (1929)]). The questionnaires make it quite clear that most of the gain, as seen by our doctors, is derived from contact with and instruction from outstanding men. While the value of carefully worked out, logically developed formal courses is commented on by a number as having been of value to them ([Emily Clark Brown (1927), Mercer G. Evans (1929)], Howard Barton Myers (1929), among others), it becomes clear that there is considerable feeling that there should be more emphasis on seminars and discussion groups ([Emily Clark Brown (1927), Herman J. Stratton (1929), Mercer G. Evans (1929), George R. Taylor (1929), John Bennet Canning (1929), Lysle Winston Cooper (1925)]). More opportunity is wanted to talk things over and out. A number congratulated themselves because they had obtained broad training in economic and allied fields, but a larger number now feel that their training was too narrow (Emily Clark Brown (1927), Colston E. Warne (1925)], Harold A. Logan (1925), Lysle Winston Cooper (1925), among others). Nor is this feeling that the training was too narrow due entirely or even generally to the variety of subjects now to be taught; a number are of the opinion that a broader foundation is needed for research and teaching in a specialized field. A few criticize our requirements and feel that it would be better to permit the students to follow their own bents ([James R. Jackson (1927), Harold A. Innis (1920), Harold A. Logan (1925)] — in the days of seven or eight written examinations). A number feel that they should have received more attention and supervision in their research ([George R. Taylor (1929), Shirley Coon (1926), Garfield V. Cox (1929), Leverett Samuel Lyon (1921)]). One ([Morris Copeland (1921)]) says that he should have been required to engage in factual research (don’t say anything about leading the horse to the trough!). It is evident that a number would like to have had a much greater opportunity to visit and discuss matters with the members of the staff.

Questions:

Should we not do more than we have done to get a considerable amount of the other social sciences into the programs of our students?

Would some change in our system of examinations be helpful in that connection?

Would it be wise to require a minor outside the department, this to be built up of work closely tying in with the student’s concentration and research?

(No doubt just such questions will be considered in the Division of the Social Sciences. Mr. Woodward will call a meeting of the Division in the near future.)

The Committee has been interested in the experience and training our doctors have had which would fit them for teaching. One group of questions submitted related to teaching experience, another to formal training in education.

Taking the twenty-five who took the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently and who filled out questionnaires, only seven had not taught in high school or college before entering upon graduate work here. Four of sixteen for whom the record is entirely clear, had taught 1 year, 6 had taught 2 years, 4 had taught 4 years, the other 2, 5 and 15 years respectively. Eleven taught while at the University. In so far as can be ascertained, all but two had taught in high school or college before they were placed by us in teaching positions. Only one of the twenty-five ([Alvah E. Staley (1928)] who has not entered the teaching profession) had had no teaching experience at the time he took the doctorate. The experience of two had been limited to 1 year, of three to 2 years, of two to 3 years, while the experience of the others had extended over from 4 to 15 years.

The questionnaire contained two questions as to formal courses in education. These were answered by thirty-four of the forty, but not answered by the other six. Twenty-one of the thirty-four had had no formal courses in education either as undergraduate or as graduate students. These divided themselves about evenly between the younger group, taking the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently, and the older. The remaining thirteen, all but one of whom had taken the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently, had had one or more formal courses in education. Inasmuch as no statement of reaction to such courses was called for, only six who had had two or more formal courses went out of their way to say anything concerning the value of us training. It may be significant that all six made disparaging remarks.

Miss K. [presumably Hazel Kyrk (1920)] had two courses at Chicago. One of these was in educational psychology which “was a snap course and an utter waste of time.” Special methods of teaching in High School “was much better.” She added that “education courses as a rule I believe are like the first.” Miss B. [presumably Emily Clark Brown (1927)]had three courses as an undergraduate, but none as a graduate student, “fortunately”, she added. She writes, “I would consider it a great waste of time. In my field, mastery of the subject, plus ability to work with people, is necessary for either teaching or research. I do not think that training in education would help enough to justify taking time from the study of the subject. Since experience in research and in teaching each contributes to success in the other, I would consider it unfortunate for a student to prepare specifically for the one or the other, and for that purpose to reduce the time available for securing the broadest possible mastery of the main and the allied fields.” Dr. K. had one course in educational psychology “but learned nothing.” Dr. T. writes, “I was graduated from the three-year course at he ____State Normal School at ______ before entering the University of Chicago. So far as I can now see the large amount of educational psychology, practice teaching, etc., which I had there was a total loss.” Dr. S. had a few courses while an undergraduate and one while a graduate student. He writes, “of no particular value to me except for some subject matter and a little theory of curriculum.” Dr. C. had taken a few courses as an undergraduate, but none as a graduate student. He writes, “As far as I can gather, such courses are a waste of time- if in no other way than in the circumstance that there are so many subjects in the individual’s own field or fields that he ought to be learning about.”

Only two of the twenty-one who had had no formal training in education, said anything about its value. In reply to one question, Dr. E. entered, “None, and I am glad of it”—an opinion based upon hearsay and common prejudice. Dr. Staley, on the other hand, writing about the program of work taken by him, states, “Often as a graduate student I felt that since I expect to spend a considerable part of my time teaching economics it might be well to devote some thought to problems of teaching as well as to the subject matter. I mentioned this notion a few times to members of my department, but they (some—not all) tended to discourage me in it. The feeling seems to be that the School of Education has nothing worth while to offer in this line, that teaching is something you have to learn by absorption or by experience anyway, and that ‘a science’ of education is rather to be smiled at, at least in connection with university teaching. I still feel, though, that even a university teacher has to teach students and not simply to teach subject matter in the abstract, and that therefore graduate students preparing for college positions should spend perhaps a little less energy on subtleties of their subject matter and a little more on considering what parts of it should be present to undergraduates and how. The best training for research and the best training for teaching are probably not identical.”

Question:

Prospective teachers need to know the pedagogy of their subject and the place of their subject and of themselves in the college. Of course all know something of these matters for they have been college students and have taken college courses in economics. This, however, may not be adequate. Some of our people have secured experience, if not a bit of training, by teaching while here, but the number of such persons is being reduced and will become negligible with the fuller development of policies already adopted. Some courses in the technique and problems of teaching elementary economics and business are being given by Mr. Shields. what more, if anything, should we do to prepare more adequately our graduate students before they are placed in teaching positions? This is the principal question the Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees wishes to have answered in a constructive way.

An examination of the replies to the question, “In view of your experience, do you regard it as important that a student shall take a Master’s degree on the way to the doctorate,” shows that except where there had been experience in graduate teaching here or elsewhere, the replies were decidedly influenced by personal experience in the graduate course, those (19) who had taken the Master’s generally answering “Yes,” those (21) who had not, answering “No.” In detail (the counts being for those who did and those who did not take the A.M.), (a) two and one did not answer the question; (b) four and four answered “no,” unless the graduate course is interrupted and the master’s is needed to get a job; (c) two and twelve answered in an unqualified “no”; (d) ten and three answered “yes,” for one or more reasons; (e) one and one stated that it all depends upon a variety of factors entering into concrete cases.

Those who gave reasons for a “no” answer, said a “mere vexation” ([John Bennet Canning (1929)]), “unnecessary evil,” of no value, may cause people not to continue to the doctorate ([William J. Donald (1914)]), infers with education ([Harold A. Innis (1920)]), gives the faculty too much trouble. Those who gave reasons for a “yes” answer, said that it starts the student in research early, that it tests him out and shows whether he should be encouraged to continue, that it causes the student to consolidate what he has already done, that the experience and research training are valuable.

QUERY:

What is our policy with reference to the Master’s degree and what should our policy be?

 

____________________________________

[Carbon copy of Hutchin’s response]

December 13, 1930

My dear Mr. Millis:

Thank you for your letter of December 11 and the copy of the memorandum which you have sent to the members of the staff in Economics.

I am very much interested.

 

Very truly yours,

R. M. Hutchins

Mr. H.A. Millis,
Department of Economics
Faculty Exchange.

____________________________________

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President, Hutchins Administration. Records, Box 72. Folder: “Economics Dept, 1929-1931”.

Image Source: Undated picture of Harry A. Millis.  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-00875, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Categories
Economists Germany Johns Hopkins

Germany. The Seminary Method. Reported by Herbert B. Adams, 1884

  • The “Seminary” was the graduate student research workshop of its day. This innovation that combined research with graduate education was imported from Germany at the end of the nineteenth century. The historian Herbert Baxter Adams at the Johns Hopkins University provides us with a wonderful tour of the leading German seminaries of history, art/archeology, economics and statistics. Seminary libraries and museums provided the texts and artifacts that served as the toys of these scientific nurseries. 

The Seminary Method. Introduction.

Heidelberg Seminaries

Bluntschli’s Seminary

Knies’ Seminary of Political Economy

Historical Seminary at Bonn

An American Student on German Seminaries

Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries

Seminaries of Art and Archeology

Seminary Libraries

Statistical Seminary in Berlin

 

Excerpt from: II. New Methods of Study in History by Herbert Baxter Adams (1884)

 

[p. 64]

4.— THE SEMINARY METHOD.

The Seminarium, like the college and the university, is of ecclesiastical origin. Historically speaking, the seminary was a nursery of theology and a training-school for seminary priests. The modern theological seminary has evolved from the mediaeval institution, and modern seminary-students, whether at school or at the university, are only modifications of the earlier types. The Church herself early began the process of differentiating the ecclesiastical seminary for the purposes of secular education. Preachers became teachers, and the propaganda of religion prepared the way for the propaganda of science. The seminary method of modern universities is merely the development of the old scholastic method of advancing philosophical inquiry by the defense of original theses. The seminary is still a training-school for doctors of philosophy; but it has evolved from a nursery of dogma into a laboratory of scientific truth.

A young American, Professor of Greek at Dartmouth College, John Henry Wright, in an admirable address on the Place of Original Research in College Education, explains very clearly the transitional process from the theological seminary to the scientific seminary. “The seminaries were instituted that theological students, who expected to teach on the way to their profession, might receive special pedagogical training in the subjects in which they would be called upon to give instruction in the schools. As the subject-matter of liberal instruction was mainly the languages and literatures of Greece and Pome, the seminaries became philological in character. The first seminary that actually assumed the designation of philological was that founded at Goettingen in 1733, by Gesner the famous Latinist. This seminary has been, in many respects, the model for all later ones.”1

1 An address on The Place of Original Research in College Education, by John Henry Wright, Associate Professor of Greek in Dartmouth College, read before the National Educational Association, Department of Higher Instruction, July 14, 1882, Saratoga, N. Y. From the Transactions, 1882. This address and Prof. E. Emerton’s recent contribution on “The Historical Seminary in American Teaching,” to Dr. G. Stanley Hall’s volume on Methods of Teaching and Studying History, are the best American authorities on the Seminary Method.

[p. 65]

The transformation of the Seminarium into a laboratory of science was first accomplished more than fifty years ago by Germany’s greatest historian, Leopold von Ranke. He was born in the year 1795 and has been Professor of History at the University of Berlin since 1825. There, about 1830, he instituted those practical exercises in historical investigation (exercitationes historicae) which developed a new school of historians. Such men as Waitz, Giesebrecht, Wattenbach, Von Sybel, Adolph Schmidt, and Duncker owe their methods to this father of historical science. Through the influence of these scholars, the historical seminary has been extended throughout all the universities in Germany and even to institutions beyond German borders. Let us consider a few seminary types.

 

Heidelberg Seminaries.

At the university of Heidelberg, as elsewhere in Germany, there are seminaries for advanced training in various departments of learning, chiefly, however, in philology and in other historical sciences. The philological seminary, where the use of the Latin language for formal discussion is still maintained at some universities, is perhaps the connecting link between mediaeval and modern methods of scholastic training. In the Greek seminary of the late Professor Koechly, at Heidelberg the training was pre-eminently pedagogical. The members of the seminary took turns in occupying the Professor’s chair for one philological meeting, and in expounding a classical author by translation and comment. After one man had thus made trial of his abilities as an instructor, all the other members [p. 66] took turns in criticizing his performance, the Professor judging the critics and saying what had been left unsaid.

In the historical seminary of Professor Erdmannsdoerffer, the method was somewhat different. It was less formal and less pedagogical. Instead of meeting as a class in one of the university lecture-rooms, the historical seminary, composed of only six men, met once a week in a familiar way at the Professor’s own house, in his private study. The evening’s exercise of two hours consisted in the critical exposition of the Latin text of a mediaeval historian, the Gesta Frederici Imperatoris, by Otto, Bishop of Freising, who is the chief original authority upon the life and times of Frederic Barbarossa. As in the Greek seminary, so here, members took turns in conducting the exercises, which, however, had less regard for pedagogical method than for historical substance. Each man had before him a copy of the octavo edition of Bishop Otto’s text, and the conductor of the seminary translated it into German, with a running comment upon the subject matter, which he criticised or explained in the light of parallel citations from other authors belonging to Bishop Otto’s time, who are to be found in the folio edition of Pertz’s Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

From this method of conducting the seminary, it would appear as though one man had all the work to do for a single evening, and then could idly listen to the others until his own turn came once more. But it was not so. Subjects of discussion and for special inquiry arose at every meeting, and the Professor often assigned such subjects to the individuals most interested, for investigation and report. For example, he once gave to an American student the subject of Arnold of Brescia, the Italian reformer of the twelfth century, who was burnt to death in Home in 1155, having been delivered up to the pope by Frederic Barbarossa. The investigation of the authorities upon the life-work of this remarkable reformer, the precursor of Savonarola and of Luther, occupied the student for many weeks. On another occasion, Seminary discussion [p. 67] turned upon the origin of the Italian Communes, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin. An American student, who had been reading Guizot’s view upon the origin of municipal liberty, ventured to support the Roman theory. The Professor referred the young man to Carl Hegel’s work on the Constitution of Italian Cities and to the writings of Von Maurer. That line of investigation has occupied the American student ever since 1876, and the present work of the historical seminary at the Johns Hopkins University is to some extent the outgrowth of the ererni brought to Baltimore from the Heidelberg seminary.

 

Bluntschli’s Seminary.

As an illustration of seminary-work, relating more especially to modern history and modern polities, may be mentioned the private class conducted for two hours each week in one of the university rooms by the late Dr. J. C. Bluntschli, professor of constitutional and international law at Heidelberg. In his seminary, the exercises were in what might be called the comparative constitutional history of modern European states, with special reference to the rise of Prussia and of the new German empire. Bluntschli himself always conducted the meetings of the seminary. Introductory to its special work, he gave a short course of lectures upon the history of absolute government in Prussia and upon the influence of French and English constitutional reforms upon Belgium and Germany, lie then caused the seminary to compare in detail the Belgian constitution of 1830 with the Prussian constitution of 1850. Each member of the seminary had before him the printed texts, which were read and compared, while Bluntschli commented upon points of constitutional law that were suggested by the texts or proposed by the class. After some weeks’ discussion of the general principles of constitutional government, the seminary, under Bluntschli’s skillful guidance, entered upon a special and individual study of the relations between [p. 68] church and state, in the various countries of Europe, but with particular reference to Belgium and Prussia, which at that time were much disturbed by conflicts between the civil and the ecclesiastical power. Individual members of the seminary reported the results of their investigations, and interesting discussions always followed. The result of this seminary-work was an elaborate monograph by Bluntschli himself upon the legal responsibility of the Pope, a tractate which the Ultramontane party thought inspired by Bismarck, but which really emanated from co-operative studies by master and pupils in the Heidelberg seminary.

 

Seminary of Political Economy.

At Heidelberg a seminary in political economy is conducted by Professor Knies, who may be called the founder of the historical method as applied to this department. His work on Politische-oekonomie vom Standpunkt der geschichtlichen Methode was published in 1853 and ante-dates the great work of Roscher by one year. The seminary method encouraged by Knies consists chiefly in the reading and discussion of original papers by his pupils upon assigned topics. The latter were sometimes of a theoretical but quite frequently of an historical character. I remember that such topics as Turgot’s economic doctrines were often discussed. The various theories of wealth, from the French mercantilists and physiocrats down to Henry C. Carey, were examined. The meetings of the seminary were held every week and were not only of the greatest service in point of positive instruction, but also, in every way, of a pleasant, enjoyable character. Men learned to know one another as well as their professor. A most valuable feature of the seminaries in political science at Heidelberg was a special library, quite distinct from the main university library. Duplicate copies of the books that were in greatest demand were at the service of the seminary.

 

[p. 69]

The Historical Seminary at Bonn.1

1 See L’Université de Bonn et l’enseignement supérieur en Allemagne, par Edmond Dreyfus-Brisac, (editor of the Revue international de l’enseignement). “Les Séminaires.”

The object of this seminary, as of all German historical seminaries, is to introduce special students to the best methods of original research. The Bonn seminary is one of the most flourishing in all Germany. It is an endowed institution. It was instituted in the year 1865 and enjoys the income of a legacy of forty thousand marks left it by Professor Wilhelm Pütz. The income is devoted to three stipends, each of about 600 marks, for students of history and geography who have successfully pursued one or both of these sciences for two years. Said stipends are awarded annually by the philosophical faculty upon recommendation by the director of the seminary. It is said that a student of Bonn university has a better chance of obtaining such stipend than does a candidate from outside. In addition to this endowment of ten thousand dollars, the Bonn seminary of history is allowed a special appropriation, in the annual university budget, for general expenses, for increasing the seminary library, and for the director’s extra salary. Any unused balance from the fund devoted to general expenses is expended for library purposes.

The historical seminary of Bonn has now four sections, each under the guidance of a professor, representing a special field of history. The four professors constitute a board of control for the entire seminary. The director is appointed from year to year, the four professors rotating in the executive office. The student membership for each section is restricted to twelve. The meetings occur once a week, from 5 to 7 o’clock in the evening. All members are expected to be present, although no individual student makes more than one contribution during a semester. Members are subject to expulsion by the board of control for failure to discharge any obligations, for inadequate work, or for mis-use of the library.

[p. 70]

The library consisted, in 1879, of 308 works, and was kept in the charge of one of the members of the seminary. Among the books noticed by Dreyfus-Brisac, at the the time of his visit, were the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, the complete works of Luther, the Annales Ecclesiastici edited by Baronius, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Muratori’s Scriptores Rerum Italicarum, The Glossary of Mediaeval Latin, by Ducange, a set of Sybel’s Historische Zeitschrift, Forschungen (Munich), the writings of Curtius, Mommsen, Ranke, Sybel, etc.

Dreyfus-Brisac mentions other seminaries at Bonn University, notably that of the late Professor Held in Political Economy, held privately in his own house, and the pedagogical seminary of Bona-Meyer. The observing, critical Frenchman says that he knows of nothing more remarkable in German educational methods, nothing more worthy of imitation, than the seminaries of Bonn.

 

An American Student on German Seminaries.

Dr. Charles Gross,1 an American student who has recently taken the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Goettingen in the department of History, with the highest honors, and who is now studying English Municipal History in the British Museum, has written by request the following account of German historical seminaries, in which he has had long and varied experience : ” The German historical seminary aims to inculcate the scientific method. It is the workshop in [p. 71] which the experienced master teaches his young apprentices the deft use of the tools of the trade. In the lecture room the professor presents the results of his investigations; in the Seminar (or Uebungen) he shows just what he had to do in order to secure those results. The German student lays far more stress upon his seminar than upon his lectures. He may “cut” the latter for weeks at a time, while he is very assiduous in his attendance upon the former. The latter may be obtained from books or from the Heft of some more conscientious student ; but the scientific method, the German maintains, is the gift of time and the seminary only, — the result of long contact between the mind of the master and the mind of the disciple.

1 Dr. Gross presented for his doctor’s dissertation at Goettingen a thesis on the Gilda Mercatoria, an important contribution to English municipal history, originally suggested by the late Professor Pauli. The subject has an interesting bearing upon the merchant associations, which furnished men, capital, and government for the English colonies in America. Dr. Gross is now writing an Introduction to American Municipal History, to be published in this series.

” Two different kinds of work predominate in the German historical seminary : the writing of short theses (Kleine Arbeiten) or the critical reading of some document or documents, more frequently of some chronicler or chroniclers. The professor selects a list of subjects for theses from the field of his special line of investigation and assigns them to the students, the latter’s particular tastes being generally consulted. A member of the seminary rarely has more than one thesis during the semester, frequently not more than one during the year, and during his first two or three semesters none at all. The professor points out the sources and authorities, and the student consults with him whenever difficulties arise in the preparation of the work. One or two critics (Referenten) are appointed for each thesis, who comment upon the production after it has been read. A free discussion of the subject then follows, the professor and students doing all in their power to show the utter lack of Wissenschaft in the author’s method.

“As regards the other element of seminary work, viz., critical reading of some chronicler, to each student is assigned a certain portion of the text, which, — with the aid, if necessary, of other contemporaneous sources pointed out to him by the professor — he is expected to treat in accordance with the canons of historical criticism, the other students commenting ad libitum.

[p. 72]

” Now these two elements are variously combined in different Seminars. Generally both are carried on side by side, an hour perhaps being taken up with the thesis and the other hour of the session with some text. (That, e.g., is the plan of Prof. Bresslau of Berlin). Sometimes the seminary is divided into two sections, one for the Kleine Arbeiten and the other for the critical manipulation of some chronicler (e. g. Giesebrecht’s Seminar in Munich). Sometimes one of the two elements is excluded (v. Noorden in Berlin had no theses in my day ; Droysen nothing but theses). Sometimes the students are not required to do any work at all, the professor simply commenting upon some text for an hour or two. (That was Weizsäcker’s and Pauli’s method).”

 

Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries.

One of the best accounts of German university instruction in history is that given by Paul Frédéricq, Professor in the University of Liège, Belgium. He made two excursions to German university-centres in the years 1881 and 1882, and published a most instructive article in the Revue de l’instruction publique (supérieur et moyenne) en Belgique, in 1882. The article is entitled, De l’enseignement supérieur de I’histoire.1 It will probably be soon translated for publication in America. M. Frédéricq visited Berlin, Halle, Leipzig, and Goettingen. He describes, in a pleasant way, the various lectures that he attended, the professors he met, and the methods that he learned. To one acquainted with life at the Berlin university, its professors of history, and its lecture-courses, M. Frédéricq’s picture seems almost perfect. One sees again, in fancy, Heinrich von [p. 73] Treitschke, the brilliant publicist and eloquent orator, with his immense audiences, everyone of them an enthusiastic seminary of Prussian Politics. The following felicitous sketch of Gustav Droysen will be appreciated by all who have seen that distinguished professor in the Katheder : “Je le vois encore, tenant en main un petit cahier de notes à converture bleue et accoudé sur un grossier pupitre carré, exhaussé au moyen d’une allonge, qui se dressait à un demi-mêtre au-dessus de la chaire. II commença à mi-voix, à la manière des grands prédicateurs français, afin d’obtenir le silence le plus complet. On aurait entendu voler une mouche. Penché sur son petit cahier bleu et promenant sur son auditoire des regards pénétrants qui perçaient les verres de ses lunettes, il parlait des falsifications dans l’histoire. … A chaque instant une plaisanterie très réussie, toujours mordante et acérée, faisait courir un sourire discret sur tous les bancs…. J’y admirai la verve caustique, la clarté et la netteté des aperçus, ainsi que l’habileté consommée avec laquelle le professeur lisait ses notes, de manière à faire croire à une improvisation.”

1 Another good authority upon the subject of German seminaries is M. Charles Seignobos, of Dijon, France, in his critical article on L’enseignement de I’histoire dans les universités allemandes, published in the Revue Internationale de l’ enseignement, June 15, 1881. Cf. pp. 578-589.

The historical seminary conducted by Professor Droysen is one of the best at the University of Berlin. Although Professor Frédéricq failed to obtain access to this seminary as well as to that of Mommsen’s, being told qu’ on y exercait une critique si sévère, si impitoyable que la présence d’un étranger était impossible, yet he quotes in a work1 more recent than the article above mentioned the observations made in 1874 by his colleague, Professor Kurth, of Liège: “M. Droysen, dans sa Société historique, tient aux travaux écrits, parce qu’ ils semblent donner plus de consistance aux études et que c’est quelque chose qui reste; ils fournissent plus facilement l’objet d’une discussion, ils font mieux apprécier le degré de force d’une élève ainsi que ses aptitudes scientifiques; enfin, ils permettent [p.74] à ses condisciples de profiter mieux de son travail. La correction de celui-ci en effet, est confiée à un autre élève qui, sous les auspices du professeur, en critique les erreurs et le discute dans la réunion suivante avec l’auteur; de là, des controverses souvent animées, auxquelles chaque assistant peut prendre part, et qui offrent l’aspect d’une véritable vie scientifique.”

1 De l’enseignement supèrieur de l’histoire en Belgique, XV. Published as an introduction to the Travaux du Cours Pratique d’Histoire National de Paul Frédéricq. [Gand et La Haye, 1883.].

M. Frédéricq describes with evident pleasure the privilege he enjoyed, through the courtesy of George Waitz, in being admitted to the latter’s seminary, held every Wednesday evening, for two hours, in his own house. The seminary consisted of nine students. They were seated at two round tables, which were loaded with books. The students had at command the various chronicles relating to the times of Charles Martel. The exercise consisted in determining the points of agreement and disagreement among original authorities, with reference to a specific line of facts, in how far one author had quoted from another, &c. “The professor asked questions in a quiet way, raised objections, and helped out embarrassed pupils with perfect tact and with a kindly serenity.” M. Frédéricq noticed how, at one time, when a student had made a really original observation, the professor took out his pencil and made a note of it upon the margin of his copy of the chronicle. In such simple ways the spirit of independent thought and original research is encouraged by one of the greatest masters. George Waitz is the successor of G. H. Pertz as editor of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. To see upon the professor’s desk great bundles of printer’s proofs for this vast work, only deepened M. Frédéricq’s impressions that here in this private study was really a workshop of German historical science.

 

Seminaries of Art and Archeology.

M. Frédéricq describes another phase of historical training which is eminently worthy of imitation in all colleges or universities, where there is convenient access to an archaeological [p. 75] museum. Ernst Curtius is perhaps even more famous in Berlin as a classical archaeologist than as the historian of Greece. His lectures upon Grecian art are accompanied by a weekly visit of his class to the museum, where an hour or two is spent in examining plaster-casts and fragments of antique sculpture under the guidance of Curtius himself. Having enjoyed this very experience on many occasions in Berlin, the writer can attest the literal truth of the following description:

” L’après-midi, M. Curtius nous avait donne rendez-vous au Musée des antiques où il fait chaque semaine une leçon sur l’archéologie grecque et romaine. A son arrivée les étudiants qui l’attendaient en flânant à travers les collections, le saluèrent silencieusement, puis remirent leur chapeau. M. Curtius resta couvert aussi et commença sur-le-champ sa promenade de démonstrations archéologiques. Armé d’un coupe-papier en ivoire, il allait d’un objet à l’autre, expliquant, indiquant les moindres particularités avec l’extremité de son coupe-papier, tantôt se haussant sur la pointe des pieds, tantôt s’agenouillant pour mieux détailler ses explications. A un moment même il se coucha par terre devant un trépied grec. Appuyé sur le coude gauche et brandissant de la main droite son fidèle coupe-papier, il s’extasia sur les formes élégantes et sur les ornements ravissants du petit chef-d’oeuvre. On comprend aisément combien des leçons faites avec chaleur par un tel professeur, dans un musée de premier ordre, doivent être utiles aux élèves. La leçon que j’ai entendue ne roulait que sur des points secondaires : trépieds, candélabres, vases en terre cuite, etc., et malgré cela il s’en dégageait une admiration communicative et une sorte de parfum antique. On m’a assure que lorsqu’il s’occupe de la statuaire, M. Curtius atteint souvent à l’éloquence la plus majestueuse ; et je le crois sans peine.”

The same method of peripatetic lectures, as described by M. Frédéricq, was also pursued when I was in Berlin, 1874-5, by Herman Grimm for the illustration of art-history. Once a week he would meet his class at the museum for the examination [p.76.] of works illustrating early Christian plastic and pictorial art, for example, that of the Catacombs; also works illustrating Byzantine and Germanic influences, and the rise of the various Italian, French, German, and Flemish schools of painting and sculpture. More was learned from Grimm’s critical commentary upon these works of art, whether originals, photographs, or engravings, than would be possible from almost any course of lectures upon the philosophy of art or aesthetics, without concrete realities to teach the eye. The wealth of that great museum of Berlin — for student-purposes one of the finest in the world — is best appreciated when a man like Grimm or Curtius points out its hidden treasures.

The same illustrative methods in ancient and modern art were also practiced by the late Professor Stark, the archaeologist and art historian of Heidelberg. Although the museum of the latter university is small, when compared with that of Berlin, yet it serves to illustrate what any institution of moderate resources can accomplish for its students in the way of supplying original sources of art-history, at least in the shape of casts, photographs, and other fac simile reproductions of artistic objects. If Stark did not have original tripods, candelabras, and terra cottas, he had, nevertheless, images of almost every important object mentioned in his lectures. One of the exercises in Stark’s archaeological seminary consisted in the explanation at sight, by individual members, of pictorial representations upon Greek vases, which were inexpensively reproduced in colored plates, so that every man could have before him a copy of the work under discussion. There is a great future for American student-research in the field of arthistory, which Herman Grimm used to call die Blüthe der Geschichte. The quick success in England of Dr. Charles “Waldstein, a pupil of Stark’s at Heidelberg, shows what possibilities there are beyond German borders for the science of art and archaeology. The popularity of Professor Norton’s seminary and art-courses at Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows that interest in such matters is kindling upon this side of the [p. 77] Atlantic. The art collections begun by Yale, Amherst and Smith, Vassar and Cornell, Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University indicate that the day of art seminaries is not far off. Indeed, since this writing, there was instituted (March 1, 1884,) in Baltimore a so-called Art-Circle, consisting of about twenty graduate students, under the direction of Dr. A. L. Frothingham,1 a fellow of the University, who has lived many years in Rome and is a member of the Società dei Cultori dell’ Archeologia cristiana. The Circle will meet every Saturday morning in the library of the Peabody Institute, and, under the guidance of Dr. Frothingham, will spend an hour or two in the examination of plates, photographs, and other works illustrating the history of art. The subjects of study for this semester are: the catacomb frescoes; the sarcophagi; mosaics; ivory sculpture ; metal sculpture ; romanesque architecture; gothic architecture; sculpture in France (gothic period); renaissance sculpture in Italy; schools of painting in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. An art-club, with eight members, has also been instituted among the undergraduates for the systematic reading of art-history.

1 Dr. Frothingham is the author of the following monographs: L’Omelia di Giacomo di Sarûg sul Battesimo di Constantino Imperatore (Reale Accademia dei Lincei, 1881-2) ; Il Tesoro della Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano dal XIII al XV Secolo (Roma, 1883) ; Une Mosaïque Constantinienne inconnue à Saint-Pierre de Rome (Revue Archéologique, Paris, 1883); Les Mosaïques de Grottaferrata (Gazette Archéologique, for December, 1883-January, 1884); Letter to the Society for Biblical Archaeology on a Hebrew inscription on a mosaic of the V cent. at Ravenna.

Dr. Frothingham and Dr. Alfred Emerson (fellow of Greek and classical archeologist) have been the most active spirits in lately founding an Archeological Society in Baltimore, which will enjoy the co-operation of distinguished archaeologists in the old world.

 

Seminary Libraries

One of the most interesting and important features of the German historical, political, and archaeological seminaries is [p. 78] the special library, distinct from the main university collections. We have already noticed the existence of such libraries at Heidelberg and Bonn ; and it may be said in general that they are now springing up in all the universities of Germany. So important an auxiliary have these seminary -libraries become that in some universities, where the seminaries have been recognized by the state, a special appropriation is granted by the government for library purposes. The government of Saxony granted Professor Noorden of Leipzig 6,500 marks for the foundation of his seminary-library and an annual subsidy of 1,200 marks. This revenue for the purchase of books is considerably increased by a charge of ten marks per semester, paid by every student who has access to the seminary -library. The privileges of this working-library are regarded as analogous to the privileges of using laboratory apparatus or attending a clinique.

In addition to a special library, German seminaries are now procuring special rooms, not only for regular meetings, but for daily work. The historical seminary at Leipzig, embracing four sections like that at Bonn, has had, since 1880, five rooms at its disposal ; one consultation-room or Sprechzimmer for the professors, one room for maps and atlases, and three large rooms where the students work, with their special authorities around them. Every student has for himself a table containing a drawer of which he keeps the key. The rooms are inaccessible to all except members of the seminary, who are intrusted with pass-keys and can enter the library at any time from nine o’clock in the morning until ten o’clock at night. The rooms are warmed and lighted at university expense. Each student has a gas-jet above his own table and is absolutely independent of all his neighbors. Individuality is a marked feature of student-life and student-work in Germany. Men never room together ; they rarely visit one another’s apartments ; and they almost always prefer to work alone. Society and relaxation they know how and where to find when they are at leisure. By general consent German [p. 79] students attend to their own affairs without let or hindrance. This belongs to academic freedom. It belongs to the seminary and it belongs to the individual student.

M. Seignobos, in his excellent article on l’enseignement de l’histoire en Allemagne,1 says “tout seminaire historique d’Etat possède sa bibliothèque propre et sa salle de travail réservées à l’usage de ses membres. Là, au contraire, tous les livres sans exception, restent à demeure, afin que l’étudiant soit toujours sûr de les trouver.” M. Seignobos gives a list of some of the chief works that are to be found in the historical seminary library at Leipzig. He noted Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum; Jaffé, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum ; Böhmer, Regesta imperatorum ; Böhmer, Fontes rerum Germanicarum ; Muratori, Scriptores; Bouquet, Historiens des Gaules; Wattenbach and Lorenz, Quellengeschichte; Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte; Archiv der Gesellschaft fur deutsche Geschichte; Historische Zeitschrift; Walter, Corpus juris Germanici; Zöpfl, Rechtsgeschichte; Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte ; Gengler, Codex juris municipalis; Annales ecclesiastici; Migne, Vies des Papes; Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit; Giesebrecht, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches; Scriptores rerum prussicarum ; Huillard-Bréholles, Frédéric II; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte; Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom; Collection Byzantine; Sickel, Monumenta graphica ; Potthast, Bibliotheca medii aevi.

1 Revue internationalde l’enseignement, June 15, 1881. “Bibliothèques.”

 

The Statistical Seminary in Berlin.2

2 Authorities: Dr. Engel, Das Statistische Seminar des Königl. Preussischen Statischen Bureaus in Berlin, 1864. Programmes of courses.

This government institution, while dealing with Prussian statistics, is also a regular seminary for the training of university graduates who have passed the examinations required for [80] entrance to the higher branches of the civil service. The seminary, which was first opened in November, 1862, was under the direction of Dr. Edward [sic, “Ernst” is correct] Engel, chief of the Bureau of Statistics, aided by various university professors. The idea was that the government offices of the statistical bureau should become laboratories of political science. Not only are the facilities of the department utilized for training purposes, but systematic courses of lectures are given to the statistical seminary by university professors co-operating with the chief and his assistants. Subjects like the following are treated: the theory and technique of statistics; agrarian questions; conditions and changes of population; political economy in its various branches ; insurance; social questions ; administration; prison discipline and prison reform in various countries ; sanitary questions, physical geography, etc.

The amount of original work produced by the bureau and seminary of statistics is very great. One has only to examine the Verzeichniss der periodischen und anderen Schriften,1 which are published by these government offices, in order to appreciate the scientific value of the scholar in politics. These publications are of international significance, by reasons of the lessons which they teach. Whoever wishes to study, from a comparative point of view, the subject of national or municipal finance; the relations of church and school; sanitation; insurance ; trade and commerce ; industries ; population ; land and climate; cities; development of the science of statistics; statistical congresses; markets; fairs; genealogies of royal families; tables of mortality; education; administration, etc., will be richly rewarded by consulting the published works of the Prussian Statistical Bureau, which can be obtained at catalogue prices.

1 For this catalogue, one should address the Verlag des Koniglichen Statistischen Bureaus, Berlin, S. W., Lindenstrasse, 28.

 

[p. 81]

Library of the Statistical Seminary.

Among the publications of the Prussian Statistical Bureau is the catalogue of its library in two royal octavo volumes. In the first, the authors and titles are arranged according to the sciences which they represent. In the second, the contents are grouped by States. Probably there is in existence no other such complete guide to political science in its historical, theoretical, and practical aspects.

This library, now numbering over 70,000 volumes, has been used by Johns Hopkins University men, two of whom have belonged to Dr. Engel’s Seminar, and they would fully endorse the published statement by Dr. Engel, in his account of the Statistical Seminary, made as long ago as 1864. He says: “If we may believe the admissions of many specialists, there exists far and wide no library so rich, no collection of periodicals so select, no map collection so excellent, as those in the royal bureau of statistics. All new contributions to this branch of literature, whether in Germany, France, England, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, North and South America, are brought to the eyes of members of this seminary. A series of more than seventy special magazines of political economy, statistics, and the allied branches of industry, agriculture, commerce and trade, public; works, finance, credit, insurance, administration (municipal and national), social self help, — all this is not only accessible for seminary-use, but members are actually required to familiarize themselves with the contents of these magazines inasmuch as one of the practical exercises of the seminary consists in the preparation of a continuous report or written abstract of these journals.”

 

Source:

Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, ed. by Herbert B. Adams.
Second Series: Methods in Historical Study. January-February, 1884.

 Image Source: Portrait of Herbert B. Adams (between 1870 and 1880). Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs.