Month: June 2019

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Dartmouth Economists

Berkeley and Dartmouth. Frank Knight’s economist brothers Melvin M. Knight and Bruce Winton Knight

 

Pairs of siblings becoming professors of economics are infrequent but hardly rare. A trio of siblings becoming professors of economics becomes easier to imagine when one considers families with nine children as was the case for Frank H. Knight and his brothers Melvin Moses Knight and Bruce Winton Knight. This post provides images and official university obituaries  for Melvin and Bruce. 

Seeing “salty individualist” in the first line of an obituary tells us something about Melvin, perhaps that he was not an easy-going, cheery colleague?  

The previous post unearthed a ballad (The Ballad of Right Price) from the early 1920’s written by Bruce Knight who was a graduate-student quizmaster for University of Michigan professor Fred M. Taylor at the time.

The only photo I could find of the eldest of the three, Melvin, is cropped from the image of his passport application of June 1917. At the  online archive of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine one can find a few different pictures of the youngest, Bruce.

_________________________

 

__________________

Melvin Moses Knight, Economics: Berkeley
1887-1981
Professor Emeritus

The University of California has numbered many salty individualists among its faculty. M.M. (Melvin Moses) Knight must figure high among them. Born April 29, 1887 on a farm near Bloomington, Illinois, he was one of nine children. Three were to be distinguished economists, M.M. at Berkeley, Frank at the University of Chicago, and Bruce at Dartmouth. Life on the farm was not always easy. At age 13, M.M. found himself responsible for running the farm. A self-taught man, he never attended high school. For a time he worked as a locksmith and bicycle mechanic. He later showed skills as plumber and musician. At age 23 he managed to qualify for entrance into Milligan College, Tennessee. After two years, he transferred to the University of Tennessee, where he studied physics and economics. He took an A.B. at Texas Christian University in English in 1913, followed the next year by an M.A. in history. He studied for a while at the University of Chicago and finally earned a Ph.D. in sociology at Clark University in sociology, with a thesis, Taboo and Genetics. His studies continued at other institutions, including the New School for Social Research and the University of Paris in such fields as geology, geography, genetics, mathematics, and theology. Later his wide interdisciplinary interests showed up in his teaching and writing.

He was no stranger to war. During World War I he served as a volunteer ambulance driver with the French army and later with the intelligence section of the Air Service of the American Expeditionary Force. In 1919 he served as a volunteer with the Romanian Field Hospital, Regina Maria, in Transylvania and Hungary. He was discharged as a captain and decorated with the Romanian Cross of Merit. During World War II, by then too old for active duty, he served as Assistant Chief, Division of Economic Studies, Department of State.

M.M.’s academic career began in 1920 at Hunter College, followed by brief periods at the Universities of Utah and California. From 1923 to 1926 he was in the Department of History at Columbia University. In 1926 an Amherst Memorial Fellowship took him to Europe and North Africa to examine the French colonial system. In 1928 he joined the Department of Economics of the University of California, Berkeley, where he remained until his retirement in 1954.

In teaching, writing, and dealings with colleagues, M.M. displayed the keenly interdisciplinary character of his studies and a probing curiosity. His first publication was a Dictionnaire Pratique d’Aeronautique, prepared for the U.S. Air Service in 1918. After that came a number of articles on the contemporary economy and the political problems of eastern Europe, economic history, and colonial questions. His “Water and the Course of Empire in French North Africa” (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1925) is a masterly exposition of the millennial relation between physical changes in man’s environment and the structure of economic organization. By the mid-1920s he entered upon a spate of publication: Economic History of Europe to the End of the Middle Ages (1926), later translated into French; co-authorship of Economic History of Europe to Modern Times(1928); The Americans in Santo Domingo(1928), a condensation of a much larger manuscript, published as well in a number of Spanish editions; an English translation of Sée’s Economic Interpretation of History (1929); Introduction to Modern Economic History (1940); and numerous articles in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences.

M.M. Knight’s concerns in economics are best summarized in the tribute to him written by Giulio Pontecorvo and Charles F. Stewart in 1979 (Exploration in Economic History, 16:243-245):

The theoretical apparatus of contemporary economics is focused on general equilibrium analysis and the solution of welfare problems within that static framework. In the simplest sense, Knight departs from today’s emphasis and this line of inquiry by his deep fundamental concern with the problem of the nature of economic scarcity and society’s response to scarcity through time rather than with the determinants of real income and the social implications of alternative income distributions.

He transcends Veblen and especially Galbraith and Rostow by his concern with the evolution and the full extent of economic structures. While Veblen was concerned with the industrial economy and its linkages to other elements, e.g., finance, etc., Knight’s view is both more holistic and more focused on the evolutionary and disequilibrium properties of economic systems.

Unlike the American institutional position, as it is typically presented, Knight adds a strong sense of geography, of place, and the ecology of place. In this particular way, he reveals his links both with his rural origins and with the traditions of French economic history…

Each society is constrained by its own geographic and resource endowments. Each therefore responds to the problem of scarcity in its own way and creates its own institutions or transforms those it borrows. Regardless of the form of the response, the process of expansion works over time to use up the opportunity… Once an opportunity is used up, it requires both technological development and a reordering of social institutions to create a new set of human opportunities and this is a formidable social task of the true long run… unlike the essentially optimistic cast of Marxian inevitability, Knight has a strong sense that systems run down and because they are located in space as well as in time, systems that have exhausted themselves do not necessarily get transformed and revived but tend to be replaced, as were Egypt and Rome and North Africa.

While in Paris, Knight married Eleanor Gehmann in what proved to be a long, happy companionship in his years of active service and after his retirement in 1954. She died in February, he on June 12, 1981.

W.W. Borah M.M. Davisson C.A. Mosk

 

Source: Melvin Moses Knight, 1887-1981. Economics: Berkeley. University of California (System) Academic Senate. 1988, University of California: In Memoriam, pp. 76-78.

__________________

Obituary, Bruce Winton Knight

Bruce Winton Knight, for 36 years a member of the Dartmouth economics faculty, died on May 28 at Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital in Hanover after a long illness. He would have been 88 on June 27.

Knight, who retired in 1960, was a vigorous opponent of what he called “pseudo-liberalism” and “state paternalism” in government. He was introduced to the conservative concepts he taught in courses on economic principles and the economics of international peace by his elder brother, the late Frank Knight, widely honored as the founder of the “Chicago school of economics.”

A native of Colfax County, Ill., Knight attended Texas Christian University and earned a B.A. from the University of Utah in 1920 and an M.A. from the University of Michigan in 1923.

He taught economics at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin, where he met his wife, the former Myrtle Eickelberg. He joined the Dartmouth faculty as an instructor in economics in 1924 and became a professor in 1934. He was also a member of Sigma Chi fraternity and had served for a number of years on the Dartmouth College Athletic Council.

Knight wrote three books on economics and a book on peace, entitled How to Run a War, published by Alfred Knopf in 1936. Despite his authorship of these four books and a solid record of writing for scholarly journals, he opposed the academic doctrine of “publish or perish.” He felt that faculty members should only write when they wished, not simply to gain recognition and status. He was cited by the Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge, Pa., for an article he wrote in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazinein December 1949 entitled “Our Greatest Issue,” which he identified as “pseudo-liberalism.”

During World War I, he served with the U.S. Army infantry for two-and-a-half years, including more than a year in the Philippines.

Knight had also been an avid baseball fan ever since his days as a pitcher in college, and he rarely missed a Dartmouth varsity baseball game.

He is survived by his wife, a son, a daughter, three brothers,aand two sisters.

 

Source:  Dartmouth Alumni Magazine June 1980, p. 93.

Image Sources:

Die Drei von der Tankstelle, classic German film from 1930.

Melvin Moses Knight from National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington D.C.; Roll #: 366; Volume #: Roll 0366 – Certificates: 54301-54700, 31 May 1917-06 Jun 1917.

Bruce Winton Knight from Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, February 1954, p. 18.

Categories
Berkeley Dartmouth Funny Business Illinois Michigan

Three Ballads on price theory, macroeconomics, and political economy by Bruce W. Knight, Kenneth Boulding, and David Felix

 

 

I stumbled across the following three ballads by accident. My search began with an obituary search for Frank Knight’s elder brother Melvin Moses Knight and his younger brother Bruce Winton Knight, both of whom were professors of economics, at Berkeley and Dartmouth, respectively. I came across a few lines quoted from the first of the three ballads below (on price theory) and was able to locate a copy of what turned out to be a pair of ballads, the second (on macroeconomics) by Kenneth Boulding. One damn thing led to another and I next discovered a third ballad (on political economy more generally) explicitly inspired by the first two. The least well known of the three balladeers was David Felix, a Berkeley economics Ph.D. and later professor at the University of Washington in St. Louis. I include his university obituary in this post.

Incidentally, the University of Michigan undergraduate textbook that is referred throughout to was written by Fred Manville Taylor, e.g.,  Principles of Economics. 8th edition, 1921. In a nice essay about the life of Fred M. Taylor written by Z. Clark Dickinson and published in 1952 (Quarterly Review: A Journal of University Perspectives, Autumn, pp. 48-61),  I discovered that Bruce Knight’s contribution (The Ballad of “Right Price”) was written in the early 1920s when he was a graduate-student quizmaster for Taylor’s course at the University of Michigan.

__________________

Obituary:
Felix, professor emeritus of economics, 91
By Melody Walker  August 12, 2009

David Felix, Ph.D., professor emeritus of development economics and economic history in the Department of Economics in Arts & Sciences, died June 13, 2009, in Bangor, Maine. He was 91.

Born in New York City, Felix graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1942 before enlisting in the U.S. Navy. He served as a lieutenant in the Pacific during World War II.

After the war, he returned to Berkeley, where he earned a master’s degree in history and a doctorate in economics. Before joining the faculty at Washington University in 1964, he was an economics professor at Wayne State University from 1954-1964.

Felix retired from Washington University in 1988. His research interests included economic development, history and international trade and finance.

Felix served as an economic consultant to the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. He had research appointments at Harvard University, the University of Sussex, England, and the London School of Economics. He received fellowships from the Fulbright, Rockefeller, Ford and other foundations for research in Latin America.

Steve Fazzari, Ph.D., professor of economics and a member of the department since 1982, has fond memories of Felix.

“I respected him for his intellectual integrity,” Fazzari said. “I admired him for his strong work ethic and professional accomplishments. And I will miss him as a teacher, colleague and friend.”

Felix is survived by his wife of 63 years, Gretchen (Schafer) Felix of Orono, Maine; two daughters; and two grandsons.

Donations may be made to the ACLU, 125 Broad St., 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004 and to The Chamber Music Society, University of Maine, 5746 Collins Center for the Arts, Orono, ME 04469.

Source: Washington University in St. Louis. theSource website, August 2o09.

__________________

Economics in Two Lessons

 

I. The Ballad of “Right Price” [early 1920s]

by Bruce Knight
Professor of Economics,
Dartmouth College

Great Whoopla, King of Hoomhomho,
In Privy Council deeply swore,
Some nineteen hundred years ago,
That Profiteering made him sore.
“Egad, it gets my goat,” he said:
“Two bits is too darn much for bread!

“Not only that my Kingdom cracks
Beneath these Robber Barons’ tolls:
The Lord perceives their heartless tax
And marks for Doom their greedy souls.
What think ye, Gents of High Renown —
Shall we revise this tariff down?”

The Council thought: “To buck a king
At best were misdirected gall:
Those prone to such a silly thing
Were never Councilmen at all.”
Their verdict was unanimous:
“What, ho! that sounds like sense to us.”

East and West and North and South
The heralds rode throughout the land,
With simple speech and ample mouth,
That Profiteers might understand:
“Hear ye!” they roared, with voice intense:
“The Price of Bread is Thirteen Cents!

“His Royal Nibs doth eke proclaim
That whoso charges more for Bread,
To brand his economic shame
Shall lose his ears from off his head:
Beware the Most Imperial Shears —
Charge Thirteen Cents, and keep your ears!”

The bakers, just a bit abashed,
So hearing, reasoned somewhat thus:
“Though wheat is scarce, and we’ll be dashed
If this won’t mean a loss to us,
We loathe to run the risk of Hell
And jeopardize our ears as well.”

The price was Thus in every town;
And South and North and West and East
The proletariat swarmed down
Like locusts to th’ Egyptian Feast:
The price of wheat dropped half a plunk,
And farmers would not plant the junk.

The days took flight, and fortnights sped:
Vox Populi exclaimed, “Immense!”
“Sic semper Profiteers!” they said,
And praised their Monarch’s Common Sense.
One dinner-time, along with roast
Whoop ordered up his usual Toast.

The Waiter blushed a crimson hue
Quite unbecoming such a lout,
And stammered forth: “Would Crackers do?
The Bread Supply has plumb run out!”
Roared Whoop: “Hast tried the nearest store?”
“Yea,” wept the knave: “There ain’t no more!”

Then waxed the King exceeding wroth,
As hungry kings are wont to do,
And, swearing by his doubtful Troth,
Ordered his land searched through and through.
This was the net result that night:
The stock of Bread had vanished quite.

Quick summoned Whoopla to his side
His meek Comptroller of Supplies:
“WHEAT! and AT ONCE!” the Monarch cried;
The wretch rejoined, with gusty sighs:
“There ain’t no wheat! And, worse, I fear,
There’s none been planted for next year.”

Last, to his Minister of State,
Sage Laran Gitis, Whoopla flew:
“Larry, thy brain, at least, hath weight:
What in the Heck are we to do?”
The latter, ex cathedra, spoke:
“Give heed, thou thick and regal Bloke:

“Next time your Cabinet and You
Contemplate fixing price, please look
At Sub-Head Three, page Fifty-two
Of Freddy Taylor’s well-known book:
You got yourselves in all this fix
By being Economic Hicks.

“Why, any college Soph would know,
Who took Ec One, and pulled a “D,”
That prices, if you let them go,
Will guide our conduct prop-er-lee —
Increase supply, curtail demand
When Wheat is scanty — understand?

“When every Jehu stocks his shelf
With Bread that’s cheap, but should be dear,
Important Persons, like Yourself,
May go without it, do you hear?
And Competition, don’t forget,
Will fix a Price that’s Right— you bet!

“Then, — there’s the Farmer — don’t you see?
The only Wheat that he will grow
Will be what he can eat; and he
Acts sensibly in doing so.
The Long Run, Whoopla — there’s the rub!
And, Broadly Speaking, you’re a dub.”

And thus and thus, and so and so
Into the regal ears was dinned,
Till Whoopla rose at length to go,
Quite vanquished by superior wind.
The chances are, when he withdrew,
He knew as much as Soph’mores do.

At any rate, he styled himself
A Proselyte of Lay-Say Fare.
Forthwith, his Empire, as to Pelf,
Beheld no equal anywhere.
And this became his proudest boast:
“I never fail to get my Toast!”

MORAL:— (Heh, heh!)

If you would see your land wax fat,
Don’t Meddle with the Thermostat!

 

II. The Busted Thermostat [early 1950s]

Kenneth Boulding
Professor of Economics,
University of Michigan

Protected by the hidden hand
Of moderate laissez-faire
King Whoopla’s happy little land
Lay prospering many a year,
As prices, neither low nor high,
Equate demand with its supply,

And Butcher, Baker, Soldier, Sailor,
Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggerman, Thief,
Rejoiced in Truth as taught by Taylor,
And no misfortune brought them grief,
(Knowing that evils only come
From price disequilibrium).

But now alas a cloud arose
As you will often find,
For lo! although production grows,
Consumption lags behind:
The consequent Accumulation,
Producing signs of sharp deflation.

So while King Whoopla takes his ease,
(The crops are good, the weather fine)
As smitten by a strange disease
Down creeps the trend-of-business line,
And round the factory corners lurk
Long lines of people wanting work.

At first the monarch flat denied
That anything could be amiss,
For was not laissez-faire the guide
To every economic bliss?
No need to call the system busted —
It’s just a little maladjusted!

But as distress and trouble grew
The king called in his learned sages
(Those dignified professors who
Transmit the wisdom of the ages)
And asked them all to diagnose
These quite unprecedented woes.

They talked of costs, they talked of prices,
Of disproportions and of lags,
And various economic vices
That make for turns and dips and sags,
But all agree, the answers come
In Long-Run Equilibrium.

But then a rash youth spoke — Who gains
From this poor status quo upholding?
I learned my1 Ec from Maynard Keynes,
Interpreted by Kenneth Boulding.
Silence more eloquent than words
Fell on those shocked and learned birds.

Mistaking silence for consent
(As intellectuals often do)
As if on self-destruction bent
The youth went on to air his view,
Maintaining, with an unbowed head,
That in the long run all are dead!

With pert remark and airy stance
He then proceeded to expound
The charms of deficit finance
In words more flippant than profound,
In Daniel Webster’s words professing
How Public Debt is Private Blessing.

It’s wrong to save too much, he said,
(Turning the theme in all its facets)
Income is from expenses bred
And public debt is private assets
And so (I hope you catch the drift)
Extravagance is really thrift!

Said Whoopla — if I feel the urges
To spend as freely as I like,
“Then2 my extravagance, or splurges,
Will other money incomes hike?
Why! said the youth — Great ball of fire,
You Understand the Multiplier!

Fine, said the king, start public works,
Build me a large expensive palace!
In such extravagance there lurks
No hint of wickedness or malice,
For from my tendency to sin comes
A rise in other people’s incomes!

On every side the buildings reared,
Harems sprang up throughout the nation;
Soon unemployment disappeared,
Succeeded by a wild inflation,
And pretty soon our poor King Whoop
Was in a different kind of soup.

People of every rank and sort
Complain about the rising prices;
The country finds its dollars short
And has an economic crisis,
And through the miserable nation
Rises the talk of abdication!

A brief revolt among the scholars,
Forced the unhappy king to flee;
He, having kept his funds in dollars,
Became a prosperous refugee,
Enjoying the succeeding era
In basking on the Riviera.

The moral of this sorry tale
Is much too obvious to mention
Don’t trim your craft to every gale
Of intellectual invention,
And think, no matter what you try
In every ointment there’s a fly.

____________

1”by” in original, corrected by hand to “my” in University of Michigan library copy.
2”That” in original, corrected by hand to “Then” in University of Michigan library copy.

 

Source:  Economics in Two Lessons, Michigan Business Review, Vol. IV, No. 6 (November 1952), pp. 24-26.

__________________

 

[III.] The Ballad of the Sad Economist, or
Who’s the Fairest Model of Them All? [1952]

David Felix
Lecturer, School of Business Administration
University of California, Berkeley

 

A Regency Council was quickly appointed,
With praise from the propertied classes anointed,
To govern the hapless country pro tem,
Unrest and inflation to ruthlessly stem.
“Right men and right thoughts,” the Regency vowed,
“Will guide back Hoomhomho to normalcy proud.”

But what is this normalcy, if one may ask?
And how will the Council proceed with its task?
With Keynesian cries hushed in prison captivity,
Committed for Un-Hoomhomhonian activity,
Along with yet more Un-Hoomhoms of the trade,
The answer would have to be Taylor-made.

“Balance the Budget! Turn off the Pumps!
All must be willing to absorb their lumps.
Out with the Parities! The Wage-price Ratchets!
Tariffs, Pork Barrels, and similar gadgets!
Up with the Bank Rate! With will there are ways.
Come all aboard for the Happy Old Days!”

“But hold!” cried the Farm Bloc, “You’re going too far!
Surely Ag Parities are not on a par
With unwarranted aids and the dishonest pleas
Of Gold-grasping Business Monopolies!
And what of our low supply elasticity?
And industrial prices with scanty plasticity?”

But Business replied, “Such Populist impudence!
When National Unity most needs forbearance,
And an end to such rabble-rousin’ and scorchin’.
Have ye not even glanced at Life, Time, and Fortune?
The Invisible Hand in its moribund hour
Has passed on the torch to Countervailing Power.”

Then a chorus of voices was heard through the land.
“You fellows can laugh, but if over our strand
Passed foreigner’s goods un-tariff blockaded,
We’d never survive such a contest unaided.”
From the Tower, “The long-run adjustment . . .” “Absurd!
In the long run we’re dead. Or hadn’t you heard?”

From the depths of the Dungeon a thin voice arose,
“Let planning and subsidies cushion the blows.”
The voice died away . . . the impersonal force
Of the Price Mechanism rolled over the source.
But then from the Workers the querulous phrase,
“What’s all this talk of the Happy Old Days?”

And a crisp, booming voice was heard to sound off,
“Our appropriations are barely enough.
We could hardly survive any budget incisions,
And still keep intact a full hundred Divisions.
With no might in sight, oh, dismal our plight!
In our fight ‘gainst the Doctrine that Might Makes the Right.”

Approbational noises applauded these facts,
Most loudly from those with Armed Forces contracts,
And from those who remembered the lack of enjoyment
In the bitter old days of Mass Unemployment.
So for various reasons ’twas widely agreed
A Defense Budget cut could scarce be decreed.

“But what shall we do?” the Council now shouted.
“All our specifics are brutally flouted.
Tell us, oh, Taylor, what means to be had?
Or is there no balm in all Gilead?
If citizens dare not to forego their coddling,
It’s no help at all to show them your modeling.”

Then Taylorites answered, “Gaze ye at the World.
The Price Mechanism lies rusted and spurled.
There stalks o’er the earth a Great Disequilibrium
That keeps us from reaching our Mobile Millenium.
Check it! Or else all our plans are disasters,
And buried the rules of our Laissez-Faire Masters.”

”We’ll call a world meet,” the Council orated.
“Immutable Laws we will get reinstated.
Call Statesmen, Advisers, and Academicians.
We’ll get to the roots of our present conditions.”
“Normalcy’s indivisible,” said Taylorites, beaming.
“How true,” said the Council, and pondered its meaning.

So from East and from West the Experts all came,
From countries too numerous to mention by name.
All ideas were free to be talked of in forum,
Provided they met current rules of decorum —
Ricardo’s, and Smith’s, and the elder John Clark’s,
Though one had to be careful in making his Marx.

As befitted the host of this glittering Cabal,
The Hoomhomhos played with their Free Market Model.
But to their surprise this gambit was spurned
By others with backgrounds equally learned.
“Technical errors,” “too static,” “unreal,”
“Class bias,” “unstable,” “no sex appeal.”

“The problem is structural,” said Abdul Al Mism.
“We’ve starved long enough with your Price Mechanism.
Send us more funds and we might try your scheme.”
“But that will just make our inflation extreme,”
Was the Taylored reply, “Attempt first our scheme.”
Said Abdul, “That’d just make our poorness extreme.”

“What I cannot swallow,” said Viscount D’Abords,
Up from the Dockers to Chamber of Lords,
“Is bread at this twenty-five pennies a loaf,
Merely to nourish some kingly old oaf.
That’s scarcely fair shares and, dash it, not cricket!
This unequal right to a bread ration ticket.”

“But come now, M’Lord, you forget the supply.
You won’t get the wheat.” “In the pig’s eye!”
Retorted the Lord, “With proper control,
The supply will come forth, I’ll wager my soul!
Haven’t you heard that most income is rent?
It’s not hard to keep the supply curve unbent.”

“But Walras has shown the result’s a delight
When unknowns and equations total up right.”
Then forth came the haughty Econometricians,
“You fail to consider stability conditions.
Equational counting is hardly enough.
In dynamic relations things can get rough.

Inflation is only a manifestation
Of some inconsistent structuralization.”
Spake Senor Garbanzo of southernmost Chile,
“To bow to the world market forces is silly.
What our countries need is Diversification,
Or else we continue as low-income nations.

Political Strength means Industrialization
To cushion the impact of Boom and Deflation.”
The Historian spake, “You Laissez-Faire Boys
Are much too enchanted with outmoded toys.
Your model concerns but a brief passing phase,
Of which, by the way, it just points up the glaze.”

And so they continued in whisper and scream,
Shifting assumptions in the midst of the stream,
Till a Child, the one who with infantile crudity
Had shown up the emperor stark in his nudity,
Piped up with “But all your polemical flair
Conceals not the fact that you’re knowledge-wise bare.

Your Curves and Equations, your scholarly canting,
Do not give the Council the answers they’re wanting.”
Then all rose indignant at this Child’s presumption.
As one they rejected the youngster’s assumption. ”
Of course we have knowledge, profound and pervasive.
There’s really no reason to be so derisive.

But to say what it is, if that’s your suggestion,
Is in general form a nonsensical question.”
But now some declared that Truth’s praxiologic,
And were quickly denounced for illogic hodge-podgic.
And so Unity broke with a suddenness tragical
On serious issues and points methodological.

Despairing, the Council cried, “Give us a policy!
How do we wend our way back unto normalcy?”
With patience one uses for children sub-normal,
The theorists explained that their knowledge was formal.
“Give us your goals, arranged in a scale,
And we’ll give you the points toward which you must sail.

And if you can tell what it is that you’ll find,
That is different from that which you’re leaving behind,
We can give you the rules couched in language most terse
For finding out which is the better or worse.”
With this, all adjourned — it was getting much later,
And each went his own way to gather more data.

Said the Child to the Councilmen, still in a coma,
Having been overcome by the learned aroma,
“The Truth is an elephant; they each hold a part,
But to piece all together is still quite an art.”
Then up woke the Council and looked round the hall,
“But that doesn’t solve our dilemma at all!”

Said the Child, “When I’m older and go off to college,
I’ll explore sociologic roots of our knowledge,
And political aspects of modern economy,
And what is the source of society’s anomy.”
Soft from up high in the empty hall’s rafters
Sounded the echo of something like laughter.

Moral

Graduate students and hair-splitting profs
Can expound the moral to credulous sophs.
It carries at least the following sting:
A little model is a dangerous thing.

Source: Current Economic Comment, University of Illinois, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1952, pp. 51-54.

 

Image Sources:  From left to right…
Bruce W. Knight in Eleven Professors to Retire. Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, June 1960, p. 19.
Kenneth Boulding at the University of Michigan Faculty History Project.
David Felix from Tourist Card for Brazil, dated 17 December 1962, copy at the ancestry.com website.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Sociology Teaching Undergraduate

Columbia. Encyclopedia article on teaching and university research in sociology. Tenney and Giddings, 1913

 

 

About a dozen posts ago I provided the text to a 1913 article on economics education written by E. R. A. Seligman and James Sullivan that was published in A Cyclopedia of Education, edited by Paul Monroe and published by Macmillan. Since the field of sociology was a fraternal twin of economics in many academic divisions at the time and not an uncommon field for graduate students of economics to choose as one of their fields of examination, this post provides now the text for the analogous article on sociology education published in the same 1913 “Cyclopedia”.

____________________

SOCIOLOGY.

Alvan A. Tenney, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Columbia University.

Franklin H. Giddings, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Sociology and the History of Civilization, Columbia University.

Scope of the Subject. —

Sociology is the scientific study of society. Men, and many of the lower animals, live in groups. The scientific problem is to dis cover, by means of observation, induction, and verification, quantitative expressions for the regular ways in which group life operates, i.e. what, in quantitative terms, are the consequences of the fact that “man is a political animal.” Study of this problem necessitates inquiry into the origin, composition, interrelationships and activities of groups. It includes consideration of the environmental, biological, and psychological factors which, historically, have conditioned the character of such groups as the process of evolution has produced. It requires investigation also of such differences and resemblances among groups as are of significance in explaining the control which the group exercises over the individuals composing it. For quantitative expression the statistical method must be used. The ultimate aim of such study is to create a scientific basis for the conscious control of human society, to the end that evolution may be transformed into progress both for the race and for the individual. Unfortunately the scope of the subject has not been always thus conceived by teachers who label their courses Sociology. The latter half of the nineteenth century, the pioneer period in scientific sociology, witnessed a remarkable development of interest in the problems of philanthropy and penology. Inquiries into the causes of poverty and crime stimulated inquiry into the broader field of social causation in general, and the term sociology was used loosely to cover any portion of these fields. (See Social Sciences.) The term “applied sociology” for some time was equivalent to philanthropy and penology (q.v.). Recognition of the fact, however, that a theory of sociology can be “applied” in the guidance of public policy in every department of social life has initiated a movement, in America especially, to segregate the special problems of philanthropy and penology under the term social economy. This movement has not worked itself out fully, and there are still many courses given as sociology that should be called social economy. Sociology, in the scientific sense, of necessity uses the materials of history, and the demonstration or the concrete illustration of sociological principles has led naturally to systematic treatment of the historical evolution of society. It has been customary, therefore, to include, as a legitimate part of the scientific study of society, the history of social institutions. Beyond these limits there is a more or less indefinite zone of subjects such as social ethics, civics, social legislation, or even certain special questions in political economy and philosophy that have been included under the term sociology. The popular tendency, however, to make the term cover discussion of any social question whatsoever is gradually disappearing.

The present status of sociology as a science has been a direct result of the history of the subject itself. No one has yet done for sociology what Marshall did for economics. None of the textbooks is entirely satisfactory nor has entire agreement yet been reached as to the subjects which should receive most attention in a fundamental course. Nearly all the pioneers in sociology, with the exception of the very earliest, still retain leadership both in the science itself and in university chairs. Though all such leaders agree on fundamental points, each has naturally emphasized in his teaching that phase of the subject to which he has contributed most. At the present time, however, both the leaders and the large body of younger teachers who have been trained by them are beginning to place somewhat the same relative emphasis on the various factors that have been found useful in explaining the problems of the science. Nevertheless, even now the teacher is compelled to organize his own courses to a considerable extent on the basis of his own reading and such special training as he may be fortunate enough to have had. The particular form which that organization takes in any given instance is usually dependent to a considerable degree upon the university at which the teacher has studied and upon the sources with which he has become familiar. The conditions which have made this situation inevitable can be appreciated only by understanding the history of the subject itself and thus realizing both the richness of the field and the freedom in choice of material which is open to the teacher.

History of the Subject. —

The beginning of sociology, in the study of society itself, must have commenced far earlier than historical records permit proof of the fact; for the propensity of individuals to take thought as to how a group of men may be controlled can hardly be considered a recently acquired trait. Primitive man early developed systematic methods for teaching youth the means whereby both nature and man could apparently be controlled, and the teaching of that part of primitive magic which pertained to social control must have constituted one of the first courses in sociology. Problems of warfare, leadership, and group dominion must have also led both to practical knowledge of the nature of group activity and to the transmission of that knowledge from generation to generation.

Of necessity the statesman has ever been a sociologist. Likewise the philosopher has always busied himself with the relation of man to his fellow man. When Plato wrote the Republic and Aristotle the Politics the philosophical study of the subject was well advanced. A considerable part of the education of a Grecian youth was thus definitely in the field now called sociology. Later, when the evolution of world-empires led to the study of how great bodies of heterogeneous groups might be maintained in a single organized and harmoniously working system, men began to construct theories of group action, e.g. those of sovereignty and of the contractual nature of the state. Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each added elements to the growing body of social theory and helped to render the theory of group action more precise. Finally, in the nineteenth century, when the bounds of knowledge had become world-wide, when the development of the natural sciences had demonstrated the utility of exact scientific method and when the rise of modern nations, the growth of the industrial system, the ideals of democratic government, and the theory of evolution had begun to influence men, Comte and Spencer led the way in the construction of a comprehensive theory of society, utilizing scientific method to elucidate modern problems of social evolution and of social progress. August Comte (q.v.) first used the word sociology in the Cours de Philosophie positive, and it was he who first insisted upon the use of the positive method in the development of the subject. It was Herbert Spencer, however, who in Social Statics, in the various volumes of the Synthetic Philosophy, and in The Study of Sociology attempted by wide observation to demonstrate that universal laws operate in human society. The work of many other men ought, however, to be included in a fuller statement of the important contributors to the development of scientific sociology in the latter half of the nineteenth century. To the influence of Charles Darwin and his kinsman Francis Galton, for example, must chiefly be credited that intensification of interest in the part which biological influences play in society which has resulted in the so-called eugenic school. (See Eugenics.) In the comparative study of institutions the pioneer work of Sir H. S. Maine cannot be forgotten, nor in the philological method of tracing social relationships, that of the Grimm brothers. In anthropo-geography and ethnology, moreover, there were such men as Ratzel, Robertson-Smith, McLennan, Morgan, and many others. Without the work of these men and their followers sociology must have rested upon a far more speculative foundation than is now the case.

Concerning the chief writers who have followed these leaders and who have contributed more particularly to sociological theory in the narrower sense of the term, it must suffice merely to mention names and to indicate the portion of the field in which each has done his chief work. Of such writers Durkheim has particularly emphasized division of labor as the essential factor in the explanation of society; Tarde, imitation; Le Bon, the impression of the mass on the individual; Gumplowicz, the struggle of races; Ratzenhofer, the motivating power of interests; De Greef, social contact and social contract ; Simmel, the forms of society and the process of socialization; Ward, the importance of human intelligence and inventiveness ; Sumner, the unconscious processes in the evolution of institutions; Giddings, sympathy and likemindedness as subjective causes of the origin and maintenance of groups, the tendency to type formation, and the identification of type form with that of the group; Small, the interests to which men react and the methods of the subject; Ross, social control; and Cooley, social organization.

The competent teacher of sociology to-day utilizes the work of all of these men and that of many others who have elucidated less striking phases of the subject. If, perchance, he be capable of contributing to the science, he may be aiding in the recently inaugurated effort to place the entire subject on a quantitative basis.

The Teaching of Sociology.—

The organized teaching of sociology as a university subject began long after the questions with which it deals had gained a firm hold upon the public mind. Little by little teachers of other political or social sciences which had already attained a recognized place in the educational system began to introduce sociological material into their courses and sometimes without sufficient justification to call the result sociology. Popular courses of lectures under the authority of recognized institutions of learning and dealing with almost every conceivable social question sprang up in nearly every civilized land and were called sociology. It was on this inclusive basis that in 1886 a report was made to the American Social Science Association that practically all of some hundred or more universities and colleges in the United States gave instruction in some branch of social science. A similar report could doubt less have been made for every country in Europe.

The first teaching of scientific sociology as a regular part of a college curriculum appears to have been in the United States when Professor Sumner in 1873 introduced Spencer’s Study of Sociology as a textbook at Yale. In 1880 the Trustees of Columbia College established the School of Political Science in that institution, and in it Professor Mayo-Smith received the chair of adjunct professor of political economy and social science. The first department of social science was created at Chicago University in 1894. In the same year the first chair of sociology definitely so called was created in Columbia, and was held then, as now, by Professor Giddings.

The entire decade in which these last mentioned events occurred, however, showed a marked increase of interest, by educators, in sociology. By 1895 the University of Chicago announced numerous courses in the subject and at least twenty-five other colleges and universities in the United States were teaching sociology proper. As many more had made provision for instruction in charities and correction. In Belgium the Université Nouvelle de Bruxelles, established in 1894, with the eminent sociologist Guillaume de Greef as its first Rector, was itself launched largely because of a revolt against the conservatism of other universities with respect to the social sciences. De Greef’s work is now largely supplemented by that of Professor Waxweiler and his staff of the Institut Solvay in the same city. Instruction is both in scientific sociology and social economy. In Switzerland as late as 1900 the only instruction in the subject consisted of a course by Professor Wuarin, the economist, given at Geneva, and one by Dr. Ludwig Stein, Professor of Philosophy at Bern. Italy has produced a number of sociologists of eminence, e.g.Lombroso, Ferri, Sighele, Ferrero, and Sergi, but even in 1900 not one of them was teaching in a university. In that year also there did not exist a single chair of sociology, so called, in Germany. Throughout the preceding six academic years, however, or during one or more of them, courses in sociology were given by Simmel (Berlin), Sombart (Breslau), Bernheim (Greifswald), Sherrer (Heidelberg), Tönnies (Kiel), and Barth (Leipzig). Schäffle of Stuttgart had also become known as the chief representative of the “organic” school. France, the land of the early physiocrats in economics and the home of Comte, was almost the last to organize instruction in the social sciences. During the first three quarters of the nineteenth century no other social sciences were taught in France than the strictly juridical and moral. At the beginning of the last quarter, however, a place for political economy was made in the examination for the bachelor’s degree in law. Even in 1900, according to Professor Gide, sociology was not taught anywhere in France in the form of a regular course, but three professors of philosophy and one of law were delivering free lectures on the subject, Durkheim at Bordeaux, Bouglé at Montpellier, Bertrand at Lyon, and Haurion at Toulouse. Letourneau, however, had by this time achieved a reputation in Paris. The privately supported Collège Libre des Sciences Sociales, had been found in 1892, but the courses included in its somewhat glittering program consisted of but ten lectures each, and were not well attended. Nevertheless, the most celebrated of French sociologists, Gabriel Tarde, first delivered at that institution in 1897 the lectures that subsequently appeared as his Lois Sociales. The school was later organized as the École des Hautes Études Sociales. At the Collège de France, also, certain courses in sociology were given after 1895, honoris causa.

In Austria Gumplowicz and Ratzenhofer have been the most noted names. The former taught at Graz. Russia contributed Lilienfeld and Novicow, but did not establish chairs for them. In Great Britain there was no chair or lectureship in the subject in any university prior to 1904 in spite of the fact that the Sociological Society was already in existence. The first important systematic series of lectures on sociology in the University of London was given in that year. Prior to that, however, Professor Geddes had been lecturing in Glasgow, and at the London School of Economics the sociological movement had received encouragement.

Such were the beginnings of systematic instruction in sociology. It is not practicable here to follow in detail the later development of the movement in all countries. The United States has introduced the subject in institutions of learning more rapidly than has been the case elsewhere. Nevertheless there has been advance in all countries. The present status of the subject in educational institutions in the United States is well reflected by the report of December, 1910, upon the questionnaire issued by the committee on the teaching of sociology of the American Sociological Society. The questionnaire was sent to 396 institutions, of which over 366 were known to give courses in sociology. One hundred and forty-five replies were received. One hundred and twenty-eight institutions reported one or more courses in sociology. In addition to universities and colleges, five theological and twelve normal schools answered the questionnaire. In an effort to gauge the character of subject matter chiefly emphasized in the 128 institutions the number of times various types of subject matter were specifically mentioned in the replies was tabulated and resulted in the following classification and marks: historical subject matter, 84 ; psychological, 80; practical, 56; economic, 22; descriptive and analytic, 21; biological, 16; In addition, definite reference to “sociological theory” occurred 40 times and to “social pathology” 13 times. Under the first subject was included specific mention of anthropology, ethnology, institutions, and social evolution; under the second, social psychology, association, and imitation; under the third, congestion, housing, philanthropy, criminology, and “social problems”; under the fourth, industrial and labor conditions and socialism; under the fifth, physical influences and the study of a specific social group; under the sixth, eugenics and statistical treatment of population. These figures and classes do not imply exclusive or preponderating attention to any one of the classes of subjects mentioned, but merely indicate roughly the type of sociological subject matter which is primarily emphasized in the educational institutions of the country at large. Eighty-six specific suggestions for subject matter to form a fundamental course distributed emphasis as follows historical, 28; psychological, 25; practical, 16; biological, 7; descriptive and analytic, 7; economic, 3. The same report includes a statement of texts and authorities cited in five or more replies to the questionnaire.

From the foregoing it is possible to understand clearly why sociology has not as yet made its way into the high school. The subject is already beginning to find a place in the curricula of normal schools, however, and sooner or later it will make its way in a simple form either to supplement or eventually to precede elementary courses in economics, civics, and history. Logically, a discussion of the fundamental bases of social organization should precede any of the questions that assume the existence of a particular sort of social organization, and there is, in reality, no reason at all why the essential factors that cooperate to produce the activities of social groups cannot be explained in such a way that a child may appreciate the simpler modes of their operation and thus be helped to understand later the complex relations of the social life of modern civilization.

Methods of Teaching Sociology. —

The subject matter of sociology, as is evident from the preceding review, lends itself most conveniently to the lecture method of presentation — at least when it is taught as a university subject. This is preeminently true if the historical evolution of society is to be treated in an adequate fashion. No student can be required to do the reading necessary for independent judgment upon the disputed points which often baffle the expert, nor would it be possible to discuss all phases of the subject in the brief time which the ordinary student can devote to sociology. The teacher may usually consider his work in this field fairly satisfactory if he succeeds in making clear the fact that the causes of social evolution can be subjected to scientific analysis as truly, if not as exactly, as any other phenomena whatsoever, if he is able to explain how the combination of various factors — physical environment, race, dynamic personality, economic, religious, and other cultural institutions — created the various types of society that have existed from the earliest forms of tribal organization to the modern world society, if he indicates the sources of information and their trustworthiness, and if in the presentation of these subjects he develops in the student a realization of the historical perspective from which it is necessary to view mankind’s development whenever rational criticism of public policy is required.

In the more closely analytical study of sociological theory more use can be made of existing texts. Even with these, however, the teacher must be ready to illustrate, explain, supplement, and criticize on the basis of reading inaccessible to the student or too extensive for him to master. Discussion of special problems in theory that arise from assigned readings in original sources is indispensable, however, if independent thinking is to be gained. For this purpose source books are a valuable aid. Many teachers have found it possible to stimulate intense interest and thought by setting each student the task of independently observing and interpreting for himself by the Le Play monographic method the phenomena of sociological significance in a concrete social group or community with which he himself is or may become familiar (e.g. his home town, college, or club). By collecting, through observation of such a group, data concerning situation, healthfulness, resources, economic opportunities, racial types, religious, educational, political, and other cultural traits, sex and age classes, nationality, ambitions and desire for wealth, justice and liberty, degree of self-reliance or dependence, amount of cooperation, constraint, discipline, tolerance, emotional and rational reactions, relations with other groups and other such matters, the student gains a lively appreciation of the factors which make or mar the efficiency of the group of which he is himself a member. By comparison of the results of such study in the seminar, characteristic and important differences may be made vivid and vitality given to discussion of the regular antecedents of social activities.

More general studies in demography, based on the census or other official records, and pursued in such a way as to throw light on current problems such as immigration, race questions, growth of cities, significant movements of population, mortality, birth, marriage and divorce rates, or sanitary conditions, often serve to give a concreteness to theory that could not otherwise be gained. Such work, moreover, often forms an excellent preparation for the more difficult task of analyzing the mental phases of collective activity, such as mob action and the formation of rational public opinion, or of determining the conditions under which social choice is free or controlled, conservative or radical, impulsive or deliberate, governed by tradition or based on scrutiny of evidence.

In addition to methods of this sort some teachers have even inspired their students with enthusiasm for making sociology a quantitative science by first grounding them well in statistical methods and then setting them simple though definite and concrete sociological problems that involve the use of that method. For example, it is quite within the power of any college class acquainted with such a simple text as Elderton’s Primer of Statistics to count the number of hours per week spent by each person in a group upon such recreational activities as are carried on, plot out the result, find the prevailing tendency, apply the usual statistical measures, median, mode, quartiles, etc., and gradually acquire facility in attacking more extensive data. (See Graphic Curve.) For instruction of this character the regular meeting of seminars or practicums for report by students upon their particular tasks becomes the most convenient pedagogical device to promote independent criticism and discussion. The seminar method is also useful for the discussion of special reports upon readings in the works of the more prominent sociological writers. In order that the observational method may be successfully applied it is evident that the canons of inductive method must be thoroughly understood by the student. It is also apparent that in the review of extant theory there must be appreciation of the criteria for judging the value of evidence. Above all, encouragement must be given to every inclination on the part of the student to investigate particular problems for himself. He must be made to realize, moreover, that sociologists must be as willing to undertake protracted and laborious tasks in the assembling of data as are the biologists, the psychologists, or the chemists.

The foregoing methods are applicable chiefly to the university student. In college or in high school the methods employed are naturally more useful if they arouse the student’s interest in problems that pertain to civic welfare, and if they aid him in understanding the forces that make or mar the efficiency of the particular social groups in which he is himself to play a part. For such purposes the method of studying current social problems becomes extremely useful, provided the teacher is skillful in the selection of the topics for discussion and can utilize sociological principles of interpretation. By using the ordinary facts present in every town or village, it is possible much earlier than is usually supposed to have the pupil observe significant sociological facts and become familiar with the scientific mode of interpreting them.

In addition to these simple statements of method it is, perhaps, unnecessary to remark that in the teaching of the science itself the most inspiring instructor is he who is himself able to employ successfully the usual deductive, inductive, comparative, historical, and statistical methods in the discovery of new truth.

References: —

Bagehot, W. Physics and Politics. (New York, 1887.)

Bernard, L. L. The Teaching of Sociology in the United States. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XV, p. 164. (1909-1910.)

Carver, T. N. Sociology and Social Progress. (Boston, 1905.)

Chapin, F. S. Report of the Questionnaire of the Committee on Teaching of the American Sociological Society. Publications of the Amer. Sociological Society, Vol. V. (1900.)

Clow, F. R. Sociology in Normal Schools. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XVI, p. 253. (1910- 1911.)

Cooley, C. H. Social Organization. (New York, 1909.)

Dealey, J. Q. The Teaching of Sociology. Publications of the Amer. Sociological Society, Vol. IV, p. 177. (1909.)

Ellwood, C. A. How Should Sociology be Taught as a College or University Subject? Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XII. p. 588. (1906-1907.)

Giddings, F. H. Modern Sociology. The International Monthly, Vol. II, No. 5. (Nov., 1900.)

___________. Democracy and Empire. (New York, 1901.)

___________. Principles of Sociology. (New York, 1896.)

___________. Sociology. Columbia Univ. Series on Science, Philosophy, and Art. (New York, 1908.)

___________. Sociology as a University Subject. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. VI, p. 635. (1891.)

___________. The Province of Sociology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. I, p. 76. (1890.)

Hobhouse, L. T. Social Evolution and Political Theory. (New York, 1911.)

Howerth, I. W. The Present Condition of Sociology in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. V, Pt. I, p. 260. (1894.)

Ross, E. A. Foundations of Sociology. (New York, 1905.)

___________. Social Control. (New York, 1908.)

Semple, E. C. Influences of Geographic Environment. (New York, 1911.)

Small, A. W. General Sociology. (Chicago, 1905.)

Spencer, H. First Principles, Pt. II. (London, 1887.)

___________. Principles of Sociology. (London, 1885.)

___________. The Study of Sociology. (New York, 1884.)

Sumner, W. G. Folkways. (Boston, 1907.)

Tarde, G. Laws of Imitation. (New York, 1903.)

Tenney, A. A. Some Recent Advances in Sociology. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXV, No. 3. (Sept., 1910.)

Thomas, W. I. Source Book for Social Origins. (Chicago, 1909.)

Ward L. F. Contemporary Sociology. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. VII, p. 476. (1900-1901.)

___________. Pure Sociology. (New York, 1907.)

___________. Applied Sociology. (Boston, 1906.)

___________. Sociology at the Paris Exposition of 1900. Rep. U. S. Com. Ed., 1899-1900, Vol. II, pp. 1451-1593.

For a list of textbooks, together with statistics of their use in institutions of learning, see Reportof the Committee on Teaching of the American Sociological Society in Publications of the American Sociological Society, Vol. V., p. 123. (1910.)

 

Source: A Cyclopedia of Education, Paul Monroe (ed.), Vol. 5. (New York: Macmillan, 1913), pp. 356-361.

Image Source: Franklin H. Giddings in University and their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Editor-in-chief, General Joshua L. Chamberlain, LL.D. Vol. II, pp. 453-5.

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Specific regulations for the economics Ph.D., 1954-55

 

The following item provides some granular information about the hurdles between an economics graduate student and the award of a Ph.D. from Columbia University as of 1954-55. It is interesting to see that economic history was still one of the three required fields, that knowledge of mathematics through basic differential and integral calculus was regarded sufficient as a substitute for either German or French reading ability. What I found most interesting is the list of fields: socialism and the economic organization of Soviet Russia were two distinct fields; mathematical economics was distinct from economic theory; and what sort of field was “Prices” anyway? I would also be curious to see which fields outside of economics were included as minor subjects, as well as the frequency of extra-economic subjects.

Columbia Ph.D. regulations for 1916.

____________________________

Doctor of Philosophy
Columbia economics regulations, 1954-55

The degree of Master of Arts is not a prerequisite to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree. Candidates may find it desirable, however, to endeavor to satisfy the requirements for the A.M. degree in the course of their preparation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Qualifying Examination. — As early as possible in his graduate residence, the student shall notify the Executive Officer of his intention to become a candidate for the Ph.D. degree in economics and choose his subjects in consultation with the Executive Officer. A written examination, intended for students who have thus indicated their intention, will be given January 8, 1955, and again on May 7, 1955. This examination must be taken before the student may register for more than thirty points of course credit for graduate work. (Students requesting credit for fifteen or more points for graduate courses completed at other institutions must take the examination before registering for more than forty-five points of course credit, including those points for which they request credit from another university.) Upon passing this examination a student is classed as a prospective candidate.

The department may deny registration privileges to students who have completed graduate courses aggregating thirty or more points of course credit who have not passed the Qualifying Examination and will deny registration privileges to students who have completed graduate courses aggregating forty-five points of course credit but who have not passed this examination.

Languages: Option in Mathematics. — The prospective candidate must satisfy the Department of Economics that he can read French and German. Other languages (but not two Romance languages) may be substituted, with the permission of the Executive Officer, if they are of special value to the candidate’s scholarly interests. Mathematics may also be substituted for one language with the permission of the Executive Officer. A student selecting this option will be required to demonstrate his knowledge of algebra, analytical geometry, and differential and integral calculus.

The student must pass the test in at least one of the languages or in mathematics before registering for courses which will bring the total of the graduate work which is recorded for him as credit toward the doctorate, including work done both at Columbia and elsewhere, to more than thirty points. (A student who has requested graduate credit at Columbia for thirty points of work done elsewhere must pass at least one of these tests prior to his initial registration at Columbia for work leading to the doctorate.) The second test, either in a language or in mathematics, must be passed before the student may register for more than forty-five points of course credit (including points credited from another university). The examinations in languages and in mathematics will be held on the following dates Monday, September 20, 1954, from 10 to 12; Thursday, January 20, 1955, from 2 to 4; Friday, May 6, 1955, from 10 to 12. Students are required to register their intention to take such an examination with the secretary of the Department of Economics at least one week prior to the date of the examination.

Certification of Candidacy. — The Executive Officer will recommend that the Dean certify a candidate for the Ph.D. degree when the candidate has completed not less than one year of graduate residence, has met Departmental language requirements and has passed the Qualifying Examination. Certification constitutes formal admission to candidacy for the degree.

Examination on Subjects: Scope. — The candidate must give satisfactory evidence of his grasp of six of the subjects indicated below. Three of these subjects must be economic theory, economic history, and statistics. Four of the subjects (including economic theory) are considered the student’s field of primary interest; the remaining two are considered his field of secondary interest. The procedure for meeting this requirement consists of an oral examination in the four subjects of primary interest and prior proof of competence in the two fields of secondary interest.

Examination on Subjects: Secondary. — Before making formal application for the examination, the candidate must satisfy the appropriate professors of economics in the Faculty of Political Science that he has done work which is adequate both in scope and quality in the two subjects of secondary interest. This requirement may be met in a manner satisfactory to the professors concerned. All such proofs of competence lapse after five years from their date but may be renewed after further examination.

Examination on Subjects: Oral Examination.—The candidate who has fulfilled the preliminary requirements may make application, through the Executive Officer of the Department, to the Dean for the oral examination on subjects. This oral examination is conducted by a committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. It will be on subjects not on courses.

When the candidate applies for his examination on subjects he must submit a memorandum outlining his dissertation project, analyzing it with respect to source material and the research techniques required. This memorandum must be approved by the sponsor of the dissertation and by the Executive Officer before the candidate may be admitted to the oral examination.

The subjects are as follows:

1. Accounting 11. Monetary Economics
2. Business cycles 12. Prices
3. Corporation and investment finance 13. Public finance
4. Economic geography 14. Public utilities (including transportation)
5. Economic history (required) 15. Socialism
6. Economic theory (required) 16. Statistics (required)
7. Industrial organization and control 17. Types of national economic organization*
8. International trade and finance 18. Economic organization of Soviet Russia*
9. Labor problems and industrial relations 19. Any other subject approved by the Executive Officer of the Department
10. Mathematical economics

*The candidate may offer either 17 or 18 but not both these fields.

 

Economic theory and any subject or subjects approved under item 19 on the above list must be included among the four subjects presented for oral examination. The Executive Officer of the Department should be consulted before making a choice of emphasis in preparation for examination.

It is the policy of the Department of Economics to encourage candidates to devote part of their effort to studies outside the Department. The candidate’s field of secondary interest, to the extent of the equivalent of two of his six subjects, may fall in one of the departments under the Faculty of Political Science, or in philosophy, psychology, or another discipline dealing with matters germane to the student’s scholarly interests. A candidate proposing to offer a field lying outside the Department must obtain the approval of the Executive Officer of the Department in advance.

Dissertation. — Investigations and researches for the dissertation may be pursued either in connection with the work of some research course or under the direction and supervision of some member of the Faculty of Political Science independently of any course. Students working on dissertations must keep their sponsors informed of the status of their work.

It is desirable that a substantial start be made on the dissertation while the student is still in residence. If a candidate works on his dissertation in absentia an annual written report of progress will be required.

If more than five years have elapsed between the date when the candidate has successfully passed the Examination on Subjects and the date of his application for the Final Examination in defense of the dissertation, the candidate will be regarded as having abandoned his proposed dissertation topic unless he makes a written request for an extension of time and obtains the written approval of the sponsor of the dissertation and of the Executive Officer.

Final Examination: Defense of the Dissertation. — The candidate may apply to the Dean for the defense of his dissertation only after having obtained the approval of the sponsor and of the Executive Officer. The candidate will defend his dissertation in respect to its content, the sources upon which it is based, the interpretations that are made, and the conclusions that are drawn, as well as demonstrate his acquaintance with the literature and available sources of information upon subjects that are cognate to the subject of his dissertation.

Minor in Economics. — Candidates for the Ph.D. degree in other departments who propose to offer a minor in economics will be required to offer two of the subjects listed [above in] this Announcement. One of the subjects must be economic theory. Such candidates should consult the Executive Officer of the Department of Economics at the earliest possible point in their graduate work.

Minor in Economic History. — Candidates in other departments offering a minor in economic history will be required to show a knowledge of the economic history of two major regions.

 

Source. Columbia University. Announcement of the  Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1954-1955. Bulletin of Information. 54th Series, No. 23 (June 19, 1954), pp. 31-33.

Image Source: Rare Book Division, The New York Public Library. “Broad Exchange [historic place on 25 Broad Street], New York, N.Y.; Columbia University [Fayerweather Hall], New York, N.Y.” New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 8, 2019.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum History of Economics Socialism Suggested Reading

Columbia. Economic readings for the examination to receive the degree of Master of Arts, 1880

 

 

If I understand the text below correctly, a requirement for a master’s degree for someone who entered with a recognized bachelor’s degree (e.g,. from Columbia or a peer college) and with at least one year of graduate study at Columbia was to be examined in all three subjects from at least one of the following five groups. I have transcribed the titles of the books that would be the subject of examinations for groups two (Philosophy/Ethics/Logic) and five (Constitutional Law, Economics, History). Links for the economics books have been provided as well.

Richmond Mayo Smith  was the Adjunct Professor of History, Political Science, and International Law who covered the economics courses in the school of political science that began operations October 4, 1880. You can read about the undergraduate economics “program” at Columbia College in 1880 as well as an exam for the mandatory Junior year course in political economy in an earlier post.  A syllabus for Mayo-Smith’s course “Historical and Practical Political Economy” from the 1890s has also been transcribed (with links to the items cited!) and posted.

___________________

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS.

The degree of Master of Arts will be conferred only on Bachelors of Arts of this College of three years’ standing or more, who shall have pursued, for at least one year, a course of study under the direction of the Faculty of the College, and shall have passed a satisfactory examination upon the subjects embraced in one at least of the five groups following, viz.:

[1]
Greek.
Latin.
English.

 [3]
Mathematics.
Mechanics.
Astronomy.
[2]
Philosophy.
Ethics.
Logic.

[4]
Physics.
Chemistry.
Geology.

[5]
Constitutional Law.
Economics.
History.

 

Bachelors of Arts of other colleges who may have been admitted ad eundem gradum in this College, may be admitted to the degree of Master of Arts on the same terms and conditions as are prescribed for the admission of Bachelors of Arts of Columbia College to the same degree.

Bachelors of Arts of other colleges may be admitted ad eundem gradum in this College on satisfying the College Faculty that the course of study for which they received the Bachelor’s degree is equivalent to that for which the Bachelor’s degree is given in Columbia College, or passing such additional examination as the Faculty may prescribe, and on payment of a fee equal to the annual tuition fee required of undergraduates.

Candidates will be allowed to offer for examination any one or more of the books or subjects named in the following list in each of the three departments belonging to the group elected by them, viz.:

[…]

 

SECOND GROUP.

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY.

  1. A general knowledge of Plato’s Philosophy.

Text-books :
Ueberweg’s History of Philosophy, Vol. I.
The Dialogues.
Grote’s Plato, Vols. II. and III.

  1. A general knowledge of Aristotle’s Philosophy.

Text-books :
Ueberweg’s History of Philosophy, Vol. I.
Sir Alexander Grant’s Aristotle.

  1. Books of reference on Plato and Aristotle (German).

Zeller, Gr. Philosophie, Vols. II. and III.;
Brandis, Philosophie, Vols. II. and III.:

or,
MODERN PHILOSOPHY.

  1. The Philosophies of David Hume and Herbert Spencer.

Text-books :
Green’s edition of Hume.
Herbert Spencer’s First Principles.
Herbert Spencer’s] Psychology.

  1. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

Books of reference (German):
Harms’s Die Philosophie seit Kant, art. Kant.
Kuno Fischer’s Kant.

  1. Caird, the Philosophy of Kant.

Zeller, Gesch. der Deutschen Phil., art. Kant.
Ueberweg, Hist. of Phil., Vol. II.

 

ETHICS.

  1. Calderwood’s Handbook of Moral Philosophy.
  2. A general knowledge of the Utilitarian Theory, and the arguments advanced against it.

Text-books :
Bentham.
Mill’s Essay on Utilitarianism.
Spencer’s Data of Ethics.
John Grote’s Utilitarianism.

 

LOGIC.

  1. John Stuart Mill’s System of Logic, Books iii.-v.
  2. Sir William Hamilton’s Lectures on Logic.
  3. Jevons’s Principles of Science.

 

 

 

FIFTH GROUP.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

  1. English Institutions.
  2. Das Deutsche Staatsrecht. Von Rönne.
  3. Histoire Parlementaire de France. Duvergier de Hauranne.
  4. Constitutional History of the United States. Von Holst.
  5. Histoire du Droit des Gens.
  6. Das Diplomatische Handbuch. Ghillany.
  7. History of International Law. Wheaton.
  8. Lehre vom Modernen Staat. Bluntschli.
  9. Political Science. Woolsey.
  10. Public Law of England. Bowyer.

ECONOMICS.

  1. On the Principles of Political Economy, either Mill (J. S.), Principles of Political Economy, or Roscher (Wm.), Principles of Political Economy.
    [Volume I; Volume II]
  2. On the History of Political Economy, either Blanqui, Histoire de l’Economie Politique [Volume I; Volume II], or Kautz, Geschichte der Nationalökonomie.
  3. On one of the following special subjects, viz.:
    1. Finance, Jevons (W. S.), Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, together with Price (B.), Currency and Banking.
    2. Commerce, Levi (Leone), History of British Commerce, and Fawcett (H.), Free Trade.
    3. Socialism, Schäffle, Kapitalismus und Socialismus.

HISTORY.

The candidate will be expected to present himself for examination in the general history of one of the following countries: Rome, England, Germany, France, or the United States of America.

 

Source: Handbook of Information as to the Course of Instruction, etc., etc., in Columbia College and its Several Schools [1880], pp. viii, 41- 43, 59-66.

Image Source: Richmond Mayo Smith in University and their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Editor-in-chief, General Joshua L. Chamberlain, LL.D.  Boston: R. Herdon Company.  Vol. 2, 1899, pp. 582.

Categories
Chicago Economists Kansas Minnesota

Chicago. Economics PhD alumnus. Jens Peter Jensen, 1926

 

Born in Denmark and educated at Dakota Wesleyan University, University of Minnesota, and the University of Chicago, Jens Peter Jensen is now officially added to our Meet-an-Economics-Ph.D. series with the profile below written for the 1937 yearbook at the University of Kansas.

___________________

From the List of Economics Ph.D. dissertations of the University of Chicago
(1894-1926)

1926. Jensen, Jens Peter.

Thesis Title: The general property tax.

A.B. Dakota Wesleyan University, 1913; A.M. University of Minnesota, 1917.

1883, April 8. Born in Trustrup, Denmark.
1900. Emigrated to U.S.
1917-18. Fellow in Political Economy, University of Chicago.
1918-19. Taught at Beloit College.
1919. Instructor, University of Chicago.
1919-21. Assistant Professor of Economics and Commerce. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.
1921-. Associate Professor of Economics and Commerce. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.
1924. Problems of Public Finance. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
1930-31 (Visiting) Associate professor of economics, University of Chicago.
1931. Professor of Economics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.
1937. Government Finance. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
1938. Professor of Economics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.
1942, August 26. Died in Brush, Colorado.

Obituary:  In Memoriam: Jens P. Jensen, 1883-1942 by John Ise in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Apr., 1943), pp. 391-392.

___________________

Profile of Kansas Economics Professor Jens Peter Jensen (1937)

… Jens Peter Jensen, native of Denmark, gives advice to the state of Kansas on problems of taxation, public revenues, and text collections. In February, 1935, he was a member of the commission which surveyed the state government of Oklahoma and its system of public finance. Frank Marland, then Sooner governor-elect, proposed the plan that caused this commission to be organized.

Since 1925, Mr. Jensen has written the annual report of progress in the field of land and public taxation and corporation and bank taxation for the American Yearbook.

For the Tax Research Foundation (under the New York Tax Commission), he prepares the Kansas charts to indicate the status of tax law and legislation in this state.

Since 1920, Mr. Jensen has been a member of the National Tax Association, has been Kansas’ delegate to its annual conventions, and has served three years on the association’s executive committee. Too, he was for a time an associate editor of the association’s official Bulletin.

Under the auspices of the Kansas State Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Jensen, with Harold Howe, professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State College, Manhattan, prepared “Tax Studies in 13 Lessons.” Distributed by the sponsors, these lessons were used in study clubs and civic organizations of the state for adult education in public finance.

Among the books which Mr. Jensen has written are A Text in Public Finance, Property Taxation in the United States, The Tax System in Colorado, and Government Finance. He has contributed articles to the Annals of the American Association of Social and Political Economy, Law and Contemporary Events (published by Duke University), American Economic Review and Journal of Political Economy.

Especially noteworthy is the fact that Mr. Jensen has done all of this work in 31 years. Born of a Swedish father and a Danish mother on April 8, 1883, twenty-one-year-old Jens Jensen left Denmark in 1905. Son of a poor family, he had to terminate his common school education in the eighth grade to work on the farm and then to learn to creamery trade.

Landing in the United States with only his tradesmen’s knowledge, he journeyed to Minnesota, got a job. But by 1907 he left his job, went to Mitchell, South Dakota, where he enrolled in the Academy and College of Dakota Wesleyan University, graduated with an A. B. degree in 1913. His alma mater honored him within honorary doctor of laws degree only last spring. In 1917, he received his A. M. degree from the University of Minnesota; his Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in 1926.

Since 1919, Mr. Jensen has been associated with the University of Kansas. He has taught in two summer sessions at the University of West Virginia. In 1930-31, he was given leave of absence to do a year’s work on research and government finance of counties. He did this work at the University of Chicago.

Married, Mr. Jensen has one daughter. His hobby is traveling, and he has been in three-fourths of the states of the United States and in all but two of the Canadian provinces. He returned for his first visit to Denmark in 1926, visiting also Scotland, England, Norway and Sweden.

Here is a member of the Trinity Lutheran Church, the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, and the University club. The most tedious three months in his life, he says, were spent in the Student Army Training Corps at the University of Minnesota in 1918. Previous to his enlistment he was statistician and economist for the food administration under the then Secretary of Commerce, Hoover.

 

Source of text and image: University of Kansas, Jayhawker (yearbook). Christmas number, 1937, p. 100.

 

Categories
Chicago Fields Suggested Reading Undergraduate

Chicago. Recommended public finance textbooks. Viner’s list, 1924

 

The original memo sent to Jacob Viner asking for the names of a few textbooks suitable for college class in the field of public finance is a carbon copy of a common memo, except for the name “Mr. Jacob Viner” and field “Public Finance” that are both clearly typed onto the carbon copy. It appears that the chairman L. C. Marshall might have been surveying his Chicago colleagues to assemble a list of college textbooks by field. There might be other such inquiries with responses, but judging from where I found this memo to Viner, one would have to plow through the Chicago economic department records where the memos are filed by recipients. I’ll keep my eyes open.

The first textbook listed by Viner was written by the 1926 Chicago Ph.D., Jens Peter Jensen, whose dissertation was on the general property tax.

Obituary:  In Memoriam: Jens P. Jensen, 1883-1942 by John Ise in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Apr., 1943), pp. 391-392.

____________________

From the Preface of Jens P. Jensen’s (Department of Economics, University of Kansas) Problems of Public Finance, p. ix.

“Professors Roy G. Blakey of the University of Minnesota and H. A. Millis of the University of Chicago were my teachers in public finance, and through them my interest in the field was aroused and quickened. Dr. J. Viner of the University of Chicago has carefully read the manuscript and suggested many redeeming changes.”

____________________

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

Memorandum to Mr. Jacob Viner from L.C. Marshall
October 2, 1924

Will you please jot down on this sheet the names of two or three texts suitable for college class use in the field of Public Finance?

LCM:OU

*  *  *  *  *  *

Viner’s reply

Jens [Peter] Jensen. Problems of Public Finance.  Crowell [1924]

C. J. Bullock. Selected Readings in P. F. Ginn & Co. [2nded., 1920]

W. M. Daniels, Elements of Public Finance [including the Monetary System of the United States]. Holt & Co. [1899]

H. L. Lutz has a good text in press [D. Appleton and Company, 1924;  fourth edition, 1947]

J.V.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 35, Folder 14.

Image Source: Jacob Viner (facing camera) playing bridge with Mr. Grabo, Mr. Prescott, and Ralph Sanger, instructor of Mathematics. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-08487, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Columbia Exam Questions History of Economics

Columbia. Types of Economic Theories, Exam questions. W. C. Mitchell, 1914, 1923-37

 

 

This post provides about two dozen examinations I have found for the legendary course “Types of Economic Theory” that was taught for several decades at Columbia University by Wesley Clair Mitchell. Given the enormous work Mitchell clearly put into this course, judging from the vast archival record of his notes, I am rather struck by the utter lack of imagination reflected in the examination questions. A single good secondary text would have been enough to ace his exams. Maybe students were different then and required no incentive to read original texts and attend lectures…yeah, right.

Stenographic student notes for the course  were originally prepared by John Meyers during 1926-27 with new editions prepared periodically up through the Spring session 1935. These mimeographed and bound lecture notes were later edited by Joseph Dorfman and reprinted by Augustus M. Kelley. Volume I (1967) can be borrowed for two weeks at a time at the archive.org website; Volume II (1949) is available at the hathitrust.org web site.

Lecture Notes on Types of Economic Theory, Volume I. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967.
(Mercantilism, Smith, Bentham, Malthus, Ricardo, Philosophical Radicals, John Stuart Mill). 

Lecture Notes on Types of Economic Theory, Volume II. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1949.
(Jevons, Marshall, Fetter, Davenport, Von Wieser. Schmoller, Walras, Cassel, Veblen, Hobson, Commons).

Finding aid for the Wesley Clair Mitchell papers, 1898-1953. at Columbia University Archives.

______________

Types of Economic Theory
Special Examination for Mr. Hall [?]
Jan. 27, 1914.

  1. Expound Bentham’s theory of how men’s actions are determined.
  2. Explain the character of the economic man as found in Ricardo’s “Principles.”
  3. What, if anything, did Senior add to the concept of the economic man?
  4. What evidence of Bentham’s, of Ricardo’s, and of Senior’s influence do you find in J. S. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy?

Please return this paper with your answers to
W. C. Mitchell, 37 W. 10thStreet.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 1, Folder “A529, 1/27/14”.

______________

Examination (10 copies)
Economics 121
January 25, 1923
1:15 p.m. 614 Kent

  1. Give a brief sketch of Adam Smith’s life, with special reference to the experiences which prepared him for writing the “Wealth of Nations”.
  2. How did Malthus come to write his “Essay on the Principle of Population”? How does the second edition differ from the first?
  3. What bearing had Jeremy Bentham’s work on the development of economic theory?
  4. Outline Ricardo’s theory of distribution. How did he demonstrate his “laws”?
  5. Who were the Philosophical Radicals? What did they do?

161 W. 12thSt.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A60, 1/25/23”.

______________

Economics 121
Types of Economic Theory
Professor Mitchell
(50 copies desired)

  1. Sketch Adam Smith’s life, pointing out the experiences which influenced the development of his economic theory.
  2. What was Bentham’s felicific calculus, and what interest has it for economists?
  3. What effect did the struggle over the corn laws in 1812-15 have upon the development of English economic theory?
  4. Expound Ricardo’s theory of distribution.
  5. Who were the Philosophical Radicals and for what did they stand?

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A16, 2/8/23”.

______________

Economics 121
Deficiency Examination
April 8, 1924

  1. Who were the Physiocrats? What influence did their views have upon the Wealth of Nations?
  2. How did the French Revolution affect the development of economic theory in England?
  3. Give an account of the Corn-Law struggle in 1812-15, and show its influence upon Classical political economy.
  4. & 5. State the leading differences between economic theory as expounded by Adam Smith and Ricardo.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A61, 4/8/24”.

______________

Economics 121
Types of Economic Theory
Deficiency Examination
April 25, 1924

  1. Discuss the question whether Ricardo held an “iron law” of wages.
  2. State briefly who the following persons were and what relation they had to the development of economic theory.
    David Hume; S. de Sismondi; J. B. Say;
    Sir James Steuart; Richard Jones; Francis Place;
    R. J. Turgot; Thomas Tooke; J. R. McCulloch;
    Jeremy Bentham
  3. What bearing had the Industrial Revolution on the rise of economic theory?
  4. Just what did the term “distribution of wealth” mean to Ricardo?
  5. What distinction did J. S. Mill make between the character of the laws of distribution and of production, and what importance did he attach to this distinction?

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A62, 4/25/24”.

______________

Economics 122
Types of Economic Theory.
Final Examination
1:10 p.m. May 16th1924

  1. What are the chief differences between the “mechanics of utility,” as developed by Jevons, and classical political economy?
  2. How far is Marshall able to carry his analysis of prices back to what he calls “real forces”?
  3. Compare the types of economic theory represented by Davenport and Veblen.
  4. Discuss the possibility of developing a scientific treatment of economic welfare.
  5. Along what lines do you think we should endeavor to develop economic theory in the near future?

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A63, 5/16/24”.

______________

Examination
Types of Economic Theory
Economics 121
Tuesday, January 27, 1925

  1. State the leading contents of “The Wealth of Nations”.
  2. Sketch the historical background of Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population.”
  3. What is the classical theory of rent, and what led to its development?
  4. Who were the Philosophical Radicals and what did they do?
  5. Compare Ricardo’s and John Stuart Mill’s treatises on Political Economy.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A57, 1/27/25”.

______________

Economics 122
Types of Economic Theory
Final Examination
Saturday, May 23, 1925
1:00 p.m. 309 Business.

  1. Characterize briefly the chief types of economic theory now current.
  2. Compare the theory of prices as expounded by Davenport with the theory of prices as expounded by Jevons.
  3. Why is the theory of production little emphasized in recent economic treatises?
  4. State the chief contributions to economic theory made by Marshall and Veblen.
  5. Draw up a brief outline of the topics which you think a treatise on economic theory should cover.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection. Box 2, Folder “A54, 5/23/25”.

______________

Economics 121
Types of Economic Theory
Mid-year Examination
Thursday, Jan. 27, ‘29
1:10 p.m. 401 Fayerweather

  1. What contact did Adam Smith make with the Physiocrats? What influence did this contact have upon the Wealth of Nations?
  2. Discuss the connection between social developments in England and the Malthusian theory of population.
  3. Compare the scope of economic theory as presented in Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation and in the Wealth of Nations.
  4. In what way did Jeremy Bentham influence the development of economic theory?
  5. Discuss the history of political economy in England between Ricardo’s death and 1848.
  6. Explain the significance of what John Stuart Mill held to be the most important innovation in his Principles of Political Economy.

 

Special examination, March 16
[handwritten notes]

  1. Expound Adam Smith’s “obvious and simple system of natural liberty.”
  2. Who discovered the classical theory of rent, and under what circumstances?
  3. Who were the leading figures among the Philosophical Radicals? What did they attempt to accomplish in social science and in social life?
  4. Contrast the methods of economics practiced by Malthus and Ricardo.
  5. What is the wages-fund doctrine? Point out its most serious shortcomings as an explanation of the process by which wages are determined.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A55, 1/27/27”.

______________

Economics 122
Final Examination
May 14, 1927
1:30 p.m. 301 F.

  1. Discuss the dictum: “…a special theory of value is at least quite unnecessary in economic science.”
  2. Contrast the types of economic theory represented by Fetter and Veblen.
  3. What advantage, if any, can an economic theorist derive from the study of psychology? of history?
  4. What are the characteristics of Marshall’s theory which differentiate it from the other types studied?
  5. Why has the production of wealth ceased to be a leading topic of economic theory? Do you think more attention should be paid to that problem in the near future? Why?

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection,  Box 2, Folder “A56, 5/14/27”.

______________

Economics 121
Types of Economic theory
Examination
February 2d, 1928
1:10 p.m. Fayweather

  1. Compare the types of economic theory represented by Davenport and Cassel.
  2. Discuss Fetter’s attempt to eliminate “the old utilitarianism and hedonism which have tainted the terms and conceptions of values ever since the days of Bentham?”
  3. How does Veblen’s treatment of human nature differ from Marshall’s treatment?
  4. Is there a significant difference between the conception of economics developed by the historical school and by the “institutional theorists”?
  5. What implications do you see in the contention that economics is one of the sciences of human behavior?

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection,  Box 2, Folder “A58, 2/2/28”.

______________

Economics 121
Types of Economic Theory

  1. Discuss the relations between the Wealth of Nations and economic conditions during the 18th century in Great Britain.
  2. What bearing had the work of Jeremy Bentham on the development of classical political economy?
  3. Outline Ricardo’s theory of value.
  4. Discuss the development of economic theory in England between 1817 and 1848.
  5. Compare the conditions influencing the development of industrial technique and of economic theory.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A59, 1/29/29”.

______________

Economics 121
Types of Economic Theory
Examination
1:10 p.m., January 28, 1930

  1. Outline briefly the Wealth of Nations
  2. Compare the treatment of distribution by Adam Smith and Ricardo.
  3. State John Stuart Mill’s view of the “principle of population”
  4. Sketch the development of political economy between Ricardo’s death and 1848.
  5. What is the “felicific calculus”?

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A64, 1/28/30”.

______________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Economics 122
TYPES OF ECONOMIC THEORY
[handwritten note: “Final Exam May 1930”]

  1. Discuss the treatment of “real forces” in economic activity by Jevons, Marshall and Davenport.
  2. Compare the psychological concepts used by Schmoller, Fetter and Veblen.
  3. Sketch the argument of Hobson’s welfare economics.
  4. Compare the framework of economic theory presented in John Stuart Mills’ and in Marshall’s “Principles”.
  5. Discuss the question whether the theory of value should be excluded from economics.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A397, 5/?/30”.

______________

Deferred examination in Economics 121.
April 15, 1931

  1. What was the Corn Law controversy in Great Britain and what bearing did it have upon the development of economic theory?
  2. Discuss John Stuart Mills’ treatment of the theory of value.
  3. What is the relationship between the theory of value and the theory of distribution in Ricardo?
  4. Compare the views of Adam Smith and Malthus on the population problem.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A53, 4/15/31”.

______________

Economics 122
Types of Economic Theory
Examination, 9 A.M.
May 19, 1931
301 Fayerweather

  1. Compare the scope of economic theory as presented by Marshall, Schmoller and Davenport.
  2. What do you understand “institutional economics” to be?
  3. Expound Fetter’s theory of interest.
  4. What is the central problem of economic theory according to Cassel, and how does he attack it?
  5. What advances has economic theory made since the days of Ricardo?

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 2, Folder “A359, 5/19/31”.

______________

ECONOMICS 121
TYPES OF ECONOMIC THEORY
Examination, 4:10 p.m., January 31, 1933, 410 Fayerweather

  1. Discuss the relation between the development of economic theory and of economic life in England from the time of Adam Smith to the time of Ricardo.
  2. Expound Malthus’ “principle of population”.
  3. Analyze Ricardo’s method of developing economic theory.
  4. What did J. S. Mill regard as the chief contribution to economic theory. Why did he attribute great importance to this idea?
  5. Compare the theories of value presented by Ricardo and by Jevons.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3, Folder “A49  1/31/33”.

______________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Examination…..Economics 122…..Types of Economic Theory
1:10 p.m. Thursday, May 25, 1933

  1. Show how Marshall integrated economic theory
  2. Compare the types of economic theory developed by Davenport and Cassel.
  3. What is “institutional economics?”
  4. Can historical study contribute to economic theory? Give reason for your answer.
  5. Discuss the relations between economics and psychology.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3,  Folder “A399  5/25/33”.

______________

ECONOMICS 121
Types of Economic Theory
1.10 p.m. January 30, 1934

  1. Discuss the influence of economic developments in England upon the theoretical work of Smith, Malthus and Ricardo.
  2. Discuss the influence of the work of these men upon economic developments.
  3. Present the felicific calculus.
  4. Sketch the working conceptions of human nature entertained by William Godwin, Malthus and John Stuart Mill, and show how those conceptions shaped their theorizing.
  5. Give a brief summary of Ricardo’s leading propositions.

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3, Folder “A50  1/30/34”.

______________

Economics 122
TYPES OF ECONOMIC THEORY
Final examination
1.10 p.m. Friday, May 25, 1934
302 Fayerweather

  1. Discuss the scope of economics as represented by Davenport and Schmoller.
  2. What were Marshall’s chief contributions to the development of economic theory?
  3. State your conception of “institutional” economics.
  4. Compare the psychological views of Jevons and Fetter.
  5. Expound Cassel’s theory of pricing.

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3, Folder “A398  5/25/34”.

______________

ECONOMICS 121
TYPE OF ECONOMIC THEORY
[28 January 1935]

  1. State Adam Smith’s argument for adopting “the simple and obvious system of natural liberty.” What bearing has it upon national economic planning?
  2. Discuss the conceptions of human nature implied by Ricardo’s theories of rent, profits, and wages.
  3. What do you understand by “the levels of analysis” in economic theory?
  4. Compare the expectations concerning “the futurity of the laboring classes” entertained by Ricardo and John Stuart Mill.
  5. Contrast the methods of inquiry employed by Malthus and Ricardo.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3, Folder “A51  1/28/35”.

______________

FINAL EXAMINATION IN TYPES OF ECONOMIC THEORY
Economics 122
Tuesday, May 21, 1935
301 Fayerweather

  1. State and discuss the merits of the program for rebuilding economic theory developed by the Historical School.
  2. Compare the types of economic theory represented by Marshall and by Cassel.
  3. Discuss Veblen’s critique of orthodox economic theory.
  4. Compare the types of economic theory represented by Fetter and by Davenport.
  5. What in your opinion are the leading problems of economic theory?

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3, Folder “A396  5/21/35”.

______________

EXAMINATION IN ECONOMICS 121
TYPES OF ECONOMIC THEORY
[Handwritten note:  Jan. 1936]

  1. Give an outline of the Wealth of Nations.
  2. Sketch Ricardo’s theory of distribution.
  3. Compare the implications of the “principles of population” for the future of mankind as seen by Malthus and by J. S. Mill.
  4. Discuss the “levels of analysis” in J. S. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy.
  5. Compare the methods of establishing economic propositions employed by Malthus and Ricardo.

.Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3, Folder “A65  1/?/36”

______________

ECONOMICS 121
TYPES OF ECONOMIC THEORY
Examination Jan. 23, 1937
1:10 p.m. Fayerweather Hall

  1. State and discuss Adam Smith’s argument for “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty”.
  2. What relation does Bentham’s felicific calculus have to economic theory?
  3. Compare the conceptions of human nature entertained by Malthus and by John Stuart Mill.
  4. What position does the theory of distribution hold in the economic theory of Adam Smith, Ricardo and Mill?
  5. Expound briefly Mill’s theory of value and point out its chief limitations.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection, Box 3, Folder “A52 1/23/37”.

Image Source: Wesley Clair Mitchell from Albert Arnold Sprague’s and Claudia C. Milstead’s Genealogical Website.

 

 

Categories
Bryn Mawr Economists Gender Harvard Stanford Tufts

Radcliffe/Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumna. Maxine Yaple Sweezy, 1940.

 

In our continuing series of Get-to-Know-an-Economics-Ph.D., we meet a Radcliffe Ph.D. from 1940, Maxine Yaple Sweezy. Her dissertation was on the Nazi economy and incidentally she was the first wife of the American Marxian economist, Paul Sweezy. This post adds a few details about her life (she was a debater at Stanford) and career (minimum wage work). I take particular pride in finding youthful pictures of this economist of yore.

_____________________

Greatest Hit

In his historical retrospective of the concept of “privatization”,  Germà Bel identifies Maxine Yaple Sweezy’s published Radcliffe dissertation, The Structure of the Nazi Economy (1941), as having introduced “reprivatization” into the vocabulary of economic policy.

Source: Bel, Germà. The Coining of “Privatization” and Germany’s National Socialist Party. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 2006), p 189.

_____________________

Encyclopedia entry

Pack, Spencer J. “Maxine Bernard Yaple Sweezy Woolston” in A Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists, Robert W. Dimand, Mary Ann Dimand and Evelyn L. Forget (eds.). Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2000. pp. 472-475

Pack lists the following schools where Maxine Y. Woolston taught: Sarah Lawrence, Tufts, Vassar, Simmons, Haverford, Swarthmore, Wellesley, University of Pennsylvania, University of New Haven, with Bryn Mawr as the longest position.

_____________________

Basic life data

Born. 16 September 1912 [in Missouri].

Source: Social Security Claims Index, 1936-2007.

First marriage: Paul M. Sweezy and Maxine Yaple were married 21 March 1936 in Manhattan, New York.

Source: New York City Department of Records/Municipal Archives. Index to New York City Marriages, 1866-1937.

Second marriage:  to William Jenks Woolston, lawyer (b. 30 Jan. 1908, d. 25 Dec. 1964) [date of marriage: 11 Mar 1944]

Source: Family Tree “Morris, Wells and collateral lines” at ancestry.com, though date of marriage is unsourced there and could not be verified.

Death. 29 April 2004. Last residence: New Haven, Ct.

Source: Social Security Claims Index, 1936-2007.

_____________________

American Economic Association Membership Listing, 1957

Woolston, Maxine Yaple, (Mrs. W. J.), R. 2 Harts Lane, Conshohocken, Pa. (1953) Bryn Mawr Col., lecturer, teach.; b. 1912; A.B., 1934, M.A., 1935, Stanford; Ph.D., 1939, Radcliffe Col. Fields 14bd, 12ab, 2. Doc. Dis. Nazi economic policies. Pub. Economic program for American economy (Vanguard Press, 1938); Structure of Nazi economy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1941); La Economia Nacional Socialista (translation) (Stackpole, 1954). Res. Wages at the turning points. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci. III.

Source:  The American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, Handbook of the American Economic Association (Jul., 1957), p. 329

_____________________

Women’s Debate Team at Stanford

From the 1932 Stanford yearbook page on the Women’s debate team: sometime around the end of February, 1932 Maxine Yaple and Lucile Smith debated with a team from the College of the Pacific the resolution “The United States should enact legislation provided socialized medical service”.

In 1933 a debating section of (male) athletes was assembled and in their second debate (“Resolved, That a separate college for women should be stablished at Stanford”) with Helen Ray and Maxine Yaple constituting the Women’s Team was called a draw.

For the source of the pictures used for this post, see the Image Source below.

Research Tip:  The Stanford Daily student newspaper archive.  Search on her last name “Yaple“.

_____________________

“Maiden” publication in the AER

Yaple, Maxine. The Burden of Direct Taxes as Paid by Income Classes. American Economic Review, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1936), pp. 691-710.

_____________________

Rebecca A. Greene Fellowship at Radcliffe

Maxine Yaple Sweezy, A.B. (Stanford Univ.) 1933, A.M. (ibid.) 1934. Subject, Economics.

Source: Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1936-37, p. 17.

_____________________

Political Book:  An Economic Program for American Democracy

Contributors: Richard V. Gilbert; George H. Hildebrand Jr. ; Arthur W. Stuart; Maxine Yaple Sweezy ; Paul M. Sweezy; Lorie Tarshis and John D. Wilson. New York: Vanguard Press, 2nd printing, 1938

_____________________

Teaching appointment at Tufts

Mrs. Paul Sweezy (Maxine Yaple) has been appointed instructor in the department of economics at Tufts College for the year 1938-1939.

Source: Notes. American Economic Review, Vol. 28, No. 2 (June, 1938), p. 438.

_____________________

Economics at Radcliffe, 1939
(from the yearbook)

“Don’t you think he’s a little radical?”, a girl asked her tutor about one of his colleagues in the Ec. Department. The tutor roared with laughter and gave her The Coming Struggle for Power [by John Strachey, London, 1932] to read.

Ec. Professors like to refer to their colleagues and then tear into their arguments. They should have a contest sometime to see whose masterpiece could withstand concentrated criticism. We enjoyed Mason’s reference to his “friend”. We’ve entered with glee on Chamberlin’s campaign to exterminate the word “imperfect” competition and we almost had hysterics over William’s blasting of all economists from Keynes to Hajek [sic].

The life of the Ec. Professors is constantly being interrupted by the press. The Crimson demanded a profound statement on the effect of import duties on German goods before they would let Galbraith go back to sleep in the middle of the night. Since a group collaborated on a book called An Economic Program for American Democracy, “seven men and a blonde” is the favorite characterization of the Ec. Department by the press. The blonde is Mrs. Paul Sweezy.

Source: Radcliffe College. Upon a Typical Year… Thirty and Nine. Cambridge, MA (1939).

_____________________

First article carved from dissertation research

Maxine Yaple Sweezy. Distribution of Wealth and Income under the Nazis. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Nov., 1939), pp. 178-184.

_____________________

Radcliffe A.M. conferred in June, 1939.

Source: Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1938-39, p. 20.

_____________________

Ph.D. conferred in February, 1940

Maxine Yaple Sweezy, A.M.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Industrial Organization and Control. Dissertation, “Nazi Economic Policies.”

 

Source: Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1939-40, p. 22.

_____________________

Second article carved from dissertation research

Maxine Yaple Sweezy. German Corporate Profits: 1926-1938. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 54, No. 3 (May, 1940), pp. 384-398.

_____________________

Published Dissertation

Maxine Yaple Sweezy. The Structure of the Nazi Economy. Harvard studies in monopoly and competition, no. 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941.

_____________________

Vassar and then OPA

Maxine Y. Sweezy, assistant professor of economics at Vassar College, is on leave for the year 1942-43 to serve as senior economist for the Office of Price Administration in Washington.

Source: Notes. The American Economic Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1942), p. 964.

_____________________

Bryn Mawr and Philadelphia City Planning Commission

“The Social Economy Department also has one new member, Miss Maxine Woolston Ph.D. Radcliffe and member of the City Planning Commission, Philadelphia, has entered the department as Lecturer.”

Source: The College News, Ardmore and Bryn Mawr, PA., Wednesday, October 9, 1946, p. 2.

_____________________

Return [?] to Bryn Mawr

Maxine Y. Woolston has been appointed lecturer in political economy at Bryn Mawr College for the current year.

Source: Notes. The American Economic Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (March, 1950), p. 266.

_____________________

Publications in 1950

Economic Base Study of Philadelphia, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, 1950.

World Economic Development and Peace, American Association of University Women. Washington, D.C.: 1950. [30 pages]

_____________________

Course at Haverford

Maxine Woolston to Give Course “Urban Planning”

Sociology 38, a study of the modern urban community, will be taught this semester by Dr. Maxine (William Jenks) Woolston. Mrs. Woolston comes to Haverford from Bryn Mawr College with experience both as an educator and as a public administrator.

Planning Commissioner

She is currently a consultant for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, and was a member of that commission from 1945 to 1948. During the five years previous Dr. Woolston served in turn with the OPA, the Foreign economic Administration, and the American Association of University Women.

Dr. Woolston received her A.B. and M.A. degrees in History at Stanford University in 1934. The following two years she attended the London School of Economics. In 1940 [sic] she went to Cambridge, Massachusetts, and earned degrees of M.A. and Ph.D. in economics at Radcliffe-Harvard.

Source: Haverford News. Tuesday, February 13, 1951, p. 1.

_____________________

Textbook

Maxine Y. Woolston. Basic Information on the American Economy. Harrisburg, Pa., Stackpole Co., 1953. [186 pages]

_____________________

Minimum Wage Commission for Restaurant, Hotel, and Motel industries

“The state Labor and Industry Department has named a new nine-member board to recommend minimum wage rates for women and minors employed in the restaurant hotel and motel industries”. Dr. Maxine Woolston, of Bryn Mawr College and Mrs. Sadie T. M. Alexander, Philadelphia attorney were public representatives.

Source: The Daily Courier, Connellsville, PA, 16 July 1958, p. 1.

 

Image Sources: Maxine Yaple, portrait from Stanford University Quad Yearbook, 1932. Page. 160. Standing picture from the 1933 yearbook, p. 152.