___________________
An excerpt from a newspaper report comparing political economy as taught in New York at Columbia University with political economy as taught in Berlin was published in the Columbia University Bulletin in 1897. The unnamed author of the report concluded that “the primacy which Germany enjoyed a few years ago has passed away”. Compare this to a report (1884) overflowing with praise for the research “seminary” of German universities.
___________________
In the Evening Post of October 25, 1897, will be found an interesting discussion of the value of German university degrees in comparison with similar honors in American universities. The writer, who is apparently a student in the University of Berlin, holds that the requirements for the degree of Ph. D. are higher in several American institutions than in the average German university. His points are, first, that it takes a shorter time to obtain the degree in Germany than from any of the reputable American universities; and second, that the average size and value of the dissertations of Harvard and Columbia doctors of philosophy are certainly greater than those of the German universities, with the exception, probably, of Berlin. Indeed, he concludes, “the progress of American universities has been so rapid in recent years, and the entrance requirements have been so largely increased, that the bachelor’s degree is actually approaching the German doctorate in essential worth.” A few selections from the body of the article, comparing the instruction in political science at Columbia with that given at Berlin, are of special interest.
“Further light on the question will be thrown by a comparison of the courses of lectures in American and German universities. Confining attention to the various studies in the domain of political economy and social science, we may select Berlin as the strongest representative of German Institutions.* * * * Of the American schools of political science, it is not easy to select the strongest. Columbia is usually regarded as the best equipped, although several others are but little inferior. Let us compare, then, the courses offered at Columbia and Berlin in political economy.
“At Berlin, Professor Wagner gives three courses, aggregating ten hours, that cover the field of general and theoretical economics, and practical economics, including money and banking, etc. At Columbia, almost precisely the same field is covered by Professor Mayo-Smith’s “Historical and Practical Economy,” running through three semesters and aggregating nine hours. Almost the only difference is that Professor Wagner devotes more time to agricultural economics, a subject that has as yet received little attention in American schools of political economy. In finance Professor Wagner offers a four-hour course for one semester. Professor Seligman at Columbia covers the same ground, with more discrimination, in a two-hour course running two semesters. He also offers in alternate years a two-hour course on the financial history of the United States.
“In economic or industrial history Columbia stands the comparison very well. It has an introductory course on the economic history of Europe and America conducted by Professor Seligman and Mr. Day, and an advanced course on the industrial and tariff history of the United States by Professor Seligman. The two courses aggregate the same number of hours as Professor Schmoller’s “practical political economy,” which is nothing but industrial history, and history of Prussia at that—a course valuable to the specialist, but not of great value to the average American student. Professor Meitzen also gives a course on the history of agriculture, but it concerns the early land systems of Europe and other subjects that can have no application to American conditions. The essential forms of land tenure are described at Columbia in Professor Mayo-Smith’s historical political economy.
“In the field of statistics, the subject of demography or population statistics is treated at Berlin by Professor Boeckh in a two-hour course, and at Columbia by Professor Mayo-Smith in a similar course. Economic statistics are treated by Professors Meitzen and Mayo-Smith in much the same manner, while the history, theory, and technique of statistics receives attention in both institutions.
“At Berlin, Professor Wagner reads a critique of socialism and Dr. Oldenburg gives its history. The two courses aggregate the same number of hours as Professor Clark’s course on socialism at Columbia. Professor Clark’s criticism of “scientific socialism” is at least equal to that of any German professor, and it proceeds from the Anglo-Saxon point of view. In a second semester Professor Clark deals with projects of social reform, especially those of American origin. Somewhat similar is Dr. Oldenburg’s course on Socialpolitik at Berlin, and Dr. Jastrow reads in addition a course on labor legislation.
“In social science Columbia is clearly in advance of Berlin. Sociology is scarcely recognized at the German universities, but at Berlin Dr. Simmel, privat-docent, offers a two-hour course on sociology and political psychology. This is the nearest approach to a study of the growth and structure of society that one finds at Berlin. Columbia, on the other hand, offers a course on the evolution of society and social institutions, with a review of the principal theoretical writers, and another course on sociological laws. These are both given by Professor Giddings, who also reads courses on crime and pauperism. No such practical study of these problems is made in Berlin.
“Several minor courses are offered at each university—as, for example, railway problems—and all of the professors conduct seminars for the purpose of encouraging and supervising original investigations. The only subject in which Berlin offers superior advantages is agricultural economics, while Columbia is doing much more work in both theoretical and practical social science. Two courses remain to be mentioned. One of these is a course by Dr. Jastrow at Berlin on the literature and methodology of all the political sciences, an introductory course of considerable value to freshmen, which has no parallel in any other German or American university known to the writer. But Columbia offers a course that can scarcely be duplicated in Germany, namely, the abstract theory of political economy given by Professor Clark, one of the acutest and most original thinkers of our day. It is a course that is taken by not more than a dozen or fifteen men, but they are advanced students who can appreciate such a course. Professor Clark’s power of inspiring young men to do theoretical work of high quality is evidenced by the writings of such men as the late Dr. Merriam, of Cornell, and Professor Carver, of Oberlin College. But in Germany pure theory has been neglected since the time of Hermann. Only now, as the result of an impulse proceeding from Austria, is theory regaining its place in German economic circles. Professor Dietzel and some of the other younger scholars are doing good work in this line, which is hardly comparable, however, with that of Professors Clark, Patten, etc., in the United States, and Marshall in England. German economists are making valuable contributions to economics in other ways, but the primacy which Germany enjoyed a few years ago has passed away.”
Source: Columbia University Bulletin, Vol. XVIII (December, 1897), pp. 67-69.
Image Source: The University of Berlin between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. Digital ID: ppmsca 00342.