Categories
Business School Education Gender Race Undergraduate

Useful links. The Monographs on Education in the U.S. edited by Nicholas Murray Butler for the St. Louis World Fair. 1904

 

The institution of “World Expositions”, where newest developments in science and technology, industry and the arts are celebrated and showcased in specially built halls in fairgrounds that include activities for young and old, gardens, parks and fountains, etc., lacks salience in the public mind today. Looking at a list of world expos in Wikipedia, I confess that several decades have gone by without a single Expo having even caught my attention for a moment. In comparison the World Expositions used to be a huge deal at least up through the middle of the twentieth century.

No less a light than the President of Columbia University commissioned some twenty monographs for the national U.S. contribution to the Education department of the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exhibition (a.k.a. the St. Louis World’s Fair).  Economics in the Rear-view Mirror posts links to these twenty monographs on aspects of education in the United States as of 1904. About half of the titles provide interesting context for the artifacts gathered here dedicated to economics education. I have added the group assignments for the monographs from the attached outline of the education exhibits featured in the Palace of Education and Social Economy at the St. Louis exposition. 

Meet me in St. Louis, Louis (1904) performed by Billy Murry.

_______________________________

Monographs on Education in the United States
edited by
Nicholas Murray Butler

Department of Education, Universal Exposition
St. Louis, 1904.
  1. Educational Organization and Administration. Andrew Sloan Draper, President of the University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc01butluoft
  2. Kindergarten Education. Susan E. Blow, Cazenovia, New York. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc02butluoft
  3. Elementary Education. William T. Harris, United States Commissioner of Education, Washington, D. C. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc03butluoft
  4. Secondary Education. Elmer Ellsworth Brown, Professor of Education in the University of California, Berkeley, California. [Group 2] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc04butluoft
  5. The American College. Andrew Fleming West, Professor of Latin in Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc05butluoft
  6. The American University. Edward Delavan Perry, Jay Professor of Greek in Columbia University, New York. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc06butluoft
  7. Education of Women. M. Carey Thomas, President of Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc07butluoft
  8. Training of Teachers. B. A. Hinsdale, Professor of the Science and Art of Teaching in the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc08butluoft
  9. School Architecture and Hygiene. Gilbert B. Morrison, Principal of the Manual Training High School, Kansas City, Missouri. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc09butluoft/mode/2up
  10. Professional Education. James Russell Parsons, Director of the College and High School Departments, University of the State of New York, Albany, New York. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc10butluoft/mode/2up
  11. Scientific, Technical and Engineering Education. T. Mendenhall, President of the Technological Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc11butluoft
  12. Agricultural Education. Charles W. Dabney, President of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. [Group 5] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc12butluoft
  13. Commercial Education. Edmund J. James, Professor of Public Administration in the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. [Group 6] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc13butluoft
  14. Art and Industrial Education. Isaac Edwards Clarke, Bureau of Education, Washington, D. C. [Group 4] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc14butluoft
  15. Education of Defectives. Edward Ellis Allen, Principal of the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind, Overbrook, Pennsylvania. [Group 7] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc15butluoft/mode/2up
  16. Summer Schools and University Extension. George E. Vincent, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago; Principal of Chautauqua. [Group 8] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc16butluoft/mode/2up
  17. Scientific Societies and Associations. James Mckeen Cattell, Professor of Psychology in Columbia University, New York. [Group 8] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc17butluoft
  18. Education of the Negro. Booker T. Washington, Principal of the Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama. [Group 6] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc18butluoft
  19. Education of the Indian. William N. Hailmann, Superintendent of Schools, Dayton, Ohio. [Group 6] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc19butluoft
  20. Education Through the Agency of the Several Religious Organizations. Dr. W. H. Larrabee, Plainfield, N.J. [Group 8] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc20butluoft

_______________________________

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
Classification of Exhibits.

GROUP I.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

Class 1. Kindergarten.

Class 2. Elementary grades.

Class 3. Training and certification of teachers.

Class 4. Continuation schools, including evening schools, vacation schools and schools for special training.

Legislation, organization, general statistics.
School supervision and school management.
Buildings: plans, models; school hygiene.
Methods of instruction; results obtained.

GROUP 2.
SECONDARY EDUCATION

Class 5. High schools and academies; manual training high schools, commercial high schools.

Class 6. Training and certification of teachers.

Legislation, organization, statistics.
Buildings: plans and models.
Supervision, management, methods of instruction; results obtained.

GROUP 3.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Class 7. Colleges and universities.

Class 8. Scientific, technical and engineering schools and institutions.

Class 9. Professional schools.

Class 10. Libraries.

Class 11. Museums.

Legislation, organization, statistics.
Buildings: plans and models.
Curriculums, regulations, methods, administration, investigations, etc.

GROUP 4.
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN FINE ARTS

(Institutions for teaching drawing,
painting and music.)

Class 12. Art schools and institutes.

Class 13. Schools and departments of music; conservatories of music.

Methods of instruction; results obtained. Legislation, organization, general statistics.

GROUP 5.
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURE

Class 14. Agricultural colleges and departments; experiment stations; instruction in forestry. (See Department H, Group 83.)

Curriculums; experiments and investigations; results. Methods of transportation and shipment. Legislation, organization, general statistics. Buildings: plans and models.

GROUP 6.
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

Class 15. Industrial and trade schools; evening industrial schools.

Class 16. (a) Business and commercial schools; (b) Higher instruction in commerce.

Class 17. Education of the Indian.

Class 18. Education of the Negro.

Legislation, organization, statistics. Buildings: plans and models. Methods of instruction; results.

GROUP 7.
EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVES

Class 19. Institutions for the blind; publications for the blind.

Class 20. Institutions for the deaf and dumb.

Class 21. Institutions for the feeble minded.

Management, methods, courses of study; results. Special appliances for instruction. Legislation, organization, statistics. Buildings: plans and models.

GROUP 8.
SPECIAL FORMS OF EDUCATION
— TEXT BOOKS—
SCHOOL FURNITURE AND SCHOOL APPLIANCES

Class 22. Summer schools.
Class 23. Extension courses; popular lectures and people’s institutes; correspondence schools.
Class 24. Scientific societies and associations; scientific expeditions and investigations.
Class 25. Educational publications, text books, etc.
Class 36. School furniture, school appliances.

Source: Official catalogue of exhibitors. Universal exposition. St. Louis, U.S.A. 1904, pp. 11-12.

Image Source: Palace of Education and Social Economy from the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Snapshots. The State Historical Society of Missouri.

 

Categories
Business School Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. alumnus. John Keith Butters, 1941

 

The previous post provided the syllabi for the Harvard economics department public finance course (actually consolidated into a single document for the undergraduate and graduate versions of the course) taught by J. Keith Butters and Arnold M. Soloway in 1954-55.

Since both instructors received their doctorates in economics from Harvard, I have included this post that provides some biographical information about J. Keith Butters. The next post will do the same for Arnold M. Soloway.

I begin with the vital dates: John Keith Butters was born August 28, 1915 in Chicago and he died December 11, 2005 in Lexington, Massachusetts.

_______________________

Harvard Economics Ph.D. (1941)

John Keith Butters, A.B. (Univ. of Chicago) 1937, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1939. Subject, Economics. Special Field, Public Finance. Thesis, “Federal Taxation of Corporate Profits.” Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Department of Economics.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1940-1941, p. 174.

_______________________

Effect of Federal Taxes on Growing Enterprises
by J. Keith Butters and John Lintner
(1945)

Principal Conclusions

In highly condensed form the principal findings of the study may be summarized as follows:

  1. In the development-of-the-idea stage of a new enterprise taxes are seldom of dominant importance.
  2. As a business develops beyond the “idea” stage to the point at which production appears feasible, tax considerations become progressively more important.
  3. At this stage, and beyond, high corporate taxes are typically much more repressive in their effects than are high personal taxes at least so long as capital gains continue to receive very favorable treatment.
  4. High corporate taxes restrict the growth of small companies:
    1. By greatly reducing the attractiveness of risky expansions to the managements of small companies;
    2. By curtailing the amount of capital available from retained earnings to finance such expansions; and
    3. By making the acquisition of outside capital on satisfactory terms much more difficult.
  5. In each of these respects the restrictive effect of high personal taxes appears to be much less severe:
    1. The effect of personal taxes on management incentives is much less direct;
    2. Except for unincorporated enterprises personal taxes do not reduce retained earnings; and
    3. On balance, high personal taxes may not even divert outside capital away from highly venturesome enterprises.
  6. Retained earnings are an especially critical source of funds for the expansion of small enterprises:
    1. The owners of small companies frequently place great importance on the maintenance of a strong control position and of their personal freedom of action. To the extent that they do so, they will be reluctant to undertake expansions which must be financed by outside capital.
    2. Many small companies even companies with promising growth prospects find it extremely difficult or impossible to raise outside capital on reasonably favorable terms.
    3. Hence, for both of these reasons, many expansions by small companies will, in fact, be undertaken only if funds are available from retained earnings to finance them.
  7. In almost every respect high taxes are less repressive on large, established corporations than on small, growing firms.
    1. High taxes reduce the profit expectancy of new expansions by large companies much less severely than they restrict similar expansions undertaken by small, independent companies.
    2. Large, established companies have substantial amounts of funds coming available from their noncash expenses in addition to whatever earnings they may be able to retain after taxes. These funds may be used to finance the introduction of new products and technical innovations.
    3. Finally, large, established companies generally can acquire new capital on much more favorable terms than can small companies. In addition to their ability to float common stock with relative ease, they can usually issue preferred stocks or bonds alternatives available to small companies only on a limited scale, on more expensive terms, and usually at great risk to the common stockholders.
  8. Thus, unless special adjustments are made to relieve the burden of a flat-rate corporate tax on small companies, such a tax would tend to promote an increased degree of industrial concentration in addition to restricting the growth of small, independent companies.
  9. It would be possible substantially to relieve the tax burden on most small, growing companies without greatly diminishing Federal revenues. This study clearly emphasizes the need for such relief. But it makes no attempt to examine the many problems which would arise in formulating the precise character of this relief.
  10. The financial problems confronting small firms are particularly acute in times of depression and market pessimism at such times it is practically impossible for most small companies to acquire new equity capital on acceptable terms. Indeed, perhaps the surest way to improve the position of small firms would be to follow an economic policy that would promote a high level of economic activity. The indirect effects of general prosperity would be far more powerful than any specific measures which could be taken to break down the barriers between small companies and the capital market.
  11. As a final point, existing imperfections in the capital market and the general unwillingness of individual savers to assume the risks of ownership emphasize the possibility that venture capital may be scarce at a time when there is general oversavings in the economy. Failure to recognize that oversavings and shortages of venture capital are not mutually incompatible has led to many statements of doubtful validity by both proponents and opponents of the oversavings thesis.

Source: Study Effect of Federal Taxes on Growing Enterprises. Study published by the Division of Research at the Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University in 1945, pp. 2-4.

_______________________

In Memoriam

HBS professor J. Keith Butters, an authority on finance and taxation, died in Lexington, Massachusetts, in December [2005]. He was 90.

The Thomas D. Casserly Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Emeritus, Butters retired from the HBS faculty in 1986 after 43 years of service, during which he chaired the Finance Unit (from 1969 to 1973) and taught in both the MBA and the Executive Education programs. He also played an influential role as the Business School’s representative to a number of University committees that affected faculty across all of Harvard.

Source:   Harvard Business School/Alumni/Stories, March 1, 2006.

_______________________

Boston Globe Obituary

J. Keith Butters

Of Lexington, died Dec. 12, 2005, at age 90. Husband of the late Helena Renaud Butters. He is survived by his brother William of Arlington Heights, IL; 3 children, Liz Butters of Denver, CO, Gerard R. Butters and his wife Ettie of Bethesda, MD, Nancy Butters and her husband Ron Pies of Lexington, MA; two grandchildren and two great grandchildren. A tenured Professor at The Harvard Business School, he received Harvard’s “Distinguished Service Award” in 1989 in recognition of his extraordinary service to the University’s educational mission.

Source: Legacy.com obituary from the Boston Globe.

Image Source:  Harvard Business School, The Annual Report 1954.

 

Categories
Business School Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. (1923) alumnus and Columbia Business School Dean, J. E. Orchard Memo on Galbraith, 1946.

 

John Ewing Orchard (b. 19 July 1893 in Exeter, Nebraska; d. 28 January 1962 in Charlottesville, Virginia) wrote the following summary of a telephone conversation with his former boss, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (who supervised the work of John Kenneth Galbraith at the Lend Lease Administration during WWII) and incidentally went on to serve as the Secretary of State). From this memo it is clear that Galbraith’s name came up for consideration for the Deanship of the Columbia School of Business. Orchard, a Harvard economics Ph.D. (1923), might have had ulterior motives in entering this document into the record — it can be found in the papers of then chairman of the economics department, Robert Haig, that have been deposited in the Central Files of the Columbia University administration. We see below that Orchard himself was later appointed to the Deanship of the business school…coincidence?

In any event, in case there might be any doubt in somebody’s mind, John Kenneth Galbraith had done nothing in government service that would have enhanced his prospects to become an academic Dean. His comparative advantage was to be found in other endeavors. Whether John Kenneth Galbraith indeed had “poison in his soul” as noted by Stettinius is left to his legions of admirers and detractors to determine. However, given Galbraith’s life motto “Modesty is a most overrated virtue”, I presume Stettinius had confused poison with an ego of legendary proportion.

____________________

Kenneth Galbraith

Stettinius on Galbraith

Telephone conversation with Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., concerning Galbraith, October 23, 1946.

Galbraith worked with Stettinius on the National Defense Council in 1940. Stettinius stated that there was no question but that Galbraith was a brilliant economist, but he was a difficult person to work with. He seemed always to be taking a belligerent left wing position and never was in the middle of the road. I gathered that there was little give and take as far as Galbraith was concerned. Stettinius also said he seemed to have “poison in his soul”.

After Galbraith left OPA, Stettinius, as a result of considerable pressure, took him into the Lend Lease Administration. His experience with him there was not satisfactory, for after Stettinius had assigned him to a responsible position, Galbraith did not establish friendly working relations with his associates. He did not seem to be interested in the work or in the organization and after a couple of months he quit. Stettinius stated that he did not believe that Galbraith would make a good dean.

John E. Orchard

Source:  Columbia University.  Central Files. Box 386, Folder 7/7 “Haig, Robert Murray”.

____________________

John Ewing Orchard,
Harvard economics Ph.D. 1923

John Ewing Orchard, A. B. (Swarthmore Coll.) 1916, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1920.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Economic Resources. Thesis, “The World’s Coal Resources and some of their Influences on National Economy.” Instructor in Economic Geography, Columbia University.

Source:  Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1922-1923, p. 52.

____________________

Guggenheim Fellowship, 1931

JOHN E. ORCHARD
Fellow: Awarded 1931
Field of Study: Economic History
Competition: US & Canada

As published in the Foundation’s Report for 1931–32:

ORCHARD, JOHN EWING:  Appointed to study the transition that is occurring in China from agriculture and from household industries to modern manufacturing, investigations to be carried on chiefly in China; tenure, eight months from June 20, 1931.

Born July 19, 1893, at Exeter, Nebraska. Education:  Swarthmore college, A.B., 1916; Harvard University, M.A., 1920, Ph.D., 1923; University of Pennsylvania, 1917–18; University of Chicago, Summer, 1920.

Assistant in Geography and Industry, 1917–18, University of Pennsylvania; Assistant Mine Economist, United States Bureau of Mines, 1918–19; Instructor in Economic Geography, 1920–24, Assistant Professor, 1924–29, Associate Professor, 1929—, Columbia University.

Publications: Japan’s Economic Position: The Progress of Industrialization, 1920; chapter on Marine Insurance in Influence of the Great War on Shipping, by J. Russell Smith, 1919; chapter on Gold in Political and Commercial Geology, edited by J. E. Spurr, 1920. Articles in Quarterly Journal of Economics, Geographical Review, Journal of Geography, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

 

Source:  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Website. Fellow page: John E. Orchard.

____________________

Dr. Orchard New Business School Dean
[Columbia Daily Spectator, 9 January 1947]

Dr. John E. Orchard, professor of economic geography at Columbia and one of the country’s outstanding authorities on the Far East, will replace Dean Robert D. Calkins as director of the School of Business, it was announced yesterday by Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, acting president of the University.

Dean Calkins, who has been the head of the Business School since 1941, resigned in order to accept an appointment as vice president and director of the General Education Board in New York City.

Professor Orchard, a graduate of Swathmore and Harvard Universities, has been a member of the teaching staff of the School of Business since 1920.

Active In Government

From May 1941 until January 1946, he served as a member of several important government agencies in Washington D. C. He was senior assistant administrator to Edward Stettinius when the latter was Lend-Lease Administrator. Later Dr. Orchard was appointed special assistant to Mr. Stettinius when he was Under Secretary of State. Dean Orchard served as special assistant to William Clayton, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Affairs. His last Washington assignment was as senior consultant to the Foreign Liquidation Commissioner, Thomas B. McCabe. He spent the years of 1926-27, 1931-32, and 1938-39 in Asia and in 1930 published a book entitled “Japan’s Economic Problem”.

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LXIX, Number 34, 9 January 1947.

Image Source: John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Website. Fellow page: John E. Orchard.

Categories
Business School Columbia Dartmouth Harvard Pennsylvania

Columbia School of Business Opens. Seligman’s Thoughts, 1916

 

Columbia University economist provides “the history of the movement which has culmination in the adoption of this project”, i.e. the founding of Columbia School of Business. The earlier resistence of the economics department to a School of Business is explained as well as the flip-flop to its support of opening of the School of Business in the autumn term of 1916.

_______________

A UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
by Edwin R. A. Seligman

[I]

THE opening of the Columbia School of Business in the autumn of 1916 marks another milestone in university education. The history of the movement which has culminated in the adoption of this project is highly interesting.

Less than a generation ago the only opportunities offered in education for business were the classes in single and double bookkeeping, usually conducted both here and abroad under the high- sounding title of “Business Institutes.” All they did was to give a smattering of ordinary bookkeeping with occasionally some slight instruction in English or a foreign language thrown in. One or two farsighted men already at that early period appreciated the need of a more systematic preparation for business life; but theirs were voices crying in the wilderness. It was the time when any kind of institutional education, except for the ministry, counted but little, the time when the lawyer was supposed to prepare himself for his work by serving an apprenticeship in a law office, and when the college graduate desirous of entering business life was at a disadvantage in the estimation of the employer as compared with the youth who had started from the bottom and who had enjoyed a few years of business experience. One of the broad-minded exceptions was Mr. Joseph Wharton of Philadelphia, through whose liberality the Wharton School was created at the University of Pennsylvania in the early eighties. This school, however, had at first only a moderate success, as did the similar schools started from time to time by other colleges and universities. The time was not yet ripe. When Columbia came to consider the problem, it preferred to devote its energies to political science rather than to business, and to purely University or graduate rather than to undergraduate work. As a consequence there was initiated the School of Political Science, which on its pedagogical side became a training school for teachers of the social sciences and for governmental administrators.

In the meantime, the economic development of the United States as well as of Europe led to a constant broadening of the scale on which business enterprises were carried on, and the demand for really adequate commercial training became more and more insistent. Toward the end of the last century the interest thus awakened became so strong that the Chamber of Commerce of New York was ready to grant an annual subvention to Columbia if it should be decided to develop courses of the desired character. The situation was canvassed by a small committee; but it was finally decided not to accept the overtures made by the committee of the Chamber of Commerce for several reasons. In the first place, it was felt that the demand had not yet become sufficiently great to justify the expectation of a student body satisfactory in either quantity or quality. Secondly, we were convinced that a successful school of the character desired would have to be conducted along academic lines of a modified kind, and that the best results could be hoped for only by securing academic teachers with a business experience rather than business men without academic experience. It was, however, at the time impossible to find a sufficient number of qualified instructors. Moreover, the literature of the subject was as yet embryonic, and the proper curriculum of such a School had nowhere been thoroughly worked out. In the third place, it was realized that the most important consideration at the time in American educational development, and especially at Columbia, was to emphasize the purely scientific or graduate work in political science; and the Department of Economics feared lest there might be danger in diverting its energies from the scientific field to work of a technical or professional character, such as would be necessitated by a new School of the kind contemplated. Finally, the movement for the creation of commercial high schools had come to a head, and it was deemed wiser to ascertain how far the gap might be filled by the secondary schools before deciding as to what should be done by Columbia. For these reasons the project was postponed, and the entire energy of the Department of Economics was directed to the rounding out of the University courses in political science and to the improving and broadening of the tender of the undergraduate or college course in economics.

During the last fifteen years, however, an instructive development has occurred. In the first place, there was a growing recognition of the need for a broader and more adequate training for business. Chambers of Commerce and other commercial bodies both here and abroad began to grow more restless and more insistent in their demands. The old feeling of prejudice on the part of the successful business man toward the college graduate diminished, although he still maintained that the college curriculum might profitably be modified in some respects to give a better preparation for business. This demand, which emanated primarily from the commercial community, now found expression in the new commercial schools in England and even more in Germany, and a rich fund of knowledge was being accumulated from the experience of these foreign schools. In the United States, moreover, it was gradually recognized that the commercial high schools, however excellently managed, were not quite adequate to solve the problem.

In the course of time professional schools of the desired kind were initiated, although along widely varying lines, by several American universities, the most notable examples being those of New York University and of Harvard. In New York City the demand for the inception of courses of some kind at Columbia soon became so urgent that a modest beginning was made three or four years ago with a few evening courses. Owing to the high standards which were observed from the outset, these courses met with immediate success. They were conservatively increased from year to year, until during the past year the number of students and the character of the instructors became such as to justify the demand for their merger into a new and independent school, which should possess an identity of its own and which should become a regularly accredited part of the University.

There were several reasons which led the Department of Economics now to welcome the movement to which it had been lukewarm a decade or two before. In the first place, the number of men qualified to serve as instructors in the new schools had become so numerous as to make it reasonably certain that the faculty could be filled by men of the first rank. Secondly, the literature of the subject had become so abundant as to make it possible to put academic teaching in business on a par with that of the other occupations or professions. Thirdly, experience with various types of schools had become so rich as to permit of what seemed to be a sound conclusion. Finally, the University work under the Faculty of Political Science had become so thoroughly established that there was no danger to be anticipated in any diversion of energy to the new institution. It was felt, therefore, that we were now quite ready to develop the technical or professional, rather than the purely scientific, sides of instruction in Economics.

It was for these reasons that the Department of Economics as well as the entire Faculty of Political Science cordially welcomed the project for the new School and that the report of the special committee appointed to consider the subject met with the unanimous approval of the University Council and was speedily adopted by the Board of Trustees.

II

In determining upon the character of the School, the committee considered with some care the different types in existence. There are in the United States at present three chief types: (1) the Wharton School, which has a curriculum of four years parallel to that of the college and which is essentially an undergraduate school; (2) the Harvard School of Business Administration, which has a two- years’ curriculum of a frankly graduate character; and (3) the Amos Tuck School at Dartmouth, which admits students at the end of the junior year and carries them through a two-years course. No one of these types approved itself to the committee.

The Wharton School plan seemed to be open to criticism from several points of view. As a purely undergraduate school it necessarily becomes a rival to the college and to the extent that it succeeds, it is likely to weaken the college. In the second place, it begins professional or technical work at too early a period, whereas the whole tendency of recent development in the United States is to relegate the professional or technical education to a somewhat later stage. The change that has been going on during the last few years in the Engineering Schools and other Schools of Applied Science affords ample evidence of this tendency. What is needed in this country is a broad foundation for the technical or professional class, and the School of Business needs as broad a foundation as we are coming to demand for other professional schools. Thirdly, a purely undergraduate school of business excludes the possibility of any pronounced extension of the graduate or research courses, which are coming to be as important in applied economics as they are in pure economics. A four-years’ undergraduate curriculum in business courses virtually exhausts the subject and leaves practically nothing for the research student. It was largely for these reasons that the Wharton School type was discarded as a model.

On the other hand the Harvard type seemed to be open to criticism for opposite reasons. In the first place, the requirement of a college degree for entrance renders such a school impotent to serve the public which is clamoring for admission in large centers like New York. Comparatively few men who intend to go into business can afford, whether from the material or from any other point of view, to wait until they are twenty-four or twenty-five years of age before entering upon a practical business career. And it is questionable whether even a few captains of industry will be recruited from this class. A purely graduate school which can never expect more than a handful of students is thus abandoning its opportunity to serve the public in the largest measure. In the second place, not only must such a school from the very nature of the case be numerically insignificant, but it seems to be based upon an erroneous pedagogical principle. It is now rather widely recognized that the movement inaugurated by President Eliot a generation ago went too far for the best interests of American education. In attempting to convert the American college into a university, he ignored the fact that the principles of academic freedom—freedom of the student as well as freedom of the teacher—are applicable in full measure only to a real university doing advanced or research work. Moreover, although by pulling up, as he thought, the American college, to a higher or university level, he advanced the age of graduation to about twenty-two, he at the same time made the attainment of the college degree a prerequisite to professional or research work. The college thus came to occupy the contradictory position of a university and of something less than a university. The consequences soon disclosed themselves. As soon as the demands of the public for a better medical and legal preparation became imperious, the complications began; for the medical school course was gradually lengthened to five years, and the law school course to three years, with a possibility of soon becoming four years. To make, as was now done, entrance to the professional schools conditional upon a college degree therefore meant that the young lawyer could not begin his life’s work before the age of twenty-five or twenty-six and the young doctor before the age of twenty-seven or twenty-eight.

This is an intolerable situation, which exists nowhere else in the civilized world and which it is out of the question to think will permanently continue in the United States. The first step away from this difficulty was taken by Columbia some twenty years ago when it introduced the so-called combined course into the professional schools, permitting the saving of at least one year. This combined-course idea rapidly spread throughout the country and is now adopted by most of the leading universities, barring a few conservative institutions in the East. A slight modification of this system was later introduced at Columbia in the Schools of Engineering, Mining, and Chemistry, which were put upon a basis of advanced standing requiring three years of college work for entrance, thus making possible a combined course of six years from entrance into the college up to the acquirement of the professional degree. Even this, however, was gradually found to be inadequate; and before long not only the School of Medicine but the School of Architecture, and the School of Journalism opened professional courses to students who had completed two years of college work.

By many it was recognized that here is the proper dividing line between the ordinary cultural and preparatory courses on the one hand, and the technical or professional courses on the other. To those who hold to this opinion, it seems entirely probable that sooner or later the combined or Columbia plan, which has now spread throughout the country, will be replaced by the newer or still more distinctive Columbia plan, which is in harmony not only with the educational practice of the rest of the world, but with sound educational theory. The Harvard School of Business Administration, therefore, appeared to the committee to embody the same erroneous principle which had been applied to the law and medical schools. The country has broken away from the Harvard plan in legal and medical education. It seems unlikely that it will follow Harvard in the new form of business education. At all events, the system seemed to be quite inapplicable to conditions at Columbia.

The third type of business school is represented by the Amos Tuck School, which does, indeed, accept the principle of a dividing line below the close of the college curriculum. The Amos Tuck School, however, has turned out to be distinctly restricted in scope and attracts few students outside of Dartmouth itself. What it does is to provide an alternate year for Dartmouth seniors, with an opportunity of proceeding for an additional year. It does not succeed in drawing from other colleges students who have completed three years of college work. Moreover, it suffers from the same defect as the Harvard School in that it offers an inadequate curriculum of only two years in length.

Since therefore none of the existing types seemed to be either suitable to Columbia conditions or in harmony with sound pedagogical principles, it was decided to put the dividing line between college and professional work at the end of the second year, largely for the reasons mentioned above. Students will therefore be admitted to the Columbia School who have completed two years of college work or its equivalent, and the School of Business will be put on the same basis as the Medical School, the School of Architecture, and the School of Journalism. This arrangement makes possible the attainment of several results. In the first place, every student who enters the Business School as a candidate for a degree will be sure of having pursued those general cultural and disciplinary college courses which are considered obligatory upon every cultivated man in Europe as in America. In the second place, on this broad basis there will be erected a carefully devised professional or technical curriculum after the completion of which the graduate can enter upon his business career at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three,—about the ordinary age abroad. In the third place, the three-year course, which is midway between the exaggerated four-year Wharton course and the inadequate two-year Harvard and Amos Tuck courses, will permit a comprehensive and well-rounded sequence of studies. The type of school finally adopted thus seems to combine a maximum of advantages with a minimum of defects. It will moreover enable the School to serve much more varied classes of students than can be found in any other type.

Among these classes are, first, students who have spent two years in Columbia College or in some other college of equivalent rank and who are candidates for a degree. It is expected that not a few college students, both at Columbia and elsewhere, who have decided by the end of the second year to pursue a distinctively business career, will enter the new School and thus secure a better preparation for their life work than if they were to continue in a more or less desultory fashion through the remainder of their college career.

In the second place, the School will afford abundant opportunity in its upper reaches for graduate students who desire to prepare themselves for the teaching profession or who are inclined to devote time to purely research courses. Such students will be able to combine a more technical or professional course in the School of Business with graduate courses given in the School of Political Science, and there will therefore be offered for the first time in the United States a unique combination of pure and of applied science, or of theoretical and of practical economics, which will doubtless turn out to be fruitful of results.

In the third place, the School will afford an opportunity to graduates of high schools, who for some reason do not desire to go to college, to take courses in the Department of Extension Teaching at Columbia, in either day or evening courses, and to complete work equivalent to that offered by Columbia College in its first two years.

In the fourth place, there are in New York City many men and some women actively engaged in business who are eager to learn more about the real foundation of their business life. Students of this character, if over twenty-one years of age, who have shown their qualifications to undertake certain courses may be admitted as special students in particular subjects, but will, of course, not be candidates for a degree.

It is therefore believed that the type of school finally adopted is the one which will minister most successfully to the needs of the New York public, and which will, at the same time, provide on the broadest possible basis a curriculum which will attract students from all parts of the country.

III

Before we proceed to discuss the curriculum a word must be said about the name of the new institution. Most of the existing institutions are called Schools of Commerce or of Commercial Science. Such an appellation seemed, however, unsatisfactory. For in the first place what is taught in such a school is not primarily science at all, but art; or even if the purely scientific problems may be taken up in the later years of the School, the earlier years must naturally devote themselves primarily to the practical applications. But, more important than this, the term commerce seems to be ill-chosen. There are many problems of business management which have only a slight relation to commerce as such; and the Supreme Court of the United States has told us in a leading decision that insurance is not commerce at all. As in every School of this kind the problems connected with insurance must occupy a prominent place, it seems objectionable to apply a generic name in connection with a particular division to which the generic name is, as we are instructed, wholly inapplicable. On the other hand, some schools call themselves Schools of Business Administration. This title, however, is equally open to criticism. If we object to the term commercial science on the ground that a great part of the work is not science at all, we can equally object to the term business administration on the ground that a great part of the work far transcends purely administrative problems. What such a School has to deal with is the principles underlying business practice, as well as the best method of putting those principles into operation. It is partly science and partly administration; it is more than science and more than administration. Since, therefore, the real object of such a School is to deal with business problems in their varied and comprehensive aspects, it seemed wise to take the simple and obvious name of School of Business. In the Law School we study law; in the Medical School we study medicine; in the School of Architecture we study architecture; in the School of Engineering we study engineering; and consequently the obvious place in which to study business is the School of Business. The name is simple, inclusive, and comprehensive.

When we come to discuss the curriculum of the new School, several points are to be noted. In the first place, an attempt is made to steer between the rigid and fixed curriculum found in some of the American professional schools and the very elastic schemes that are found in the ordinary university courses here and abroad. It was attempted to strike a happy medium by requiring in the first year from all candidates for a degree a certain number of courses aggregating one-half or two-thirds of the whole. Every student who intends to go into business should know something about general economics, accounting, finance and business organization, and should also have a command of some of the foreign languages. When, however, the foundation has been laid in this way, students are allowed a free choice, subject to the condition, however, that their course be approved by the Director. The Director of the School is presumed to have a personal acquaintance with each of the students, and to be able in person or through delegation to give to each proper advice. Students who desire to have a general business course will find such a curriculum mapped out for them. Others who may prefer to specialize will find a sequence of courses in a variety of subjects: accounting, banking, finance, transportation, commerce and trade, business organization and management, manufactures, advertising and salesmanship, and the like. At the end of the second year, the degree of Bachelor of Science will be awarded so that those who do not care to defer their entrance into a practical business career may start in at the age of the ordinary college graduate. It is expected, however, that a large proportion of the students will continue for a third year, at the end of which the Master’s degree will be conferred.

This third year, it is hoped, will be the most valuable, as it will be the most unique, year in the School. It will correspond approximately to the clinical year which is now being added to our best medical schools. It goes without saying that in the City of New York, the centre of American wealth, the business problems are on a particularly gigantic scale and of a specially intricate character. It is proposed to make the courses in this third year not alone research courses in the more refined and difficult principles underlying business practice, but also practical courses where each student will have an opportunity of intimate personal contact with business life. Arrangements have already been made with the National City Bank whereby a certain number of students will be afforded an opportunity to prepare themselves for the service of the Bank in foreign fields. It is proposed to broaden and generalize these opportunities so that ultimately every student will be enabled and expected to do some field work in that particular department of business life in which he is especially interested. In almost every phase of “big business” in New York today the need is experienced for more expert and thorough training; and it is hoped in the advanced courses of the School to bring about a close cooperation between the corps of instructors on the one hand and the business community on the other. It is here that the School of Business will find an unexampled opportunity and perform an unexampled service. Just as the finest medical schools can exist only where there are the greatest hospitals, that is, in the large centres of population, so the most successful schools of business in the future may be expected to be found in the great centres of business life.

In order to accomplish these results and to realize the expectations which have been formed, it goes without saying that the new School of Business must be put on the highest possible standard of educational efficiency. So far as the students are concerned, this result has been guaranteed by the determination to make the scholastic standard as high as it is in the other departments of Columbia. We are fortunate in having in Dr. Egbert, as Director of the School, a man who is not only one of the great administrators in the country, but who has shown in both the Summer Session and the Extension work his adherence to these high standards. The continually growing reputation of those phases of the work to which Dr. Egbert has hitherto addressed himself are the surest guarantee of success in this new field.

High standards, however, depend not only upon the student body, but upon the corps of instructors. In order to avoid the difficulty which has unfortunately been experienced by so many American institutions, it is proposed that a professor must have one at least of two qualifications. If he is recruited from the academic ranks, he must possess the degree of Ph.D., to show that he has attained the highest academic honors, together with a reasonable business experience or an acquaintance with actual business problems. If, on the other hand, he is selected from the ranks of those who have devoted themselves primarily to business, he must not only have written a book which is an acknowledged authority in its field, but must give evidence of ability successfully to present the subject to the professional student. Although the corps of instructors is by no means entirely complete, it will be found that the selection has in every case been in accordance with the above considerations. The numerous additions to the teaching staff which are being planned for in the near future are confidently expected to conform to the same high principles.

Thus from every point of view, we feel that the problem has been carefully considered and solved with a reasonable hope of success. In the character of the student body, in the selection of the present and future teaching force, in the rounded sequence of courses, in the judicious union of practical and research work, in the rich possibilities of cooperation with the other departments of the University and the business life of the community, and last but not least, in the tried administrative experience of the Director, we have reason to believe that we possess a unique combination of factors which cannot fail to put the Columbia School of Business in the front rank of similar institutions here and abroad.

 

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Volume XVIII, June 1916, pp. 241-252.

Image Source: From  American Economic Review, 1943.

Categories
Business School Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus and Harvard Business School Professor, Copeland, 1910

 

Another obituary for the series: Meet a Ph.D. Economist! Copeland apparently was the first to organize a collection of case studies that were later to became a hallmark of the Harvard Business School. Of particular value is the link I found to his history of the Harvard Business School that was published in 1958.

_______________________________________

Examination for the Degree of Ph.D.
Division of History and Political Science

Melvin Thomas Copeland.

Special Examination in Economics, Friday, December 14, 1909.
General Examination passed May 13, 1908.
Committee: Professors Ripley (chairman), Hart, Carver, Sprague, and Munro.
Academic History: Bowdoin College, 1902-06; Harvard Graduate School, 1906-09; A.B. (Bowdoin), 1906; A. M. (Harvard) 1907. Austin Teaching Fellow (Harvard), 1908-09; Instructor, 1909-10.
Special Subject: Economic History of the United States.
Thesis Subject: “The Organization of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry in the United States.” (With Professors Taussig and Gay.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Gay, Ripley, and Sprague.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. (HUC 7000.70), Folder “Examinations for the Ph.D., 1909-10”.

_______________________________________

 

Source: Harvard Business School Yearbook, 1930-31.

_______________________________________

From the Report of the President of Harvard College, 1975-75

Melvin Thomas Copeland, George Fisher Baker Professor of Administration, Emeritus, died March 27, 1975 in his 91st year. Although not a member of the Business faculty until 1912 when the School was four years old, “Doc” Copeland justly ranks with its founders because of his organization of the first collection of business cases for study. A 1906 graduate of Bowdoin College, Copeland came to Harvard to earn his A.M. (1907) and Ph.D. (1910) degrees. His doctoral dissertation, Cotton Manufacturing Industry of the U.S.,  won the Wells Prize and was published in 1912. While still a graduate student, he served as an Assistant in Economics and later as Instructor in Economic Resources. He then spent a year teaching on the faculty of New York University, returning to Harvard in 1912 to teach a course in business statistics at the fledgling Business School, thus beginning a career which continued until his retirement in 1953. Copeland became an Instructor in Marketing in 1914, Professor of Marketing in 1919, and was Director of the Bureau of Business Research twice (from 1916 to 1920 and from 1942 to 1953). He worked on the organization of business cases and on project research for faculty members in this latter job. He was named George Fisher Baker Professor in 1950. Over the years he earned a reputation as a distinguished editor and writer on business topics; before his retirement he produced six books, and afterwards was asked to write the Business School’s history, And Mark an Era, which appeared in 1958. His volume about the Gloucester, Massachusetts area where he lived, The Saga of Cape Ann (1960), also appeared after his retirement. In 1973, in his eighty-ninth year, Copeland received from the Business School its Distinguished Service Award.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments, 1974-75, pp. 32-3.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1920.

 

 

Categories
Business School Chicago Economists

Chicago. Problem of Faculty Turnover, 1923

The Special Collections Research Center of the University of Chicago Library is putting scans of records from the respective administrations of Presidents Harper, Judson and Burton (1869-1925)  on-line (52 boxes of 91 boxes thus far!).  For today’s posting I have transcribed the introduction and conclusions of a summary “of the most imperative needs of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature” written in October 1923 as well as the section for the Department of Political Economy. Additionally I provide c.v. data for the economists named published in the Annual Register 1921-22 for the University of Chicago and additional biographical information (obituaries/memorials) to follow their post-Chicago careers.

 

____________________________________

The University of Chicago
The Graduate School of Arts and Literature

Office of the Dean

October 30, 1923.

Dean J. H. Tufts,
The University of Chicago.

Dear Dean Tufts:

I enclose a summary of the most imperative needs of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature. I have drawn it up only after a most careful examination of the condition of the Departments. I am convinced that it is only by making the new appointments which I have listed and providing the increases I have indicated that the School can hope to make any appreciable contribution to graduate studies in America or even to hold its own with the other Graduate Schools in the country. In the case of some departments the situation is almost inconceivably bad. It is so bad that it is only by making new appointments of strong men—major appointments that would command attention—and by increasing the salaries of many members of the teaching staff who are being tempted away that we can hope to regain our prestige. I hope that this will not sound like an exaggeration. It is not. It is a lamentable fact that some of the departments that ten or fifteen years ago were famous and attracted graduate students from all parts of the continent are now deplorably weak, while some of the others, though still doing efficient work, have recently suffered serious losses in their teaching staff and are threatened with still more. Let me speak of these in detail.

 

I. The Weak Departments:

  1. The Department of Psychology
  2. The Department of the History of Art
  3. The Department of German….
  4. The Department of Latin
  5. Another notable example of weakness is found in Anthropology
  6. The Department of General Literature

 

[II.] The Other Departments:

  1. Romance Languages
  2. History
  3. Political Economy

The situation here is especially precarious. The instructional staff is an efficient one but extremely difficult to hold. Within recent years three men have gone: Moulton, Hardy and Lyon. Some of the men here now have received tempting offers of positions wither in government bureaus or in industries. The new appointment in Money and Banking is to fill the vacancy caused by Moulton’s going to Washington two years ago. Viner has had more than one call. Good men in Political Economy seem to be increasingly hard to get.

May I remind you also of the fine contribution that this Department, under Mr. Marshall’s inspiration, has made to that cooperative study of economic, social, and political conditions in Chicago that is being carried on by all the departments in the Social Science Group. This whole piece of work is, as you yourself know, a most interesting experiment, and in its detailed analysis of the characteristics of the Chicago community, will in all probability prove to be a model for the study of any large metropolitan area.

I hope you will pardon my writing at such length, but the situation seems to me to be critical. We cannot afford to delay remedial measures. The money that I am asking for is not simply for the University of Chicago, it is for Graduate Studies in the whole Middle West, which looks to Chicago for its teachers. Of all the new appointments that I have urged there is not one that would not influence higher education throughout the Mississippi Valley.

 

Yours very truly,

[signed]
Gordon J. Laing

 

Source: University of Chicago. Office of the President: Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations Records 1869-1925. Box 47, Folder 6 “Graduate schools, development, 1914-1924”.

 

____________________________________

 

Charles Oscar Hardy, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Financial Organization in the School of Commerce and Administration. [Resigned]

A.B., Ottawa University, 1904; Professor of History and Economics, ibid., 1910-18; Dean of the College, ibid., 1916-18; Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1916; Lecturer in the School of Commerce and Administration, ibid., 1918-19; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1919-22.

 

Harold Glenn Moulton, Ph.B., Ph.D., Professor of Political Economy. [Resigned]

Ph.B., University of Chicago, 1907; Assistant in Political Economy, ibid., 1910-11; Instructor, ibid., 1911-14; Ph.D., ibid., 1914; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1914-18; Associate Professor, ibid., 1918-1922; Professor, ibid., 1922.

 

Leverett Samuel Lyon, A.M., LL.B., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Commercial Organization in the School of Commerce and Administration.

Ph.B., University of Chicago, 1910; LL.B., Chicago Kent College of Law, 1915; Assistant in Commercial Organization in the School of Commerce and Administration, ibid., 1916-17; Instructor, ibid., 1917-19; A.M., ibid., 1918; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1919—; Ph.D., ibid., 1921.

 

Jacob Viner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Economy.

B.A., McGill University, 1914; A.M., Harvard University, 1915; Instructor in Political Economy, University of Chicago, 1916-19; Assistant Professor, ibid., 1919—; Ph.D., Harvard University, 1922.

 

Leon Carroll Marshall, A.M., LL.D., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Political Economy; Dean of the School of Commerce and Administration and of the Graduate School of Social Service Administration.

A.B., Ohio Wesleyan University, 1900; A.B., Harvard University, 1901; A.M., ibid., 1902; Assistant, ibid., 1902-3; Professor of Economics, Ohio Wesleyan University, 1903-7; Assistant Professor of Political Economy, University of Chicago, 1907-8; Associate Professor, ibid., 1908-11; Dean of the School of Commerce and Administration, ibid., 1909—; Professor of Political Economy, ibid., 1911—; Dean of the Senior Colleges, ibid., 1911-20; LL.D., Ohio Wesleyan University, 1918; Dean of the Graduate School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 1920—.

 

 

Source: University of Chicago, Annual Register, 1921-1922, pp. 38, 40, 54, 57.

 

____________________________________

 

Life after the University of Chicago

“In Memoriam: Charles Oscar Hardy, 1884-1948”. American Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 3 (May, 1949), pp. 478-480.

Harold Moulton, Economist, Dead. Ex-President of Brookings Institution in the Capital,” The New York Times, December 15, 1965, p. 48.

Engle, N. H., Leverett Samuel Lyon, Journal of Marketing, Vol 24, No. 1 (July, 1959), pp. 67-69.

“Dr. Jacob Viner, Economist, Dead: Princeton Professor was U.S. Adviser 4 Decades,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970.

Marshall, Leon Carroll, 1879-1966. Biographical notes. Social Networks and Archival Context (SNAC). [Webpage].

 

Image Source: Leon C. Marshall. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-04113, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Business School Chicago Curriculum

Chicago. Laughlin on Establishing a Business School, 1895

Basic training in graduate education in economics has been distilled into a trinity of microeconomics, macroeconomics and econometrics. This tends to be taken for granted by most economics departments. However long before we ever got here, “political economy” or “economics” has coexisted with history, business, sociology and public affairs, perhaps each within a separate cubicle but all nevertheless sharing a common office space. We see in today’s posting for the University of Chicago that the branching off of business studies occurred fairly early in the development of U.S. graduate/professional education.

I think this sort of development is important to follow because once administrative walls have been built, interdisciplinarity gets reduced to Pyramus and Thisbe interactions. (Plot spoiler: it didn’t end well for that couple.)

The following interview with the head of the Chicago department of political economy, J. Laurence Laughlin, provides us with an ex ante view of business education.

________________________________________

 

NO SCHOOL IS LIKE IT
SCHEME OF INSTRUCTION WITHOUT
AN AMERICAN PARALLEL.

Chicago Daily Tribune, May 12, 1895

University of Chicago’s Department of Business Economics and Journalism to Cover Wide Range of Practical Every-Day Training—Forecast of the Leading Courses—Railways to Receive Special Attention—Number of Instructors Required in the School of Economics.

“Is the University of Chicago to have a department of business and economics and journalism similar to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania?” was asked Prof. J. Laurence Laughlin, head of the department of economics in the university yesterday afternoon.

“No, it is not,” he replied, “we are to have a school in business economics and journalism, but it will not be modeled after the Wharton school.”

“It seems strange,” Prof. Laughlin continued, “but the statement made by President Harper at the April convocation regarding the establishment in the university of courses in banking, transportation, insurance, consular and diplomatic service, and corporation management seems to have been entirely buried in the public mind. As a matter of fact, Dr. Harper gave utterance to a scheme the like of which has never been attempted in this country. People are familiar with schools of law, medicine, and dentistry, but the idea that a journalist, a banker, a railroad man, a diplomat, or a manager of a corporation should have special training in their particular line of employment is not readily conceived. The new work which the University of Chicago expects to undertake will, as I say, constitute a new departure in modern education. The Wharton school has an endowment of only about $100,000; the University of Chicago expects to organize its departments of business economics with no less than $1,000,000. True, these various departments of practical economic work will not deal with the arithmetic of banking or the technique of railroading or journalism. These things must be learned by practical contact with men and affairs. It is, however, necessary that a banker should be thoroughly acquainted with the principles and functions of money, that he should understand the industrial economics of his own and other countries, and that he should understand the character and extent of the changes in this own business which may be brought about by constantly arising changes in industrial economics, money legislations, etc.”

No Fear as to Results.

            “Are you not met with the objection that the training of young men to be bank Presidents, railway magnates, diplomats, etc., is in the face of present-day competition and business shifts, a rather dangerous undertaking? was asked.

“No, I do not think so. In 1880, for instance, one-fifth of those engaged in gainful pursuits in the Unite States were engaged in transportation. The business of a banker, a railroad manager, an actuary, or an expert accountant is becoming sufficiently extensive and of sufficient importance not only to warrant such training, but to make it necessary to the successful management of any one of these businesses. The fact should be emphasized that we shall not attempt the clerical part of an education in any of these lines of work. In the school of journalism we shall be satisfied if the student learns to think clearly and independently upon economic subjects and is fairly well grounded in the kind of history, law, and economics acquaintance with which every public teacher requires.”

Prof. Laughlin is Chairman of a committee, the other members of which he is not prepared to announce, which is at work upon the courses which will enter into the new curriculum. It is not known at just what time the scheme will be announced in detail, but there is no doubt that the plan will, in due time, be operated along the lines indicated. When asked whom the university would probably invite to captain the various departments of the new school Prof. Laughlin said he had nothing for publication.

The leading courses under the new scheme will undoubtedly be banking and railroading. Of the first course Prof. Laughlin will probably have charge. The course will probably deal with the comparative banking systems of the United States, England, France, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries, and special attention will be given to the manner in which each meets the problems of currency (coin, note, and deposit), reserves, discount, and exchange. The relations of the banks to the public, their influence on speculation, their management in financial crises, special dangers, and most efficient safeguards will be discussed; also relative advantages and different fields of action for national banks, State banks, deposit and trust companies, and savings banks.

Course in Railway Transportation.

            Prof. von Holst and Prof. Laughlin are thoroughly alive to the field which the railway is opening up to the student and business-man. Prof. von Holst says a competent history of the United States cannot be written until the growth and mechanism of the railway has been set forth. The course in railway transportation for the winter of 1896 suggests the character and extent of work which the new economic training will offer. The course will begin with a discussion of the economic, financial, and social influences arising from the growth of modern railway transportation, especially as concerns the United States. Then will follow an account of the means of transportation developed in Europe and America during the early part of this century, the experiments of the States in constructing and operating canals and railways; national, State, and municipal aid to private companies; the rapid and irregular extension of the Untied States railway system in recent years, with some attention to railway building in other countries.

A discussion of various theories of rates; competition, combination, discrimination, investments, speculation, abuse of fiduciary powers; State legislation and commissions and the inter-State commerce act, with decisions under it; also the various relations of the State, the public, investors, managers, and employés will form the most important part of the work. A comparison of the United States railway system with those of other countries will be made, with special attention to the problems of State ownership.

Prof. E. R. L. Gould, the statistician-elect from Johns Hopkins University, will likely be the statistician of the new school. Prof. Gould will assume his duties at the university next October. In his department Prof. Gould will trace the historical development of statistics and examine into the work of private statistical associations and of official agencies in all the leading countries. The student will be given the claims of statistics to scientific recognition, the principles of statistical judgments, and the problems of systematic statistics. Together with the necessity of uniformity of method and comparability of data, graphical methods, and cartography, attention will be drawn to the technique of statistics.

Thorough Analysis of Statistics.

            Demonstrations with actual statistical material being the most satisfactory method of statistical instruction, particular stress will be laid upon this feature of the course. Statistical returns of various sorts will be carefully analyzed and generalizations made when possible. International comparisons will also receive special attention and exposition and practical analysis will be applied in the following classes of statistics: Population, education, vital statistics, paupers, criminals and defectives, social statistics of cities, industry and labor, land and agriculture, transportation, trade and commerce, prices and public finance.

Prof. A.C. Miller will have charge of the department of finance. In this course it is intended to make a comprehensive survey of the whole field of public finance. Review will be made of the growth of and present state of the expenditures of leading modern nations, and the methods used for defraying them. Taxation, holding the place of first-importance among the resources of the modern state, will be the principal subject of the course. A critical estimate will be made of the theories of leading writers with a view to discovering a tenable basis for taxation. Special attention will be given to the comparative study of the tax systems of the principal modern states, and to the problems of State and local taxation in America. All questions will be discussed from the two-fold standpoint of justice and expediency.

The remaining pars of the course will treat of the organization and methods of financial administration, the formal control of public expenditures by means of the budget, the growth of public debts and their economic and social effect. The various problems involved in the management of public debts, such as methods of borrowing, conversion, and reduction, will be considered, and the methods practiced in our own and other countries described.

A course to be given by Dr. Thorstein B. Veblen in “Problems in American Agriculture” will be a feature of the economic work for 1895-’96. In this department special attention will be given to the extension and changes of the cultivated area of the United States; the methods of farming; the influence of railways and population and of cheapened transportation; the fall in values of Eastern farm lands; movements of prices of agricultural products; European markets; competition of other countries; intensive farming; diminishing returns; farm mortgages; and the comparison of American with European systems of culture. Systems of holdings in Great Britain, Belgium, France, and Germany will be touched upon, together with the discussion of forestry legislation.

Twenty-nine Instructors Required.

            This description of a few courses in economics announced for 1895-’96 will give some idea of the scope of work with which the new school of economics will deal. Seven instructors are registered in the department of political economy, four in political science, nine in history, and nine in sociology and anthropology—all related sciences, and each of which will probably be represented in the new school, or rather in the extension of the present school.

Besides courses in banking, railway transportation, insurance, and corporation management the new school will include courses in the consular and diplomatic service, trading and shipping, and municipal government. No attempt will be made to go into the details of these departments further than is essential to a comprehension of the mechanism and principles of the entire business.

The problem to which the University of Chicago addresses itself is the proper arrangement of the courses, the engagement of expert instructors, and the establishment of libraries and bureaus of information for the use of students.

Chicago being the greatest railway center of the United States and the home of several prominent railway managers, it is thought that certain Chicago men will be solicited for a portion of their time to be spent in university instructions, the aim being to united with a theoretical education a practical business training, unencumbered, however, with the clerical routine and forms.

“After all,” says Prof. Laughlin, “our graduated banker must begin at the bottom and work his way up like other individuals; but he will, nevertheless, have the indisputable advantage over his rival of seeing and conceiving different departments of the bank in connection with the whole. Details are, after all, easily learned. The new department will savor little of the ‘school,’ will be practical and up to date in its methods, and will give the would-be banker or railway manager or superintendent the same preparation as I now given the intending lawyer or physician in a law or medical school.”

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03687, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.