Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Economist Market Economists Harvard M.I.T.

Chicago. Three casual letters from Cambridge, Mass. regarding young talent, 1957-59

 

In the three letters to Theodore W. Schultz transcribed for this post we witness the old-boy network at work in Chicago’s search for young talent.  Mason and Harris from Harvard share the enormous respect that Harvard Junior Fellow Frank Fisher had won from the senior professors there.  Evsey Domar hedges somewhat in his assessment of Robert L. Slighton but more or less places him in a spectrum running between Marc Nerlove and Martin Bailey closer to the latter. Other now familiar (and less familiar) names are tossed in for good measure.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Office of the Dean

Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

December 27, 1957

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Ted:

In addition to [John] Meyer, [James] Henderson and [Otto] Eckstein, I would also name Franklin Fisher and Daniel Ellsberg as among our really promising young men. Fisher and Ellsberg are, at present, both junior fellows. Fisher is something of a wunderkind, having graduated summa cum laude from Harvard at the age of 18. He published a mathematical article on Welfare Economics when he was a senior, and those who can understand it say it’s good. He is only 20 now, and, of course, it is difficult to say how he is going to turn out. He may be another Paul Samuelson, and on the other hand he may not. Ellsberg is another one of our summas and a very good man, indeed. I don’t think he measures up to John Meyer, but is probably in the Henderson and Eckstein category. Since I promised you six names, I will add that of [???] Miller who came to us this year from California. I have really seen nothing of him, and consequently, can no give you a first-hand judgement. My colleagues, however, think he is very good.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Ed
Edward S. Mason
Dean

ESM:rrl

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

January 5, 1959

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

It was good to see you even though it was for a very short period. As you know, we include on our list of available men only those who have requested to be put on the list or who have given us their permission to have their name included in the list. It represents men who are either already Ph.D.’s or will receive their Ph.D. within the year, and who are actually available for the coming year.

[Daniel] Ellsberg will be getting his Ph.D. this year, but he is going to Rand at a salary of about $10,000. [Franklin] Fisher will not have his Ph.D. until June 1960. He is just out of college three years and has been offered an assistant professorship at Carnegie Tech. We have now promised him a similar appointment, and in fact he said he would prefer to be at Harvard.

Among other young men of talent who are now here but are not on our permanent roster are the following: Leon Moses who teaches half time in the department and does research with the [Wassily] Leontief project half time. There is a good chance that Moses will go to Pittsburgh, particularly in order to work on the metropolitan project with [Edgar M.] Hoover. Moses is an excellent man in every way and certainly of permanent quality: the same holds for Alfred Conrad who is in somewhat the same position as Moses. Incidentally, both of them have a leave for next year: There is also André Daniere who will be an assistant professor next year and who works primarily with Leontief. Daniere is another good man, though probably not quite as good as the others.

Then there are Otto Eckstein, James Henderson, Jaroslav Vanek and Louis Lefeber. They are all excellent men and in the running for a permanent appointment. Actually, during the next few years we will have but one or two openings and obviously we cannot keep all these men. There is little to choose among them and we will have a tough time making a decision. Please keep this in the highest confidence.

With kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SHE/jw

____________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

January 14, 1959

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

Your letter of January 6, regarding [Robert L.] Slighton is not quite easy to answer. I do not know [Daniel] Elsberg [sic] or [Franklin] Fisher well enough to make comparisons, but I will try to compare Slighton with [Martin J.] Bailey and [Marc] Nerlove. From the point of view of statistical and mathematical ability, Nerlove stands in a class all by himself, and I do not think that Slighton’s comparative advantage is in those fields. As far as Bailey is concerned, he may have flashes of ideas at times superior to Slighton’s. On the other hand, I would credit Slighton with greater solidity, more common sense and better judgment. As far as long-run contributions are concerned, I don’t know on whom of the two I would bet at the moment, but Slighton would be a serious contender in any such betting.

Lloyd [Metzler]’s session went quite well. He was greeted by the audience most warmly and was pleased about the whole works very much. I am very happy that that meeting was arranged and that I could participate in it.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Evsey D
Evsey D. Domar

EDD:jr

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 9.

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Exam Questions

Carnegie Tech. Final Exam for Advanced Economic Analysis. Modigliani, 1959 & 1960


An earlier post provided the outline for Franco Modigliani’s Advanced Economic Analysis course from the second term of the 1958-59 academic year that had been incorrectly filed in a folder of his notes for Advanced Monetary Theory III, 1953-1960″. A copy of the June 3, 1959 final examination was provided to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror for transcription by Juan Acosta.  I have added the May 27, 1960 final examination to this post as a second observation.

________________________

June 3, 1959

Advanced Economic Analysis I – GI 581
Final Examination

Answer questions I and IV, and either II or III.

  1. Assume that the government fixes by law the price of a commodity and hands out to the public ration coupons equal in number to the number of units of the commodity produced. Assume throughout that the supply is perfectly inelastic.
    1. Use an indifference diagram to show under what conditions the consumer would not use all of his coupons.
    2. Show that consumers would be better off if they were free to buy or sell their ration coupons in a free market.
    3. Supposing now that coupons could be bought and sold in a free market, explain how one could derive an individual consumer’s demand curve for coupons. (Hint: the situation is analogous to the consumer being forced to buy his ration of the good at the legal price and then being allowed to sell it or buy more of it on a free market.)
    4. Explain the formation of the equilibrium market price of coupons.
    5. What can be said as to the relation between the legal price, the price of coupons, and the price which would prevail in the absence of price control and rationing? Under what condition would the sum of the first two be equal to the third?
  2. A producer sells in his home market, in which he has a monopoly, and in a foreign market which is perfectly competitive. How would a sales tax imposed on the home market affect
    1. total output
    2. price in the home market
    3. price in the foreign market
    4. distribution of output between the two markets
  3. A profit maximizing monopolist buys factors of production in a perfect market.
    1. Discuss the long-run effect on his demand for each of the factors he uses and on his selling price of a tax on one of the factors. (Give a graphic treatment for the case of two factors.)
    2. Suppose that one of the two factors is fixed in the short run. Contrast the change in the long-run and short-run demand for both factors when a tax is placed on either.
  4. Discuss the significance of free entry for the relation of the long-run equilibrium size of the firm to the optimum size.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Franco Modigliani Papers, Box T1, Folder “Advanced Economics,1952-1960”.

________________________

May 27, 1960

GI-581 Advanced Economic Analysis I
Final Examination
F. Modigliani

 

  1. (Answer questions a-f; question g is elective)
    Suppose that the conditions of production for a given firm can be expressed by the production function.
    (1) X = KAaBb
    where A and B represent the inputs of two factors, X the output, and K, a, b, certain constants.

    1. Explain the meaning of a production function.
    2. Given the prices, PA, and PB of the two inputs determine the optimum input of each factor as a function of X, PA, PB.
    3. Exhibit the (minimized) total and marginal cost functions.
    4. Under what conditions is the above marginal cost increasing, decreasing or constant? Relate this result to the degree homogeneity of the production function (1) and to the notion of returns to scale.
    5. Discuss the relation between returns to scale and returns to each factor separately.
    6. How would you obtain the demand function of the firm for each factor, (i) if the firm sells in a competitive market? (ii) if the firm has a monopoly in the selling market?
    7. (Elective)
      Suppose that equation (1) describes the conditions of production for an entire industry, and assume further that the supply of factor A is infinitely elastic at the price PA while the conditions of supply of factor B can be expressed by the supply function PB = LBs, when L and s are constants, (s>0).

      1. The industry is composed of a large number of firms each of which takes the prices of the factors as given and independent of its inputs decisions;
      2. The entire industry is monopolized.
        Obtain the marginal cost for the industry in each of these two cases. What is the relation between this marginal cost and the supply functions? How is the slope of the supply function related to notion of returns to scale and of external and internal economies or diseconomies?
  2. In the figure below, X and Y denote the quantities of two commodities. Shown in the graph are four budget equations and the points chosen on each by a consumer.
    1. State the revealed preference postulate.
    2. Using this postulate, rank as far as possible the four points in order of preference.
    3. Draw a fifth budget line and observed point on it which would make possible an unambiguous ranking of the original four points.
    4. (Optional) Sketch out how the revealed preference postulate can be used to establish the slope of the Marshallian Demand function.
  1. Discuss briefly the meaning and significance of the following concepts and their interrelation in Economics:
    1. Statics;
    2. Dynamics;
    3. Comparative statics;
    4. Long and short run
      Discuss the notion of “long run,” “short run” and “reversibility” as they apply to demand functions.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Franco Modigliani Papers, Box T8, Folder “Notes on Advanced Monetary Theory III,1953-1960”.

Image Source: Franco Modigliani page at the History of Economic Thought Website.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Cornell Duke Economics Programs Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Minnesota Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Stanford UCLA Vanderbilt Wisconsin Yale

Economics Departments and University Rankings by Chairmen. Hughes (1925) and Keniston (1957)

 

The rankings of universities and departments of economics for 1920 and 1957 that are found below were based on the pooling of contemporary expert opinions. Because the ultimate question for both the Hughes and Keniston studies was the relative aggregate university standing with respect to graduate education, “The list did not include technical schools, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, nor state colleges, like Iowa State, Michigan State or Penn State, since the purpose was to compare institutions which offered the doctorate in a wide variety of fields.” Hence, historians of economics will be frustrated by the conspicuous absence of M.I.T. and Carnegie Tech in the 1957 column except for the understated footnote “According to some of the chairmen there are strong departments at Carnegie Tech. and M.I.T.; also at Vanderbilt”.

The average perceived rank of a particular economics department relative to that of its university might be of use in assessing the negotiating position of department chairs with their respective university administrations. The observed movement within the perception league tables over the course of roughly a human generation might suggest other questions worth pursuing. 

Anyhow without further apology…

______________________

About the Image: There is no face associated with rankings so I have chosen the legendary comedians Bud Abbott and Lou Costello for their “Who’s on First?” sketch.  YouTube TV version; Radio version: Who’s on First? starts at 22:15

______________________

From Keniston’s Appendix (1959)

Standing of
American Graduate Departments
in the Arts and Sciences

The present study was undertaken as part of a survey of the Graduate School of the University of Pennsylvania in an effort to discover the present reputation of the various departments which offer programs leading to the doctorate.

A letter was addressed to the chairmen of departments in each of twenty-five leading universities of the country. The list was compiled on the basis of (1) membership in the Association of American Universities, (2) number of Ph.D.’s awarded in recent years, (3) geographical distribution. The list did not include technical schools, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, nor state colleges, like Iowa State, Michigan State or Penn State, since the purpose was to compare institutions which offered the doctorate in a wide variety of fields.

Each chairman was asked to rate, on an accompanying sheet, the strongest departments in his field, arranged roughly as the first five, the second five and, if possible, the third five, on the basis of the quality of their Ph.D. work and the quality of the faculty as scholars. About 80% of the chairmen returned a rating. Since many of them reported the composite judgment of their staff, the total number of ratings is well over 500.

On each rating sheet, the individual institutions were given a score. If they were rated in order of rank, they were assigned numbers from 15 (Rank 1) to 1 (Rank 15). If they were rated in groups of five, each group alphabetically arranged, those in the top five were given a score of 13, in the second five a score of 8, and in the third five a score of 3. When all the ratings sheets were returned, the scores of each institution were tabulated and compiled and the institutions arranged in order, in accordance with the total score for each department.

To determine areas of strength or weakness, the departmental scores were combined to determine [four] divisional scores. [Divisions (Departments): Biological Sciences (2), Humanities (11), Physical Sciences (6), Social Sciences (5)]….

… Finally, the scores of each institution given in the divisional rankings were combined to provide an over-all rating of the graduate standing of the major universities.

From a similar poll of opinion, made by R. M. Hughes, A Study of the Graduate Schools of America, and published in 1925, it was possible to compile the scores for each of eighteen departments as they were ranked at that time and also to secure divisional and over-all rankings. These are presented here for the purpose of showing what changes have taken place in the course of a generation.

The limitations of such a study are obvious; the ranks reported do not reveal the actual merit of the individual departments. They depend on highly subjective impressions; they reflect old and new loyalties; they are subject to lag, and the halo of past prestige. But they do report the judgment of the men whose opinion is most likely to have weight. For chairmen, by virtue of their office, are the men who must know what is going on at other institutions. They are called upon to recommend schools where students in their field may profitably study; they must seek new appointments from the staff and graduates of other schools; their own graduates tum to them for advice in choosing between alternative possibilities for appointment. The sum of their opinions is, therefore, a fairly close approximation to what informed people think about the standing of the departments in each of the fields.

 

OVER-ALL STANDING
(Total Scores)

1925

1957

1.

Chicago

1543

1.

Harvard

5403

2.

Harvard

1535

2.

California

4750

3.

Columbia 1316 3. Columbia 4183
4. Wisconsin 886 4. Yale

4094

5.

Yale 885 5. Michigan 3603
6. Princeton 805 5. Chicago

3495

7.

Johns Hopkins 746 7. Princeton 2770
8. Michigan 720 8. Wisconsin

2453

9.

California 712 9. Cornell 2239
10. Cornell 694 10. Illinois

1934

11.

Illinois 561 11. Pennsylvania 1784
12. Pennsylvania 459 12. Minnesota

1442

13.

Minnesota 430 13. Stanford 1439
14. Stanford 365 14. U.C.L.A.

1366

15.

Ohio State 294 15. Indiana 1329
16. Iowa 215 16. Johns Hopkins

1249

17.

Northwestern 143 17. Northwestern 934
18. North Carolina 57 18. Ohio State

874

19.

Indiana 45 19. N.Y.U. 801
20. Washington

759

 

ECONOMICS

1925

1957

1. Harvard 92 1. Harvard

298

2.

Columbia 75 2. Chicago 262
3. Chicago 65 3. Yale

241

4.

Wisconsin 63 4. Columbia 210
5. Yale 42 5. California

196

6.

Johns Hopkins 39 5. Stanford 196
7. Michigan 31 7. Princeton

184

8.

Pennsylvania 29 8. Johns Hopkins 178
9. Illinois 27 9. Michigan

174

10.

Cornell 25 10. Minnesota 96
11. Princeton 23 11. Northwestern

70

12.

California 22 12. Duke 69
13. Minnesota 20 13. Wisconsin

66

14.

Northwestern 18 14. Pennsylvania 45
15. Stanford 17 15. Cornell

32

16.

Ohio State 15 16. U.C.L.A.

31

According to some of the chairmen there are strong departments at Carnegie Tech. and M.I.T.; also at Vanderbilt.

 

Source:  Hayward Keniston. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (January 1959), pp. 115-119,129.

 

 

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Columbia Economist Market Modigliani Ohio State Salaries

Columbia. Economist salaries below market. Examples of Modigliani and James W. Ford, 1956

 

The following letter provides interesting testimony to Franco Modigliani‘s market value in 1956 as well as how A. G. Hart hoped to offer Modigliani’s other offers together with an offer extended to James William Ford (Harvard economics Ph.D., 1954) by Ohio State University as evidential ammunition in the economics department plea for a significant increase in Columbia University salaries to remain competitive.

_________________

COPY

[Stamp: Office of the Vice President, July 13, 1956, Columbia University]

July 8, 1956

Prof. Carl S. Shoup
Executive Officer
Department of Economics
503 Fayerweather

Dear Professor Shoup:

This is to give further background on the scrap of evidence about the adequacy of Columbia University salary scales that is offered by Franco Modigliani’s comment on our offer of a visiting professorship for next year. As your note points out, the interpretation hinges largely on his professional status.

Against our offer of $10,000 for a one-year visit, as I read Modigliani’s letter with its gentlemanly absence of specific figures, he was offered $12,000 for a year as visiting professor at Harvard and at least $12,500 as permanent professor at Berkeley, and settled for (I take it) $12,000 to stay at Carnegie Tech. His age is 37 or 38, I believe, and he has been professor for two or three years at Carnegie Tech.

Modigliani’s reputation is established, but not very wide. He has published several distinguished articles, and has important work in progress; but his only book publication to date has been a collaboration with Neisser. Furthermore, he has lacked the backing of the major graduate schools (being an immigrant with a doctorate from the New School), and has thus tended to be undervalued by the market. Besides, he suffered a setback because he had the misfortune to be in the thick of the fracas at the University of Illinois. When working conditions there became intolerable, he felt such an unconditional urge to leave that he sacrificed the bargaining power of his tenure there as associate professor. At the time he went to Carnegie Tech, he could not command a tenure appointment but went on a term arrangement which however it took them only a few months to convert to an appointment with tenure.

In short, here is the kind of man we will want when next we have an appointment to make—and undervalued rather than overvalued on the national economics market—and our salary scale is at least $2500 below what he can command at good centers with about our teaching load, and with a lower cost of living. Another interesting comparison has come in meanwhile. James Ford, whom we let go from a Columbia instructorship to be assistant professor at Vanderbilt, writes that he has refused a post at Ohio State as associate professor at $8100. This is for a man of about the caliber and stage of development we think suitable for an assistant professorship at Columbia. We must be a good $1500 below the market at that level, if this is evidence.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Albert Gailord Hart
Professor of Economics

Source:  Columbia University Archives, Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files, 1890-, Box 400. Folder “Shoup, Carl Sumner (2/2); 1/1956—6/1948”.

Image Source: Franco Modigliani, from MIT Museum website.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Princeton Salaries Stanford UCLA Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Economics Faculty Salaries for 15 U.S. universities. Hart Memo, April 1961

 

Here we have a memo written by member of the Columbia University economics department executive committee, Albert G. Hart, that presents the results of what appears to be his informal polling of the chairpersons of 21 departments. Fifteen of the departments provided the salary ranges at four different ranks. No further details are provided, this one page memo was simply filed away in a folder marked “memoranda”. Maybe there is more to be found in Hart’s papers at Columbia University. Up to now I have only sampled Hart’s papers for teaching materials and perhaps next time, I’ll need to look into his papers dealing with departmental administrative affairs.

For a glance at salaries about a half-century earlier:  Professors and instructors’ salaries ca. 1907

________________

AGH [Albert Gailord Hart] 4/21/61

CONFIDENTIAL information on economic salaries, 1960-61, from chairmen of departments

Institution

Professors Associate professors Assistant professors

Instructors

Harvard

$12,000-22,000

$9,000-12,000 $7,500-8,700

$6,500

Princeton

$12,000-…?…

$9,000-11,500 $7,000-8,750

$6,000-6,750

California

$11,700-21,000

$8,940-10,344 $7,008-8,112

$5,916-6,360

MIT

$11,000-20,000

$8,000-11,000 $6,500-9,000

$5,500-5,750

Minnesota

$11,000-18,000

$8,500-11,000 $6,800-8,400

?

COLUMBIA

$11,000-20,000

$8,500-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-5,750

Northwestern

$11,000-…?…

$8,000-11,000 $6,800-7,500

?

Duke

$11,400-16,000

$8,200-10,000 $7,200-8,200

$5,800-6,500

Illinois

$11,000-15,000

$7,500-10,000 $6,900-8,600

$6,500-7,100

Cornell

$10,000-15,000

$8,000-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-6,500

Indiana

$10,000-14,800

$8,300-10,000 $6,500-7,500

?

Michigan

$10,000-…?…

$8,700-..9,500 $6,600-8,000

$5,000

Virginia

$..9,800-15,000

$7,800-..9,800 $6,600-7,800

?

Wisconsin

$..9,240-16,150

$8,000-..9,000 $6,550-8,460

$5,250-5,450

Iowa State (Ames)

$..8,500-13,000

$7,500-..8,500 $6,700-8,000

$4,700-6,600

[…]

Note: The following institutions for which data were not included in the source materials are believed to pay their economists at scales at or above the Columbia level:

Carnegie Tech
Chicago
Johns Hopkins
Stanford
Yale
UCLA

[…]

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbia University, Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials: Box 11, Folder: “Economics—Memoranda”.

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Columbia Curriculum M.I.T. Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. Memos from Ando and Dhrymes to the curriculum committee, 1965

 

The significance for the history of economics of the following three memos is that they provide an illustration of the diffusion (infiltration?) of the M.I.T. canon to other departments. Albert Ando taught a few years at M.I.T. before coming to Penn and Phoebus Dhrymes (M.I.T., Ph.D., 1961) wrote his dissertation under Kuh and Solow.  The memos were sent to the curriculum committee of the department of economics at the University of Pennsylvania in January 1965 (at least the Ando memo is dated January 14, 1965 and it explicitly refers to the Phoebus memo and their recommendations to the Mathematics Committee that are undated).

Obituaries for both Ando and Dhrymes have been added to this post and precede the three memos.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror thanks Juan C. A. Acosta who found these memos in the Lawrence Klein Papers at the Duke University Economists’ Papers Project and has graciously shared them for transcription here. 

Addition to post: At Banca d’Italia, N. 7 – Albert Ando: a bibliography of his writings.

_______________________________

Albert Keinosuke Ando
1929-2002
Obituary

Dr. Albert Ando, professor of economics, SAS and professor of finance, Wharton, died on September 19 [2002] at the age of 72.

Dr. Ando was born in Tokyo, Japan in 1929 and came to the United States after World War II. He received his B.S. in economics from the University of Seattle in 1951, his M.A. in economics from St. Louis University in 1953, and an M.S. in economics in 1956 and a Ph.D. in mathematical economics in 1959 from Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie Mellon University). Dr. Ando came to Penn in 1963 as an associate professor of economics and finance and became professor of economics and finance in 1967. He held this position until his death.

Dr. Lawrence Klein, Nobel laureate in economics and professor emeritus of economics wrote the following about his colleague.

After World War II many Japanese scholars visited the United States for general education and to modernize their training in some key subjects. Albert Ando, Professor of Economics and Finance, who died of Leukemia last week was an early arrival in the 1940s. He was educated at Seattle and St. Louis Universities and often expressed gratitude at the career start provided by his Jesuit teachers in an adopted country.

He completed the doctoral program in mathematical economics at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, where he was strongly influenced by Herbert Simon with whom he collaborated in research papers on aggregation and causation in economic systems. He also worked closely with another (Nobel Laureate to be) Franco Modigliani on the life cycle analysis of saving, spending, and income.

Dr. Ando was on the faculties of the Carnegie and of the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, where he remained since 1963. He had visiting appointments at universities in Louvain, Bonn, and Stockholm. He consulted with the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve Board, The Bank of Italy, and the Economic Planning Agency of Japan. He held many positions as an editor of scholarly journals and wrote numerous articles and books.

The main contributions of Professor Ando were in econometrics (theory and applications), monetary analysis, demographic aspects of household economic behavior, economic growth, and economic stabilization. His work on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania, and Social Science Research Council (MPS) model was of great benefit for the research department of the Federal Reserve Board, and his more recent work on econometrics for the Bank of Italy had been very fruitful.

He served as chairman of the graduate group in the economics department, 1986-1989, and developed excellent working relationships with many advanced students. He set very high standards, and those he worked with as thesis supervisor benefited greatly. He was extremely loyal and dedicated to their work, maintaining close connection with them after they departed from the University.

During his long and fruitful career, he earned many honors–as Fellow of the Econometric Society, as a Ford Foundation Faculty Research Fellow; as a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Japan Foundation Fellow. He was given the Alexander von Humboldt Award for Senior American Scientists.

Albert Ando is survived by his wife of 35 years, Faith H. Ando, two professorial sons, Matthew and Clifford, and a daughter, Alison, who has just been admitted to the New York Bar. His mother, sister, and brother, live in Japan.

–Lawrence Klein, Professor Emeritus of Economics

Source: University of Pennsylvania. Almanac. Vol. 49, No. 6, October 1, 2002.

_______________________________

Phoebus James Dhrymes
(1932-2016)

Phoebus J. Dhrymes (1932-2016), the Edwin W. Rickert Professor Emeritus of Economics, was a Cypriot American econometrician who made substantial methodological contributions to econometric theory.  Born in the Republic of Cyprus in 1932, Phoebus Dhrymes arrived in the United States in 1951, settling with relatives in New York City. After a few months, he volunteered to be drafted into the US Army for a two-year tour of duty; afterwards he attended the University of Texas at Austin on the GI Bill. In 1961 he earned his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Edwin Kuh and Robert Solow (Nobel Laureate 1987).  After a year-long post-doctoral fellowship at Stanford, he began his professorial career at Harvard, then moved to the University of Pennsylvania, and then UCLA.  In1973 he joined the Department of Economics at Columbia University; he was named the Edwin W. Rickert Professor of Economics in 2003 and retired in 2013.

Econometrics refers to that aspect of the economist’s work concerned with quantifying and testing economic trends. Phoebus Dhrymes‘early research focused on problems of production and investment, but he soon turned to more methodological work and produced important results on time series and on simultaneous equations.  Throughout his career, Phoebus Dhrymes placed much emphasis on the dissemination of scientific knowledge. In the early 1970s he helped found the Journal of Econometrics, which has become the leading journal in this field.  He was also on the advisory board of the Econometric Theory, and was managing editor and editor of the International Economic Review.He was a fellow of the Econometric Society and the American Statistical Association.Dr. Dhrymes was also one of the founders of the University of Cyprus, from which he was later awarded an honorary degree.

He wrote a series of influential textbooks including Distributed Lags:  Problems of Estimation and Formulation. This work was translated into Russian and published by the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, and in the 1970s Dr. Dhrymes was invited to visit the (now former) Soviet Union, specifically Moscow and Novosibirsk. At the time such visits were unusual events for westerners, requiring rarely-issued visas and security clearances, particularly for centers of research such as Novosibirsk.

In a 1999 interview he characterized his books as “filters that distill and synthesize the wisdom of many contributors to the subject.   On this score, I was influenced in my writing by the way I learn when studying by myself.”  (Econometric Theory, 18, 2002)

Dr. Dhrymes is survived by his daughter, Alexis, and his sons, Phoebus and Philip. In his personal life, he was regarded as a generous, kind and gentle man, always there for his family. He came from humble beginnings, and garnered great respect from his family and friends for his achievements. He spoke often of how much he enjoyed teaching. He was always available to his students.He encouraged individualized thinking and understanding of processes rather than rote memorization in learning. He had a warm and affable demeanor, recalled fondly by former students and family members. He will be sadly missed.

Source: Obituary for Phoebus J. Dhrymes at the Columbia University Department of Economics Website.

_______________________________

Memorandum

To: Herbert Levine, Chairman, Curriculum Committee
From: Albert Ando
Subject: Offerings and Requirements in Macroeconomics, Monetary Theory, and Related areas in General Economics Ph.D. Program

  1. Macroeconomics

Enclosed herein is a copy of the outline and references of Economics 621 [The outline and references will be posted later] as I am offering it this fall. It is fairly similar to [the] one year course in macroeconomics which is required of all Ph.D. students at MIT. I am sure that opinions would vary on details, but it is my view that this represents more or less the topics and literature that all Ph.D. students in economics should be familiar with. Ideally, I think there should be another major topic at the end of the outline dealing with current problems and policies.

It is fairly clear that this outline could not be covered in one term, particularly under our present system in which there are only 13 to 14 weeks of classes for a term. As a matter of fact, this fall, with a great deal of rushing throughout the term, I will be able to finish the static part of the outline by the end of the fall term, but certainly no further.

This suggests that the required macroeconomics for Ph.D. students should be two term sequence of courses, the first term dealing essentially with the Keynesian static analysis, and the second term with dynamics, i.e., business cycles and growth models.

  1. Monetary Economics

I have just discovered that Economics 622 is taught without any prerequisite, and that there will be some students in 622 who have not had any macroeconomic theory this spring. I am somewhat stunned, and do not see how I will be able to teach a satisfactory course under the circumstances. This situation is indicated by the fact that 622 is required not only of Ph.D. students in economics but also of master’s candidates, and therefore it is apparently impossible to exclude the students from 622 who have not had 621. An obvious temporary solution is to make those students who have not had 621 wait until next year to take 622. In my view, elements of monetary problems should be included in the first term of the required macroeconomics course, and courses in monetary theory should be made elective. The course in monetary theory should then be taught assuming that students have had adequate preparation in macroeconomics and microeconomics, particularly the theory of general equilibrium, at the level where we can discuss the research and developments in the past dozen years or so, bringing students up to a point where they can draw a thesis topic from their work in the course. There is a room for an argument that there should be another course in addition to the advanced theory course, which deals with more traditional money and banking material. As a matter of fact, I offered two courses in monetary economics at MIT for several years, one dealing with traditional money and banking material taking the one term each of macro and micro economics as prerequisites, and another highly theoretical and advanced course taking two terms each of macro [and] micro economics as prerequisites. It seems to me, however, that Economics 639, Monetary Problems and Policies, should serve as the good traditional money and banking course, so that only one additional course seems to be needed.

  1. Microeconomics and Mathematics

After some discussion with Dhrymes, it is fairly clear that microeconomics should also be taught as a two term sequence. A possible division between two terms would be to deal with partial equilibrium analysis of consumers and firms during the first term, and with the general equilibrium analysis and welfare economics in the second term.

During this fall term, Dhrymes and I found it necessary to conduct a few special remedial sessions in mathematics so that some rudimentary notions of calculus and linear transformation will be available in the discussions in theory courses. The idea, of course, is to arrange so that all students are equipped with minimum of mathematics by the beginning of the second term. If the recommendation of the committee on mathematics is adopted, so that students will learn elementary calculus and the matrices and linear transformation, including rudiments of linear differences and differential equations at the level suggested by the committee it is possible to synchronize it with theory courses so that theory courses will be using only those mathematics students are learning in mathematics remedial courses. For instance, the first term of macro theory would not require too much mathematics except the notion of the systems of equations and their solutions, and the first term of micro theory not much more than the condition of extremum in a fairly informal manner. In the second term, on the other hand, theory courses will require conditions of stability in the general equilibrium analysis, and the difference and differential equations in dynamic models in macroeconomics.

  1. Overall First year program and Second year fields of specialization.

In addition to micro and macro theories and mathematics required for these theory courses, students should be asked to learn minimum of statistics and econometrics. The level of statistics and econometrics should be maintained at the level of text books such as Frazer, Brunk, or Mood plus Johnston.

The implication of the above statement is that the course schedule for typical first year Ph.D. students should look as follows:

First term:

Microeconomics I (Partial equilibrium analysis)
Macroeconomics I (Static Keynesian analysis, including some monetary considerations).
Mathematics I (Elementary calculus)*
Mathematics II (Elementary Linear Algebra)*
Economic History (For those with Adequate mathematical training)

*For the suggested content of mathematics courses, see recommendations of Mathematics Committee.

Second Term:

Microeconomics II (General equilibrium analysis and welfare economics).
Macroeconomics II (Dynamics, business cycles and growth)
Econometrics (6 hour course)

This schedule, of course, would be subject to variations depending on the background and preparations of students. For instance, students who already have sufficient mathematical training might be encouraged to take a course in economic history and a course in somewhat more advanced mathematics, such as mathematical theory of probability or a course in topology in the first term in place of Mathematics I and II.

_______________________________

Lists of Topics for Mathematics for Economists
[Recommendations of Ando and Dhrymes submitted to the Mathematics Committee]

(Mr. Balinski is to suggest some alternative text books)

  1. Calculus
    1. Sets and Functions.
      1. Definitions
      2. Operations on Sets and Subsets.
      3. Relations, Functions.
        K.M.S.T. Chapter 2, Sections 1 through 6, possibly Sections 10 through 13.
    2. Functions, Limits, and Continuity.
    3. Differentiation and Integration of Functions of one variable.
      1. Concepts and Mechanics.
      2. Infinite series and Taylor’s Theories.
      3. Extremum Problems.
    4. Differentiation and Integration of Functions of many variables.
      1. Concepts and mechanics.
      2. Extremum problems, nonconstrained and constrained.
      3. Implicit Function Theorem.
        Any elementary text book in Calculus (e.g. Thomas; Sherwood and Taylor), Supplemented by some sections of a slightly more advanced text on Implicit Function Theorem and La Grange multipliers.
  2. Linear Algebra and others.
    1. Vector Spaces and Matrices.
      1. Vector Spaces and Matrices, Definitions, and Motivations.
        Perlis, Chapters 1 and 2.
      2. Linear Transformations.
        K.M.S.T., Chapter 4, Sections 7 through 12.
      3. Equivalence, Rank, and Inverse.
        Perlis, Chapter 3.
        Perlis, Chapter 4.
      4. Quadratic Forms, Positive Definite and semi-definite Matrices.
        Perlis, Chapter 5, Sections 1, 2, and 5
      5. Characteristic Vectors and Roots.
        Perlis, Chapter 8, Sections 1 and w[?], Chapter 9, Sections 1, 2, 5, and 6.
      6. Difference and Differential Equations; Linear with Constant Coefficients.
        Goldberg, Chapters 1, w, e, and Chapter 4, Sections 1 and 5; Perlis, Chapter 7, Section 10. Some reference to two dimensional phase diagram analysis of non-linear differential equations with 2 variables. Lotke?
      7. Convex Sets.
        K.M.S.T., Chapter 5.

_______________________________

MEMORANDUM
January 14, 1965

To: Curriculum Committee
From: Phoebus J. Dhrymes
Subject: Mathematics, Microeconomics, Statistics and Econometrics in the Economics Graduate Training Program

  1. Mathematics

It has become quite apparent to me during the course of the last term that our students are woefully equipped to handle instruction involving even very modest and elementary mathematics.

I think it is quite generally accepted that a student specializing in Theory, Econometrics and to a lesser extent International Trade and Industrial Organization would find it increasingly difficult to operate as a professional economist, and indeed seriously handicapped in satisfactorily carrying on a graduate study progress, without adequate mathematical training. With this in mind Albert Ando and I have prepared a tentative list of topics that graduate students ought be minimally familiar with and which has been presented to the Mathematics Committee.

This could form a remedial (and a bit beyond) course to extend over a year and to be taken (by requirement or suggestion) by students intending to specialize in the fields mentioned above during their first year of residence.

  1. Microeconomics

It has been my experience in teaching Econ. 620 that one semester is a rather brief period for covering the range of microeconomic theory a graduate student in Pennsylvania ought to be exposed to. As it is the case at both Harvard and MIT, I would propose that the course Econ. 620 be extended to a year course. Roughly speaking, the topics to be covered might be:

  1. Theory of Consumer Behavior
    1. the Hicksian version
    2. the von Neumann-Morgenstern version, including the Friedman-Savage paper
  2. Demand functions, elasticities, etc.
  3. Theory of the firm; output and price determination
    1. Production functions
    2. Cost functions and their relations to i.
    3. Revenue and profit functions and the profit maximizing hypothesis
    4. The perfectly competitive firm and industry, and their equilibrium; comparative statics; supply functions
    5. The monopolistic firm
    6. Monopolistic competition
    7. Duopoly and oligopoly
  4. Factor employment equilibrium
    1. Factor demand functions
    2. Factor employment equilibrium under various market institutional arrangements
    3. Some income distribution theory
    4. Factor supply.
  5. General Equilibrium Analysis; Input-Output models
  6. Welfare Economics (Samuelson; Graaf)
  7. Capital Theory (Fisher, Wicksell, recent contributions)
  8. (Marginally) Some revealed preference theory; or neoclassical growth models; or alternative theories of the firm (e.g., Cyert and Marsh)

It would be desirable if students were sufficiently well-equipped mathematically to handle these topics at some level intermediate between Friedman’s Price Theory Text and Henderson and Quandt; however, since this is not the case at present some other alternative must be found, such as in the manner in which the propose mathematics course is taught, and the order in which topics above are covered. The split of the subjects could be a) through c) or d) for the first semester and the remainder for the second semester. Clearly, neither the topics proposed nor the split represent my immutable opinion and there is considerable room for discussion.

  1. Statistics

At present the statistical training of our students suffers from their inadequate mathematical preparations.

It is my opinion that minimally we should require of our students that they be familiar with the elementary notions of statistical inference, estimation, testing of hypotheses and regression analysis at the level of, say, Hoel, or Mood and Graybill, or any other similar text, (a semester course). For students intending to specialize in Econometrics or other heavily quantitative fields, then it should be highly desirable that a year course be available, say at the level of Mood and Graybill, Graybill, or Fraser, Hogg and Craig, Brunk, etc., with suitable supplementary material. Since, we do have access to a statistics department it might be desirable for our students to take a suitable course there.

Again, due to the problems posed by the mathematics deficiency of incoming students, some accommodation must be reached on this score as well.

  1. Econometrics

Econometrics should not be a required subject; rather the requirement—minimal requisite—should be confined to the one semester course indicated under III. It would be desirable to offer a year course to be taken after the statistics sequence and which would cover at the level of, say, Klein, Goldberger, or my readings showing applications and problems connected thereto.

Topics, could start by reviewing the general linear model, Aitken estimators and similar related topics; simultaneous equation and identification problems, k-class estimators, 3SLS, maximum likelihood estimation, full and limited information, Monte Carlo methods.

Also selected topics from Multivariate Analysis; specification analysis, error in variable problems; elements of stochastic processes theory and spectral and cross spectra analysis.

It might be desirable to teach these subjects in the order cited above, although it would appear preferable to have multivariate analysis precede the review of the general linear model.

  1. General Comments:

I generally agree with Albert Ando’s memorandum on proposed curriculum revision in so far as they pertain to Mathematics requirements, Macro-economics and Monetary Theory.

I think that at present we require our students to take too many courses. I would favor only the following requirements; the basic Micro and Macro year courses. At least a semester of statistics, as indicated under III, and one semester in either economic history or history of economic thought—although I do not feel too strongly on the latter. I presume, in all of this that students in our program are only those ultimately aiming at specialization in Theory, Econometrics, International Trade, Industrial Organization, and possibly Comparative Systems, or Soviet Economics. It is my understanding that our curriculum will not cover those concentrating in Labor Relations, Regional Science or Economic History.

Thus, through their first year our students would be taking more or less required courses, with the second year essentially left open for their special fields of concentration.

Thus, the course program of a typical first year student will look more or less as shown in Albert Ando’s memorandum, p. 4, although I would be somewhat uneasy about requiring 6 hours of mathematics in the first term and 6 hours of statistics (econometrics) in the second term of the first year. Nonetheless I do not object strongly to this, and indeed in this past term many of the students taking 620 and 621 had in effect taken a six-hour course in Mathematics, 611 as taught by Dorothy Brady and approximately 3 hours as taught by Albert Ando and myself.

Quite clearly the above are merely proposals intended to serve as a basis for discussion an ultimately for guidance of entering students in planning their program of study rather than rigid requirements.

 

Source: Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive, Lawrence Klein Papers, Box 19, Folder “Curriculum”.

Images: Left, Albert Ando; Right, Phoebus Dhrymes. From the respective obituaries above.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economics Programs Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Stanford Texas Undergraduate Vanderbilt Wisconsin Yale

Size distribution of graduate and undergraduate programs in economics. U.S., 1963-65

 

 

These are the last two statistical tables from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of leading economics departments in the U.S. intended to provide orientation for departmental chairpersons in salary negotiations. Today’s posting gives the numbers of undergraduate and graduate majors reported by 29 departments. 

Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors across departments. Two previous postings have the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the anticipated range of salary offers for new Ph.D.’s for 1966-67. Those first five reports from The Cartel provide distributions of median or average incomes or ranges of salary offers by ranks across departments. Table 6c from the summary report that gives the salary distributions by rank for 335 professors, 143 associate professors and 185 assistant professors from all 27 departments.

Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

____________________

 

TABLE 7c
Graduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions:

 

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66
(Estimate)
300 and over 2 2

1

200-299

0 0 2
150-199 3 4

5

100-149

6 5 6
80-99 4 4

3

60-79

5 7 5
40-59 6 4

4

20-39

2 1 0
1-19 1 1

1

Number of departments reporting:

29

28

27

Total number of students:

2,963

3,057

3,118

____________________

 

TABLE 8C
Undergraduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions

 

1963-64 1964-65
300 and over 4

4

250-299

1 1
200-249 3

2

150-199

4 6
100-149 8

5

80-99

1 1
60-79 2

1

40-59

2 3
20-39 1

1

1-19

1

1

Number of departments reporting:

27

25

Total number of students:

4,550

4,312

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: quick meme website.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Economics Professors’ Salaries by Rank (6), 1965-66

 

 

This is the sixth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. In the previous five tables The Cartel reports median or average incomes or ranges of salary offers by ranks across departments. In this posting we have Table 6c from the summary report that gives the salary distributions by rank for 335 professors, 143 associate professors and 185 assistant professors from all 27 departments.

Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors across departments. Two previous postings have the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the anticipated range of salary offers for new Ph.D.’s for 1966-67.

Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

 

____________________

TABLE 6c

Salaries of Economists (9-10 month, academic year, 1965-66) in 27 of the 29 Departments of Economics (The Cartel):
N = Number of Persons

MID POINT OF RANGE PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS
26,750/and over 2
26,500 0
26,000 2
25,500 1
25,000 8
24,500 0
24,000 4
23,500 2
23,000 7
22,500 2
22,000 12
21,500 7
21,000 10
20,500 5
2,0000 22
19,500 10
19,000 13
18,500 11
18,000 24
17,500 8
17,000 19
16,500 23
16,000 27
15,500 20 1 0
15,000 21 2 1
14,500 14 2 0
14,000 22 10 0
13,500 10 12 0
13,000 10 13 1
12,500 7 18 2
12,000 6 20 1
11,500 3 21 7
11,000 3 13 9
10,500 0 18 18
10,000 0 9 35
9,750 1 9
9,500 2 28
9,250 1 11
9,000 0 24
8,750 0 8
8,500 0 13
8,250 2
8,000 15
7,750 1
N=335 N=143 N=185

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source:  “Me and my partner” by C. J. Taylor on cover of Punch, December 25, 1889. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

 

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Expected New PhD Starting Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (5), 1966/67

 

 

This is the fifth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Table 5c give figures for the anticipated range of salaries for “freshly completed PhD’s” for the coming academic year (1966-67) across the departments reporting. Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors. The previous posting has the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

The copy of this table in the Johns Hopkins University archives has a useful handwritten addition. It is noted that the median lower bound of the range is $9,250 and the median higher bound of the range is $10,000. Thus one might say a measure of the range of the anticipated, as of December 1965), 9-10 month salary offers for “freshly completed PhDs” for 1966-67 was ($9,250 — $10,000), though such a range was not necessarily anticipated by any one of the 27 departments responding to that question.

Compared to Table 4c, this table tells us that the range of offers for “freshly completed PhDs” was anticipated to move up $250 about a 2.67% nominal increase from 1965-66 to 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

 

____________________

TABLE 5c
Departments Expect to Have to Offer to Get
“Freshly Completed PhD’s for Next Year, 1966-67

 

MID-POINT OF RANGE

FROM TO
13,000 0

0

12,500

0 0
12,000 0

1

11,500

0 0
11,000 0

6

10,500

0 7
10,000 5

6

9,750

0 0
9,500 8

4

9,250

1 0
9,000 8

2

8,750

1 0
8,500 1

1

8,250

0 0
8,000 3

0

N=

27

27

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source:  Caption under the drawing: “No class of labor feels the grip of grinding monopoly more than our underpaid, overworked ball-players.”  “The base-ball Laocoon” by L. M. Glackens. Cover of Punch, May 14, 1913. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

New PhD Starting Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (4), 1964/5-1965/66

 

 

This is the fourth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Table 4c give figures for the distribution of salaries for “freshly completed PhD’s” across the departments reporting. Previous postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors. The next posting has the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

______________________

TABLE 4c
Entering Salaries of “Freshly Completed PhD’s” of New Staff Members
in the Fall of 1965-66 1964-65

 

MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM
MID-POINT OF RANGE 1965-66 1964-65 1965-66 1964-65 1965-66

1964-65

Over 10,999

0 0 0 0 1 0
10,500 0 0 0 0 2

1

10,000

2 0 4 3 7 0
9,750 2 0 4 0 1

0

9,500

4 1 2 0 2 4
9,250 1 2 3 3 1

3

9,000

3 6 0 5 3 6
8,750 1 1 3 5 0

1

8,500

4 5 3 5 2 5
8,250 1 1 0 2 0

1

8,000

2 3 1 0 1 0
7,750 0 0 0 0 0

1

7,500

0 1 1 2 0 1
7,250 1 1 0 0 0

0

N=

21 21 21 25 20 23
Median $9,000 $8,500 $9,250 $8,750 $9,750

$9,000

Mean

$8,952 $8,583 $9,190 $8,820 $9,600

$8,913

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.