Category: Faculty Regulations

Harvard. Statute establishing the award of the Ph.D. degree, 1872

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-07-10

In the beginning there was no Ph.D. degree, and then the Harvard Corporation and Board of Overseers said, “Let there be Doctors of Philosophy and Science” in the spring of 1872.

_________________________________

Statute concerning the Academic Council
[Adopted by the Corporation and Board of Overseers
in the Spring of 1872]

[Note: The Academic Council was originally established with the institution of the University Lectures in 1863]

The Academic Council consists of the President, Professors, Assistant Professors, and Adjunct Professors of the University. The Council is empowered to recommend to the President and Fellows candidates for the degrees of Master of Arts, Doctor of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy.

Standing Votes concerning the Degrees of Master of Arts,
Doctor of Philosophy, and Doctor of Science.

Voted, That the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Science be established in Harvard University.

Voted, That the degree of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy be open to Bachelors of Arts of Harvard College, and to Bachelors of Arts of other colleges who shall have satisfied the College Faculty by examination that the course of study for which they received the Bachelor’s degree is equivalent to that for which the Bachelor’s degree is given in Harvard College, or shall have passed such additional examination as that Faculty may prescribe.

Voted, That the degree of Doctor of Science be open to Bachelors of Science of Harvard University, and to Bachelors of Science and Bachelors of Philosophy of other institutions who shall have satisfied the Faculty of the Lawrence Scientific School by examination that the course of study for which they received the Bachelor’s degree is equivalent to that for which the degree is given in Harvard University, or shall have passed such additional examinations as that Faculty may prescribe.

Voted, That the Academic Council be authorized to recommend for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy candidates, otherwise properly qualified, who, after taking the Bachelor’s degree, shall have pursued at Harvard University, for two years, a course of liberal study approved by the Academic Council in any one of the following departments, – Philology, Philosophy, History, Political Science, Mathematics, Physics, or Natural History, shall have passed a thorough examination on that course, and shall have presented a satisfactory thesis.

Voted, That the Academic Council be authorized to recommend for the degree of Doctor of Science candidates, otherwise properly qualified, who, after taking their Bachelor’s degree, shall have resided at least two years at the University, and have pursued during three years a course of scientific study, embracing at least two subjects, and approved by the Academic Council, and shall have passed a thorough examination upon that course, showing in one of the subjects special attainments, and shall have also made some contribution to science or some special scientific investigation: provided, however, that a course of study of two years only shall be required of candidates who are both Bachelors of Arts and Bachelors of Science of Harvard University.

Voted, That the Academic Council be authorized to recommend for the degree of Master of Arts candidates, otherwise properly qualified, who, after taking the Bachelor’s degree, shall have pursued for at least one year at the University a course of liberal study approved by the Academic Council, and shall have passed a thorough examination on that course.

Voted, That the Academic Council be authorized to recommend for the degree of Master of Arts candidates, otherwise properly qualified, who shall pursue at the University, for at least one year after taking the degree of Bachelor of Laws or Bachelor of Divinity in Harvard University, a course of study in Law or Theology approved by the Academic Council, and shall pass a thorough examination on that course.

Voted, That the Academic Council be authorized, in examining the qualifications of candidates for degrees, to procure the assistance of officers of instruction and government who are not members of the Council.

Voted, To open the elective courses of instruction in Harvard College to Bachelors of Arts.

Voted, That for Bachelors of Arts of Harvard College, and Bachelors of Science, Law, and Divinity of Harvard University, residence or study at the University may be partly or wholly dispensed with at the discretion of the Academic Council, as a condition for receiving a higher degree.

Source: Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1871-72, pp. 75-76.

Chicago Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. requirement. Either linear algebra or foreign language reading comprehension, 1968

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-02-07
1 Comment on Chicago. Economics Ph.D. requirement. Either linear algebra or foreign language reading comprehension, 1968

At the University of Chicago in the mid-1950s one economics Ph.D. requirement was to demonstrate an effective reading knowledge of either French or German or some other foreign language approved by the department..

The 1968 memo to graduate students transcribed below announced that the “satisfaction of either a mathematics or foreign language requirement” would be the rule for a Ph.D. in economics.

_________________________

History of Foreign Language Requirement for Ph.D.

January 12, 1968

To: Faculty, Division of the Social Sciences
From: D. Gale Johnson, Dean [of the] Division of the Social Sciences

In re: Foreign language requirements for the Ph. D

At a meeting of the faculty of the Division of the Social Sciences held November 18, 1931, the following Statement was adopted as one of the requirements for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D.:

“The ability, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of Examiners, to read two foreign modern languages approved by the department or interdepartmental committee, one of which must be French or German. It is advised that this requirement be met as early as possible in the student’s program of study.”

On January 15, 1943, the faculty of the Division modified the language requirement and made it read as follows:

“Demonstration of the ability to use one or more foreign languages effectively toward the objective of the student’s academic program. This ability in the case of at least one language will be tested by: (I) the passing of an examination administered and evaluated by the board of Examinations; and (II) in addition to the examination, the writing of a paper or series of papers, or oral work, judged satisfactory by the Department in connection with the student’s program of study, in which extensive use is made of works in the foreign language. Departments may at their discretion specify the particular foreign language or languages required of their candidates for the doctorate. Exceptions in individual cases may be made by the Dean of Students on the recommendation of a Department.”

At its meeting on December 4, 1967, the faculty of the Division approved the following motion:

“That each Department or Committee in the Division should have the right to substitute for the divisional language requirement for the Ph.D. degree a requirement that the student demonstrate proficiency in a substantive field other than that of the department in question. The degree of proficiency to be required in such a field should be comparable or superior to that represented by the present divisional language requirement. The department at its option, may require that proficiency be demonstrated in a particular substantive field or may leave to the student, in some or all cases, the option of deciding whether to demonstrate proficiency in a language or a substantive field.”

If a department or committee wishes to act under the motion approved by the faculty of the Division, Mr. Zimring and I urge that it do so with reasonable promptness to permit students to make their plans with full information concerning the requirements. Until a department or committee has taken action and so informs the Office of the Dean it will be assumed that the language requirement as it existed on December 1, 1967, shall continue in force.

At the time a department or committee takes action, if any, to modify its language requirement, it should indicate the date on which any changes become effective and that date could be within a few days after action has been taken. I feel that before a departmental or committee action is made effective that Mr. Zimring should be given time to study it and to determine if his interpretation is the one that has been intended.

Mr. Zimring and I strongly urge that departments and committees accept a self-denying ordinance, namely that changes in the requirements will not be made more than once a year and that changes affecting 1968-69 be made by March 15, 1968.

The action taken with respect to the Divisional language requirement does not change current procedures with respect to examination if a department retains a language requirement. It is my interpretation that while departments can require a supplementary or additional examination to be administered by the department, it cannot dispense with the examinations given by the Office of the University Examiner.

DGJ:bp

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 194, Folder 4, “Economics Dept A-G”.

_________________________

Linear Algebra
or a Foreign Language

Department of Economics University of Chicago
May, 1968

To: Graduate Students, Department of Economics
From: Arnold C. Harberger. Chairman

Re: Revision in Foreign Language/ Mathematics Requirement

Foreign Language and Mathematics Requirement

Each Ph.D. candidate, before admission to candidacy for the Ph.D., must demonstrate effective command of relevant mathematical tools, including calculus and matrix algebra. The Department of Economics will accept three courses in calculus (mathematics 151, 152, and 154, or equivalent), and one course in linear algebra (mathematics 250, 252, Business 372, or equivalent) as meeting, respectively, the calculus and matrix algebra requirements.

In place of demonstration of competence in matrix algebra, students may opt to demonstrate proficiency at a high level in a foreign language by means of an examination administered by the Office of the University Examiner and must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department ability to translate at sight with reasonable ease material in economics in the foreign language. Any foreign language other than Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, or Swedish must be approved by the Department.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 194, Folder 4, “Economics Dept A-G”.

Tags Harberger, JohnsonDG

Economists Faculty Regulations Harvard

Harvard. Economics Graduate School Records of James Alfred Field, ABD. 1903-1911.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-12-02

The artifact transcribed for the previous post came from the tenth year report for the Harvard Class of 1903 written by University of Chicago associate professor of economics James A. Field. This post begins with an excerpt from Field’s Chicago Tribune obituary to complete our picture of his career.

What makes this post noteworthy for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is the following information transcribed from Field’s graduate student records kept at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and within the division of History and Political Science during his first two graduate years in residence at Harvard.

Also of particular interest is the copy of a 1911 letter included in his file informing the chairman of the economics department, Professor Frank Taussig, that the submission of a single excellent paper would not satisfy the thesis requirement for the Ph.D. By this time James A. Field was well-established at the University of Chicago and appears to have subsequently abandoned his plans to complete a Harvard Ph.D. degree.

_________________________________

From James A. Field’s obituary in the Chicago Sunday Tribune
(July 17, 1927)

James Alfred Field, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, died on Friday [cf. The Associated Press reported that he died Saturday] in Boston from a tumor of the brain. He was returning from study at the British museum when he was stricken in Boston and died after a short illness. He was 47 years old and a native of Milton, Mass…In 1910 he came to the University of Chicago and in 1923 was made dean of the college of art and literature.
He was associate editor of the Journal of Political Economy and was special investigator of the division of statistics of the council of national defense in 1917. In 1918-19 he served as chief statistician of the American shipping mission of the allied maritime transport council in London. Prof. Field was the author of “Progress of Eugenics” and co-author of “Outlines of Economics…”

Source: Chicago Sunday Tribune, 17 July, 1927, p. 12.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

I. Name (in full, and date of birth).

James Alfred Field
May 26^th 1880

II. Academic career. (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended and teaching positions held.)

Harvard College 1899-1903
Assistant in Economics 1903-1904
Austin Teaching Fellow in Economics 1904-1905

III. Degrees already attained. (Mention institutions and dates.)

A.B. Harvard 1903

IV. Academic distinctions. (Mention prizes, honors, fellowships, scholarships, etc.)

A.B. summa cum laude; honorable mention in Economics; Jacob Wendell Scholarship; John Harvard Scholarship (twice)

V. Department of study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., in “History,” in “Economics,” or in “Political Science”?

Economics

VI. Choice of Subjects for the General Examination. (Write out each subject, and at the end put in [brackets] the number of that subject in the Division lists. Indicate any digressions from the normal choices, and any combinations of partial subjects. State briefly what your means of preparation have been on each subject, as by Harvard courses, courses taken elsewhere, private reading, teaching the subject, etc., etc.)

1. Economic Theory and its History [1]. Based on Econ. 1, taken and for two years taught. Econ. 3, Econ. 15.
2. Economic History [2 and 3 merged] Based on Econ. 6 and 11 and parts of History 9.
3. Sociology [4] Based on Econ. 3 taken and taught; Anthropology 1, and on private reading.
4. Labor Problems and Industrial Organization [9]. Based on Econ 9a and 9b.
5. The Sociological Aspect of the Evolution Theory [4 and 16, modified]. Based chiefly on private reading; and on parts of Philosophy 1b, of the courses mentioned under (3), and of other courses and work in biological subjects.
6. International Law [14, adapted] Based on Gov. 4.

VII. Special Subject for the special examination.

[Left blank]

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

[Left blank]

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of either of the general or special examinations.)

General examination as late in the present academic year as is practicable.

X. Remarks.

[Left blank]

* * * * * * * * * * * *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant]

Name: James Alfred Field

Date of reception: Feb. 13, 1905

Approved: Feb. 14, 1905

Date of general examination: June 12, 1905. Passed.

Thesis received: [blank]

Read by; [blank]

Approved: [blank]

Date of special examination: [blank]

Recommended for the Doctorate: [blank]

Voted by the Faculty: [blank]

Degree conferred: [blank].

* * * * * * * * * * *

Unsigned copy of letter to F.W. Taussig
(presumably from head of Division)

11 December 1911

Dear Taussig:

I have read Field’s article with interest, and I wish all our Ph.D.’s could do things as well. I should suppose there would be no question that it shows the kind of quality which will justify a doctor’s degree, and, of course, quality is far more important than quantity. Nevertheless, I think that if this article alone were accepted as a thesis our students and former students would feel that Field had been let off easily. Good as it is, I should not suppose this article would stand in line with the substantial volumes which make up the Harvard Economic Studies, and I should be sorry to have anybody feel that we had given Field a special favor.

I hope very much we can make Field one of our Ph.D.’s. Could he not advantageously and with comparatively little effort use this article as part of some more comprehensive study in the field of population? The stimulus of working on a larger book is something Field needs.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]

Professor F.W. Taussig

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics, Box 3 “PhD. Exams, 1917-18 to 1920-21”, Folder “Ph.D. Applications Withdrawn”.

[Memo: The above letter was likely written by CHARLES HOMER HASKINS, Ph.D., Litt.D., Professor of History, Chairman of the Division of History, Government, and Economics, and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.]

_________________________________

From the Announcement for Ph.D. General Examinations

James Alfred Field.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, June 12, 1905.

Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Ripley, Carver, Gay, Castle, and Dr. Munro.

Academic History: Harvard College, 1899-1903; Harvard Graduate School, 1903-05; A.B. (Harvard) 1903.

General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History. 3. Sociology. 4. Labor Problems and Industrial Organization. 5. The Sociological Aspect of the Evolution Theory. 6 International Law.

Special Subject: Sociology.

Thesis Subject: (Not yet announced.)

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government and Economics, Exams for PhD. (Schedules) 1903-1932. Examinations for 1904-05, p. 8.

_________________________________

FROM THE GRADUATE SCHOOL RECORD CARD

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the record card; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

Record of James Alfred Field

Years: 1903-04, 1904-05

First Registration: 1 Oct. 1903

1903-04	Grades.
First Year.	Course.	Half-Course.
History 9	abs.
Government 4	A
Economics 2	A
Economics 11	incomplete

1904-05	Grades.
Second Year.	Course.	Half-Course.
Economics 9a¹ (extra)		no report
Economics 9b² (extra)
Economics 15 (extra)	abs.
Economics 20 (extra)	incomplete

Division History and Political Science

Scholarship, Fellowship

Assistantship in Economics [1903-04]
Austin Teaching Fellowship in Economics [1904-05]
Proctorship in Apley 1 [1903-04, 1904-05]

College attended [Harvard]

Honors at College: Hon. Mention, Economics.

Degrees received: A.B. summa cum laude 1903

Non-Resident Student Years: 1905 John Harvard Fellow

Source: Harvard University Archives. GSAS, Record Cards of Students, 1895-1930. File I, Box 5 “Eames-Garrett”.

_________________________________

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror Note:
Course numbers, names, and instructors

1903-04

History 9. Constitutional History of England to the Sixteenth Century. Professor Gross.

Government 4. Elements of International Law. Professor Macvane and Mr. Jones.

Economics 2. Economic Theory. Professors Taussig and Carver.

Economics 11. The Modern Economic History of Europe. Asst. Prof. Gay.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1903-04.

1904-05

Economics 3. Principles of Sociology, Theories of Social Progress. Professor Carver and Mr. Field.

Economics 9a¹. Problems of Labor. Professor Ripley and Mr. Custis.

Economics 9a². Economics of Corporations. Professor Ripley and Mr. Custis.

Economics 15. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. Asst. Professor Bullock.

Economics 20. The Seminary in Economics.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1904-05.

Image Source: Original black-and-white image from the Special Diplomatic Passport Application by James Alfred Field (January 1918). Cropped and colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. (Note: left third of the image is slightly distorted because of a transparent plastic strip used to hold pages in the imaging process)

Tags Bullock, Carver, Custis, FieldJA, Gay, Macvane, Ripley, Taussig

Chicago Economists Faculty Regulations

Chicago. No French, no Economics Ph.D. Case of Robert Russ Kern, 1909

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-10-18

This post provides a case demonstrating that the foreign language requirement for getting a Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago was indeed a constraint during the first decade of the 20th century. At the time a reading knowledge of French and German was required for admission to Ph.D. degree candidacy. In the following transcribed letter (June 2, 1909) to President Harry Pratt Judson, the Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature, sociology professor Albion Woodbury Small, recounted his encounter with a political economy graduate student, Robert Russ Kern, whose self-confessed lack of French reading skills had disqualified him from admission to his planned Ph.D. examination in economics and psychology.

It turns out that Kern never received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago or in fact anywhere else. This was reason enough to don my historian’s gumshoes and find out where Robert Russ Kern came from and how his post-Chicago career turned out. But first I’ll put into the record the letter from the University of Chicago archives that caught my attention.

Fun fact: in 1909 one apparently wrote “ ‘phone” with a leading apostrophe.

Fun with old photos: this is the first post at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror that provides a colorised black and white image from yore.

[Handwritten: June 2-09]

The President,
My dear Chief:

I do not remember that I have ever had a more painful scene in the Graduate Office than occurred this morning with Mr. Kern. In a word Mr. Kern was expecting to take his examination for the Doctor’s degree in Economics and Psychology tomorrow. At the last meeting of the Graduate Faculty it was voted that he be allowed to take the examination, provided the Examiner and the Dean were meanwhile assured that he had complied substantially with our requirement. Yesterday Mr. Williamson reported to me that Mr. Kern confessed to him that he had forgotten all the French he ever knew, but asked him to certify to his knowledge of French. I thereupon notified Mr. Kern that as he could not satisfy our French requirement his admission to the examination was automatically closed. This morning he came to my office in a very intense state of mind, to express it within limits, and as I summed up for him his demands it was that the University should substitute its judgment for his of what was a reasonable requirement for a Doctor’s degree. He stated that for years it had been notorious that men had been passed by the French Department without knowing any more French than he does. When I asked him if he was willing to present evidence to support that statement he declined on the ground that it would make trouble for men still in the University. I told him that it was beyond my power to do anything if I wanted to in the face of the plain statement of fact about his knowledge of French. I told him further, however, that if he would put in writing any statement which he was willing to lay before the President I would put it in your hands today. I told him however that I saw no way in which you could feel called upon to interfere with the regular operation of our rules, but that he would hear from you if you saw any way to deal more favorably with his case.
I have talked over the ‘phone since the interview with Mr. Laughlin and he agrees with me that it would be a demoralizing variation from our precedents to withdraw from the position the rules required me to take. I have therefore sent the following notice to the members of the examining committee “Unless you receive word from the President reversing this decision, Mr. Kern’s examination will not be held Thursday, June 3rd.”

Sincerely,
[signed] Small

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Harper, Judson, and Burton Administrations. Records. Box 38. Folder „Dean of Graduate School, 1909-20. 38/12 Pres.“

The Life and Career
of Robert Russ Kern

Life Data

Robert Russ Kern was born in Kansas City, Missouri on April 9, 1878 (date from draft registration) and died April 19, 1958 in Washington, D.C.

From his obituary in the April 20, 1958 edition of the Sunday Star (Washington, D.C.), p. 34 we also learn the following professional and personal facts:

Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Missouri.
Surviving wife, Jeanette G. Kern, and daughter, Jean Russ Kern.
He retired from George Washington University in 1934.

About his wife: Jeanette Kern, née Geschickter, graduated in 1912 with an A.B. from GWU. They married June 10, 1912 in the District of Columbia.

University of Missouri Years
(A.B. 1905)

Rollins Junior scholarship winner 1903-1904. Kern “made a higher average grade since his entrance to the university than any other student in the last ten years. He is said to be the best student of philosophy in the history of the university.”
Kansas City Star, June 2, 1904, p. 5.

Some uncertainty whether he would be the valedictorian of his class because he was confined in Parker Memorial Hospital for three weeks and unable to take final examinations. St. Joseph News Press (June 5, 1905), p. 5.

Valedictorian of the academic department of the University of Missouri. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 8, 1905, p. 10.

Cornell University Year

Graduate student at Cornell in 1907.
Source: Cornell Alumni Directory (May 15, 1922) p. 175

University of Chicago Years

Robert Russ Kern, graduate student in the department of political economy

Fellow (1907-08)
Assistant in Political Economy (1908-09)

Source: Twenty-five years of the Department of Political Economy (1916).

From the fifth list of dissertations in progress:

Robert Russ Kern, University of Chicago. The formation of the prices of consumers’ goods (probable date of completion, 1908). The Economic Bulletin, vol I, Nr. 1 (April 1908), p. 73.

From the sixth list of dissertations in progress

Robert Russ Kern, University of Chicago. Industrial finance (probably date of completion, 1909). The Economic Bulletin, vol II, Nr. 1 (April 1909), p. 21.

George Washington University Years

Instructor of Economics (listed as “Dr. (sic) Kern”) in 1909.

George Washington University Bulletin (1909), p. 13 “Robert R. Kern, Ph.D (sic)…..Instructor in Economics
Dr. (sic) Kern graduated at the University of Missouri, taught in Columbia University (Note: I have not verified his Columbia University affiliation) and Cornell University and came to this University from the Chicago University.”

Listed in George Washington University Bulletin as Professor of Economics and Sociology only with a A.B. (1920)

Professor of Urban Sociology, GWU.

Publications

The Supervision of the Social Order. The American Journal of Sociology, 1918/1919
Part I. Part II.

The Super City. The World‘s Most Efficient and Beautiful City. Washington, D.C., 1924. By Robert Russ Kern, Professor of Economics and Sociology in the George Washington University.

Image Source: University of Missouri, The MU Yearbook Savitar (1905), p. 23. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Tags Kern, Laughlin, Small

Faculty Regulations Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. President Lowell’s motivation for undergraduate divisional general exams. 1915

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-07-20

In an earlier post a shorter excerpt from Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report for the academic year 1914-1915 was included along with the first set of divisional exams for History, Government and Economics from 1915. In the following extended excerpt one finds such gems as:

“…it is still possible for a student to elect six courses in the outlying parts of the field which have little connection with one another and do not form a systematic whole. This possibility is attractive to undergraduates seeking easy courses, whose object is not so much to obtain as to evade an education. Of late years, indeed, many easy courses have been made more serious, whereby the minimum work which shirkers must do for a degree has been sensibly raised, to the great benefit of the college as an educational institution, and incidentally with the result of increasing the respect for high achievement in college scholarship. As the requirements in various subjects are stiffened it is interesting to observe the flocking of students from one department to another.”

Some things apparently never change. By the way you can now add the German expression for such students, “geistiger Tiefflieger” (=intellectual low-flyers), to your working pejorative vocabulary.

______________________________

From President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report on the academic year 1914-15.

…But in fact, the single course is not, and cannot be, the true unit in education. The real unit is the student. He is the only thing in education that is an end in itself. To send him forth as nearly a perfected product as possible is the aim of instruction, and anything else, the single course, the curriculum, the discipline, the influences surrounding him, are merely means to the end, which are to be judged by the way they contribute and fit into the ultimate purpose. To treat the single course as a self-sufficient unit, complete in itself, is to run a danger of losing sight of the end in the means thereto. In no other part of the University, in the requirements for no other degree, is the course, as a unit, complete in itself. In the Law School, where the freedom of election is the greatest, many courses are required, and the rest all aim at a definite and narrowly circumscribed object, preparation for practice at the bar. In the Medical and Divinity Schools general examinations on specific fields of knowledge have been established — of which more will be said later. The same thing has always been true of the doctorate of philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences; and for the Master of Arts, which was formerly attained by a sufficiently high grade in any four courses, it has now been the rule for many years that the courses must form a consistent whole, approved by some department of the Faculty.

In the College the problem of making the student, instead of the course, the unit in education is more difficult than in the other parts of the University, because general education is more intangible, more vague, less capable of precise analysis and definition, than training for a profession. Nevertheless, in the College, some significant steps have been taken which tend in this direction. The first was the requirement that every student must concentrate six of his seventeen courses in some definite field, must distribute six more among the other subjects of knowledge, and must do so after consulting an instructor appointed to advise him. The exact prescriptions may not be perfect, nor in their final form. Experience may well lead to changes, but the intent is good, to develop and expand the mind of the student as an individual, as in himself the object of education. So far as the rule affects the care with which the student selects his courses, there has certainly been a gain, for there is no doubt that the requirement has made his choice more thoughtful and serious than before. The Committee on the Choice of Electives makes exceptions freely in the case of earnest students, and it is a significant fact that although the members of the Committee hold very divergent views upon the principles involved, they are almost invariably unanimous on the question of allowing an exception in any particular case.

The rule of concentration, coupled with the provision that not more than two of the six courses shall be of an elementary character, is intended to compel every man to study some subject with thoroughness, and acquire a systematic knowledge thereof. Certain departments have so arranged their sequence of courses that this result is fairly well attained; but in others where the offering is large, and the nature of the subject is not (as it is in mathematics, for example, or the physical sciences) such that a mastery of one thing is indispensable for the study of another, it is still possible for a student to elect six courses in the outlying parts of the field which have little connection with one another and do not form a systematic whole. This possibility is attractive to undergraduates seeking easy courses, whose object is not so much to obtain as to evade an education. Of late years, indeed, many easy courses have been made more serious, whereby the minimum work which shirkers must do for a degree has been sensibly raised, to the great benefit of the college as an educational institution, and incidentally with the result of increasing the respect for high achievement in college scholarship. As the requirements in various subjects are stiffened it is interesting to observe the flocking of students from one department to another.

The second step in treating the student, instead of the course, as the unit in education, was taken by the Division of History, Government, and Economics, when, and with the approval of the Faculty, it set up the requirement of a general examination at graduation for students concentrating in that division. The examination, which is entrusted to a committee representing the three departments within the division, is to be distinct from that in the courses elected, and is to include not only the ground covered in them, but also the general field with which they have dealt, and the knowledge needed to connect them. This is a marked departure from the plan of earning a degree by scoring courses; and it will take time to adjust men’s conceptions of education to a basis new to the American college, though familiar in every European university. To assist the students in preparing themselves for the general examination each of them at the beginning of his Sophomore year is assigned to the charge of a tutor who confers with him about his work and guides his reading outside of that required in the courses. As the plan could be applied only to men entering after it was established, the first examinations will be held next spring, and then only for men who graduate in three years. In the Divinity School, where the course for the Master’s and Doctor’s degrees is shorter, a general examination has already been put into operation with gratifying results.

A third step has been taken this autumn by a vote of the Faculty providing that the courses elected by a student for concentration in History and Literature must be approved by the Committee on Degrees with Distinction in that field. This has always been true of candidates for distinction under this committee, and in fact the field is one that would present little unity if the courses chosen were unrelated. But that the combination of courses by other students should require approval is an innovation which shows that in a subject where the liberty of choice is peculiarly liable to abuse, the Faculty is prepared to require a consistent programme of study, with a view to giving students an education rational as a whole. Moreover, departments and committees, which do not wish to limit the choice of the students concentrating in their field to combinations of courses approved by them beforehand, sometimes take charge of his work in the subject and really oversee it at every stage. They do in fact act as his advisers, and can often do so better than the instructor specially appointed to advise him. The adviser so appointed frequently takes a very careful interest in the development of a man’s work throughout his college course, and whenever a man shows on entering college any strong special interest, Professor Parker always tries to appoint for him an adviser who will sympathize with that interest. Nevertheless, the departments and committees which pay close attention to the choice of courses by each man concentrating in their field add much to the thoroughness of his education, and have adopted a principle that might with profit be more widely extended. It would be well if every department insisted on having a list, not merely of candidates for distinction, but of all students concentrating in its special field.

Another departure from the practice of counting by courses is the requirement that every student shall be able to read ordinary French or German at sight, and show it by doing so orally. This has proved to be a very different thing from taking and passing a course. It is a test of capacity acquired, not of tasks performed. It is in this one subject a measure of the man and of his education, not a unit of credit accumulated. Not less important is the Committee on the Use of English by Students, appointed in consequence of a request from the Board of Overseers. The investigation by that body showed that students who had done their required English composition often could not or would not express themselves creditably in their later written work. A man who cannot write his mother tongue grammatically, lucidly, and with a reasonably fair style, or who does not think it worth while to do so, is not an educated man, no matter how many courses he may have scored, or how proficient he may be in a special field. In this connection it may be noted that the supervision of the use of English applies to the Graduate School as well as to the College.

All these changes are in a direction away from the mechanical view of education which is the bane of the American system. We see that view displayed everywhere, prominently at the present day in efforts to raise the standard of pre-medical training. This is commonly expressed in terms of courses taken and credits obtained, not of knowledge acquired. If a young man has passed a course and learned little or nothing, or forgotten all he knew, he fulfils the requirement; but if he has mastered the subject in any other way, and can prove it by examination, it avails him nothing. Counting the credits scored in courses is, no doubt, the easiest way to apply a requirement, but it is not a sound system of education. What a man is, what knowledge he possesses, and what use he can make of it, is the real measure of his education. All persons who desire to improve the American system from the common school upward ought to strive not to lose sight of the end in the means, not to let the machinery divert attention from the product….

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1914-1915, pp. 8-11.

______________________________

Harvard. Observations on the organization of academic life at Harvard. Ashley, 1897

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-06-05

The economic historian William J. Ashley taught at Harvard from 1892 to 1901. His observations regarding the tension between professors and junior staff’s desire to work for the advancement of science and scholarship and the core educational mission of universities have not lost their relevance 125 years after he shared his Harvard experience.

But there are many wonderful obiter dicta you will want to savor.

________________________

C.V. from Harvard’s records

William James Ashley, B.A. Oxford 1881; M.A. Oxford 1885; M.Com. Birmingham (Eng.) 1902; Ph.D. Berlin 1910; Fellow Lincoln Coll. Oxford 1885; Prof. of Political Economy and Constitutional History, Toronto 1888-1892; Prof. of Economic History 1892-1901; Prof. of Commerce, Birmingham; Dean (Faculty of Commerce) Birmingham 1901-1902; Cor. Memb. Mass. Hist. Soc; Cor. Memb. Am. Acad.

Harvard University. Quinquennial catalogue of the officers and graduates 1636-1930, p. 42.
________________________

Prof. William J. Ashley on academic administration and procedures at Harvard (1897)

[…] The peculiarity in the position of Harvard is that while the professorial ideal has definitely triumphed among the teaching body, the tutorial ideal is still cherished by the ‘constituency.’ Most of the professors care first of all for the advancement of science and scholarship; they prefer lectures to large audiences to the catechetical instruction of multiplied ‘sections,’ and they would leave students free to attend lectures or neglect them, at their own peril; they would pick out the abler men, and initiate them into the processes of investigation in small ‘research courses’ or ‘seminaries;’ and, to be perfectly frank, they are not greatly interested in the ordinary undergraduate. On the other hand the university constituency — represented, as I am told, by the Overseers — insists that the ordinary undergraduate shall be ‘looked after;’ that he shall not be allowed to ‘waste his time;’ that he shall be ‘pulled up’ by frequent examinations, and forced to do a certain minimum of work, whether he wants to or not. The result of this pressure has been the establishment of an elaborate machinery of periodical examination, the carrying on of a vaster bookkeeping for the registration of attendance and of grades than was ever before seen at any university, and the appointment of a legion of junior ‘instructors’ and assistants, to whom is assigned the drudgery of reading examination — books and conducting ‘conferences.’

So far as the professors are concerned, the arrangement is as favourable as can reasonably be expected. Of course they are all bound to lecture, and to lecture several times a week; they exercise a general supervision over the labours of their assistants; they guide the studies of advanced students; they conduct the examinations for honours and for higher degrees; they carry on a ceaseless correspondence; and each of them sits upon a couple of committees. But they are not absolutely compelled to undertake much drudging work in the way of instruction, and if they are careful of their time they can manage to find leisure for their own researches. As soon as a ‘course’ gets large, a benevolent Corporation will provide an assistant. The day is past when they were obliged, in the phrase of Lowell, ‘to double the parts of professor and tutor.’

But the soil of America is not as propitious as one could wish for the plant of academic leisure. It is a bustling atmosphere; and a professor needs some strength of mind to resist the temptation to be everlastingly doing something obvious. The sacred reserves of time and energy need to be jealously guarded, and there is more than one direction from which they are threatened. University administration occupies what would seem an unduly large number of men and an unduly large amount of time; it is worth while considering whether more executive authority should not be given to the deans. Then there is the never — ending stream of legislation, or rather of legislative discussion. I must confess that when I have listened, week after week, to Faculty debates, the phrase of Mark Pattison about Oxford has some times rung in my ears: ‘the tone as of a lively municipal borough.’ It would be unjust to apply it; for, after all, the measures under debate have been of far-reaching importance. Yet if any means could be devised to hasten the progress of business, it would be a welcome saving of time. Still another danger is the pecuniary temptation — hardly resistible by weak human nature — to repeat college lectures to the women students of Radcliffe. That some amount of repetition will do no harm to teachers of certain temperaments and in certain subjects may well be allowed, but that it is sometimes likely to exhaust the nervous energy which might better be devoted to other things can hardly be denied. The present Radcliffe system, to be sure, is but a makeshift, and an unsatisfactory one.

The ‘instructors’ and assistants, on their part, have little to grumble at, if they, in their turn, are wise in the use of their time. It is with them, usually, but a few years of drudgery, on the way to higher positions in Harvard or elsewhere; and it is well that a man should bear the yoke in his youth. Let him remember that his promotion will depend largely upon his showing the ability to do independent work; let him take care not to be so absorbed in the duties of his temporary position as to fail to produce some little bit of scholarly or scientific achievement for himself. I have occasionally thought that the university accepts the labours of men in the lower grades of the service with a rather step-motherly disregard for their futures.

Come now to the ‘students,’ or whose sake, certainly, Harvard College was founded, whatever may have been the case with English colleges, and whose presence casts upon those responsible for academic policy duties which they cannot escape, if they would. Grant that education and education as Jowett understood it, the training of character as well as mere instruction — is the main business of a university, what is to be said of the situation of affairs? That we do as much here for the average man as the Oxford tutorial system accomplishes, it would be idle to affirm. The introduction of the tutorial system, however, is out of the question: it needs the small college for its basis; it requires that the tutor should enjoy a prestige which we cannot give him; and it is still further shut out by ‘elective’ studies. Yet in its way the Harvard practice suffers from the same defects as the Oxford; it does too much for the men. Take the matter of examinations, for instance. Surely it would be better to relax the continuous pressure — which after all is not in any worthy sense effective — and to reinforce it instead at special points. It was the conviction, we are told, of Professor Freeman that ‘if examinations were necessary evils, they should be few, searching, and complete, not many and piecemeal.’ At present, there are so many ‘tests,’ of one sort or another, that no one examination sufficiently impresses the undergraduate mind. The kind of work done by a student who is so persistently held up by hour-examinations and conferences that he must be an abnormal fool to ‘fail’ at the end, cannot be regarded as really educational in any high sense of the word. By a great many men, the help showered upon them is regarded merely as the means of discovering just how little they can do, and still scrape through. To sweep away all examinations except the final annual one; to leave the student more to himself; to set a higher standard for passing, and ruthlessly reject those who do not reach it, would undoubtedly, in the long run, encourage a more manly spirit on the part of undergraduates, and a deeper respect for the university. This I say with the fuller confidence because, when I left Oxford, now (1900) some twelve years ago, I could see nothing but the evils of the examination system as it there affects students of promise. I am convinced that it would be possible and salutary in Harvard to add greatly to the awfulness of examination; and that much could be done in this direction without approaching within measurable distance of any results that need be feared.

From a natural distrust of examinations and a desire to encourage independent thought, it has of late become the practice to prescribe two or more theses during the progress of a ‘course.’ The result is that many a man has half a dozen or more theses to write during the year, for two or three different teachers. This undoubtedly ‘gets some work out of the men.’ But the too frequent consequence, with students who take their work seriously, especially with graduates, is that they have no time for anything but to get up their lectures and prepare their theses. Any parallel reading by the side of their lectures they find impracticable. But one of the best things a student can do is just to read intelligently. Certainly the graduate students, if not the undergraduates, would sometimes be the better for being left more to themselves.

These are, however, relatively minor matters. A good deal could be said about that cornerstone of Harvard academic policy, the ‘elective’ system. I must confess that I have hitherto failed to see the advantage of the completely elective plan (for any but exceptional students) over the plan of ‘groups,’ or ‘triposes,’ or ‘schools,’ with some degree of internal elasticity to suit particular tastes. That the elective system is an improvement on the old compulsory curriculum is likely enough; but I do not know that any great American university has ever yet fairly tried the group arrangement. Of all the educational agencies at Oxford, Oxford itself is the most potent.

That sweet city, with her dreaming spires;
She needs not June for beauty’s heightening.

Harvard, indeed, is truly ‘fair’ at Commencement, and in the evening lights the Yard has always a sober dignity. But Harvard in the daytime sadly needs May or October for beauty’s heightening. The disadvantages of youth and climate may not be altogether surmountable; yet Cambridge surroundings could doubtless be made more comely and restful with comparatively little trouble. There must be a certain atrophy of the æsthetic sense when luxuriously furnished dormitories have no difficulty in securing tenants though they face rubbish dumps, when rowing-men can practise with equanimity beneath a coal-dealer’s mammoth advertisement, and when the crash and jangle of street-cars are permitted to destroy what little remains of the quiet of the Yard. What is to be desired for every student — most of all for those from homes of little cultivation — is that he should live in the presence of grace and beauty and stateliness. The lesson of good taste cannot be learnt from lectures, and is imbibed unconsciously. Here we must turn to our masters, the Corporation, and to the worshipful benefactors to come. Is all the thought taken that might be taken, all the pressure used that might be exerted, to increase the amenity of the neighbourhood? And, further, is it utopian to imagine that some benefactor will yet arise who will enable Harvard to imitate the noble example of Yale, and erect dormitories that shall delight the eye? Is it too much to hope that the university may soon be enriched with at least one more building such as Memorial Hall? For many a Harvard student his daily meals in Memorial Hall, in that ample space, beneath the glowing colours of the windows and surrounded by the pictures of the Harvard worthies of the past, constitute the most educative part of his university career, though he may not know it. Only half the students can now be brought within this silent influence. A second dining-hall, of like dignity, is perhaps the most urgent educational need of Harvard, and the need most easily supplied.[*]

[*I leave this sentence, for obvious reasons, in spite of the recent erection of Randall Hall. The desirability of a large infusion of other than immediately utilitarian elements in the policy of the Corporation is emphasised, I think, by the increasingly evident tendency towards social segregation in the student body. The English reader who desires to know more of the atmosphere of the greater American universities may be referred to Mr. Bliss Perry’s article on ‘The Life of a College Professor’ in Scribner’s Magazine for October 1897; while the American reader who is interested in Oxford may with advantage consult Mr. F. C. S. Schiller on ‘Philosophy at Oxford’ in the Educational Review for October 1899. ]

Source: W. J. Ashley, “Jowett and the University Ideal” in Surveys, Historic and Economics 1900, pp. 445-463. Originally published in Atlantic Monthly, July 1897.

Tags Ashley

Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Harvard

Harvard. Economics degree requirements, A.B./A.M./Ph.D., 1921-1922

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-06-05

In addition to Harvard’s requirements for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in economics as of the academic year 1921-22, this post includes the A.B. degree requirements for concentrators in economics. Furthermore information regarding the overlap with a concentration in “social ethics” and the Ph.D. requirements for “business economics” has been included.

Degree Requirements for 1897-98.
Degree Requirements for 1911-12.
Degree Requirements for 1934-35.
Degree Requirements from 1947.
Degree Requirements from 1958.
Degree Regulations from 1968.

_________________________

Degree Requirements
in 1921-22

GENERAL INFORMATION

ORGANIZATION

The Division of History, Government, and Economics comprises three departments: History; Government; and Economics. The Division has charge of the administration of the degree of A.B. in History, in Government, and in Economics, and of the degree of Ph.D. in History, in Political Science, and in Economics. The recommendation of candidates for assistantships, fellowships, and scholarships is in the hands of the respective Departments; and each Department has charge of all matters relating specially to its own instruction.

DEGREES OF A.B. AND S.B.

The degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science are conferred usually after four years of residence, although a student who enters college without serious deficiency may complete the requirements for the degree in three years or three years and a half. At least one year of residence is required. Students of other colleges are admitted to advanced standing in Harvard College, without examination, on presenting testimonials of scholarship and character, and satisfactory evidence of work well performed in the institutions previously attended.

CONCENTRATION IN HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, OR ECONOMICS

The requirement for concentration in a department or field of distinction demands in this Division four courses in one department, either History, Government, or Economics, and two additional courses selected from those offered by the Division. A student concentrating in Economics may select as the two additional courses related courses in Social Ethics. No one may count toward his six courses more than two of the introductory courses, History 1, Government 1, and Economics A. The election of these six courses should be made with a view to the requirements for the final examination described below, and the advice of the student’s Tutor should be sought in selecting these and any further courses in the Division

DIVISION EXAMINATION

Students concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics will, at the close of their college course and as a prerequisite to the degree of A.B. or S.B., be required to pass an examination upon the field of their concentration. This examination will cover the general attainments of each candidate in the field covered by this Division and also his attainments in a specific field of study. Candidates for the Division Examination at mid years must signify their intention of taking it on or before December 15; candidates for the examination at Commencement, on or before April 1. The examination will consist of three parts:

(a) A general written examination, which will be given in two parts: one designed to ascertain the comprehensive attainment of the candidate in the subjects of this Division; the other covering the work of the Department in which the student is concentrating. There will be a large number of alternative questions to allow for differences in preparation.

(b) A special written examination, which will test the student’s grasp of his chosen specific field (see list of fields below). The candidate will be expected to show a thorough understanding of the subject of this field; knowledge of the content of courses only will not suffice. The examination will be upon a subject, not upon a group of courses.

(c) An oral examination, supplementary to either or both of the written examinations, but usually bearing primarily upon the candidate’s specific field.

The specific field should ordinarily be chosen from the following list, which indicates also the courses bearing most directly upon each field. In special cases other fields or combinations of fields may be accepted by the Division. This field should be selected by the end of the Sophomore year. [Course announcement 1921-22]

[…]

Specific field of concentration	Courses ordinarily to be elected for concentration	Alternative courses for candidates for the degree with distinction	Suggested courses in other Departments to be elected for the purpose of concentration or to be taken as free electives
1. Economic Theory	Economics A, 7a, 7b, 10, and the equivalent of 1½ full courses from the following: 1a, 1b, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 9a, 9b	Economics 11, 12, 14, 15	Philosophy 25a
2. Economic History	Economics A, 1b, 2a, 2b, 10 and the equivalent of 1 full course from the following: 3, 4a, 4b, 6a, 9b	Economics 23, 24, 33	History 17a, 17b, 32a, 32b, 57
3. Sociology	Economics A, 1b, 6a, 7a, 7b, 8, 10		Social Ethics 4, Anthropology 1, 12, Philosophy 25a
Applied Economics
4. Money and Banking	Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 10, and either 4a or 4b	Economics 37, 38
5. Corporate Organization	Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 4a, 4b, 10, and either 2a or 6a	Economics 36a, 36b
6. Transportation	Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 4a or 4b, 10, and either 2a or 6a	Economics 36a, 36b
7. Public Finance	Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 5, 10, and either 2a or 9b	Economics 31, 36a, 36b	Government 9a, 9b, 17a, 17b
8. Labor Problems	Economics A, 1b, 2a, 2b, 6a, 7b, 10, and either 7a or 9a	Economics 34	Social Ethics 4,6
9. Economics of Agriculture	Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 9a, 10, and either 4a or 9b	Economics 32
10. International Trade and Tariff Policy	Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 9a, 9b, 10	Economics 33, 39

[…]

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION

The general final examination has been established, not in order to place an additional burden upon candidates for the A.B., but for the purpose of securing better correlation of the student’s work, encouraging better methods of study, and furnishing a more adequate test of real power and attainment. To this end students concentrating in the Division will from the beginning of their Sophomore year have the guidance and assistance of special Tutors. The work of these Tutors will be to guide students in their respective fields of study, to assist them in coördinating the knowledge derived from different courses, and to stimulate in them the reading habit. Students will meet the Tutors in small groups and for individual conferences at intervals depending upon the nature of the student’s work, the rate of his progress, and the number of courses which he may be taking in this Division in any particular year. The work of Tutors will be entirely independent of the conduct of courses, and the Tutors as such will have no control over the work or the grades of any student in any college course. Their guidance and assistance will naturally be of indirect benefit to the student in his work in individual courses, but their main function will be to help the student and guide him in the kind of reading and study which will be most useful toward his general progress in this Division. The attitude of the Tutor will be that of a friend rather than of a taskmaster, and students may consult him freely and informally concerning any phase of their work.

CONCENTRATION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

An undergraduate concentrating in Social Ethics must take four courses in the Department of Social Ethics and two either in the Department of Philosophy and Psychology or in the Department of Economics, the entire programme to be approved by a member of the Department of Social Ethics. A written examination covering the general field of concentration will be required at the end of the Senior year.

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

Students concentrating in Social Ethics will, from the beginning of their Sophomore year, receive the guidance and supervision of a Tutor. The Tutors will aid the students in correlating the work of their courses, and will direct them in special reading bearing upon the work of the Department and upon the students’ special fields of interest. The Tutors will seek especially to aid students in developing habits of profitable reading, in independent thinking, in scholarly method, and in the coördination and application of their knowledge. Students will meet their Tutors individually and in small groups from time to time, the constitution of the group and the frequency of meetings depending upon the nature of the students’ work and their rate of progress. The tutorial instruction is considered a regular part of the work of any student concentrating in the Department, and is reported upon from time to time to the Chairman of the Department. Every effort is made to establish personal and friendly relations between Tutors and students, and to this end the Tutors will always be glad to be consulted informally upon any matter in which they may be of assistance to the students.

[…]

THE DEGREE OF A.B. WITH DISTINCTION IN HISTORY, IN GOVERNMENT, AND IN ECONOMICS

In the opinion of the Faculty every undergraduate of superior ability should look to a considerable amount of advanced work in some subject or related subjects as a natural part of his undergraduate career; but it is not to be imagined that the Faculty intends to call for anything like original research on the part of undergraduates, or for the passing of examinations similar to those required for the higher degrees. The Degree with Distinction, it is believed, is so planned as to be within the reach of every student of good ability.

General Regulations. — The candidate for the degree of A.B. with Distinction in History, Government, and Economics shall make application, not later than November 1 of the year in which he expects to receive the degree, to the Division of History, Government, and Economics; he shall, at the same time, record his name and purpose at the office of the Dean of Harvard College. Students intending to become candidates are urged to put themselves, as early as the beginning of their Sophomore year, under the guidance of the Division.

The requirements for the degree cum laude and magna cum laude are the same. The grade of distinction depends on the excellence of the student’s work, as determined by the Division. If his work be judged unworthy of distinction, but worthy of a degree, the Division may recommend him for a degree without distinction.

Special Regulations. — Not later than November 1 of his final year of preparation, the candidate must present, for approval by the Division, a plan of study, which shall comprise at least seven courses, selected from those offered by the Division, and not including more than two from the three introductory courses, History 1, Government 1, and Economics A. This plan of study may, however, with the approval of the Division, include related courses offered by other Departments of the University, and also, by special vote of the Division, suitable work done outside of regular courses.

If four or more of the seven courses are courses in History, the candidate, if successful, will be recommended for the Degree with Distinction in History; if four or more of them are courses in Economics, he will be recommended for the Degree with Distinction in Economics; if four or more of them are courses in Government, he will be recommended for the Degree with Distinction in Government.

Besides this minimum requirement, the candidate may indicate in his plan of study any additional work done in History, Government, Economics, or in related subjects. The character and range of this work will be taken into account in determining the recommendation for the Degree with Distinction. The winning of a University prize in any of the subjects represented in the Division, such as a Bowdoin, Toppan, or Sumner prize, may, at the Division’s discretion, be accepted as evidence towards establishing a candidate’s qualification for the Degree with Distinction.

Not later than May 1 of his Senior year, the candidate will present to the Chairman of the Division a thesis; and he will be required to pass an examination on his general field, or on such portion of the field as the Division may determine. Successful candidates at this examination will be excused from the final examinations in their Senior year in the courses offered for the Degree with Distinction; and unsuccessful candidates at the examination may be recommended by the Division for the ordinary degree without taking the final examinations in such courses.

In the award of the Dillaway Fellowship preference will be given to the most successful candidate for the Degree with Distinction in History; and the Philip Washburn Prize is offered for the best thesis, of sufficient merit, on an historical subject presented by a successful candidate for the Degree with Distinction in History.

IN SOCIAL ETHICS

Candidates for Distinction must elect eight courses in the Departments of Philosophy and Psychology, Social Ethics, and Economics, of which four must be in the Department of Social Ethics and two in each of the others, and must pass an oral examination in addition to the written.

[…]

IN COMBINATION WITH THE CLASSICS

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences has established a degree with distinction based upon programmes combining studies in the Classics with the studies of the Division of History, Government, and Economics. Three different programmes are offered with the following requirements in each: –

[Classics and History; Classics and Government; Classics and Economics]

[…]

Classics and Economics

Eight courses five in the Department of the Classics (both Greek and Latin) and three in the Department of Economics.
A thesis connecting Ancient and Modern Economic Theory or History.
A general examination, either written or oral, on Greek and Roman Literature, History and Economics, and on the subject matter of certain works which will be determined by a joint committee of the Department of the Classics and the Department of Economics.

DEGREE OF A.M.

The ordinary requirement for the degree of Master of Arts for a graduate of an approved college consists of one year of residence and study devoted to advanced work approved by the Administrative Board of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as affording suitable preparation for the degree, and completed with distinction. Graduates of colleges whose requirements for admission and grad uation are considerably below those of Harvard College, or of colleges whose standing is not well known to the Administrative Board, and graduates of any college who have not sufficient prep aration for advanced work in their particular subject of study, are ordinarily required to devote at least two years to their study for this degree. In special cases this period may be shortened to one year or one year and a half for students whose work in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences shows unusual excellence.

The programme of study for the degree of Master of Arts must form a consistent plan of work pursued with some definite aim, whether it lies wholly in a single department or field of study or in more than one; this work may be done either in, or in con nection with, the regular courses of instruction, or independently of them. Programmes should be submitted early in the academic year, and no programme will ordinarily be approved that is received after January 15 of the academic year in which the degree is to be taken. All applications should be addressed to the Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

All candidates must possess an elementary knowledge of two modern foreign languages, ordinarily French and German.

DEGREE OF PH.D.

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy not less than two years devoted to advanced studies, approved as affording suitable preparation for the degree, are required of graduates of colleges of good standing. This degree is not usually taken in less than three years after the attainment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Harvard College, or an equivalent. A graduate of another college may ascertain by writing to the Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences whether any special conditions will be imposed upon him. In order to be admitted to the degree the candidate must show a general training in the whole field of study, firm grasp of his special subject within the field, and independent research in some portion of that subject. He must present a thesis, showing original treatment or investigation, and must pass such examination or examinations as may be required by the Division. The degree is given on the ground of thorough study and high attainments. Appropriate studies carried on in the graduate school of another university may be recognized as a part of the candidate’s preparation for the degree. The minimum period of residence at Harvard University is one year.

The University confers the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History; in Political Science; in Economics; and in Business Economics. Candidates for the degree under any of these heads are subject to supervision and examination by the Division of History, Government, and Economics. In order to indicate the grounds on which it is prepared to recommend candidates for the degree, the Division has adopted the following statements and suggestions.

All communications relative to the doctorate should be sent to Professor Charles H. Haskins, Chairman of the Division Committee on Graduate Degrees, 23 University Hall, Cambridge.

GENERAL PREPARATION

Every candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is required, at an early stage in his preparation, to submit to the Division, through the Chairman of its Committee on Graduate Degrees, evidence of the extent and quality of his general studies. A command of good English, spoken and written, the ability to make free use of French and German books, and a fair acquaintance with general history are expected in all cases. On the evidence presented, the Division will decide, provisionally, as to the sufficiency of the candidate’s general training. No set examinations will be held at this stage, but before he is admitted to the general examination each candidate must present a certificate from a designated member of the Division stating that he is able to make free use of French and German books. Such a certificate may be given on the basis either of a special test or of the candidate’s use of these languages in connection with the regular courses of instruction. Candidates may be required to make up deficiencies by pursuing specified College courses, or in such other way as the Division may designate. The provisional acceptance of a candidate, as regards this portion of his preparation, does not preclude the Division from rejecting him later, if, in the examination on specific subjects, it shall appear that his general education is insufficient.

Candidates must pass two examinations: the first general, the second (after the acceptance of the thesis) on a special field, defined in each case by vote of the Division.

I. GENERAL EXAMINATION

The first examination will be held not later than the beginning of the last year of study for the degree, and candidates are recommended to present themselves for this examination in the course of the preceding academic year. The object of this test is to ascertain the applicant’s attainments within a considerable range of subjects in the field of History, Political Science, or Economics. He will ordinarily be examined in six subjects in all, chosen from the groups defined below under the respective departments of study, but the ground of his special field will not be covered in the general examination. Candidates are not required, however, to follow the details of these plans. They may present, for the consideration of the Division, reasonable substitutes for any of the topics named, and may offer appropriate combinations of parts of the separate subjects. They are advised, in all cases, to submit their plans of study for approval at an early date, as the Division reserves the right to disapprove any plan which seems to it unsatisfactory, even though the plan meet the formal requirements of distribution in the various groups. In judging of the candidate’s fitness for the degree, regard will be had to the general grasp and maturity shown, as well as to the range and accuracy of his attainments in the specific subjects of examination.

II. THESIS

The thesis must be in the hands of the Chairman of the Division Committee on Graduate Degrees on or before April 1 of the year in which the degree is sought. It must be accepted as satisfactory before the candidate can be admitted to the final examination. It must show an original treatment of the subject, or give evidence of independent research, and must also be in good literary form and suitable for publication.*

*A list of the theses which have been accepted for the Ph.D. in the Division of History, Government, and Economics will be found in the list of Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Science who have received their degree in course from Harvard University, 1873-1916, published by the University in 1916.

Every thesis must be accompanied by a brief summary, not exceeding 1200 words in length, which shall indicate as clearly as possible the methods, material, and results. Each summary must be approved by the Division Committee as adequate and as in suitable form for publication. These summaries will be printed by the University in an annual volume.

III. SPECIAL EXAMINATION

The second examination will be on a single limited subject agreed upon in advance. It is intended that each candidate should have, as far as possible, freedom of choice in selecting his subject, but it is expected that he will submit, for approval, an outline of work to be presented in satisfaction of this requirement. It is desirable that this outline should be submitted a year in advance of the examination. Ordinarily the ground covered by the special examination will not be greater in extent than one of the subjects offered by the candidate at his general examination, and may be identical with one of these subjects. Or the candidate may limit his more special preparation to an approved portion of this field, which will regularly include the period or topic within which the thesis lies. At the final examination, the candidate will be expected to show such a mastery of his special field, and such an acquaintance with the literature, general and special, bearing on it, as would qualify him to give instruction to mature students.

* * * * * * * * *

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics must meet the general requirements stated [above]. They should also be well grounded in the main outlines of European and American history, and should have had a general view of the nature and growth of political institutions and constitutional law.

GENERAL EXAMINATION

This examination will include six subjects, chosen from the following list. Of the six subjects, Group A must be offered and one subject from Group C. The others will ordinarily be chosen from Group B. In all cases at least one of the subjects chosen must be historical in character, either economic history under Group B or one of the historical fields under Group C.

Group A

Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to the Development of Economic Thought since 1776.

Group B

Economic History before 1750.
Economic History since 1750.
Statistical Method and its Application.
Money, Banking, and Crises.
Transportation
Economics of Corporations.
Public Finance.
International Trade and Tariff Policy.
Economics of Agriculture.
Labor Problems.
Socialism and Social Reform.
Sociology

Group C

Any of the historical fields (Nos. 1 to 16) defined under the requirements for the Ph.D. in History.
Comparative Modern Government.
American Government and Constitutional Law.
Municipal Government.
Jurisprudence (selected topics).
Philosophy (selected topics).
Anthropology
History of Political Theory.
International Law.

In the case of a candidate whose special subject is in the Department of Social Ethics, the six subjects for examination will be chosen from the two following groups. The candidate will be examined in all four of the subjects in Group E, and is expected to be proficient in the history of one of them. He will select two subjects from Group F.

Group E

Ethical Theory.
Economic Theory.
Poor Relief.
Social Reforms.

Group F

Sociology
Statistics
Economic History.
The Labor Question.
Criminology and Penology.
Problems of Municipal Government.
Anthropology

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Economics must meet the general requirements stated [above, pp. 102-204]. They should also be well grounded in the outlines of European and American history. In the course of their preparation they should have had fundamental training in Accounting, Marketing (or Commercial Organization), and the Law of Contracts. Courses in these subjects required for the degree of Master in Business Administration should be taken ordinarily during the first year of graduate study.

GENERAL EXAMINATION

This examination will include six fields chosen from the following list. The subject of Economic Theory is required in all cases, but not more than two subjects may ordinarily be taken from Group A. Preparation for the subjects in Group B should aim, as far as practicable, to combine the more general training in Economics with the technical training in Business courses.

Combinations of examination subjects other than those here stated may be offered. In all cases the programme of study must be approved by the Division. Candidates are urged to seek early in their residence the advice of the Dean of the Graduate School of Business Administration and of the Chairman of the Department of Economics.

Group A

Economic Theory.
Economic History since 1750.
Public Finance and Taxation.
Economics of Agriculture.

Group B

Accounting.
Marketing.
Foreign Trade.
Industrial Management and Labor Problems.
Money and Banking.
Corporate Organization and Finance.
Transportation.
Insurance.
Statistical Method and its Application.

SPECIAL EXAMINATION

The field for the special examination should be chosen in accordance with the requirements stated [above “III. Special Examination”], except that ordinarily the subject should be one of those in group B.

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XVIII, No. 20 (April 21, 1921) Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1921-22.

Image Source: Harvard Square 1915 from Brookline Public Library’s Photograph Collection at Digital Commonwealth (Non-Commercial, Creative Commons license).

Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Harvard

Harvard. Economics Graduate Degree Requirements, 1934-1935

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-06-02

Update: within a few minutes of posting the following, I discovered that I had already transcribed and posted the same material over seven years ago. Actually it was my third post. How did I miss it? My Catalogue of Artifacts page had a misprint, instead of the year 1934 the year 1924 was incorrectly entered. My standard procedure is to search through the catalogue for names and dates. But this item, being a departmental document only had a date. I am leaving this here, though it double-counts an artifact. I like the image and I have added the other comparable posts (so some light curation is going on here).

It has been a while since Economics in the Rear-view Mirror added to the collection of the rules and and regulations governing the award of graduate degrees in economics. To date for Harvard the collection now includes today’s post for 1934-35 and the following items:

Degree Requirements for 1897-98.

Degree Requirements for 1911-12.

Degree Requirements from 1947.

Degree Requirements from 1958.

Degree Regulations from 1968.

_________________________

1934-1935
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Requirements for Graduate Degrees:
The more important regulations regarding graduate degrees are stated below.

General Information for Candidates for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees
1. Programs of study
  1. The program of study for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees must form a consistent plan of work pursued with some definite aim. It should be submitted to Professor Burbank, Chairman of the Department of Economics, 41 Holyoke House, for approval early in the year.
  2. The fields of study are to be chosen from the following:

GROUP A.

1. 1. 1. Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to the Development of Economic Thought since 1776.
    2. Economic History since 1750, or some other approved field in Economic History
    3. Statistical Method and its Application

GROUP B

1. 1. 1. Money and Banking
    2. Economic Fluctuations and Forecasting
      e.² Industrial Organization and Control
    3. Public Utilities (including Transportation)
    4. Economics of Corporations
    5. International Trade and Tariff Policies
    6. Economics of Agriculture
    7. Labor Problems
    8. Socialism and Social Reform
    9. Public Finance
    10. Economic History before 1750
    11. Commodity Distribution and Prices
    12. Economics of Public Utilities
    13. ²Mathematical Economics

GROUP C

1. 1. 1. Any of the historical fields from Group A or B, defined under the requirements for the Ph.D. in History. [See Division Pamphlet.]
    2. Comparative Modern Government
    3. American Government and Constitutional Law
    4. Municipal Government
    5. Jurisprudence (Selected topics)
    6. Philosophy (Selected topics)
    7. Anthropology
    8. History of Political Theory
    9. International Law
    10. Sociology [Certain fields—see Sociology Pamphlet]
    11. Economics of Forestry

1. Application for degrees

Candidates for degrees must apply to the Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 24 University Hall, by December 1, for the degree at Midyears; or by January 15, for the degree at Commencement.

Special Requirements for the A.M. degree
1. Residence

The candidate must take one full year of advance work at Harvard—four courses with a grade of B or higher in each. These courses may be taken in one year or over a period of years. (See new requirement on page 5.)

1. Languages

An ELEMENTARY knowledge of French and German, and a READING knowledge of the other language is required. This requirement may be met as follows:

1. 1. For the READING knowledge, by a passing grade in the written examinations given by the Department early in November and March.
  2. For the ELEMENTARY knowledge, by one of the following methods:
    1. A passing grade in an elementary course at Harvard or some other institution
    2. A passing grade in an undergraduate examination at Harvard, which is given three times a year—

French: September 22; January 7; April 22
German: September 22; January 8; April 23

1. 1. 1. A passing grade in the written examination given by the Department early in November and March.

This requirement may be met at any time prior to application for the Master’s degree.

1. General Examination

The candidate must pass an oral examination on FOUR fields of study, to be selected from those listed above according to the following distribution:

1. 1. TWO from Group A, including Economic Theory
  2. TWO from Groups A, B, or C (not more than ONE to be selected from Group C.)

The fields are covered only in part by formal course instruction. Supplementary reading must be undertaken to meet the requirements.

Preparation for this examination normally requires TWO full years of study. A student is advised not to stand for examination until he feels thoroughly prepared.

With Professor Burbank’s consent, a student may offer THREE fields of Study for the Oral Examination, substituting a pro-seminar course for the fourth field.

When the General Examination is passed in the Spring, the candidate is excused with credit from the final course examination in courses relating to fields offered for the General Examination.

In judging the candidate’s fitness for the degree, regard will be had for the general grasp and maturity shown, as well as for the range and accuracy of his knowledge of the special subjects examined.

To secure a date for the General Examination, candidates must make arrangements with the secretary in the Division Office, 15 Little Hall before April 1.

Special Requirements for the Ph.D. degree
1. Residence

The candidate must take two years of advanced work—eight courses, with grades of B or higher in each (See new requirements on page 5.) One year, or four courses, must be taken at Harvard. Credit for work done at another institution may be substituted for the other year’s work, with Professor Burbank’s approval.

1. Languages

The candidate must present a READING knowledge of both French and German. This requirement is satisfied ONLY by passing the Department written examination which is given early in November and March. It must be met SIX months before the Special Examination. Examinations in the two languages need not be taken at the same time.
At the time of the Special Examination, candidates must show an acquaintance with the literature in their special fields in two modern languages other than English, ordinarily French and German.

1. Fields of Study

The candidate must present SIX fields of study to be selected from the groups listed above according to the following distribution:

1. 1. The THREE fields in Group A are required unless a candidate can show that he has done sufficient advanced work in Economic History or in Statistics to warrant his substituting a field from Group B or Group C.
  2. The remaining THREE fields may be selected from Group B and Group C—though not more than ONE field may be taken from Group C.

Evidence of a knowledge of the SIX fields of study is shown as follows:

1. General Examination

FOUR fields, including Economic Theory, are presented at an oral examination. [For details regarding this examination, refer to the notes under C. of the requirements for the A.M. degree.]

1. “Fifth” field

The requirement regarding the “fifth” field may be met by presenting work of distinguished quality in an approved course at Harvard.

1. Special field

The candidate meets the requirements of the sixth field by standing for oral examination and presenting a thesis which normally lies within the field examined. Ordinarily this field is chosen from Groups A or B. By special arrangements the same subject may be offered for the General and Special Examinations. However, this program is unusual, and arrangements must be made with the Chairman of the Department. In this case, the candidate must show evidence of a thorough knowledge of another field, which might have been-offered for examination.

1. 1. Candidates for the degree at Midyears should arrange for their Special Examination on or before December 1 in the Division Office, 15 Little Hall; for the degree at Commencement, on or before April 1.
  2. Two copies of the thesis must be in the hands of the Chairman of the Division, 15 Little Hall, by January 3 for the degree at Midyears, and by April 1for the degree at Commencement.

The thesis must be accepted before the candidate may be admitted for the Special Examination. It must show an original treatment of the subject and give evidence of independent research. It must be in good literary form, suitable for publication. Except by special permission from the Chairman of the Division, all theses must be in typewritten or printed form.

Every thesis must be accompanied by a summary not exceeding 1200 words in length, which shall indicate as clearly as possible the methods, material, and results of the investigation. Each summary must be approved by the Division Committee as adequate and in suitable form for publication. These summaries are printed by the University in an annual volume.

At least SIX months must elapse between the General and Special Examinations.

Candidates for the Ph.D. degree must plan on no less than THREE full years of advanced study, and it is only a student with superior training and no outside demands on his time who can attain his degree in that time.

IMPORTANT NOTE: After September 1, 1934, candidates for the Ph.D. are required to show evidence, in some section of their graduate work, of high distinction — “A” — in formal course instruction, General or Special Examinations, or Dissertation.

Business Economics: For the degree in Business Economics, consult the Division pamphlet.

Miss Stone, in 41 Holyoke House, will be glad to answer any questions arising in connection with these regulations.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics Records (UAV349.11) Box 13 Folder “Graduate Instruction Degree Requirements”.

Image: Harvard Class-Day Book 1934.

Tags Burbank

Chicago Economics Programs Economists Faculty Regulations Graduate Student Support

Chicago. H. Gregg Lewis proposes a “labor laboratory”. Ca. early 1950s.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-05-25

Thanks to a prompt from Beatrice Cherrier (a.k.a. Twitter’s undercoverhist), I have transcribed the following documents found together in the economics department records in the University of Chicago archives. We catch a glimpse of H. Gregg Lewis’ early vision of a “labor laboratory” for the training of budding labor economists in the craft of empirical economic research. Serendipitously we also discover the deep self-doubt plaguing Lewis that he shared with the chair of his department at the time, T. W. Schultz.

For much more on Chicago’s workshop system, see:

Ross Emmett.” Sharpening Tools in the Workshop: The Workshop System and the Chicago School’s Success” in Building Chicago Economics: New Perspectives on the History of America’s Most Powerful Economics Program, pp. 93-115, Robert van Horn, Philip Mirowski and Thomas Stapleford, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2011. There may be slight differences between the published version of the paper and the one on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014015

In preparing this post I found the following testimony of a former student of Lewis who went on to a most distinguished career in labor economics (who also happens to have taught my daughter an honors undergraduate class in statistics at the University of Texas).

Daniel S. Hamermesh. H. Gregg Lewis: Perhaps the Father of Modern Labor Economics. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13551, July 2020.

__________________________

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz
(undated, early 1950s)

PRIVATE

To: T. W. Schultz
From: H. G. Lewis

Some time before the end of this quarter I’d like to sit down with you for an unrushed hour or so to discuss some problems, personal ones, and to receive your counsel.

What has brought the discussion “to a head” is my wish to experiment teaching labor economics along the “laboratory” lines I sketched in an earlier memorandum. (I submit a proposal to that end below.) However, I think there is little virtue and, perhaps, much painful effort in conducting such an experiment unless I have reasonable prospects of continuing the experiment beyond next year. And that has raised the whole question of my future at the University. The problem is not mainly my lack of tenure or the recent freeze on tenure appointments, though these are not irrelevant. Indeed, the purpose of this discussion is not to raise the issue of the Department’s assessment of my work, but my own assessment of myself and what is good for me.

It is difficult to convey to you what the nature of my problem is, since I’m not sure of it myself. In substance it is in [illegible word] aspects loss of self-confidence, demoralization and high tension.

Prior to 1945, I was full of confidence, though I think never very cocky or very self-assured. But in the post-war years my confidence has been continuously slipping. In the last two years particularly, I have felt demoralized, incompetent as an economist, unprepared to say or to write anything that I felt could stand the test of critical examination. Altogether it seems up to an estimate that I’m really [new page] [first word lost/truncated through stapling] … the Department. (My colleagues have been generous to me in attributing my low productivity to Departmental “busy” work. Though I sometimes feel “burdened” by that “busy” work, it’s not the real reason for my low output.)

The demoralization has not been [illegible word] intervals [illegible word] confidence returned. Indeed I do not really feel that I am a shame to the profession, though, I’m not ready to belong in the company of my Chicago colleagues.

I do not know quite what it is that has put me in this unproductive state of mind. Part of it is surely a better realization of my own worth. And sometimes, I attribute much of the trouble to an environment of colleagues who are, on my view, my own superiors. I have learned much from them and stand to learn more if, I should stay. Furthermore, I’m not at all certain that my morale would be improved by a change of environment.

If, I were to stay, I should like to begin an experiment next year (Winter and Spring quarters) with a “laboratory in labor economics.” Although, I’m less enthusiastic about the idea than I was several weeks ago, I still want to give the experiment a good try. (My loss of enthusiasm stems from the fairly cool reception the idea has had from several of my colleagues. They fear[?] that though the laboratory may be unctuous[?] for students, it will prevent its supervisor from doing his own productive research.)

In its negative aspect the proposal involves releasing me from my present duties. Given somewhat smaller enrollment next year, the dropping of a section of Econ 209 and one of Soc. Sci. 200A would not require funds for replacement teaching. Relieving me of an assortment of busy work distractions is [new page] another matter. I am not confident that I could give the laboratory a fair trial while carrying on these busy activities. At the same time I do not want these activities added to those my colleagues already carry. Some replacement funds — from the Ford grant — appear to be necessary therefore.

On the positive side, I would replace these duties with full-time devotion intimate teaching of a few (a half-dozen or so) students who have reached the A.M. level and beyond. I would plan to be engaged with the students, heavily in research. The students admitted to the laboratory would commit themselves to full-time work in it for at least two consecutive quarters. (They would receive their instruction by example, by reading and research and by intimate conferences with their fellows including their supervisor. Progress would be tested by oral and written examinations, papers, and reports. The laboratory would be open to students who had “completed” their theory training and who [illegible word] to do supervised reading and research in labor economics.

The laboratory would make positive demands for resources at the very minimum for desk and conference space for the students and some clerical aid. It seems desirable to me also to provide subsidies of at least tuition to the student members in order to provide an incentive for them to remain in school while doing research. In addition, I should like to bring to the laboratory at least one more mature[?] young economist for a year of research.

In summary the following are the resource demands of the laboratory:

[new page]

Some replacement funds to provide for the services from which I would be released
Desk and conference space for the laboratory and some typing assistance from Social Science typing resources
Six tuition scholarships
A research assistant for three quarters at a negotiated salary of some $4000 to $5,000

I have not made a request for funds for this purpose from the [illegible word, beginning with “D”] since these are matters that go beyond my own private[?] interest.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

__________________________

Typed memo regarding training graduate students as “scientific craftsmen”

[Penciled note] From Gregg Lewis

I have been discomfited for some time by the belief that graduate faculties of economics generally are neglecting their responsibilities for making economics an effective science and for training their students as scientific craftsmen. I think we do as well as can be expected as moral philosophers and teachers of moral philosophy. Some of us—Knight is our shining example—do exceedingly well indeed. But most of us and most of our students are not made of the stuff that makes for good moral philosophers. Nevertheless, we expend a large part of our energies in that direction and encourage our students to imitate us. This is clearly a misfortune for economic science, and probably also for moral philosophy, if the Knight-Gresham Law of Talk is correct.

Meanwhile, economics as a science languishes. Most of us cultivate the whole field of economic ideas indiscriminately, the useless and misleading along with the useful. And we plant new ideas with the same nice regard for the weeds among them. Thus, each new generation of economists faces a more and more formidable task of weeding. The weeds become more abundant, their roots deeper.

We are not in want of good reasons for making a science of economics. True, the problems of economic planning that are surely the central ones for economic science do have moral content. And, unfortunately it is easy to make practically every controversy on economic policy sound as though it turned solely on a question of morals. The plain fact of the matter, however, is that the really hard core of our disagreements is not in the differences of moral beliefs but in differences of beliefs about economic facts.

That many of us have no real capacity for moral philosophy of course does not mean that we are prepared to be good scientists. Most of us, even if your spirits are willing, will have to struggle hard to overcome our slatternly research habits and to learn scientific skills and “instincts of workmanship.” But that is no excuse for making the effort. For unless we do, our students will be as ill-prepared as we are.

The problem of building a science, of course will not be solved merely by a formal reorganization of graduate instruction. But I think reorganization will help. The example which has guided the proposed reorganization I set forth below is the experimental laboratory of the natural sciences.

“Each professor—whether of money and banking, business cycles, public finance, or what not—will have his own laboratory. He will have one or two assistants who would share responsibility for the laboratory, and other assistants needed. The students (doctoral candidates) in a certain subject will get their training in the laboratory, by working on some project. The individual assignments will be of limited scope, but will be the function of the professor in charge to see that they fit together. The projects will grow out of the research program of the laboratory and will be supervised closely.
There would be no regimentation of the laboratory directors, any more than there is of professors in a well-run university.*
[footnote] *From a letter written by Arthur F. Burns who suggested the idea to me.

It would not be mandatory for any professor to direct such a laboratory, but if he chose to do so, he would be relieved largely from other duties and would be responsible for conducting the affairs of the laboratory continuously and full time. Nor would graduate students in all fields be required (for the Ph.D. degree) to participate in a laboratory project. Those who elected to do so, however, would commit themselves full-time for a period of something like an academic year.

Establishment of such laboratories by a considerable proportion of our faculty would call for a reduction of our student load per faculty member. This can be accomplished in substantial part I think by drastically reducing the number of students who plan to have the A.M. their terminal degree. And this is something I favor, reorganization or not.

Space problems are sure to arise but I do not think they need to be nor will prove to be insoluble.

THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposed program of graduate study, I believe, does not conflict in any way with Divisional degree requirements and hence would require no special dispensation by Divisional authorities.
All candidates for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees normally would obtain the Master’s Degree, after three or four quarters (beyond the four-year A.B.) of full-time participation in lecture courses, and by a route fairly similar to that of our present “Alternative” Master’s degree. The Master’s thesis would be dispensed with, the Master’s degree treated as an undergraduate or non-research degree, and students interested only in the A.M. degree discouraged from applying for admission.
The obtaining of the Master’s degree would be the principle requirement for admission to graduate study.
Faculty members would be given the free choice of devoting their scholastic energies as most of them do now or of conducting the kind of laboratory described above.
Students admitted to graduate study for the Ph.D. degree would have two alternatives open to them.
1. Taking graduate courses as they do now principally in “non-laboratory” fields, leading to a preliminary examination or examinations and the satisfaction of “distribution” requirements.
2. Participating full-time for three quarters in a laboratory leading to the preparation of a paper or papers which would be a prerequisite for admission to Ph.D. candidacy.
The recently passed procedure for admission, writing of thesis, and final Ph.D. examination would not be changed.

THE PROPOSED DEGREE REQUIREMENTS:

For the A.M. Degree:
1. The Divisional requirements
2. The qualifying examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 or Social Science 200A, 220 or 222, 230.
3. The Field Examinations: (Required of all candidates)
  1. Economic Principles: (Required of all candidates)
    This examination would be essentially the same as the present Ph.D. “Theory” prelim, including monetary theory. In terms of present courses, preparation for the examination normally would mean taking the following courses: 300A, 300B, 302, 330, 335.
  2. Statistics: (Required of all candidates)
    Essentially the present prelim covering 311, 312, 313 or 316 or equivalents.
4. Economics electives: Course credit or examination in a balance of courses sufficient to bring the total registration in Economics to 15 courses. Normally the balance would amount to four courses.
For Admission to Graduate Study:
1. The A.M. degree above or its equivalent.
2. Satisfaction of the high level language requirement
Program of Graduate Study
1. Three quarters of full-time residence in an economics laboratory leading to a paper or papers approved by the laboratory director or
2. Passing a preliminary examination in a third field (a field other than Principles or Statistics) and satisfaction of the distribution requirement. Normally this would require a full academic year.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

Images: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags LewisHG, SchultzTW

Chicago Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics A.M. requirements amended to become “Consolation Prize”. Lewis and Schultz, 1950

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-05-02

In 1950 the Chicago economics department voted to convert its master’s degree into an award for the successful partial completion of its Ph.D. program. It was to serve as a “consolation prize” for good graduate students but those found not to have the right “Ph.D. stuff” (H. Gregg Lewis’ words in his memo of Sept. 29, 1950 to chairman T. W. Schultz, transcribed below). I have also included the relevant portion of the distributional and examination requirements for the Ph.D. that had already formed part of the so-called “alternate departmental master’s degree”. H. Gregg Lewis’ proposal was largely accepted by the department (minutes from the meeting of November 2, 1950 transcribed below), thereby eliminating distinct tracks for its A.M. and Ph.D. degree programs, respectively.

_______________________

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

Upon request the Department will consider recommending for the Master’s degree candidates who have satisfied the distribution requirement for the Ph.D. degree and have passed with satisfactory standing the three written field examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One modern foreign language is required. In place of a thesis such candidates may present an acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department.

[…]

Distributional requirement [Ph.D.]. The candidate is expected to have familiarity with the subject matter equivalent to that covered in at least one course (200 or 300 level of reasonable comprehensivenss in each of ten fields (five required and five elected), satisfactory evidence of which can be provided by course credit or by passing a special examination. The required fields are: (a) economic theory, (b) accounting, (c) statistics, (d) economic history, and (e) money, banking, and monetary policy. The fields from which five may be elected are: (f) consumption economics, (g) industrial relations, (h) monopoly and public utilities, (i) agricultural economics, (j) government finance, (k) international economic relations, and (l) substitute fields, but not in excess of two, proposed by the candidate and approved by the Departmental counselor or the Department. One or both of these substitute fields may be outside the Department of Economics, and in general some work outside the Department is recommended with a view to rounding out a program appropriate for the individual student. In case of students transferring from other institutions, adequate training in general history may be substituted for economic history upon the written recommendation of the Departmental counselor.

Preliminary written field examinations [Ph.D.]. In each of three fields of specialization, in addition to presenting course credit or special examinations to show satisfactory preparation, the candidate will be required to pass a written examination.

The candidate is expected to select the three fields of specialization—a primary field and two secondary fields—for intensive graduate work. The primary field is that in which the [Ph.D.] thesis will be written. One of the three fields (primary or secondary) must be that of economic theory, including monetary theory. The fields from which selection is to be made are listed above under the heading “Distributional Requirement,” except that accounting may not be chosen as a field without approval of the Department. One secondary field of specialization may be a field named by the candidate outside the list above, and this may be in a department other than Economics. A secondary field may also be developed under one of the interdepartmental committees of specialization International Relations, Human Development, Planning or Social Thought. The program of work proposed, which ordinarily will include four to five courses, must be approved by the Department. No other secondary field may replace the required field in economic theory.* Students should consult with the Departmental counselor with respect to appropriate programs of work in preparation for the field examinations. The field examinations are given by the Department in the sixth and seventh weeks of the Winter and summer quarters. Application for any field examination should be made not later than the end of the first week of the quarter in which the examination is to be taken.

*Students who take the field examination in money, banking, and monetary policy will not be required to write the monetary theory part of the economic theory examination.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 25-26.

_______________________

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

209. Intermediate Economic Theory. (Procter Thomson/Harold Gregg Lewis) Designed for students majoring in economics. Deals with factors controlling production, value and relative prices, and distribution.

211. Introduction to Statistics. (Harold Gregg Lewis) Elementary principles of statistics. Main topics: frequency distributions, averages, dispersion, index numbers, elements of the theory of statistical inference.

220. Economic History of the United States. (Earl J. Hamilton) Facts and factors in American’s economic growth from the Colonial period to World War II, including the development of agriculture, industry, commerce, finance, and transportation; economic effects of wars; role of the entrepreneur; rise in living standards; unrest and utopias in periods of stagnation; commercial crises and economic basis of cultural progress.

222. The Rise of Industrial Civilization in Europe. (John Ulrich Nef) Economic development in its relation to religious, political, intellectual and artistic history since the seventeenth century.

230. Introduction to Money and Banking. (Milton Friedman/Lloyd Wynn Mints) Factors which determine the value of money in the short and in the long run; and operation of the commercial banking system and in relation to the price level and general business activity.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. (Albert E. Rees) The nature of the labor market; government regulation of wages; social security; the history, structure, and functions of American labor unions; and collective bargaining. Special attention is given to current problems of public policy.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. (D. Gale Johnson). Nature of resources used in agriculture. Prices, production, resource allocation, and income distribution. Analysis of government programs, subsidies, storages, crop control, soil conservation, food-stamp plan.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. (Richard B. Goode) Survey of institutions and theories of government finance. Effects of public expenditures; functions of public revenue; forms of taxation; tax criteria; determination of tax policy; public borrowing; debt management; fiscal policy.

270. International Economics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) The nature of international payments and receipts; foreign trade and banking system. The gold standard in the interwar period. The breakdown of the gold standard and the period of fluctuating exchange rates. Exchange controls, clearing agreements and payments agreements. The second world war and the foreign exchange markets. The position of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the present world economy.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) An introductory survey, with particular reference to the United States, of the economic policies and activities of governments. Topics: international specialization of production and the distribution of world resources, structure of international exchanges and the mechanism of international transfer of goods and services; tariffs and other regulatory measures; trade agreements and the most-favored nation clause; international flow of capital and investment; the position of the ITO, the IMF, the ECA and other official agencies in international trade and exchange.

300A, 300B. Price Theory. (W. Allen Wallis 300A/Lloyd A. Metzler 300B/Milton Friedman 300B) A systematic study of the pricing of final products and factors of production under essentially stationary conditions. Covers both perfect competition and such imperfectly competitive conditions as monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 300A deals primarily with the pricing of final products; 300B, with the pricing of factors of production.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 27-28.

_______________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

September 29, 1950

To T. W. Schultz

From H.G. Lewis

In Re: Requirements for the Master’s Degree

This is an elaboration of comments made to you this summer concerning the Master’s degree.

I should like to recommend the following changes in our requirements for the A.M. degree:

That the distinction between the “regular” A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. be abolished.
That the departmental requirements for the A.M degree consist of the following alteration of the present alternative A.M. requirements:
1. A distribution requirement covering five (rather than the present eight) fields of economics of which theory, statistics, and money and banking shall be mandatory. Students who do not hold the traditional A.B. degree must meet the requirement by passing satisfactorily a qualifying examination coving the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination), 230, and two courses chose from 220, 222, 240, 255, 260, 270, 271.¹^/ Students holding the traditional A.B. may meet the requirement by showing equivalent course credit.
2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory exam counting as a full exam) at a satisfactory level (that is, at either the Ph.D. level or at a level somewhat lower but not so low as not to warrant blessing the candidate with a Master’s degree).²^/
3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by passing (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or course examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.

I would recommend that the changes in requirements become effective as of the beginning of the Summer Quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

1/ This qualifying examination is now offered every quarter. This is an extravagant use of faculty. I should like to see the exam offered only once a year. Furthermore, I should like to permit students to substitute course grades for all or part of the exam provided the course grades are for courses taken here and provided they are not at a level lower than B.

2/ There would be therefore no special examinations for A.M.’s, but the examinations would be graded into three levels: passing for the Ph.D. and A.M. degrees, passing for the A.M. degree but not for the Ph.D., failing for both.

I would urge students to give requirement (b) high priority in preparing their programs of study.

Since the ends sought by these changes can be reached in other ways, I specify below what these ends are.

I view our principal instructional purpose as that of training high-level (Ph.D. and beyond) professional economists. I think we ought to view our training of “junior” economists and the awarding of the A.M. degree only as an incident arising from the fact that at the time a student applies for admission to the department, we cannot predict accurately either his calibre as a student or his academic goals.

It seems to me that the requirements for the Master’s degree should meet these tests:

They should include no requirements which the Department would not make for the Ph.D. degree. Otherwise both student and faculty time will be spent in activities extraneous to the training of high-level economists. The present alternative A.M. meets this test but the regular A.M. does not.
The requirements should be at a level high enough to be respected by the academic world. Both present degrees meet this test, I believe.
But the standards for the degree should not be so high that potentially able Ph.D. candidates will be deterred from entering because of the considerable risk that if they fail to meet Ph.D. standards they will also fail to meet A.M. standards. If we set standards for the A.M. that are almost as likely not to be met as the Ph.D. standards we hold out no “consolation prize” to those good students who are fearful of not being able to meet Ph.D. standards. The present alternative A.M. requirements do not meet this test.

One of the ways by which we can raise the calibre of our Ph.D. candidates without reducing our enrollment is to increase the number of students who are given an opportunity to show at close hand their potentialities to us and to screen out at an earlier date those who are not of Ph.D. stuff. I am confident that quite accurate screening can take place ordinarily by the end of the first year of graduate residence. I contemplate our using the A.M. requirements as a screening device; the present alternative A.M. is not satisfactory from that point of view since it postpones too long the screening decision.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

_______________________

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department

Time and Place: Thursday, November 2, 1950, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 424, Social Science Research Building.

Present: T. W. Schultz (chairman), H. G. Lewis, A. Rees, R. Goode, G. Tolley, D. G. Johnson, F. H. Harbison, J. Marschak, C. Hildreth, F. Knight, L. Metzler.

Handling of Student Business
It was agreed that all bona fide applications for admission to candidacy filed this quarter would be considered as falling under present degree requirements even though Departmental action does not take place until Winter quarter.
Ford Foundation
Schultz stated that as a Department we have an obligation to ourselves, to the University, and to the community more largely to think through carefully the problem of making the best use of the Ford Foundation’s present grant of $300,000 to the University as well as possible later grants. There was a brief general discussion of the problem.
Departmental Rules Governing Residence and Availability to Students
Schultz pointed out that in the current year we have been able for the first time to reduce direct teaching loads for most of our members to four courses per year or less. This reduction, he pointed out, makes it desirable that the Department impose upon itself rules governing residence and availability to students and others in the university community lest they be imposed upon us from outside. The problem of rules for residence involves not only a rule stipulating in some way minimum residence, but also the question of whether “free” quarters out of residence should be considered a matter of a right accruing to an individual from his residence or a privilege dependent upon ad hoc decisions made by the Department chairman and the Dean. Schultz expressed himself as being in favor of a rule somewhat similar to the rules for accumulating sabbatical leave under a 3Q contract. In addition there is the problem of insuring, perhaps by rule, “availability” when in residence. The formulation of appropriate rules is to come before the Department for its consideration in the Winter quarter.
The Department considered Lewis’ recommendations for changes in the A.M. requirements. (See attached memo. [above]) the following amendment of Lewis’ recommendation was passed:
1. That the distinction between the regular A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. degrees be abolished.
2. That the Departmental requirements for the A.M. degree consist of the following:
  1. A distribution requirement to be met by passing a “Qualifying” examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination) 220 or 222, 230 and two courses chosen from 240, 255, 260, 270, and 271. Students holding the traditional A.B. may satisfy the requirement by equivalent course credit.
  2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory examination counting as an examination) at a satisfactory level of A.M. candidates.
  3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.
  4. An acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department. The paper will be read by two members of the Department of which the course instructor will be one in the event the student submits a term paper prepared for a course.

The above changes in requirements are to become effective as of the beginning of the Summer quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

It was understood that the above motion in no way changes present preliminary examinations or other requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Professor Knight asked the minutes to show his objection to dropping Economics 210 (Accounting) from the requirements for the A.M. degree.

Student Business
1. Petitions

Lawrence Bostow’s petition for approval of French and Russian as languages for the Ph.D. was approved.

Mr. H. M. Herlihy’s petition for the field of “Social Organization” (Sociology Department) as his third field for the Ph.D. degree was approved.

Mr. John Holsen’s petition for a third Ph.D. field in Planning (Planning Department) was approved. Mr. Johnson, his counselor, was asked to inform Mr. Holsen, however, that this approval does not entitle Holsen to shorten his total program in Economics for the Ph.D.

Mr. Edward Mishan’s petition for approval of Spanish as a Ph.D. language was denied.

1. Admission to Candidacy

Mr. Howard Ammerman’s application for admission and for approval of a thesis topic was moved to the bottom of the list of applications.

Mr. Rondo E. Cameron’s application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent upon his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950) and his proposed thesis topic, “French Foreign Investment, 1815-1870,” was approved. Thesis committee: E. J. Hamilton, chairman, L. Metzler, P. Thomson.

After some discussion, Mr. Clifford Clark’s application was moved down the list. Lewis was instructed to advise Clark to consult with Hamilton concerning the latter’s misgivings about the proposed thesis topic, and in addition to confer with Hayek, Knight, and other members of the Department concerning the thesis topic.

Mr. George P. Coutsoumaris’ application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent on his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950), and his proposed thesis topic, “Possibilities of Increasing Economic Efficiency in Greek Agriculture,” was given qualified approval, the Department suggesting that he limit the topic somewhat preferably to a topic approximately the same as that covered in the sections (VII and VIII) of his outline dealing with capital in Greek agriculture. Thesis committee: D. G. Johnson, chairman, C. Harris, J. Margolis (planning).

Mr. David Fand’s proposed thesis topic, “Monetary Theory of the Federal Reserve Board,” was discussed. It was agreed to come back to it at the next meeting after several more of the members of the Department had an opportunity to discuss the topic with Fand.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

Tags Cameron, Friedman, Goode, Hamilton, Harbison, Hildreth, Hoselitz, JohnsonDG, Knight, LewisHG, Marschak, Metzler, Mints, Nef, Rees, SchultzTW, ThomsonP, Tolley, Wallis

Statute concerning the Academic Council [Adopted by the Corporation and Board of Overseers in the Spring of 1872]

History of Foreign Language Requirement for Ph.D.

Linear Algebra or a Foreign Language

Department of Economics University of Chicago May, 1968

Foreign Language and Mathematics Requirement

From James A. Field’s obituary in the Chicago Sunday Tribune (July 17, 1927)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DIVISION OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

Unsigned copy of letter to F.W. Taussig (presumably from head of Division)

From the Announcement for Ph.D. General Examinations

James Alfred Field.

FROM THE GRADUATE SCHOOL RECORD CARD

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror Note: Course numbers, names, and instructors

The Life and Career of Robert Russ Kern

Life Data

University of Missouri Years (A.B. 1905)

Cornell University Year

University of Chicago Years

George Washington University Years

Publications

From President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report on the academic year 1914-15.

Other related posts

C.V. from Harvard’s records

Prof. William J. Ashley on academic administration and procedures at Harvard (1897)

Degree Requirements in 1921-22

GENERAL INFORMATION

ORGANIZATION

DEGREES OF A.B. AND S.B.

CONCENTRATION IN HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, OR ECONOMICS

DIVISION EXAMINATION

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION

CONCENTRATION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

THE DEGREE OF A.B. WITH DISTINCTION IN HISTORY, IN GOVERNMENT, AND IN ECONOMICS

IN SOCIAL ETHICS

IN COMBINATION WITH THE CLASSICS

DEGREE OF A.M.

DEGREE OF PH.D.

GENERAL PREPARATION

I. GENERAL EXAMINATION

II. THESIS

III. SPECIAL EXAMINATION

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D. IN ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

GENERAL EXAMINATION

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D. IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

GENERAL EXAMINATION

SPECIAL EXAMINATION

1934-1935 HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Requirements for Graduate Degrees: The more important regulations regarding graduate degrees are stated below.

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz (undated, early 1950s)

Typed memo regarding training graduate students as “scientific craftsmen”

THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL

THE PROPOSED DEGREE REQUIREMENTS:

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE [1950-51 regulations]

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

MINUTES Meeting of the Department

Statute concerning the Academic Council
[Adopted by the Corporation and Board of Overseers
in the Spring of 1872]

Linear Algebra
or a Foreign Language

Department of Economics University of Chicago
May, 1968

From James A. Field’s obituary in the Chicago Sunday Tribune
(July 17, 1927)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

Unsigned copy of letter to F.W. Taussig
(presumably from head of Division)

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror Note:
Course numbers, names, and instructors

The Life and Career
of Robert Russ Kern

University of Missouri Years
(A.B. 1905)

Degree Requirements
in 1921-22

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN ECONOMICS

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

1934-1935
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Requirements for Graduate Degrees:
The more important regulations regarding graduate degrees are stated below.

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz
(undated, early 1950s)

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department