Categories
Agricultural Economics Exam Questions Fields Harvard History of Economics Industrial Organization Money and Banking Public Finance Sociology Theory Undergraduate

Harvard. Division Exams for A.B., General and Economics, 1921

The Harvard Economics department was once one of three in its Division in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Departments of History and Government shared a general division exam with the Department of Economics and also contributed their own specific exams for their respective departmental fields. This post provides the questions for the common, i.e. general, divisional exam, the general economics exam, and all the specific exams at the end of the academic year 1920-21 for those fields falling within the perview of the economics department.

_______________________________

Previously posted
Division A.B. Exams

Division Exams 1916
Division Exams, January 1917
Division Exams, April 1918
Division Exams, May 1919
Division Exams, April/May 1920

Division Exams 1931

Special Exam for Money and Government Finance, 1939
Special Exam Economic History Since 1750, 1939
Special Exam for Economic Theory, 1939
Special Exam for Labor and Social Reform, 1939

_______________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS

EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF A.B.
1920-21

DIVISION GENERAL EXAMINATION

PART I

The treatment of one of the following questions will be regarded as equivalent to one-half of this examination and should therefore occupy one hour. Write on one question only. Insert before your answer to this question a sketch of your plan of treatment.

  1. Discuss the relations of civilization to climate.
  2. Does history show that the periods of a nation’s political and literary greatness tend to coincide?
  3. Was America’s entrance into the World War a consequence or a violation of her policies and traditions?
  4. Discuss the following: “One of the great difficulties, as well as one of the great fascinations of history is the constantly changing point of view; but we should beware of interpreting the past in the light of the present.”
  5. What have been and what should be the limitations upon the application of the principle of self-determination in national relations?
  6. Contrast Roman provincial, and nineteenth-century colonial relations.
  7. What should be the limits of nationalization of essential industries?
  8. What have been the marked characteristics of three great states at the time of their greatest power?
  9. “Society has departed very widely from the strict rule of non-interference with industry by the State; indeed, the policy of non-interference was never carried out logically by any State.” Comment.
  10. Discuss: “The patriotism of nations ought to be selfish.”
  11. What are the standards of social justice?

PART II

The treatment of four of the following questions in Part II is required and will be regarded as equivalent to one-half of this examination, and should therefore occupy one hour. The four questions are to be taken from the Departments in which the student is NOT CONCENTRATING; two questions from each of the two Departments.

A. HISTORY

  1. Briefly characterize, with approximate dates, five of the following: Alexander, Aristotle, Augustus, Francis Bacon, Frederick Barbarossa, Bolivar, Calvin, Chatham, Franklin, Richelieu.
  2. Give a short account of the rise of the Christian Church down to the period of the Crusades.
  3. Estimate the importance of the Netherlands in the development of Europe.
  4. Discuss the relations of England and the United States during the past one hundred years.
  5. Write a brief historical account of slavery in the Western Hemisphere.

B. GOVERNMENT

  1. Discuss: “Not independence but interdependence is the hope of nations.”
  2. Explain the evolution and significance of trial by jury.
  3. What is the significance of the following headlines in March, 1921?
    1. “Austria in dangerous unrest.”
    2. “Briand voted confidence on reparations.”
    3. “Crown prince is plotting.”
    4. “Lenin knows his Italian friends.”
  4. What are the limits of uniform state legislation?
  5. What political unities can best control:
    1. police,
    2. water supply,
    3. roads?

C. ECONOMICS

  1. “The fundamental fact in history is the law of decreasing returns. It is the cause of the origin and development of civilization. . . . It is equally, and for the same reason, the source of poverty and war.”
    State, explain, and indicate the significance of the law of decreasing (diminishing) returns.
  2. What are the fundamental features of the organization of modern industrial society?
  3. Discuss one of the following statements:
    1. “Employees have the right to contract for their services in a collective capacity, but any contract that contains a stipulation that employment should be denied to men not parties to the contract is an invasion of the constitutional rights of the American workmen, is against public policy, and is in violation of the conspiracy laws.”
    2. “In the old days, America outsailed the world. . . . I want to acclaim the day when America is the most eminent of shipping nations. . . . A big navy and a big mercantile marine are necessary to the future of the country.”
  4. Why should there be a labor party in England and not in the United States?
  5. What are the economic essentials of socialism?

_______________________________

GENERAL EXAMINATION
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

I

The treatment of two of the following questions will be regarded as equivalent to one-half of the examination and should therefore occupy one hour. Write on two questions only.

  1. Give the author, approximate date, and general character of five of the following works:
    1. National System of Political Economy.
    2. Essays in Political Arithmetick.
    3. England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade.
    4. Essay on the Principle of Population
    5. Principles of Political Economy.
    6. The Wealth of Nations.
    7. Das Kapital.
    8. Lombard Street.
    9. Capital and Interest.
  2. Explain four of the following terms:
    Abstinence; Manchester School; stationary state; iron law of wages; produit net; non-competing groups; Scholasticism; Utilitarianism.
  3. Locate on an outline map:
    1. The world’s principal sources of five of the following raw materials: cotton; copper; sugar; silk; wheat; tin; rice; nitrate; petroleum; gold.
    2. The more important routes of overseas transportation.
    3. The world’s chief regions of manufacture.

II

The treatment of three of the following questions will be regarded as equivalent to one-half of the examination and should therefore occupy one hour. Write on three questions only. Be concise.

  1. Define “thrift” and discuss its social significance.
  2. Analyze the determination of normal value under competitive conditions of joint cost.
  3. What is meant by “monetary inflation”? How is it to be measured and what is its importance?
  4. What has been the course of the interest rate in modern times? What probably will be the course of the rate during the next few years? Why?
  5. What are the purposes and limits of progressive taxation?
  6. Discuss the future of public utilities in the United States.
  7. To what extent and in what respects, if at all, is labor legislation of the times a corrective of the more serious defects of the existing social order?
  8. Discuss: “Perpetual prosperity would be a national calamity.”

_______________________________

SPECIAL EXAMINATION
ECONOMIC THEORY

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. What is the concept of “justice” in the theory of the distribution of wealth?
  2. Comment on the validity and significance of the following contention: “Labor is the source of all wealth.”
  3. “Whether capital is productive depends simply on the question: Are tools useful? It matters not how much or how little tools add to the product — if they add something, capital is productive.” Do you agree? Explain.
  4. “The forces which make for Increasing Return are not of the same order as those that make for Diminishing Return. . . . The two ‘laws’ are in no sense coordinate. . . . The two ‘laws’ hold united, not divided, sway over industry.” Comment critically.
  5. What relations exist between the accounting and economic concepts of “cost of production”?
  6. “The differences in the productive powers of men due to their heredity or social position give to certain individuals the same kind of an advantage over others that the owner of a corner lot in the center of a city has over one in the suburbs. If the income from a corner lot is a surplus and can therefore be described as unearned, the income of a man of better heredity, education or opportunity must also be regarded as a surplus income and therefore unearned.”
    Discuss this statement with reference to your general theory of distribution.

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than wto

  1. Give a brief historical account of the theory of population.
  2. Trace the development of the theory of international trade.
  3. In what ways have the following influenced the history of economic thought: Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Malthus, Ricardo, J.S. Mill, Marx?
  4. Outline the evolution of the theory of economic rent.

C

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. “The profits of speculation on the Stock Exchange are just as unearned as the increment in the value of urban building sites; unlike the profits of speculation in produce, they represent no service to society.” Do you agree? Why, or why not?
  2. “There is a point beyond which advertising outlay is extravagant.” Explain.
  3. “I do not see how we can retain our home markets, upon which American good fortune must be founded, and at the same time maintain American standards of production and American standards of living unless we make other peoples with lower standards pay for the privilege of trading in the American markets.” Discuss.
  4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the closed shop?

_______________________________

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
ECONOMIC HISTORY

Answer six questions 

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. “The opening of the Erie Canal affected both intensive and extensive agriculture in the United States.” Explain. Have there been analogous changes in later periods?
  2. Discuss the following statement: “The enactment of corporation laws by the various states is the most important step made during the past century in the development of American manufactures.”
  3. Analyze the important economic after-effects of the World War.
  4. Briefly explain the most satisfactory methods for separating the different types of variation in time series.

B

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Write a brief account of one of the early English trading companies.
  2. Sketch the rise of the modern factory system.
  3. Compare changes in farm ownership and tenancy during the nineteenth century in England and the United States.
  4. Outline the history of banking in the United States from 1830 to 1860.
  5. Write a brief narrative of the early development of the railroad.
  6. Give the history of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act.
  7. Trace the evolution of the middle class and forecast its future.

C

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Give a critical account of the policy of the Federal Government in its regulation of industrial combinations.
  2. Discuss the history and consequences of immigration into the United States since 1840.
  3. Review the development of German foreign trade before the War with special reference to the methods of trade promotion.
  4. Analyze the causes, extent, and consequences of changes in the price level in the United States since 1914.

_______________________________

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
PUBLIC FINANCE

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. A law of 1691 authorizes the municipal corporations of New York “to impose any reasonable tax upon all houses within said city, in proportion to the benefit they shall receive thereby.” How far is this a correct principle of taxation and how far has it continued to be applied?
  2. Present a classification of Federal expenditures for a national budget system.
  3. Give a brief account of the financial statistics issued currently by the Federal Government.
  4. Discuss the proposal for the cancellation of all inter-allied debts.

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. How has the Federal Constitution influenced national and state tax systems in the United States?
  2. Trace the history of an important fiscal monopoly.
  3. Give a brief account of the financial history of one of the American states.
  4. What connections have existed between currency systems and government finance? Illustrate fully.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Compare the total expenditures in the United States in normal times for (a) national, (b) state, and (c) municipal purposes. What changes, if any, in the proportions are to be expected?
  2. To what extent is it desirable to separate state and local revenues in the United States?
  3. Indicate the nature and significance of the “grant in aid” in British public finance.
  4. What arguments have been used in European countries for and against a capital levy?
  5. Should the poll tax be abolished? Why, or why not?
  6. Discuss critically the present condition of the public debt of the United States.

_______________________________

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
MONEY AND BANKING

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. What part, if any, do commercial banks play in (a) the process of investment; (b) the increase of capital; (c) the course of industrial development; (d) leadership in the business world? In what respects, if at all, may the influence of commercial banks be economically inexpedient?
  2. Discuss the desirability of uniform bank accounting in the United States.
  3. Describe critically the more important sources of statistics of currency and credit in the United States.
  4. Analyze the successive phases of the business cycle. What are the causes of financial panics; industrial crises?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Give a brief account of the life and work of John Law.
  2. Trace the history of usury laws.
  3. Outline the political background of American monetary history from 1870 to 1900.
  4. Give a brief history of the Reichsbank.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. “It is quite clear that the money question no longer survives as a political issue.” Do you agree? Why, or why not?
  2. To what extent has the status of the gold standard been affected by the World War?
  3. “This little neutral country [Switzerland], surrounded by four great continental belligerents, and bordering on the two principal battle-fronts of Europe, possesses at present, curiously enough, an exceptional purchasing power. This is the consequence of the high level of Swiss currency, which is 250 per cent above the usual parity with the currency of the neighbor in the east, Austria-Hungary; 100 per cent higher than that of the neighbor in the north, Germany; 90 per cent higher than that of the neighbor in the south, Italy; and 20 per cent higher than that of the western neighbor, France. Even in overseas countries, Swiss currency has a higher buying power than the English sovereign or the American dollar.” Explain fully.
  4. What changes have been made in the original Federal Reserve System? What have been the purposes and effects of the changes? What further changes, if any, seem desirable?
  5. Compare the provisions for agricultural credit in two important countries.
  6. Comment upon the following statement: “Prosperity continued through the war, and gave the nation such a tremendous start in business activity that we would still be rejoicing in a period of great prosperity had it not been for the death-dealing blow of deflation of credit given by Mr. Wilson’s Federal Reserve Board.”

_______________________________

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
CORPORATE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING RAILROADS

Answer six questions

 A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. State the theory of value under conditions of monopoly. In what ways, if at all, is monopoly price affected by (a) cost of production per unit; (b) potential competition; (c) an elastic demand for the product; (d) the existence of satisfactory substitutes for the product; (e) hostile public opinion?
  2. Formulate a statistical classification of business organizations in the United States.
  3. Discuss the apportionment of railway operating expenses between freight and passenger service.
  4. Analyze the valuation of corporate assets from the standpoint of the principles of accounting.

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Compare the history of business corporations in England and the United States.
  2. Trace connections between railroad construction in the United States and related political and economic events.
  3. Give a brief narrative of the trust dissolutions of the Federal Government.
  4. What provisions of the Federal Constitution have been most important in determining policies of government regulation of public utilities?

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Discuss the following statement: “The enactment of corporation laws by the various states is the most important step made during the past century in the development of American manufactures.”
  2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of non-par stock?
  3. Discuss the probable consequences of the Supreme Court decision that stock dividends are not income under the income tax law.
  4. What is the nature and importance of good-will in corporation finance?
  5. To what extent may there be differences in the fair valuation of public utilities for the purposes of rate-making, condemnation, taxation, and capitalization?
  6. Did the Government act wisely in returning the railroads March 1, 1920 to their corporate owners for operation? Why, or why not?

_______________________________

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
ECONOMICS OF AGRICULTURE

Answer six questions 

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Analyze the doctrine of economic rent from agricultural land.
  2. What are the functions of organized speculation in staple agricultural products?
  3. Describe the methods to be employed in making an annual farm inventory.
  4. What subjects are covered by the decennial Federal census of agriculture? What is the statistical value of the results of the several inquiries?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Trace the history of the relations between landlords and tenants in England.
  2. What have been the most important changes in American agriculture since 1890?
  3. Give a critical account of the land policies of the Federal Government.
  4. Outline the development of the beet sugar industry in Europe.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. What factors determine the most efficient size of farms?
  2. What are the advantages of diversification of crops?
  3. Discuss the future of the meat supply of the United States.
  4. Describe and estimate the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods of marketing farm produce.
  5. State and defend a forest conservation policy for the United States.
  6. Compare the provisions for agricultural credit in two important countries.
  7. What are the principal problems of rural community life in the United States?

_______________________________

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
LABOR PROBLEMS

Answer six questions

 A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Discuss the proposal to restrict immigration into the United States by limiting the number of each nationality admitted each year to 3 per cent of the foreign-born of that nationality resident in this country in 1910.
  2. Describe the technique of statistical measurement of the high cost of living.
  3. What are the principal difficulties encountered in the collection of wage statistics?
  4. Analyze the relations between high money wages and high commodity prices.

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Describe the early development of the factory system.
  2. Trace the origins of trade-unionism in the United States.
  3. Write a brief narrative of the movement for a shorter working day.
  4. Review the relations between organized labor and the steel industry in the United States.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. What is “the labor problem”?
  2. Compare American and British labor leadership. How do you account for the differences?
  3. “Employers must be free to employ their work people at wages mutually satisfactory, without interference or dictation on the part of individuals or organizations not directly parties to such contracts.” Comment.
  4. Discuss a proposed law providing that “in the establishment of salaries for school teachers in the city of—, there shall be no discrimination based on sex or otherwise, but teachers and principals rendering the same service shall receive equal pay.”
  5. “The principle that each industry shall support its own unemployed is one that must be established if a real solution of unemployment is to be made.” Do you agree? Why, or why not?
  6. Discuss the relation of shop committees to trade-unionism.

_______________________________

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Discuss the following contention: “The landlord is a parasite since he consumes without producing.”
  2. What is the meaning of “over-population”?
  3. “Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.” Comment critically.
  4. What are the interactions of human instincts and modern factory labor?
  5. Discuss the nature and bases of economic prosperity.

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Describe the evolution of language.
  2. Trace the history of the middle class and forecast its future.
  3. Give a brief historical account of the status of women.
  4. What have been the chief cultural consequences of the machine process?

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. What is the province of sociology?
  2. Discuss the family as a necessary social unit.
  3. Describe the leading forms of conflict and their effect upon group life. Why are some forms to be preferred to others? What are the factors which determine the forms actually prevailing at any time?
  4. Analyze the sources of prestige and influence in modern society.
  5. “From the standpoint of progress, the value of the individual depends on the excess of his production over his consumption.” Discuss.
  6. What are the criteria and causes of racial superiority?

_______________________________

Examinations not transcribed for this post

History:

General Examination
Special Examinations: Mediaeval History; English History; Modern European History to 1789; Modern History since 1789; American History

Government:

General Examination
Special Examinations: American Government; Municipal Government; Political Theory; International Law

_______________________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Divisional and general examinations, 1915-1975 (HUC 7000.18). Box 6, Bound Volume (stamped “Private Library Arthur H. Cole”) “Divisional Examinations 1916-1927”.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Fields

Harvard. Economics department professors plan review of junior staff. 1932

 

Within the faculty of the Department of Economics at Harvard University, there was a Committee of Professors. From the following memo it appears that within the Committee of Professors there was an Executive Committee. The memo is interesting to read as an announcement of a pending review of the junior staff that will be stratified into five layers: “unusually able men”, “capable and useful” (hold), “capable and useful” (encourage to seek elsewhere), “not as useful here” (push to seek elsewhere), “capable young” (hold). Somewhat surprised that the strata assignments were identified ex ante. 

[I have added the full names and plus the dates and names of the institutions where undergraduate and graduate degrees had been awarded.]

Also worth noting are hopes for attracting Gottfried Haberler to continue and explicit mention of Wassily Leontief as someone to consider for hiring.

_______________________________________

[Handwritten note: Presented at Meeting Exec Cte Jan 21, 1932]

VERY CONFIDENTIAL

A. Among other matters the Committee of Professors will be asked to consider the status and work of certain members of the Junior Staff.

I. The men in this group have passed their Generals and are at work on their dissertations. They are unusually able men deserving special consideration.

Sweezy
[Alan Richardson Sweezy. A.B. (Harvard) 1929; A.M. (Harvard) 1932; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Walsh
[John Raymond Walsh. A.B. (Beloit College) 1921; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Smith
[Dan Throop Smith. A.B. (Stanford) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Abbott
[Charles Cortez Abbott. A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

II. The men in this group either have their degrees or will have them shortly. They are capable and useful, perhaps more. It may be to their advantage and ours to encourage them to remain here for some time longer. For the coming year, at least, promotion to faculty instructorship is not involved.

Anderson
[Karl Leopold Anderson. S.B. (Mt. Allison University) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Goldstein
[Aaron Goldstein. A.B. (Johns Hopkins) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Hoover
[Edgar Malone Hoover, Jr.] A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Hunt
[Bishop Carleton Hunt. B.B.A. (Boston University) 1920; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

Shaffner
[Felix Ira Shaffner, Rhodes Scholar (Oxford) 1924; A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Litt.B. (University of Oxford, England) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933)]

Wallace
[Donald Holmes Wallace. A.B. (Harvard) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Wernette
[John Philip Wernette. A.B. (University of California) 1924; A.M. (University of Southern California) 1926; A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

III. The men in this group, all Ph.Ds, have reached or are nearing the point when they can be placed elsewhere most advantageously. They are capable and very useful here. They should be encouraged to take acceptable offers.

Currie
[Lauchlin Bernard Currie. S.B. (University of London, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ellsworth
[Paul Theodore Ellsworth. A.B. (University of Washington) 1920; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Gilbert
[Donald Wood Gilbert. A.B. (University of Rochester) 1921; A.M. (University of Rochester) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1924; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

White
[Harry Dexter White. A.B. (Stanford) 1924; A.M. (Stanford) 1925; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

IV. The men in this group have their Ph.Ds or will have them shortly. They are useful here, but less so than group III. They should be moved at the first opportunity.

Ratzlaff
[Carl Johann Ratzlaff. S.B. (University of Minnesota) 1922; A.M. University of Minnesota) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930].

Crane
[John Bever Crane. A.B. (Northwestern University) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Danielian
[Noobar Réthéos Danielian. A.B. (Harvard) 1928); A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Eaton
[Albert Kenneth Eaton. A.B. (Acadia University) 1922; S.B. (London School of Economics) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1929, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Fields
[Morris Joseph Fields. S.B. (Tufts College) 1921; M.B.A. (Harvard) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Phinney
[Josiah Thompson Phinney. A.B. (Yale) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ross
[James Alexander Ross, Jr. S.B. (Princeton) 1922; B.A. (University of Oxford, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1933; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Towle
[Lawrence William Towle. A.B. (Bowdoin College) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

V. The men in this group are capable young men and will probably remain here for some time longer.

Baker
[George Pierce Baker, Jr. A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Cassels
[John MacIntyre Cassels. B.A. (University of Alberta) 1924; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Krost
[Martin Max Krost. Senior Economist, Division of Research an Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (October 1940) ]

Wendzel
[Julius Tugendreich Wenzel. A.B. (Kalamazoo College) 1928; A.M. (Tufts College) 1930, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

B. The Committee should also consider our instruction in International Trade. At present Associate Professor Cole is giving Economics 9a, the undergraduate course in International Trade. The Department has voted that when possible this course is to become part of a full course—International Economic Problems. Our graduate course—Economics 39—will be given by Dr. Haberler during the second half of this year. Dr. Haberler may be available for another year or two if the Department cares to invite him.
Professor Cole is interested in the undergraduate instruction in International Trade and International Economic Problems, but not particularly in the graduate instruction.
A.E. Monroe is interested in the graduate instruction in International trade. Although he is on one-half time appointment, probably an arrangement could be made for him to give the graduate course.

C. There is a possibility—if some of our non-faculty instructors accept positions elsewhere—that we may be able to make a few new appointments. The following men should be considered.

Leontieff (if Haberler is not reappointed) (One of his articles is available in Mrs. Gilboy’s office).

Gardner (sic) Means
[Gardiner Coit Means. A.B. (Harvard) 1918; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Schmidt (California Ph.D. Credentials may be had from Miss Rogers).

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Department of Economics general office files.  (UAV349.11) Box 11, Folder “Full Professors Meetings of Department of Economics.”

Image Source: Detail from cover of the Harvard Class Album 1946.

Categories
Bibliography Chicago Fields

Chicago. Reading List for Industrial Organization. Stigler, 1959

 

The following (graduate) reading list comes from Zvi Griliches’ papers at the Harvard University Archives. In structure and content it matches George Stigler’s reading list from the University of Chicago in 1973 previously transcribed and posted, so there is no doubt where and from whom the reading list has come. There are indeed some additions and subtractions between the 1959 and 1973 versions which are indications of how the field evolved over those years, at least in George Stigler’s mind.

______________________________

READING LIST
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
1959

I. The Firm-Structure of Industries

1. The competitive concept in theory and quantitative studies

A. P. Lerner, “The Concept of Monopoly,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I
R. Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, pp. 125 ff.
J. M. Clark, “Toward a Concept of Workable Competition,” American Economic Review, June 1950 or Readings in Social Control of Business
A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Bk. V, Ch. 12
F. H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, pp. 76 ff.
E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 1
G. Stigler, “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” Journal of Political Economy, 1957
R. Bishop, “Elasticities, Cross-elasticities, and Market Relationships,” American Economic Review, December 1952, June 1955
G. Rosenbluth, “Measure of Concentration,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy
T.N.E.C. Monograph 27, The Structure of Industry, Part 5
T. Scitovsky, “Economic Theory and Measurement of Concentration,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy

2. Some statistical studies

National Resources Comm., The Structure of the American Economy, Ch. 7, Appendix 7
Clair Wilcox, Competition and Monopoly, T.N.E.C. Monograph 21
The Structure of Industry, T.N.E.C. Monograph 27
Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation, Bk. II
G. Stigler, “Competition in the United States,” Five Lectures on Economic Problems
F.T.C., The Concentration of Productive Facilities
A. C. Harberger, “Monopoly and Resource Allocation,”American Economic Review, May 1954
A. D. Kaplan, Big Enterprise in a Competitive System

3. The trend of the structure

T.N.E.C. Monograph 27, Part I
G. W. Nutter, The Extent of Enterprise Monopoly
M. A. Adelman, “Measurement of Industrial Concentration,” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy
F.T.C. Changes in Concentration in Manufacturing, 1935 to 1947 and 1950

II. Factors Influencing Firm-Structures

1. Economies of scale

Cost Behavior and Price Policy, esp. Ch. 10
E. A. G. Robinson, The Structure of Competitive Industry, Ch. 2-7
J. M. Clark, Economics of Overhead Costs, Ch. 5, 6
W. Crum, Corporate Size and Earning Power
J. McConnell, “Corporate Earnings by Size of Firm,” Survey of Current Business, May 1945
J. Johnston. “Labour Productivity and Size of Establishment,” Oxford Institute of Statistics, 1954
R. C. Osborn, Effects of Corporate Size on Efficiency and Profitability
Caleb Smith, “Survey of Empirical Evidence,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy
J. S. Bain, “Economies of Scale, ….” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy
G. J. Stigler, “The Economies of Scale,” Law and Economics, 1958

2. Mergers

F.T.C., The Merger Movement
A. S. Dewing, “A Statistical Test of the Success of Consolidations,” Q.J.E., 1931
S. Livermore, “The Success of Industrial Mergers,” Q.J.E., 1935
A. S. Dewing, Corporate Promotions and Reorganizations, Ch. 20, 21
G. Stigler, “Monopoly and Oligopoly by Merger,” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy
Butters and Linter, “Effect of Mergers on Industrial Concentration,” Review of Economics and Statistics 1950
F.T.C. Report on Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions
J. Markham, “Survey of the Evidence and Findings on Mergers,” in Business Concentration
F. Machlup, Political Economy of Monopoly, pp. 105-17
J. F. Weston, The Role of Mergers in the Growth of Large Firms
G. Stigler, “The Statistics of Monopoly and Merger,” Journal of Political Economy, 1956

3. Raw materials

W. Y. Elliott, ed., International Control in the Non-ferrous Metals, essays on Nickel and Aluminum
E. A. G. Robinson, Monopoly, Ch. 3
R. H. Montgomery, The Brimstone Game, Ch, 4-9
D. H. Wallace, Market Control in the Aluminum Industry

4. Patents

A. Plant, “Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Invention,” Economica, 1934 (also companion article on copyrights)
Proceedings, American Econ. Assoc., May 1948 roundtable on patents
T.N.E.C. Monograph 31, pp. 109-15, 93-103
Seager and Gulick, Trust and Corporation Problems, pp. 280-303
Stocking and Watkins, Monopoly and Free Enterprise, Ch. 14
R. MacLaurin, “Patents and Economic Progress,” J.P.E., 1950

5. Taxation and tariffs

D. H. MacGregor, Industrial Combinations, pp. 127 ff.
Linter and Butters, “Effects of Taxes on Concentration,” in Business Concentration
T.N.E.C. Monograph No. 10

6. Unfair Competition

J. S. McGee, “Predatory Price Cutting,” Law and Economics, 1958

III. The Effects of Concentration

1. Collusion

R. B. Tenant, The American Cigarette Industry
W. Fellner, Competition Among the Few
W. Nicholls, Imperfect Competition Within Agricultural Industries, pp. 120-130
F. Machlup, Economics of Sellers’ Competition, Ch. 13

2. Prices

a. Discrimination

Burns, Decline of Competition, pp. 272-372
N.I.C.B., Public Regulation of Competitive Practices, pp. 63-85
J. P. Miller, Unfair Competition, Ch. 7-9
J. Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Bk. V
F. Machlup, The Basing Point System
J. M. Clark “Basing Point Methods,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 1938
F.T.C., Price Bases Inquiry
T.N.E.C. Monograph 42
G. Stigler, “A Theory of Uniform Delivered Prices,” A.E.R. 1949
C. Kaysen, “Basing Point Pricing and Public Policy,” in Industrial Organization and Public Policy

b. Rigidity

G. Means, Industrial Prices and their Relative Inflexibility
Burns, Decline of Competition, Ch. 5
E. S. Mason, “Price Inflexibility,” Review of Economic Statistics, 1938
T.N.E.C., Monograph No. 1
Sweezy and Stigler, Articles in Readings in Price Theory
A. C. Neal, Industrial Concentration and Price Inflexibility
Machlup, Economics of Sellers’ Competition, Ch. 14

3. Profits

J. S. Bain, “The Profit Rate as a Measure of Monopoly Power,” Q.J.E., 1941
R. C. Epstein, Industrial Profits in the United States
J. S. Bain, “Relation of Profit Rate to Industry Concentration,” Q.J.E., August 1951

IV. Topics in Industry Behavior with Oligopoly

1. Advertising

E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 6-7
N. Buchanan, Advertising Expenditures, J.P.E. 1942
N. Kaldor, “Economic Aspects of Advertising,” Review of Economic Studies, 1950

2. Vertical Integration

Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. 3
Marshall, Principles of Economics, Bk. IV, Ch. 10-13
A. Young, “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,” E.J. 1928 (and in Clemence’s Readings in Economic Analysis 2 Vols.)
J. Jewkes, Factors in Industrial Integration, Q.J.E., 1930
S. Dennison, Vertical Integration and the Iron and Steel Industry, E.J. 1939
A. R. Burns, Decline of Competition, Ch. 9
Stigler, “Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of Market,” J.P.E. 1951
M. Adelman, “Concept and Measurement of Vertical Integration,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy

3. Schumpeter’s Theory

Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Ch. 7-8
K. Boulding, “In Defense of Monopoly,” Q.J.E., 1945
D. H. MacGregor, Industrial Combination, Ch. 12
G. Stigler, “Industrial Organization and Economic Progress,” in State of the Social Sciences.

V. Large Number Industries

1. Cartels

Stocking and Watkins, Cartels in Action, Ch. 4-11
Stocking and Watkins, Cartels or Competition, Ch. 3-7
C. Edwards, Economic and Political Aspects of International Cartels
Ben Lewis, Price and Production Controls in British Industry
A. F. Lucas, Industrial Reconstruction and the Control of Competition
R. Michels, Cartels, Combines and Trusts in Post-War Germany
R. Liefman, Cartels, Concerns and Trusts
C. Wilcox, Public Policies Toward Business, Ch. 16

2. Trade Associations

V. Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 11
Burns, Decline of Competition, Ch. 2
T.N.E.C. Monograph No. 18
H. Levy, Retail Trade Associations
Stocking and Watkins, Monopoly or Free Enterprise, Ch. 8, 10, 11

3. Retailing: Resale Price Maintenance

W. Bowman, “Prequisites and Effects of Resale Price Maintenance,” University of Chicago Law Journal, 1955
E. Grether, Price Control under Fair Trade Legislation
F.T.C., Resale Price Maintenance
W. Bowman, “Resale Price Maintenance,” Journal of Business, 1952
Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 21, 22

4. Government Cartels: Agriculture and Coal

W. Wilcox and W. Cochrane, Economics of American Agriculture Part VI
Readings on Agricultural Policy, Part II
C. Wilcox, Public Policy Toward Business, Ch. 15-16

VI. Anti-trust Policy

1. Early History

J. D. Clark, Federal Trust Policy
W. H. Taft, The Anti-trust Act and the Supreme Court
V. Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 10, 15, 16
H. B. Thorelli, The Federal Antitrust Policy

2. Major Dissolutions

E. Jones, Trust Problem in the United States, Ch. 18
Hale, “Trust Dissolution” in Columbia Law Review, 1940
W. S. Stevens, Industrial Combinations and Trusts, Ch. 14-15
S. Whitney, Antitrust Policies, 2 Vols.

3. Law of Conspiracy

U.S. v. Trenton Potteries, 273 U.S. 392 (1927)
F.T.C. v. Cement Institute, 68 Sup. Ct. 793 (1948)
M. Handler, T.N.E.C. Monograph 38
Report of Attorney-General’s National Committee on the Anti-trust Laws

4. Recent Decisions

U.S. v. Columbia Steel, 334 U.S. 495 (1948)
U.S. v. Aluminum Co., 148 F. (2nd) 416 (1945), 91 Fed Supp. 333 (1950)
Standard Oil v. Fed. Trade Comm., 71 Sup. Ct. 240 (1951)
E. H. Levi, “The Anti-trust Laws and Monopoly,” University of Chicago Law Journal, 1947
Economic Consequences of Some Recent Anti-trust Decisions, A.E.R., May 1949

5. Foreign Policy

F. A. McGregor, “Preventing Monopoly, — Canadian Techniques,” in Monopoly and Competition and their Regulation ed. by E. Chamberlin
C. D. Harbury and Leo Roskind, “The British Approach to Monopoly Control,” Q.J.E., 1953
M. Cohen, “Canadian Anti-trust Laws,” Canadian Bar Review, Vol. 16 (1938)
L. Reynolds, The Control of Competition in Canada
J. Jewkes, “British Monopoly Policy, 1944-56,” Law and Economics, 1958

6. Some Proposals and Issues

H. Simons, Economic Policy for a Free Society, Ch, 2, 3, 4.
C. Edwards, Maintaining Competition, esp. Ch. 4-8
The Sherman Act and the Enforcement of Competition, A.E.R., May 1918
Mund, Government and Business, Ch. 20, 24
S. C. Oppenheim, “Federal Antitrust Legislation,” Michigan Law Review, June 1952

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 130, Folder “Syllabi and exams, 1955-1959”.

Image Source:  George Stigler (1960). University of Chicago Photographic Archive (apf1-07960). Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Economic History Exam Questions Fields Harvard Statistics

Harvard. Division Exams for A.B., General and Economics, 1920

The Harvard Economics department was once one of three in its Division in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Departments of History and Government shared a general division exam with the Department of Economics and also contributed their own specific exams for departmental fields. This post provides the questions for the common, i.e. general, divisional exam and all the specific exams at the end of the academic year 1919-20 for fields covered by the economics department.

_______________________

Previously Posted Division A.B. Exams from Harvard

Division Exams 1916

Division Exams, January 1917

Division Exams, April 1918

Division Exams May 1919

Division Exams 1931

Special Exam for Money and Government Finance, 1939

Special Exam Economic History Since 1750, 1939

Special Exam for Economic Theory, 1939

Special Exam for Labor and Social Reform, 1939

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREEE OF A.B.
1919-20

DIVISION GENERAL EXAMINATION
[April 29, 1920.]

PART I

The treatment of one of the following questions will be regarded as equivalent to one-third the examination and should therefore occupy one hour. Write on one question only.

  1. Compare pamphleteering and propaganda as methods of exerting political influence.
  2. What effect has the establishment of standing armies and navies had upon (a) political and (b) economic organization of the state?
  3. Show how, and why, the following were adapted to certain stages of society: (a) feudalism; (b) gilds; (c) nationality; (d) industrialism.
  4. Trace the course and explain the significance of the development of maritime law.
  5. Contrast the Greek and Italian city states.
  6. What are the wastes of the present industrial system and how, if at all, are they to be eliminated?
  7. Comment on the following: “History embraces ideas as well as events, and derives its best virtues from regions beyond the sphere of state.”
  8. Discuss the problems involved in the economic rehabilitation of Central Europe.
  9. What are the rights of minorities and how are they best secured?
  10. Compare the foreign policies of France, Germany, and the United States during the nineteenth century.

PART II

The treatment of three of the following questions in Part II is required and will be regarded as equivalent to one-third of the examination, and should therefore occupy one hour. The three questions are to be taken from the Departments in which the student IS NOT CONCENTRATING; two questions from one of these Departments and one question from the other.

A. HISTORY

  1. Why did Voltaire characterize the Holy Roman Empire as “neither holy, nor Roman nor an Empire”?
  2. What do you regard as the six most important naval battles in the history of the world! When and where were they fought, and who were the victors and the vanquished in each?
  3. Give a brief account of the relations of the United States and Canada.
  4. What have been the principal issues involved in the struggle over Home Rule?

B. GOVERNMENT

  1. What was the political condition of European states at the time of the Crusades!
  2. In what sense are constitutions of states “made”?
  3. If the principle of reparation of governmental powers is correct, why has the English cabinet system been approved?
  4. Explain the reasons for immigration to the United States from 1870 to 1895.

C. ECONOMICS

  1. What has been the contribution of the corporation to English and American political and economic institutions?
  2. Trace the evolution of collective bargaining in industry.
  3. What is “profiteering”? Explain its relation to the present high cost of living.
  4. Describe the development, and indicate the importance, of national budgets.

PART III

The treatment of three of the following questions in Part III is required and will be regarded as equivalent to one-third of the examination, and should therefore occupy one hour. The three questions are to be taken from the Department in which the student IS CONCENTRATING.

A. HISTORY

  1. Describe the changes in the attitude towards the Christians of the Roman Emperors down to Constantine.
  2. Discuss the development of national assemblies during the Middle Ages.
  3. What did the Tudors do for England?
  4. What is now the territory within the jurisdiction of the United States has been derived, directly or indirectly, from seven European nations. What are the seven, and what territory was derived from each?
  5. Enumerate, with dates, the principal changes in the form of government of France since 1789. How do you account for their frequency?

B. GOVERNMENT

  1. Discuss the development of the relations of President and Cabinet in the United
  2. Discuss and illustrate the following: “If tolerance can be allowed in a state, so much the better; that proves that the state is strong.”
  3. What should be the disposition of Constantinople?
  4. Give a brief sketch, explaining cause and naming period, of three of the following: (a) Dorr Rebellion; (b) Whiskey Insurrection; (c) Shay’s Rebellion; (d) Seminole War; (e) Ku-Klux Klan.
  5. How has the change in distribution of population affected governmental organization and administration?

C. ECONOMICS

  1. Discuss the probable future of the market for loanable funds in the United States and Europe.
  2. State the purposes and proper limits of progressive taxation.
  3. Describe the efforts of the Federal Government to enforce fair competition.
  4. What considerations are involved in the maintenance of public agencies for the distribution and employment of labor? What light is thrown on the subject by American and European experience?
  5. Sketch the history and present prospects of the American merchant marine.

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
ECONOMIC THEORY
[May 3, 1920.]

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. “It is the business of economic theory to explain, not to justify or condemn.” Comment.
  2. Discuss the rôle of mathematical analysis in the development of economic theory.
  3. “The determining cause of the general rate of money incomes and wages in a country is to be found in the exporting industries.” Explain.
  4. “The income from concrete instruments of production may be regarded as ‘rent’ or as ‘interest’ according to the point of view.” Explain and discuss.
  5. Of what concretely do invested, of what do uninvested, savings consist? Can savings accumulate to an indefinitely large amount? Can saving be carried to excess?
  6. “The standard of living affects wages, not directly, but through its influence on numbers. … A limitation of numbers is not a cause of high wages, but it is a condition of the maintenance of high wages.” Explain and criticize.
  7. Discuss the theories of business profits.

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Outline the history of mercantilism.
  2. Give an account of an important political episode in which economic theory has had a decisive influence.
  3. Trace the course of the rate of interest in modern times. What do you expect to be the course of the rate during the next fifteen years? Why?
  4. Characterize the more important developments in the history of socialism.

C

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. What is the relation of (a) investment banking, (b) commercial banking, to capitalistic production?
  2. What theoretical problems are involved in government regulation of security issues?
  3. Does profit-sharing promise a solution of the problems of distribution? Why or why not?
  4. Discuss the following statement: “If you are not advertising, then advertise, because it saves money for you and it reduces the price to the consumer.”

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
ECONOMIC HISTORY
[May 3, 1920]

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. To what extent, if at all, and in what particulars, has the policy of high protection been of advantage to the American laborer?
  2. How do price revolutions, such as that in progress since 1897, tend to affect the distribution of wealth?
  3. Briefly explain the most satisfactory statistical methods for separating the different types of variation in time series.
  4. What is a logarithmic curve? What are its merits and defects in the graphic presentation of historical series?
  5. Trace the development of uniform accounting for railroads in this country. Indicate any connections between uniform accounting and government regulation of the railroads.

B

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Discuss the economic results of the crusades.
  2. Give a brief historical account of mercantilism.
  3. Outline the history of the public debt of one of the following countries: (a) Great Britain; (b) France; (c) United States.
  4. Trace the agrarian movement on the continent of Europe.
  5. Discuss the positions of the various English political parties and social classes on the question of Corn Law Repeal.
  6. Write a brief history of one of the following industries in the United States:

(a) Meat-packing;
(b) Tin-plate manufacture;
(c) Boot and shoe manufacture;
(d) Ship-building.

  1. When and by what steps was silver demonetized in the United States?
  2. Outline the development of the English textile industry.
  3. Give a brief account of the “trust movement” in the United States since 1898.
  4. Sketch the history of the export trade of the United States.

C

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Analyze the effects of England’s early commercial policy.
  2. What specific defects in the National Banking System was the Federal Reserve Act, 1913 intended to remedy?
  3. Trace and explain the history of the American merchant marine since 1840. What is its probable future and why?
  4. What industrial conditions are most conducive to the rapid growth of labor organizations? Why?

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
MONEY AND BANKING
[May 3, 1920]

Answer six questions.

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Discuss the distinction between currency expansion and currency inflation.
  2. What statistics of money and banking best serve as indices of financial, speculative, and general business conditions?
  3. Outline a system of accounts for a small commercial bank.
  4. What are the best sources of statistical data upon the following subjects:

(a) Bank clearings in the United States;
(b) Resources and liabilities of banks of New York City;
(c) Bank rates in the London and Paris money markets;
(d) The monetary stock of the United States;
(e) Changes in the value of gold in England?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Outline the currency history of one of the following:

(a) Canada;
(b) Germany;
(c) British India;
(d) the Philippines;
(e) the American colonies;
(f) Russia.

  1. State and explain Gresham’s Law. Give four historical examples of the working of the law.
  2. Sketch the history of the relations between the United States Treasury and the banking institutions of the country.
  3. Compare American, British, and German banking methods and policy during the World War.
  4. Describe in detail one of the following financial panics: 1837; 1873; 1893; 1907.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. What have been the causes of the rehabilitation of silver?
  2. What are the arguments for and against an embargo upon gold exports from the United States at this time?
  3. Describe the business of an American bond house.
  4. Discuss critically the following statement made early in 1916:
    “The recent enactment of the Federal Reserve Act only made our sudden riches more embarrassing, for that Act had so changed our system of banking that every $18 of gold in the banks created $82 worth of loanable credit, whereas formerly, of every $100, $25 had to sit in the vaults while only $75 went out to work in the form of loans. In other words (as a result of the War and our banking reform), we not only had enormously more gold, but every dollar of it went a good deal further than ever before in financing new enterprises. This is the situation today.”
  5. Give a critical analysis of the policies of the Federal Reserve Board.
  6. Compare banking in France and England since the signing of the armistice.
  7. Why has London been the financial center of the world? What are the prospects that New York will in time displace London?

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
CORPORATE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION
[May 3, 1920]

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. In discussing the problems of capitalistic monopoly, it has been stated that “the matter at issue is a question, less of relative ‘economy’ of monopoly and competition than of the kind of economic organization best calculated to give us the kind of society we want.” Explain and discuss.
  2. What are the methods of measuring depreciation? What different policies with respect to depreciation have been advocated in the regulation of public utility rates?
  3. Discuss comparatively the public regulation of railway accounts in England, France, and the United States.
  4. To what extent do the reports of the Bureau of the Census furnish data upon corporate enterprise in the United States?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Sketch the history of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and its enforcement.
  2. Give a brief account of the functions and work of the United States Bureau of Corporations.
  3. Trace the evolution of the equipment of the modern railway.
  4. Outline the history of railroads in Germany.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. What are the purposes and customary scope of “blue sky” laws? What is the case for and against such legislation?
  2. What connections exist between banks and industrial combinations in the United States? Contrast the situation here with that in France.
  3. Compare American and German public policy toward industrial combinations.
  4. Give a critical analysis of the present railway rate structure in the United States.
  5. Discuss the Plumb Plan for the ownership and operation of the railways of the United States.
  6. Discuss the effects of the great inter-oceanic canals upon inland and ocean transportation.
  7. What are the problems of excess profits taxation?

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
PUBLIC FINANCE
[May 3, 1920]

Answer six questions.

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. To what extent, if at all, and in what manner, are taxes a contributing cause of the present “high cost of living”?
  2. Discuss the proposal to tax individuals in proportion to their expenditure rather than their income, thus exempting savings.
  3. Describe the statistical features of the Census Bureau’s annual reports on “Financial Statistics of Cities.”
  4. What course has been taken by the reform of municipal accounting in the United States?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Outline the development of the science of public finance.
  2. Give a critical account of the Independent Treasury of the United States.
  3. Trace the history of budget plans in American state and municipal government.
  4. Compare the financing of the American and French Revolutions.
  5. Give a brief historical account of direct taxation in Germany.
  6. Develop and defend a classification of public revenues.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Compare government monopolies and internal revenue taxes as means of raising national funds.
  2. Analyze the financial results of the operations of the United States Post Office.
  3. Upon what bases should public utilities be valued and paid for when taken over by municipal authorities?
  4. “Taxation, while necessarily involving political and social considerations, is essentially a problem in national economies.” Do you agree? State your reasons.
  5. The practice of exempting government bonds from taxation is a pernicious American custom.” Comment.
  6. Discuss the effects of national prohibition upon public finance.
  7. Give a critical analysis of excess profits taxation.

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
LABOR PROBLEMS
[May 3, 1920]

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Discuss the causes of the prevailing industrial unrest.
  2. To what extent and for what purposes should the state limit the hours of labor?
  3. Describe the technique of analyzing workingmen’s budgets.
  4. What statistical problems are involved in measuring labor turnover? What methods of measurement are most satisfactory?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Compare trade unions and trade gilds, and the industrial conditions under each.
  2. Give a brief historical account of the employment of children in industry.
  3. Outline the development of the Railway Brotherhoods.
  4. Trace the history of the German Social Democratic Party.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Analyze labor conditions in one of the following industries: (a) cotton manufacture; (b) coal mining; (c) steel manufacture.
  2. Discuss the main points of economic policy in the “reconstruction program” of the British Labor Party.
  3. What is the extent and importance of industrial unemployment?
  4. Discuss the present status of women in industry.
  5. Characterize the organization and results of the Washington industrial conferences of 1919-20.
  6. Discuss the aims, scope, and methods of employee representation in business management.
  7. What public policy should be adopted in regard to labor organizations among government employees?

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
ECONOMICS OF AGRICULTURE
[May 3, 1920]

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. To what extent are wages of management an element of cost in American agriculture?
  2. What are the interrelations of cold storage and prices of farm products?
  3. What statistical records are desirable for efficient operation of a dairy farm?
  4. To what extent and in what particulars is depreciation involved in farm accounting?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Describe the agrarian revolution in England.
  2. Sketch the movement of the wheat belt in the United States since colonial times.
  3. Give a brief historical account of farm tenancy in the United States.
  4. Trace connections between the tariff policy of the United States and wool growing in this country.
  5. Outline the development of the work of the United States Department of Agriculture.

C

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Discuss the relations between climate and the productivity of land.
  2. Indicate the origins of the more important breeds of live stock. What contributions, if any, has this country made to the improvement of the breeds?
  3. Describe the effects of the World War upon the wool market.
  4. What are the relations between the wages of agricultural and factory labor?
  5. Compare the use and importance of artificial fertilizers in American and European agriculture.
  6. Give a brief critical analysis of the Federal Farm Loan Act.
  7. What are the causes of the increasing urbanization of population in the United States?

_________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

DIVISION SPECIAL EXAMINATION
STATISTICS
[May 3, 1920]

Answer six questions

A

Take from this group at least two and not more than four

  1. Draft a set of rules for the construction of statistical tables.
  2. Explain “the necessity of the logical agreement of magnitudes from which an average is to be computed” and compare this with the requirement of “the greatest possible homogeneity of series.” Which of these requirements seems to you more difficult of fulfilment? Why?
  3. Describe the short-cut method of calculating the arithmetic mean from a frequency table. What assumptions underlie this method?
  4. Explain briefly: (a) discrete series; (b) mode; (c) Lorenz curve; (d) average of position; (e) Galton graph.
  5. Explain the different methods of eliminating secular trend in historical series.
  6. Describe the construction and characteristics of a logarithmic curve. What are the merits and defects of such a curve?
  7. What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of chain indices and fixed-base indices in the measurement of changes in the price level?

B

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Give a brief account of the evolution of Statistics.
  2. Outline the history of the Bureau of the Census.
  3. Trace the development of price statistics in England.
  4. What has been the history of wage statistics in the United States?

C

Take from this group at least one and not more than two

  1. Discuss the different methods employed in estimating population.
  2. What are the principal difficulties in the collection of mortality statistics?
  3. Discuss critically current statistics of foreign trade in this country and abroad.
  4. What units have been employed in the statistics of railways? Analyze and appraise the different units.
  5. What are the best sources of statistical data upon the following subjects:

(a) Bank clearings in the United States;
(b) Resources and liabilities of banks of New York City;
(c) Bank rates in the London and Paris money markets;
(d) The monetary stock of the United States;
(e) Changes in the value of gold in England?

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Divisional and General Examinations, 1915-1975. Box 6, Bound volume Divisional Examinations 1916-1927 (From the Private Library of Arthur H. Cole).

Image Source: Widener Library from Harvard Class Album 1920.

Categories
Exam Questions Fields Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. Graduate Theory of International Trade Exam. Machlup and Harberger, 1951

 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Theory of International Trade

Drs. Fritz Machlup and Arnold C. Harberger
May 28, 1951

Answer three questions including I.

I.

Assume that Country A has been importing 1,000,000 tons of X per period over a duty of $2.00 per ton. Domestic production has been 11,000,000 tons per period, the domestic price $6.00 per ton. Pure competition prevails among domestic and foreign producers. Demand and supply conditions remain stable everywhere; the elasticity of domestic demand is -1.0, the elasticity of domestic supply is + 0.5, and the elasticity of the foreign excess supply is infinite.

Now a tariff reduction of $1.00 per ton is granted for imports up to a certain maximum per period; imports in excess of this quota are permitted but subject to the full duty of $2.00. State the effects of the tariff reduction upon domestic price, domestic production, and total imports of X and upon customs revenue, if the tariff quote is

(a) 1,000,000 tons of X per period;
(b) 2,000,000 tons of X per period; and
(c) 4,000,000 tons of X per period.

[Your calculations need not be exact.]

 

II.

Comment on the following statements and discuss whether and under what conditions they may be true or false.

  1. A country cannot gain from imposing an export tax if the foreign demand for its exports is of greater than unit elasticity.
  2. In a country with a relative scarcity of capital the real interest rate will be higher if a general import tariff is imposed than it would be under free trade.
  3. For every situation in which trade is encumbered by tariffs, there exists a situation of unencumbered trade in which all countries involved would be better off.

 

III.

Would you expect “national welfare” in Country A to increase, decrease, or remain the same as a result of

  1. an increase in foreign demand for the export product(s) of country A?
  2. an increase in the foreign excess supply of the product(s) which country A imports?
  3. an improvement in technology in Country A?
  4. a tariff imposed on its imports by Country A?
  5. a tax imposed on its exports by Country A?
  6. a tariff imposed on imports from Country A by country B (the rest of the world)?
  7. a tax Imposed on exports to country A by country B (the rest of the world)?

Give reasons for your answers.

 

IV.

It is generally agreed that the receipt of dollar grants by a country will raise its maximum level of real consumption plus investment. Little has been said in the literature about changes in the relative shares of the increased total which go to the various factors of production. On the basis of the analysis developed in this course, what can be said about the circumstances under which these relative shares are likely to change? Are they likely to change at all? If so, in what direction? If not, why not? In your discussion, assume continuous full employment in all (both granting and receiving) countries, and assume that the grant is used fully by the receiving country.

Source: Johns Hopkins University. Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives.  Department of Political Economy Series 6. Box 3/1, Folder: “Department of Political Economy. Graduate Exams, 1933-1965.”

Categories
Bibliography Fields Harvard

Harvard. Short Bibliography of Strikes and Boycotts for “Serious-minded Students”, Ripley, 1910

 

Strikes and Boycotts are the subjects  covered in the brief 1910 bibliography provided by Professor William Z. Ripley, and transcribed below along with links to digital copies of the items found at archive.org, hathitrust.org, as well as at other on-line archives.

In 1910 Harvard published 43 short bibliographies covering “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”, about half of which were dedicated to particular topics in economics and economic sociology. The project was coordinated by Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, Francis G. Peabody.

Previously posted bibliographies from Peabody’s “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”:

Economic Theory by Professor Frank Taussig

Taxation by Professor Charles J. Bullock

Trade Unionism by Professor William Z. Ripley

Social Insurance by Dr. Robert Franz Foerster

Economics of Socialism by Professor Thomas Nixon Carver

_____________________________

From the Prefatory Note:

The present list represents an attempt to make this connection between the teaching of the University and a need of the modern world. Each compiler has had in mind, not a superficial reader, nor yet a learned scholar, but an intelligent and serious-minded student, who is willing to read substantial literature if it be commended to him as worth his while and is neither too voluminous nor too inaccessible. To such an inquirer each editor makes suggestions concerning the contents, spirit or doctrine of a book, not attempting a complete description or a final judgment, but as though answering the preliminary question of a student, “What kind of book is this?” The plan thus depends for its usefulness on the competency of the editors concerned, and each editor assumes responsibility for the section to which his name is prefixed.

Source: Prefatory Note by Francis G. Peabody. A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, p. vi.

_____________________________

IV.8. STRIKES AND BOYCOTTS
WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY

Most of the general treatises on trades unions (q. v.) devote much attention to the subject of strikes. There are few books devoted solely to the subject. Among the best references, including some of those already in the list of references under Trade Unionism, are the following:

Adams, Thomas S., and Sumner, Helen L. Labor problems. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1905, pp. 175-212, with bibliographical notes.
Commons, John R., editor. Trade unionism and labor problems. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1905, pp. xiv, 628.
Gilman, Nicholas Paine. Methods of industrial peace. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1904, pp. x, 436.
Nicholson, Joseph Shield. Strikes and social problems. London: A. & C. Black, 1896, pp. viii, 238.
Hall, Fred S. Sympathetic strikes and sympathetic lock-outs. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, 1898, pp. 118.

A valuable study of a perplexing sort of conflict. Also bibliography.

Howell, George. The conflicts of labor and capital. Second and revised edition. London: Macmillan & Co., 1890, pp. xxxvi, 536.
Adams, Thomas S. Violence in labor disputes. Publications of the American Economic Association (February), 1906, pp. 176-218.

Strike statistics are now compiled by all the leading countries of the world. The official reports are currently reported and reviewed in the Bulletins of the United States Bureau of Labor.
The best discussion of the facts is found in the following references:

Hanger, G. W. W. Strikes and lockouts in the United States, 1881-1900. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor, No. 54.
Farnam, Henry W. The quantitative study of the labor movement. Publications of the American Economic Association (February), 1906, pp. 160-175.
Cross, Ira. Strike statistics. Publications of the American Statistical Association, No. 82, 1908, pp. 169-194.

The law relating to industrial conflicts is fully discussed in the “Final report of the United States Industrial Commission” (Washington, 1902). The development of the law of conspiracy is discussed in the “Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science” (1909). Other references will be found [in the other Ripley bibliography] under the legal aspects of Trade Unionism.

The use of injunctions in labor disputes is technically discussed in John R. Commons’ “Trade unionism and labor problems” (p. 156), with many further references. A special issue of the “Studies of the American Economic Association” in 1893 gives a fair account. Consult also the “Final report of the United States Industrial Commission” and the “Report of the Massachusetts Commission on Relations of Employer and Employed,” 1904, p. 58.

The illuminating Australian experience is best treated by Dr. Victor S. Clark in his “Labour Movement in Australasia” (New York, 1906); as also by D. Knoop, “Industrial conciliation and arbitration” (London, 1905).

Canadian experience under the new Industrial Disputes Act is described by Dr. Victor S. Clark in Bulletins Nos. 76 and 86, United States Bureau of Labor, 1908 and 1910; and by Dr. Adam Shortt in Publications of the American Economic Association, Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting, 1908, pp. 158-177.

 

Source: Teachers in Harvard University, A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, pp. 186-187.

Image Source: Harvard University Archives. William Zebina Ripley [photographic portrait, ca. 1910], J. E. Purdy & Co., J. E. P. & C. (1910).

Categories
Bibliography Fields Harvard Suggested Reading

Harvard. Short Bibliography of Trade Unionism for “Serious-minded Students”, Ripley, 1910

 

 

In 1910 Harvard published 43 short bibliographies covering “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”, about half of which were dedicated to particular topics in economics and economic sociology. The project was coordinated by Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, Francis G. Peabody.

Trade Unionism is the “allied subject” covered in the bibliography provided by Professor William Z. Ripley and transcribed below along with links to digital copies of the items found at archive.org, hathitrust.org, as well as at other on-line archives.

Previously posted bibliographies from “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”:

Economic Theory by Professor Frank Taussig.

Taxation by Professor Charles J. Bullock.

_____________________________

From the Prefatory Note:

The present list represents an attempt to make this connection between the teaching of the University and a need of the modern world. Each compiler has had in mind, not a superficial reader, nor yet a learned scholar, but an intelligent and serious-minded student, who is willing to read substantial literature if it be commended to him as worth his while and is neither too voluminous nor too inaccessible. To such an inquirer each editor makes suggestions concerning the contents, spirit or doctrine of a book, not attempting a complete description or a final judgment, but as though answering the preliminary question of a student, “What kind of book is this?” The plan thus depends for its usefulness on the competency of the editors concerned, and each editor assumes responsibility for the section to which his name is prefixed.

Source: Prefatory Note by Francis G. Peabody. A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, p. vi.

_____________________________

IV.7. TRADE UNIONISM
WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY

Webb, Sidney and Beatrice. Industrial democracy. New edition in one volume. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1902, pp. lxii, 929.

The most elaborate and comprehensive treatise on the subject, sympathetic and yet well reasoned. Contains no descriptive matter of American conditions.

 

Webb, Sidney and Beatrice. History of trade unionism. New edition. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1902, pp. xxxiv, 558.

The best account of the struggle of the working classes for industrial rights. Confined to English experience.

 

Commons, John R., editor. Trade unionism and labor problems. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1905, pp. xiv, 628.

A collection of the most authoritative articles by specialists on every phase of the matter. Liberal and progressive in point of view.

 

Adams, Thomas S., and Sumner, Helen L. Labor problems. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1905, pp. xv, 579.

A convenient summary and text-book, with good bibliographical notes and references for further reading. Sympathetic and judicial in tone.

 

Ely, Richard T. The labor movement in America. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1905, pp. xvi, 399.

 

Reports of the United States Industrial Commission. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900-02.

In Volumes XIV [Capital and Labor Employed in Manufactures and General Business], XV [Immigration and Education], XVII [Labor Organizations, Labor Disputes, and Arbitration and on Railroad Labor] and XIX [Final Report] will be found the largest collection of original material ever made in America. The testimony of workmen and employers is critically summarized in the “Final Report” in Volume XIX. This report in itself is a comprehensive and fair treatise on the subject. In Volume XVII the history of American unionism is fully set forth.

 

Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1906—.

A series of monographs by specialists affords the most reliable account of various phases of the movement. Among these papers especially valuable are: J. B. Kennedy’s “The beneficiary features of American trades unions” (November — December, 1908), and A. M. [Aaron Morton] Sakolski’s “The finances of American trades unions” (March — April, 1906).

______________

The legal aspects of trade unionism are discussed in the “Reports of the United States Industrial Commission” [e.g. Volume V Labor Legislation] and in the following special articles:

Seager, Henry R. The legal status of trade unionism in the United Kingdom, with conclusions applicable to the United States. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXII, 1907, pp. 611-629.

Wyman, Bruce. The maintenance of the open shop. The Green Bag (January), 1905, pp. 21-29.

Clark, Lindley D. The present legal status of organized labor in the United States. Journal of Political Economy, Chicago (March), 1905, pp. 173-200.

Collective bargaining is best treated technically in the “Reports of the United States Industrial Commission,” and in the following monographs:

Hilbert, F. W. Trade agreements in the United States. [sic, probably Trade-Union Agreements in the Iron Molders’ Union] Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1906. [Note: Frederick William Hilbert died February 17, 1906.]

Schaffner, Margaret A. The labor contract from industrial to collective bargaining. Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, No. 182 (December), 1907, pp. 182.

Ashley, Wm. James. The adjustment of wages. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1903, pp. 362.

 

The policy of trade unions respecting restriction of output is admirably described with a wealth of material from England and the United States in the “Eleventh special report of the United States Bureau of Labor” (Washington, 1904).

Statistics of the growth of trades unionism all over the world are currently published by the New York State Bureau of Labor. The results are summarized by W. Z. Ripley in the World’s Work for November, 1903, and brought down to date in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1910.

 

Source: Teachers in Harvard University, A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, pp. 183-185.

Image Source: Harvard University Archives. William Zebina Ripley [photographic portrait, ca. 1910], J. E. Purdy & Co., J. E. P. & C. (1910). .

 

 

 

Categories
Bibliography Fields Harvard Suggested Reading

Harvard. Short Bibliography of Taxation for “Serious-minded Students”, Bullock, 1910

 

 

In 1910 Harvard published 43 short bibliographies covering “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”, about half of which were dedicated to particular topics in economics and economic sociology. The project was coordinated by Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, Francis G. Peabody.

Taxation is the “allied subject” covered in the bibliography provided by Professor Charles J. Bullock and transcribed below along with links to digital copies of the items found at archive.org, hathitrust.org, as well as at other on-line archives.

Previously posted bibliographies from “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”:

Economic Theory by Professor Frank Taussig.

_____________________________

From the Prefatory Note:

The present list represents an attempt to make this connection between the teaching of the University and a need of the modern world. Each compiler has had in mind, not a superficial reader, nor yet a learned scholar, but an intelligent and serious-minded student, who is willing to read substantial literature if it be commended to him as worth his while and is neither too voluminous nor too inaccessible. To such an inquirer each editor makes suggestions concerning the contents, spirit or doctrine of a book, not attempting a complete description or a final judgment, but as though answering the preliminary question of a student, “What kind of book is this?” The plan thus depends for its usefulness on the competency of the editors concerned, and each editor assumes responsibility for the section to which his name is prefixed.

Source: Prefatory Note by Francis G. Peabody. A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, p. vi.

_____________________________

II. 3. TAXATION
Charles J. Bullock

Adams, Henry Carter.The science of finance. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1889, pp. xiii, 573.

Treats of the principles of taxation and of national and local taxation in the United States.

 

Addresses and Proceedings of the Annual Conferences of the International Tax Association. [Conferences on State and Local Taxation. TheAssociation changed name from “National Tax Association” to “International Tax Association” in 1907.]

The International Tax Association, Columbus, Ohio. Valuable collections of papers by recognized experts on current problems in American taxation.

[First National Conference (1907); Second International Conference (1908); Third International Conference (1909); Fourth International Conference (1910)]

 

Bastable, Charles Francis. Public finance. Third revised edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1903, pp. xxiv, 780.

Particularly valuable for its treatment of European tax systems and useful for its discussion of the principles of taxation.

 

Bullock, Charles J., editor. Selected readings in public finance. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1906, pp. viii, 671. [Second edition, 1920]

Contains selections from a considerable number of works on finance and taxation.

 

Ely, Richard T., and Finley, J. H. Taxation in American states and cities. New York: T.Y. Crowell & Co., 1888, pp. XX, 544.

A pioneer work in American taxation, based upon the author’s investigations as member of the Maryland Tax Commission.

 

Fillebrown, Charles Bowdoin. The A B C of taxation. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1909, pp. ix, 229.

A brief and interesting presentation of single-tax doctrine by a successful man of affairs.

 

Howe, Frederic C. Taxation and taxes in the United States under the internal revenue system. New York: T.Y. Crowell & Co., 1896, pp. xiv, 293.

A valuable history of the internal taxes levied by our federal government.

 

Means, David MacGregor. The methods of taxation. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1909, pp. xi, 380.

Valuable on the critical rather than the constructive side.

 

Mill, John Stuart. Principles of political economy. London, 1848; [7th ed. of 1870] edited with an introduction by W. J. Ashley. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909, pp. liii, 1013.

The chapters of the fifth book that deal with taxation are worthy of careful study.

 

Rowntree, Joseph, and Sherwell, Arthur. The taxation of the liquor trade. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906, pp. xxii, 537. [Second edition, 1908]

Has special reference to English conditions, but treats of the taxation of the liquor trade in the United States.

 

Seligman, E. R. A. Essays in taxation. Third edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1900, pp. 434. [Ninth edition, 1921]

Contains important essays upon the general property tax, corporation taxes, the inheritance tax, betterment taxes, etc.

 

Seligman, E. R. A. Progressive taxation in theory and practice. Second revised edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1909, pp. v, 334.

A valuable critical survey of theories, ancient and modern; considers also the legislation of various countries.

 

Shearman, T. G. Natural taxation. New edition. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1898, pp. 268. [Third edition, 1915]

An able and authoritative exposition of single-tax doctrine by a disciple of Henry George.

 

Smith, Adam. The wealth of nations. (1776.) Edited with notes by Edwin Cannan. 2 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904, pp. xlviii, 462; vii, 506.

The second chapter of the fifth book of the “Wealth of Nations” should be read by every student of taxation.

 

Walker, Francis A. Double taxation in the United States. New York: The Columbia University Press, 1895, pp. 132.

A careful study of a vexed problem of great importance in the United States.

 

Wells, David A. The theory and practice of taxation. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1900, pp. 648.

Important for its discussion of federal taxation and the working of the general property tax in the United States.

 

West, Max. The inheritance tax. Second revised edition. New York: The Columbia University Press (The Macmillan Company, agents), 1908, pp. 249.

An exhaustive study of inheritance taxation in both its theoretical and practical aspects.

 

Weston, Stephen F. Principles of justice in taxation. New York: The Columbia University Press (The Macmillan Company, agents), 1903, pp. 299.

Useful for its discussion of the different theories of just taxation.

 

Source: Teachers in Harvard University, A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, pp. 54-56.

Image Source: Charles J. Bullock in Harvard Album 1915.

Categories
Economics Programs Fields Harvard

Harvard. Report of Economics Department Visiting Committee. Brimmer, 1974

 

The first African American to have served as a governor of the Federal Reserve System  (1966-1974) was the Harvard economics Ph.D. (1957), Andrew F. Brimmer (1926-2012). Brimmer was a loyal alumnus who served his doctoral alma mater on the Harvard Board of  Overseers and as a member/chair of the visiting committee for the economics department

This post provides the 37 page text of the 1974 Visiting Committee Report on conditions in the Harvard economics department. The topics of radical economics, hiring, tenure and promotion, and the deep dissatisfaction of about half of the economics graduate students with Harvard’s Ph.D. curriculum are all covered in this fairly remarkable document.

_________________________

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO VISIT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

[Andrew F. Brimmer, Chairman (April 15, 1974)]

I. Introduction

General Impression: The Committee found the Department of Economics under a great deal of stress, and it left with considerable concern for its future effectiveness. The Committee observed some disagreements within the senior faculty, but the major division appears to be between the latter as a group and perhaps half the graduate students. The factors giving rise to this division are numerous and complex, but one element stands out above all others: a substantial proportion of the graduate students are convinced that the senior faculty has little interest in teaching them and is not concerned with their welfare. A strong sense of alienation pervades the Department, and the frustration is evident on the part of a significant number of nontenured faculty members as well as among graduate students. On the other hand, the undergraduate concentrators seem to be much more contented than they were a few years ago.

The Committee was deeply troubled about this state of affairs—because on previous visits it had found a far different situation. For example, in its Report for the academic years 1969-71, it concluded:

“…The Department of Economics is in excellent condition. In addition to first-class leadership and fine internal condition, it enjoys the best of reputations. Its graduate school received the top rating in the recent canvas made by the American Council on Education. As we were able to see for ourselves during the visitations, the standard of teaching is very high and the work produced impressive….” 1/

1/ “Report of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics for the Academic Years, 1969-71,” November 22, 1971, Number Two, p. 7

Against that background, the condition of the Department at the time of the last visit was particularly disturbing. A significant proportion of the members had served on the Committee during previous visits, and they were able to compare the present atmosphere to that which prevailed on previous occasions. For them, the sharpness of the deterioration in attitudes and relationships within the Department was particularly distressing.

Having reported these pessimistic impressions at the very outset, it must also be stressed that the Department of Economics at Harvard remains at the very forefront of the economics profession, For instance, at the time of the Committee’s visit, a senior member of the faculty [Wassily Leontief] was absent—because he was in Europe to accept the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics, thus joining two other colleagues in the Department [Simon Kuznets (1971), Kenneth Arrow (1972)] who have received this signal honor. In a number of fields (especially in Economic Theory and Econometrics), the Department is at or close to the apex of the profession. Its members are also conducting first-class work in most of the applied fields. Moreover, as discussed more fully below, the Department has appointed a number of committees to re-examine its program. The expected recommendations—if adopted—will undoubtedly correct some of the deficiencies noted in this report. Thus, while economics at Harvard is going through a number of strains, it is by no means on the edge of dissolution.

The Visitation: The Committee met in Cambridge on the evening of December 10 and all day December 11, 1973. Fifteen of the 20 members of the Committee were present for all or a substantial part of the visit. An agenda identifying the main topics to be covered—along with supporting material—had been distributed in advance.

The issue of “Radical Economics” at Harvard was a matter of considerable interest to a number of Committee members, and several had requested that it be given a high priority on the agenda. Reflecting this interest, a number of contemporary items of information were circulated. In addition, an excerpt, “Much Ado About Economics,” from James B. Conant’s My Several Lives, was sent to Committee members. In this chapter, Dr. Conant discussed the controversy evoked by the report of the Committee which visited the Department of Economics in 1950. In its public report, the Committee (through its chairman) criticized the Department for a lack of “balance with respect to the viewpoints of its members.” In essence, The Committee at that time found that the Department had a number of “Socialists,” “Keynesians,” and “advocates of Government control of the economy”; but it found no one on the faculty with opposing views. It concluded that the situation should be corrected. The criticism against the Department which attracted the present Committee’s interest was the charge that political bias on the part of senior members of the faculty influenced the decision not to give tenure to one or more younger members identified as “radical economists.” So, while the specific facts were different, the basic issues were quite similar.

Several other specific issues had been identified in advance, and one or more members of the Visiting Committee had been asked to take responsibility to see that they were not overlooked. Among these were: (1) the quality of undergraduate teaching; (2) the quality of instruction in the first-year graduate courses, and (3) the Department’s affirmative action program.

During its visit, the Committee met separately with representatives of the tenured and non-tenured-faculty. It also met separately with undergraduates. The Committee was invited to a specially-called meeting of the Graduate Economics Club, and a number of faculty members also attended. Several of the Committee members also attended some of the classes which were then in session. On the basis of these contacts, the Committee formed a number of impressions and reached a number of conclusions. These are discussed in the following sections. The Committee also made several suggestions to the Department, and some of these are indicated in the text. Finally, the Committee weighed several recommendations, but agreement could not be reached on some of them. The outcome of that discussion is reported in the final section of this report. At the Chairman’s request, several of the Committee members prepared written accounts of their impressions, and others communicated orally with him following the visit. The Chairman drew extensively on these accounts — as well as on notes taken during the visit — in the preparation of this report.

 

II. Structure of the Department

The Department of Economics at Harvard is a fairly large organization. As shown in Table 1, there were 132 persons holding appointments in the Department during the 1973-74 academic year. Fifty-two of these had primary appointments in the Department, and seven held joint appointments with other units of the University. Three were visitors from other institutions. There were also 70 teaching fellows all of whom were graduate students. There were also 11 persons from other faculties offering instruction in the Department. Four of these had their primary appointments in the Kennedy School and two in the Business School.

Table 1. Faculty of the Department of Economics
Academic Year, 1973-74
Economics Faculty Other Faculty Offering Instruction
Professional Chairs 10 Kennedy School
Professors 10 Professors 2
Associate Professors 6 Associate Professors 1
Assistant Professors 14 Lecturer 1
Lecturers 12 Sub-Total 4
Sub-Total 52
Joint Faculty Business School
Professors 5 Professor 1
Assistant Professors 2 Assistant Professor 1
Sub-Total 7 Sub-Total 2
Visiting Faculty Other Schools
Professor 2 Professors 3
Lecturers 1 Associate Professors 2
Sub-Total 3 Sub-Total 5
Total 62 Total 11
Teaching Fellows 70
Grand Total 132

The size of the Department has been fairly stable in recent years — following a noticeable expansion during the first half of the 1960’s. For example, in the Fall of 1959-60, there were 55 members; by the Fall of 1966-67, there were 118. So the 132 in the Department during 1973-74 represented a gain of 12 per cent over the last seven years. It should be noted, however, that all of the members reported do not devote full time to the Department. The average teaching fellow spends about one-third of this time in the classroom while the remainder is devoted to research (primarily in the preparation of dissertations). Most of the Assistant Professors teach roughly half time and are involved in some variety of research for the remainder. Those members holding joint appointments are also engaged in on-going research for a significant part of their work load. Finally, during any given period, a number of the members will be on leave to pursue independent projects. For the 1973-74 academic year, eight faculty members were scheduled to be on leave for the full year. Three others were to be absent in the Fall term and four others during the Spring. A number of faculty members also had reduced teaching loads because they had bought off a fraction of their time via research grants. The figures in Table 2 show the number of faculty members on a full-time equivalent basis for each rank.

As indicated in Table 3, roughly half of the Economics Department’s faculty (excluding teaching fellows) have tenure. However, quite contrary to the impression frequently gotten by casual observers—the tenured members of the Department carry a sizable share of the teaching load at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Moreover, as shown in Table 4, the proportion of undergraduate courses taught by the tenured faculty has risen significantly over the last ten years. In contrast, the proportion of graduate courses taught by the senior members has declined somewhat. During the 1972-73 academic year (not shown in Table 4), tenured faculty taught 20 of the 36 undergraduate courses offered. There were 18 tenured members in residence during the year, and 16 of them taught at least a one-semester course offered primarily for undergraduates. Moreover, all of them were available to advise on theses and to supervise independent work. Nevertheless, teaching fellows still carry a significant share of the total teaching load in the Department.

Table 2. Number of Economics Faculty Members on a Full-Time Equivalent Basis,
By Rank
Academic
Year
Full
Professors
Assoc. & Ass’t. Professors Lecturers Teaching
Fellows
1973-74 15.75 11.05 4.25 2.6
Est. for 1974-75 14.25 12.00 2.00 19.1

 

Table 3. Tenure Status of the Economics Faculty
Academic Years 1970-71 and 1971-72
Academic
Year
Total
Faculty
Tenured Professors Non-Tenured Professors
Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
1970-71 71 29 41 42 59
1971-72 53 25 47 28 53

 

Table 4. Number of Economics Courses Taught, By Status of Faculty,
Selected Academic Years
Term and Status
of Faculty
Number of Undergraduate Courses
(Exc. Junior & Senior Tutorials)
Number of Graduate
Courses
1953-54 1962-63 1971-72 1953-54 1962-63 1971-72
Fall Term
Tenured 6 8 14 23 25 25
Non-Tenured 8 6 11 5 5 12
Total 14 14 25 28 30 37
Tenured as per cent of total 43 57 56 82 83 68
Spring Term
Tenured 7 6 15 24 29 27
Non-Tenured 10 11 11 5 5 11
Total 17 17 26 29 34 38
Tenured as per cent of total 41 35 58 83 85 71

 

III. Trends in Enrollment

Undergraduates: The Department has continued to attract a substantial proportion of all undergraduates to its courses. For example, it is estimated that nearly half of all undergraduates were attracted at least to Economics 10—the introduction to economics. Fall term enrollment in this course in recent years is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Fall Term Enrollment in Economics 10
Year Number Year Number
1965 774 1970 553
1966 828 1971 570
1967 734 1972 706
1968 732 1973 987
1969 535

These figures indicate that enrollment in the introductory course has surpassed the previous peak set in the Fall of 1966. In fact, while enrollment declined by over one-third between 1966 and 1969, the recovery in enrollment since the low point was reached amounted to more than four-fifths through the Fall of 1973.

The Department continues to attract about 7 per cent of all undergraduates as concentrators. Trends over recent years are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Undergraduate Enrollment
Academic
Year
Number of Economics Concentrators
(3 years)
Per Cent of All Concentrators Harvard/
Radcliffe
Ratio
Course Enroll. Below 300 Level
(Student Sem.)
Economics as Per Cent of Arts & Sciences
1968-69 346 7.4 4.4 3,510 6.4
1969-70 292 6.4 5.5 3,437 6.4
1970-71 288 6.2 4.2 3,588 6.8
1971-72 301 6.4 4.5 3,542 7.0
1972-73 315 6.7 3.8 N.A. N.A.

These results have been achieved in the face of expanding competition from new concentration options offered elsewhere in Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges. The Department’s share of concentrators has been rising somewhat in recent years. However, it still remains well below what it was in the past-for example, 9.8 per cent in 1953 and 8.6 per cent in 1966. Moreover, economics continues to appeal substantially less to Radcliffe students than it does to those in Harvard College. Thus, the figures reported above suggest that men are about four times as likely to concentrate in economics as are women. This situation has existed for many years, and the presence of several women on the economics faculty seems not to have enhanced the Department’s appeal to women undergraduates. In the years ahead, the Department plans to place special emphasis on broadening enrollment of Harvard and Radcliffe undergraduates.

The figures presented above also show that the Department’s courses above the introductory (but below the graduate) level have been competing reasonably well in comparison with other undergraduate offerings.

Graduate Students: The figures in Table 7 show trends in graduate student enrollment and doctorates granted in recent years.

Table 7. Graduate Enrollment and Doctorates Awarded
Academic Year Graduate Students Doctorates Awarded
1968-69 159 28
1969-70 183 28
1970-71 171 33
1971-72 151 37
1972-73 161 28
1973-74 158

These data suggest that roughly one-sixth to one-fifth of the graduate students enrolled complete the requirements and receive the doctorate each year. As a rule, the typical Ph.D. candidate spends about two years taking courses and in other ways preparing for the generals examinations—normally taken toward the end of the second year. The next phase of the work involves the preparation of a dissertation and a special examination. The median time covered by this phase was in the neighborhood of 32 months for the group completing the Ph.D. degree in 1964-65, compared with 57 months for those doing so in 1954-55. Since the mid-1960’s, the median time probably has been shorted further.

As shown in Table 8, the range of specialization of those completing the Ph.D. in economics at Harvard continues to be quite wide. Among the various fields, however, Economic Development continues to be the most popular field. It accounted for about one-fifth of degrees granted during the four years shown. Money and Banking and Econometrics (the next most popular fields) each accounted for about one-tenth of the degrees awarded. Several of the traditional fields (such as Economic Theory, International Trade, Labor Economics, and Public Finance) each accounted for about 5 per cent of the total number of degrees. The emergence of several newer fields of interest—such as Urban Economics, Environmental Economics, and Socio-Economic Structure—should also be noted.

Table 8. Fields of Specialization of Ph.D. Recipients, Selected Years
Special Field 1965-66 1967-68 1971-72 1972-73
TOTAL 29 35 37 28
1. Agriculture 1 1
2. Chinese Studies 1 1
3. Comparative Economic Systems 1
4 Economic Development 4 12 6 6
5. Economic Growth 2
6. Economic History 1 2 3 1
7. Economic Theory 2 1 2 3
8. Econometrics 4 5 3
9. Environmental Economics 1
10. Health Economics 1 1
11. Industrial Organization 1 1 3
12. Input-Output Economics 2
13. International Trade 3 2 2 1
14. Labor Economics 2 2 3
15. Managerial Economics 1
16. Mathematical Economics 2 1
17. Money and Banking 1 3 4 4
18. Public Finance 2 2 2 1
19. Public Utilities 1
20. Regional Economics 1 2
21. Socio-Economic Structure 1
22. Soviet Economics 1 1
23. Statistics 1
24. Transportation 2 1 1
25. Urban Economics 4 2
26. Water Resources 1

 

IV. Departmental Atmosphere

As I have indicated above, the Committee encountered a greatly disturbed environment. One member of the Committee, who had participated in several previous visits, took special note of the strengths as well as the weaknesses within the Department:

“…As for the divisions in the department, the major one by far is between the senior faculty and about 50% of the graduate students. This is the problem that particularly distressed me, and the one which really threatens the future effectiveness of the department. There are, to be sure, disagreements within the senior faculty on issues dramatized by the decision (not to grant tenure to Professor Samuel Bowles). But I do not believe that — absent the unrest of the graduate students — they are beyond normal academic expectations or outside the capacity of the department for accommodation and compromise. Within the senior faculty there is still the civility and mutual respect needed for a functioning, self-governing department. I say this partly because I have recently visited another economics department where this condition does not obtain.

“The undergraduates seemed reasonably content with the program. …A minority of them are concerned about the loss of radical economists, but there was not as strong an undergraduate voice on this issue as might have been expected. As elsewhere, undergraduate radicalism is much weaker than it was five years ago.

“The complaints of junior faculty seemed to me much the same in kind and intensity as on previous visits. They have to do with the impersonality of the place, the lack of community, the inaccessibility of senior faculty, the division of the department into research empires which communicate very little with each other. In addition, junior faculty often express sympathy with the complaints of graduate students about the curriculum and the quality of instruction. At the same time, junior faculty do recognize the very great advantages of the Harvard environment for their own research and intellectual development. And they also participate with devotion and enthusiasm in the teaching programs of the department, and in the work of the various committees for curricular reform.

“The critical problem is the alienation of the graduate students. The most distressing thing is not that there are radicals among them, but that the general shortcomings of graduate instruction have alienated so many students of all persuasions. The radicals have evidently been able to capitalize on this discontent to make recruits among successive waves of students. Otherwise it is hard to understand how a movement which has waned rapidly in economics on other campuses and in other departments at Harvard continues to be so strong. It may also be true that some of the appeal of Bowles et. al. was that they cultivated a solicitude for students in contrast to the indifference perceived in “straight” faculty.

“In my own department radical dissent regarding the methodology of economics, the organization of our program, and the substance of economics has been expressed with emphasis but almost never with hostility and distrust toward the faculty as individuals or as an institution. So I found the tone of hostility and distrust at the Harvard (Graduate Economic Club) meeting very distressing. And of course I was quite impressed that about half of the graduate students were there, and that among them only one person said he was having a really good educational experience. I realize that the 50% present were not representative, but that’s a lot of students in itself and evidently the satisfied students didn’t have strong enough feelings to show up.

“The criticisms of first year courses are not new. We heard a couple of years ago that the theory course was a heavy dose of technical mathematics with no attempt at elucidation of basic economic content. Since then the course has shifted teachers again (frequent shifting is one of its problems), but remains a problem. It is much too large (maybe 80) for effective teaching. For the richest university, that is disgraceful.

“The general reputation of the senior faculty is that they are inaccessible, unapproachable, that they know and see only the few students who have gained access to their empires. No one serves for graduate students the functions performed by junior faculty for undergraduates, as teachers, advisers, tutors, friends. This really must be changed, even at some expense in research output and in outside activities of faculty. As things stand, I would not advise a bright … senior to go to the Harvard department unless he was of such a specialized interest and talent that he clearly could become a student protégé of one of the giants of the Harvard department.

“Perhaps the reduction in size of the graduate student body and the appointment of more non-tenure associate professors who will be active in graduate instruction will improve the situation. But that will not be enough. The senior faculty seems to me overly complacent about the situation, perhaps because they have been so close to it so long that they have forgotten what a decent and civilized community of faculty and graduate students is like.

“Unfortunately it will take time to recreate one at Harvard even if the faculty tries to do so. I don’t think it takes a drastic reformation of the curriculum so much as greater dedication to teaching, the use of smaller classes, assistants in first year courses, etc.”

Still another member of the Visiting Committee addressed himself to the atmosphere in the Department:

“…At the very outset, I think (one must not get) the impression of a deeper split within the senior faculty than actually exists. The division of opinion over Bowles involved only a small minority (not-by the way—a bloc that would hold together on many issues) and represented the sort of difference of opinion that any large faculty must expect to have. Had it not been for the size and intensity of the reaction from graduate students, nothing much would have followed from the Bowles decision. The real split in the department is between most of the senior faculty and a substantial fraction of the graduate student body. That, in turn, is a compound of radical dissidence and much broader student discontent with the teaching and conduct of the graduate program. The most striking aspect of the situation, in some ways, is how little the senior faculty seems to care. To give a clear picture of the department, I think (one must note) the contrast between the turbulence down below and the disaffection of some assistant professors on the one hand, and the fact that at the top things are really quite serene, large amounts of excellent research are getting done, and the faculty is justifiably pleased with its place and performance in the profession. That dichotomy is very important. The Overseers should realize that actions taken to fix some of the bad things may have unexpected effects on the good things…”

In a letter written following the visit, another member of the Committee also captured the essence of the prevailing conditions:

“… The distressing morale situation in the Economics Department shook me profoundly. I know enough to recognize the normal level of gripes in the special pleadings to which one is always open in such a situation, but the reactions of the various academic people on the Committee and that Law School professor at the (Graduate Economics Club) meeting confirm to me that things are really bad.

“…The argument about the radical professors probably pinpoints the entire problem, which is one of alienation between the tenured faculty (most of them, anyway) and all the rest of the department – faculty and students. There is a feeling that nobody cares…. Add to that the clear and unhappy failure to cope with the challenges it must meet (and perhaps was itself the cause of these problems), and the impatience and frustration of the younger people with the conventional … ‘received doctrine’ is only natural.

“…I have never heard the word ‘disappointment’ used so often. One shocking comment at the lunch with the non-tenured faculty was that, ‘It’s almost impossible to get a senior faculty person to read our research papers, but that’s easy in comparison with getting them to look at a reading list of a course we are preparing.’ The conscious and persistent rejection of discussion or Socratic teaching techniques in the classroom is hardly the proper way to help students to master a complex and essentially analytical rather than descriptive subject.

“The contrast with my days as an undergraduate is striking. We knew, took classes with, and spent time with all the great stars of our time—Hansen, Williams, Schumpeter, Mason, Leontief, Chamberlin, Haberler, Machlup, etc. All but the largest classes were full of active discussion and argument. The younger faculty was in ferment about Keynesianism and was just jamming it down the throats of the older faculty—who listened, argued, and clarified. I have never stopped going back to my class notes or the annotations in our books. The whole thing has never lost its relevance, fascination, or utility over the … years. This is what Harvard should do and must do to justify its reputation and importance, but that is precisely what it is not doing now.”

One member (who has visited the Department on several other occasions) focused on another impression shared by a number of others on the Committee. Following the visit, he wrote:

“…For the first time (in several years of) visitations (they were annual prior to the recent innovation)…I feel that the department is in great need of leadership. This conclusion is the result of a number of factors. Among them:

“1. While the department is unquestionably the finest in the country, the aura of leadership stems primarily from research activities. Teaching is another and a considerably spottier story. While the samples we observed were highly selective, they were not good.

“2. The furor over the radical economists does not seems to me to be related nearly as much to the facts as to the way in which the situation has been handled. That Harvard is alone among all universities in being in this position would tend to support this conclusion.

“3. The Harvard Economic Research Institute was a device for channeling research funds to the department. It has been allowed to run down completely. As much as faculty members may like the idea of additional funds being available, there seems no plan for replacing this source. Without such a plan and organized approach, it seems unlikely to me they will be replaced.

“4. I gather Ed Mason’s international activity is about to go out of business. I do not know the full story.

“5. The feeling persists among students (and this is not new) that the Economics Department lacks a ‘personality’ and interest in the student as an individual. As a result, they feel ‘at sea’.

“6. The impression I had from the students, at least, is that the number of socially relevant policy courses is limited (probably wrong) and that it is only the radical economists who are interested in teaching them (probably also wrong) and that these are the kinds of subjects on which students want to spend their time (with which I completely sympathize). If the students are right, this is a bad state of affairs. The fact that this is their perception of reality also seems to me a poor state of affairs.

“I am sure that each of these has its rationale and history. Yet, however much each requires the kind of careful handling one normally associates with management of professional staffs, none of these situations is necessary. Taken together, they worry me. My impression is that if we had time to study the issues truly important to the department’s future, we might well find they lacked the kind of forceful handling they should have….”

The assessment of the Department by a new member of the Committee was as follows:

“…My impression of the concern expressed by both the undergraduate and graduate students was threefold: (1) radical economics; (2) ‘relevant’ courses; and (3) a demonstrated concern for and interest in teaching and students. It seemed that the ‘radical’ economists were lecturing on topics of great interest to the students and were good, concerned teachers. Thus, I would like to emphasize that the Department not only broaden its course offerings but make evident, in a visible, systematic and continuing fashion that a priority function is teaching undergraduates and graduates…”

Again, it must be emphasized that the Committee’s exposure was necessarily short, and it may not have gotten a fully rounded picture of the prevailing situation. On the other hand, the fact that Committee members who have seen the Department over several years got the same impression must be given a great deal of weight.

 

V. Undergraduate Instruction Program

The Committee encountered few criticisms with respect to the undergraduate program offered by the Department of Economics. This was in noticeable contrast to the situation just a few years ago. At that time, students complained about the quality of tutorial programs and the lack of an opportunity to pursue joint majors with other substantive fields. During the 1972-73 academic year, the Department greatly expanded the amount of instruction provided on an individual or small group basis. As part of the initial effort, 20 sophomores received individual tutoring with highly favorable results. As a consequence, individual tutorial will become a permanent option — while group instruction will also be available for those students who prefer it. All concentrators have the option to participate in junior tutorial, and the option is being elected by an increasing number of such students. A senior thesis workshop has been in operation for more than a year. This program (led by a senior faculty member) provides an opportunity for seniors pursuing honors to explain and defend their research proposals well in advance of the March date on which the theses are due.

For the last few years, the Undergraduate Instruction Committee (UIC) has circulated questionnaires in all undergraduate courses in Economics to permit students to evaluate each course. The questions have focused on matters such as (1) the lecturer’s ability to hold interest; (2) overall evaluation of lectures; (3) overall evaluation of reading material; (4) helpfulness of sections; (5) preparation of section leaders; (6) fairness in grading; (7) attainment of initial expectations, and (8) overall impression of course. Each of these elements is rated on a scale of 9 for excellent, 7 for good, 5 for average, etc. The mean evaluation of undergraduate courses (weighted by enrollment) taught in the Fall term of 1971-72 was 6.65. (The standard deviation was 1.63) The highest score was achieved by junior tutorial groups, and several intermediate lecture courses followed fairly closely behind. A rough summary of the students’ evaluation of courses taught in the academic year 1972-73 (unweighted by enrollment) suggests that the overall assessment was about the same as in the previous year.

During the Committee’s visit, however, representatives of the Undergraduate Instruction Committee made two recommendations affecting the undergraduate program. The first related to the procedures of the Faculty Subcommittee on the Undergraduate Curriculum. The UIC expressed apprehension over the possibility that the Faculty Subcommittee might recommend major changes in the objectives and curriculum of the Economics Department without providing an ample opportunity for economics concentrators to discuss the proposals. The UIC strongly urged against such a course. After meeting with UIC, members of the Visiting Committee reported this concern to the chairman of the Faculty Subcommittee and were assured that no definitive action would be taken without proper consultation with undergraduate concentrators.

The second recommendation concerned the place of “radical” economics at Harvard. The UIC stated that:

“…it is clear to the committee that the Department of Economics should provide opportunities for undergraduate study in all major areas of economic theory. ‘Radical’ (Marxist) economic theory, as taught by Professors Bowles, Gintis, MacEwan, and Marglin, is a major alternative to neoclassical economic theory. The possibility exists that none of these faculty members will be teaching at Harvard during the academic year 1974-75. In light of this fact, this committee urges that the Department of Economics make certain that “radical” professors of economics be present on the Harvard Department of Economics faculty for 1974-75.”

In assessing the status of the undergraduate program, a member of the Committee observed:

“…The undergraduate program seems to be in better shape, perhaps because some of the assistant professors and teaching fellows are, against all odds, devoted to teaching. It seems to me that there is a genuine issue to be faced in the (recommendation)…. I have only little sympathy for the notion that “radical” or Marxian economic theory deserves a major place in the curriculum. But I do think that a department that goes in one or two years from a complement of four actively teaching radicals to none is in grave danger of violating a legitimate expectation of continuity held by students. If any number of undergraduates were attracted into the field by the hope of doing some specifically “radical” courses and research, then it is perhaps unfair to them to withdraw that opportunity so suddenly. If that is the content of the UIC recommendation, I think there is merit in it. There may be a similar point to be made on behalf of graduate students.

The Visiting Committee assured the representatives of UIC that their recommendations would be included in its report.

 

VI. Graduate Instruction Program

The Visiting Committee heard the most vocal expressions of discontent from graduate students. The strident tone of these comments was new—even to persons who had been on the Committee for several years. In explaining the apparent sharpness of the changed environment, one must give weight to the observations made by the chairman of the Department of Economics: since the Committee did not meet during the 1972-73 academic year, it perhaps had not kept abreast of emerging graduate student attitudes. Moreover, when the Committee visited the Department during the last few years, the “radical” students had boycotted the Committee’s meeting with graduate students. This time they chose to participate in the discussion through the Graduate Economic Club (G.E.C.).

In fact, the special meeting called by that organization (and to which the Committee and faculty members were invited) was the best session of the entire visit—at least in the opinion of several members of the Committee. The co-chairman of the G.E.C. had obviously worked hard to organize the meeting, and a substantial proportion of the graduate students enrolled participated. Three key issues were listed on the agenda: (1) the first-year program (including the Economic History requirement, theory courses, mathematics instruction, class size, and teaching quality); (2) curriculum content and the “firing” of radical professors, and (3) the structure and control of the Department. The presentations were crisp, and the discussion — while full — was highly focused.

The meeting took place against the background of considerable student unhappiness over the graduate program. One expression of that attitude is embodied in a long letter prepared by the Graduate Economics Club and addressed to entering graduate students. The opening section of that letter sets the general tone:

“The Graduate Economics Club is an organization open to all economics graduate students, whose purpose is to represent, and provide a forum for, the views of students in the department. We are writing to welcome you to the Economics Department. We only wish we could report that it was a more pleasant experience. In general, most of us have found that the first year at Harvard was the worst year of our lives. The teaching is often terrible, the professors distant and uninterested in new students. Many of us found that we were forced to work extremely hard at courses that were poor by any standard. The department makes little attempt to ease new students’ adjustment to Cambridge, so many entering graduates find the initial months are alienating and lonely. Student-faculty relations are often poor, in part as a result of academic and political disputes which have riven the department in the last three or four years.

“Harvard can be a very exciting place to work. Cambridge is a lively, stimulating city: the intellectual and cultural resources available here are extremely broad ranging. Once they come to know the department and the city, most students find Harvard an enjoyable place to study. It is largely the first few terms here that prove so difficult. In an effort to make the first year somewhat better for you than it was for us, a fair number of students have discussed how we might have treated our first year here differently. This letter is an attempt to condense what we now that might help you. Not all of us agree with all of what is included, but most of us agree with most of it….”

The letter then took up three main subjects: (1) the formal academic requirements and the older students’ collective judgment as to the best way to handle them; (2) housing and living arrangements, and (3) an account of the “political” conflicts evident in the Department of Economics in the last few years. The first and third of these subjects were also dominant themes of the G.E.C.’s meeting in which the Visiting Committee participated.

The formal requirements for the Ph.D. established by the Department of Economics specify that candidates must pass examinations in five fields: Economic Theory, Economic History; Quantitative Methods, and two “special” fields chosen by the student. By long-standing practice, many students “write-off” the Economic History and Quantitative Methods requirements by taking specified courses. An additional requirement is enrollment in one working seminar in which a paper must be prepared.

These requirements—and the way in which they have been administered—have engendered numerous complaints by graduate students. In response, the Graduate Instruction Committee was instructed by the faculty of the Department of Economics to review a number of aspects of the doctoral program and to recommend improvements. Six curriculum review committees (which included student members as well as both tenured and non-tenured faculty) were established for this purpose. These were: (1) Committee on the Structure of the Doctoral Program and Examinations; (2) Committee on the First-year Program; (3) Committee on Economic Theory and its History; (4) Committee on Economic History; (5) Committee on Special Fields, and (6) Committee on the Relations Between the Economy and Society. The Graduate Instruction Committee prepared several memoranda to give guidance to the various review committees and to identify the main issues and questions on which it was hoped the latter would focus. At the same time, however, it was made clear that the review committees should not feel constrained by such memoranda but should feel free to define the scope of their own deliberations and recommendations. The key issues on which the committees were urged to focus are summarized in Appendix I to this report.

It was thought unnecessary and unduly complicated to require formal coordination of the work of the various review committees. However, consultation among them was encouraged. This was especially true of the committees dealing with the structure of the doctoral program and relations between economics and society. Most of the committees were asked to report during the Fall term. The tasks were well underway at the time the Visiting Committee was at Harvard, and the Department expects to consider the various recommendations before the end of the 1973-74 academic year. It was generally expected that significant changes will be recommended in several of the areas under review.

 

VII. Controversy over Radical Economics

As indicated above, the debate over Harvard’s receptivity to the presence of “radical” professors on the faculty and the inclusion of “radical economics” in the curriculum held a great deal of interest for members of the Visiting Committee. Background material on the subject had been shared with committee members in advance, and a considerable amount of time during the visit was spent on the issues involved.

To put the matter in perspective, it might be well to summarize the emergence of the debate in the Economics Department in recent years. Apparently in the mid-1960’s, a number of younger faculty members and graduate students concluded that conventional training in economics (in which Harvard was in the forefront) did not address most of the social problems of the day which they thought important. Acting on this conviction, they began to work within the Department for a reform of the curriculum. Some of the senior faculty members were sympathetic with these goals. Partly as a result of these efforts, students were added to the Graduate Instruction Committee (G.I.C.)—first two students and then three on a committee of 13 members. Evidently these changes did little to resolve the student’s discontent. It is reported that recommendations by the G.I.C. favorable to students were not endorsed by the faculty as a whole.

In the generally unsettled atmosphere at Harvard during 1969-70, graduate student protest over the economics curriculum also rose considerably. To meet the criticism, the form of the general examination requirements was relaxed somewhat. Yet, many students still found the content of the curriculum unsatisfactory. Again, it seems that some faculty members (not all of them without tenure) shared this feeling. By the Spring of 1971, this continuing disappointment led to the Graduate Economics Club (GEC) to pass “…a resolution calling for full democratization of the economics department. As the first steps towards implementation the GEC demanded equal representation on the Graduate Instruction Committee and the non-tenured faculty committee….” The faculty (after what was apparently a vigorous debate) turned down these propositions in late March, 1971.

In the wake of this outcome, discussions were held among small groups of students and faculty which focused on the general examination requirements and on the graduate program generally. One of the committees formed at that time addressed itself to the role of “socio-economic structure” and Marxist theory in the curriculum. These two subjects were later approved by the faculty (in the Spring of 1971) as special fields in the Ph.D. program. However, no major changes were made in the content of the generals examinations, and no commitment was made to invite any Marxist economists to join the permanent faculty. Also in the Spring of 1971, the student representatives left the Graduate Instruction Committee—protesting what they considered token representation and lack of influence. Finally, in the Fall of 1971, the Graduate Economics Club adopted a resolution specifying that “… a Marxist theorist shall be hired to teach a curriculum in Marxist theory, to begin no later than the Fall of 1972….”

The faculty made no immediate response to this resolution. However, the issue came into sharp focus during the early months of 1972. At that time, a debate got underway over the question of the tenure of Associate Professor Samuel Bowles—a question which the Department had to answer by the end of the calendar year. The term appointment of Assistant Professor Arthur MacEwan was also moving to the stage at which a decision with respect to his future status would have to be made by the same deadline. These two men were viewed by the students as “…the last two remaining non-tenured radical faculty members….” A campaign to win tenure for them was launched by both undergraduate and graduate students. As part of this effort, a petition urging that they be retained and that more radical economists be brought to Harvard was circulated in the Spring of 1972. More than 700 persons signed the petition. In the Fall of that year, a substantial proportion of Professor Bowles former students (reportedly 75 per cent of them—virtually all of those who could be reached) orally or in writing supported the effort to obtain tenure for him. But, after a long (and apparently sometimes divisive) debate, the majority of the Department voted against a tenure appointment for Professor Bowles. A few weeks later, Professor MacEwan’s term appointment was not renewed, and he was not promoted to Associate Professor. Previously two other “radial” economists (Herbert Gintis and Thomas Weisskopf) had failed to receive promotions.

Immediately, these decisions were attacked as “politically” motivated by many of the students and some of the faculty. These charges of bias were denied vigorously by members of the senior faculty. However, the reverberations of those actions reached well beyond the boundaries of Harvard University. For example, at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association (AEA) in Toronto in late December, 1972, a resolution was proposed condemning the action of the Harvard economics faculty. The chairman and other representatives of Harvard spoke against the resolution which was not adopted. However, a modified version was approved. It held that:

  1. The American Economic Association urges that hiring decisions in economics departments be free of political bias. The Association strongly condemns political discrimination in hiring decisions against radical economists or any others.
  2. The American Economic Association urges all departments to set up university procedures whereby allegations of discrimination on the basis of political differences can be systematically investigated.
  3. The American Economic Association strongly opposes discrimination in government grant allocation on the basis of political views.

As indicated above, strong voices were heard on both sides of the debate over the Bowles appointment. The formal view of the faculty majority was given by Professor James Duesenberry, Department Chairman, in his report covering the 1972-73 academic year:

“…Our pleasure…was marred by criticism, from students and others, of the department’s failure to recommend Associate Professor Samuel Bowles for a tenure appointment. The non-tenure associate professorship is a new rank at Harvard and Professor Bowles was the first person appointed to it and therefore the first to reach the time at which a decision as to a tenure recommendation had to be made. There was perhaps some misapprehension as to the likelihood of tenure appointments for associate professors. There are at present six associate professors and it is a source of regret that only a fraction of this extraordinarily able group of economists can be offered tenure appointments. In Professor Bowles’ case it was alleged that the Executive Committee’s decision was biased because of Professor Bowles’ ‘radical’ views. Since bias like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that is a difficult charge to answer. I can only say that in my twenty years on the Executive Committee the primary consideration has always been the search for persons who could be expected to maintain and enhance the outstanding professional position of the department. Failure to recommend a particular associate professor for a tenure appointment is not an indication of bias unless it can be alleged that the person in question has scholarly abilities and accomplishments which are obviously superior to those of any other persons—at Harvard or elsewhere—who might be appointed.

“Alternatively it might be argued that ‘radical economics’ should receive more attention. The department already has one ‘radical’ full professor (appointed before his conversion to be sure, but here none the less). The amount of weight to be given to any subfield or approach in our discipline is always a matter of opinion and dispute, but it does not seem obvious that the accomplishments of the relatively new radical approach are so overwhelming as to outweigh the many other claims on our limited number of appointments….”

Several other senior faculty members who thought Bowles should have been given tenure—although their reasons differed—have also spoken on the issue. Professor Stephen A. Marglin (a member who was voted tenure before he began to identify with the “radical” economists) urged his colleagues to give Bowles a tenure appointment—and also to bring more radicals to Harvard. By so doing, he though radical economics would have a chance to develop. Professors Kenneth J. Arrow, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Wassily Leontief were also willing to give radical economics an opening: and they, too supported tenure for Bowles. Professor Arrow has been quoted as saying that Bowles’ appointment would broaden the Department, and he felt that his work was “good enough” judged by standard that “hardly had anything to do with radicalism.”

Partly as a response to this debate, Herbert Gintis (who was lecturing in the School of Education after he failed to win reappointment three years earlier) was invited back to the Department of Economics as an Assistant Professor, with the understanding that he would be recommended for promotion effective with the 1974-75 academic year. Beginning in September, 1974, Gintis and Bowles (along with two other “radical” economists — Stephen A. Resnick and Richard Wolff) will go as a team to the Economics Department of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.1/With their departure, Stephen Marglin will be the only “radical” economist with tenure — in a Harvard community numbering more than 60 economists. Moreover, he is scheduled to be on leave for the 1974-75 academic year.

1/ Subsequent to the Committee’s visit, it was learned that Gintis may remain at Harvard. As this report was being written, the matter was still uncertain.

 

VIII. Continuing Controversy Over the Scope of Economics at Harvard

Aside from the debate over the role of radical economists at Harvard, a number of faculty members (both tenured and non-tenured) are concerned about the scope and content of the curriculum—and think it should be broadened considerably. The curriculum review committees discussed above were appointed for this purpose. Several tenure appointments will become available to the Department in the next few years, but opinions differ as to how they should be filled. The Department chairman, in his report covering the 1972-73 academic year, identified the fields of labor, industrial organization, economic development, and economic history as ones in which additional strength is needed.

More fundamentally, however, at least a few senior faculty members apparently believe that the differences in view with respect to the content of the economics program are so wide that a basic reorganization of the Department may be in order. So far, Professor Galbraith is the only one to express his views in writing. However, Professors Arrow, Albert Hirschman, Leontief, and Marglin are reported to have thought — during the Spring of 1973 — that the possibility of forming a new department or a separate track within the existing Department was worth exploration2/By late fall, Professor Galbraith (who chairs the Committee on the First-Year Graduate Program) had in circulation a proposal to establish an Experimental Program and Committee within the existing Department of Economics. If adopted, this program would provide students an alternative path to the Ph.D. paralleling the more traditional route. Under the umbrella of the new faculty Committee which would oversee the alternative route, appointments would be made and associated research would be conducted. Subject matter of interest to faculty and students working in the Committee’s area might include problems of the arts, discrimination, income maintenance, and poverty. Perhaps one-quarter of the graduate students might elect to pursue this new track. The proposal also visualizes that the committee would have the right to recommend appointments — tenure and non-tenure — about in proportion to its share of the teaching load (both undergraduate and graduate). While the Executive Committee of the Department would vote on such recommendations, there would be a broad presumption that the Committee’s recommendations would be accepted.

2/ A member of the Visiting Committee thought the report should note that this group of senior faculty “…is the group that supported Bowles, and that it is in fact a group that has very little else in common. Galbraith’s and Hirschman’s view of economics has very little overlap with Arrow’s and Leontief’s, and Marglin is his own kind of (man). This appears to more an alliance based on political attitude and temporary happenstance than a genuine current of thought.”

At the time the Visiting Committee was in Cambridge, this proposal had generated considerable reaction. It had apparently won strong support among some of the senior faculty as well as among the non-tenured group and graduate students. But it apparently had also encountered strong opposition — especially on the part of some of the tenured members. Since a version of the proposal will probably be submitted to the Graduate Instruction Committee this spring, the Department may have to vote on it before the end of the 1973-74 academic year.

 

IX. Affirmative Action Program

The Visiting Committee made a special effort to appraise the effort being made by the Department of Economics (in keeping with University policy) to recruit women and members of minority groups. The subject was discussed primarily with the Department Chairman, but other senior members of the faculty also contributed. The non-tenure recruitment procedures used during 1972-73 were described by the Department Chairman as follows:

“The Department of Economics normally plans to hire 4 or 5 assistant professors each year. In the 1972/73 recruiting season, the non-tenure appointment committee obtained names and short vitas of prospective new Ph.D.’s from over twenty leading departments of economics. Additional names were supplied to us on an informal basis by a number of smaller graduate departments. Members of the committees and other members of the department then contacted department chairmen, placement officers, and others to develop a shorter list of the outstanding prospects from this year’s Ph.D. crop. In making these inquiries chairmen and placement officers were pressed as to the availability of women and minority candidates. At the time of the 1972 Christmas meetings of the American Economics Association the “short list” included 40 names of which 6 were women. There were no minority candidates who seemed suitable for our department. At the AEA meetings members of our department interviewed all candidates on the short list who could be contacted, as well as others who requested interviews.

“On the basis of interviews and further correspondence with other universities, a number of candidates were included in these invitations. In the end five offers of assistant professorships were made and accepted through these procedures, of whom one was a woman. It may be worth noting that it was necessary for us to make a considerable effort to find a post for her husband at another university in the city in order to obtain the services of the one woman we have recommended for an assistant professor appointment.

“In addition to the appointments made through these procedures, we have recommended that two persons now holding lectureships in the university be appointed assistant professors. One of these is our head tutor who had been teaching in Social Studies but will now undertake an important teaching assignment in our department. In his case we feel that he should assume professorial status. Because of the importance of continuity in his post as head tutor, we have not considered any other candidates.

“A second appointment has been recommended for a lecturer in the School of Education who has previously taught in our department but who will now switch the bulk of his teaching from the School of Education to the Department of Economics.

“We have also recommended two associate professor appointments. One of these is to be promoted from assistant professor upon completion of his term. We had no women assistant professors reaching the review point this year. The other recommendation is for an appointment to associate professor in the field of labor economics as a stop-gap replacement for Professor Dunlop. An extensive search by a special committee did not reveal any women or minority candidates who could be seriously considered for this position.”

On balance, several members of the Visiting Committee thought that the Department’s procedures (while clearly aimed in the right direction) did not show the kind of vigorous effort required to achieve the Harvard goal. At least one academic member of the Committee thought that the Department’s efforts fell appreciably short of those made by several other institutions — which had also been much more successful in competing for an admittedly scarce supply of women and minority group economists.

Another member of the Committee, who had been asked to give special attention to the matter, observed as follows:

“…The first evening… we discussed … Affirmative Action Plan. But I had a strong feeling that it was a farce. The message seemed to be: Look how hard we’ve tried. We’ve done everything we could, but there simply aren’t any qualified women or blacks. As (another member) said to me informally, they really seem to believe women are inferior. This member of the Visiting Committee would urge a much stronger effort to recruit women at the assistant professor level so as to increase the number in the pipeline for higher level positions later….”

 

X. Concluding Observations

At the conclusion of its visit and after considerable discussion — the Visiting Committee decided not to draw up a list of specific recommendations. Instead, it chose to describe as fully as possible the situation it encountered in the Economics Department. It was assumed that the Harvard faculty itself is best suited to cope with its own problems.

On the other hand, several general observations should be made. In the first place, it was obvious to virtually every member of the Committee that the curriculum being offered by the Department of Economics is greatly in need of reformation.3/ The subject matter ought to be broadened to provide greater scope for students and faculty to work on problems — and search for solutions to them — that are not easily encompassed within the corpus of traditional economics as taught at Harvard. It was realized, of course, that the Department of Economics at Harvard is far less narrow than almost any other department in the forefront of the profession. Yet, a number of the men who have provided this broad thrust over the years have recently retired and others are scheduled to do so in the near future. Consequently, the Visiting Committee thinks it is vital that the upcoming opportunities to make tenure appointments be used to assure that Harvard’s historic concern for economic welfare (broadly defined) be kept alive in the years ahead.

3/ A member of the Committee noted that “…the Harvard curriculum is not atypical for university departments aspiring to high status in the profession’s pecking order. So it is a problem of the criteria by which the profession judges, not specifically of the Harvard Department. Nevertheless, there may be good reason for Harvard to assume some leadership in searching for a broader curriculum. Of course, there may be no good answer….”

The Visiting Committee refrained from expressing a judgment on the appropriateness of the decision not to give tenure appointments to specific members of the faculty identified as radical economists. The reason was simple: in the final analysis, the faculty itself has to decide who will be given status and the right to enjoy its privileges and carry on its responsibilities. On the other hand, the Committee feels strongly that “political” bias or other forms of discrimination should have no weight in judging candidates for tenure. Again, however, these judgments have to be made by the faculty.

But one member of the Visiting Committee also felt strongly that some kind of machinery should be created that would enable some outside body (perhaps even outside the University) to review faculty decisions in which those affected adversely feel they are the victims of discrimination — “political” or otherwise. Two or three other members of the Committee expressed some sympathy with this general view — although not necessarily with the specific elements outlined. On balance, however, the Committee decided not to endorse the proposition or transmit it as a recommendation. 4/ Nevertheless, everyone was sensitive to the difficult issues involved. Several members thought that the general position on political bias embodied in the resolution adopted by the American Economic Association (reported above) is one the Harvard Economics Department might well adopt as its own.

4/ The tone of the opposition to the proposal was captured by one member: “…I have my doubts about any proposal for outside review….Appointments may in fact sometimes be made on a discriminatory basis, and I would be interested in suggestions for protective machinery. I fear, however, that the solution mentioned here may be so open to abuse as to be worse than the problem. I wish I had a better alternative to suggest….”

The Committee was deeply impressed with the criticism of the graduate curriculum which it heard. For that reason, it was pleased to note the work now underway in the various review committees to reassess the program. It appears that a number of important recommendations will be made to the faculty — which if adopted could significantly enhance the appeal and usefulness of the program to graduate students. At the same time, it is also obvious that the senior faculty members in the Department must devote far more time directly to the education of the students who look to them for inspiration and guidance.

Finally, the Committee is convinced that a much greater — and far more systematic — effort should be made to seek out promising women and members of minority groups as potential faculty members. The Committee is under no illusions that this is an easy task. But, unless the Department’s procedures are revamped and more resources devoted to the assignment—it appears doubtful that the Department of Economics will make a significant contribution toward helping Harvard University achieve the goals established in its affirmative action program.

Andrew F. Brimmer
Chairman

April 15, 1974

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF ASSIGNMENTS OF CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEES

[Incomplete]

As indicated above, the Department of Economics has established six curriculum review committees to work on the improvement of a number of aspects of the doctoral program. The principal guidance given to these task forces by the Graduate Instruction Committee is summarized below.

Committee on Structure of the Doctoral Program and Examinations: This committee “will be responsible for reconsidering the procedure whereby a candidate becomes a doctor of philosophy and is expected to contemplate if not to recommend very fundamental changes in the organization of the program.” Its mandate includes:

  1. Reconsideration of the length and chronology of the doctoral program.
    1. Currently the Economic Department expects candidates to take general examinations at the end of their second year and special examinations one and a half to two years later. What is the actual chronology in recent years? Is this norm sound, or should the Department develop a program of different length and segments?
    2. Should candidates be involved in teaching and research sooner than at present, say during the second year, although this may require some extension of the time devoted to preparing for the general orals?
  2. Consideration of possible course requirements. At present there are none (formally), but it may be advisable to require candidates to take a specified minimum number of courses for letter grades.
  3. Reconsideration of the offering of advanced courses and seminars. There are now a large number of advanced courses and seminars, many with small enrollments. Who takes these courses: second-year students, post-generals students, students from outside the Department? Would it suit the needs of the faculty and students better if some or all of them were replaced by less formal and more flexible tutorials, group or individual?
  4. Is the Department meeting the needs of post-generals students with respect to advanced instruction, stimulation, and guidance? How should that phase of the program be strengthened?
  5. Reconsideration of the role and concept of the thesis. Current legislation is intended to encourage theses that are more like a long paper or short monograph than like a comprehensive treatise, but this seems to be largely a dead letter. Which concept is sound, and how can it be implemented?
  6. Reconsideration of the final examination. For the last few years, the grading and conduct of the special examination have been separated from the acceptance and grading of the thesis. Has this change made the special examination a more useful educational experience than previously? Would other changes improve it further?
  7. Finally, is the graduate program properly attuned to the job market or the requirements for a career in economics? What kinds of jobs do Harvard graduates find, and have they been equipped properly for such jobs? Are any procedures needed for adjusting the program to meet the changing demands on economists?

This list of topics, though long and demanding, was not meant to be exhaustive. The committee was encouraged to feel free to raise questions of its own and to make recommendations about any aspects of the program.

 

Committee on the First-Year Program: Some matters and questions that this committee was asked to consider are:

  1. The efficacy and adequacy of the current procedures for advising first-year students.
  2. Whether the courses and programs now available to entering students provide enough flexibility in view of their widely varying levels of preparation and fields of interest. Is the first year concentrated excessively on the three required fields?

 

  1. [sic, “3.” apparently skipped over or omitted] Whether there is need for more information about the level and contents of graduate courses than is provided by the catalog listing and, if so, how to provide it. Are the current pamphlets about the general nature of the program and the degree requirements adequate? Indeed, should the organization and contents of the catalog listing being revised substantially?
  2. Is there need for additional physical facilities, in particular, for a common room?

 

Committee on Economic Theory and Its History: Some of the issues called to the committee’s attention are:

  1. Level of the requirement. At present the instructors and examiners in economic theory and its history do not have any guidance except vague traditions for determining the level of attainment to expect. It is somewhere between the acquaintance with fundamental concepts expounded in the intermediate undergraduate economic theory course and the highly technical proficiency (also vaguely conceived) expected of a candidate who offers advanced economic theory as a special field.
    A clear, and if possible, operational definition would be highly desirable. This task consists, really, of two parts: first, a policy decision on the appropriate level of advancement, and second, the discovery of a way to express that decision in clear and operational terms, perhaps a syllabus.
  2. The scope of the field. Just what topics are to be included in the field of economic theory and its history is nowhere laid down. It is not at all clear how much acquaintance the faculty expects candidates to have with the present of economic doctrine, either first-hand or second-hand. There is considerable disagreement about how much [… end of copy]

 

NOTE:  PAGES STARTING WITH A-5 ARE MISSING.

Missing are “(4) Committee on Economic History; (5) Committee on Special Fields, and (6) Committee on the Relations Between the Economy and Society.”

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 527. Folder “Harvard Department of Economics Report of the Visiting Committee, 1975”.

Categories
Computing Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Fields Harvard

Harvard. Discussed at Faculty Meeting. Computer Access and “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as Optional Field, 1959

 

Notes from a faculty meeting in my experience are more often a list of items, resolutions, motions, and votes than a narrative of the actual discussion. The transcribed notes in this post come from a 1959 Harvard economics faculty meeting that had two items on the agenda. The first was John R. Meyer’s report on how to manage graduate student computing needs if the department were to lose access to IBM-650 services. The second discussion was a continuation of a debate in the department whether a new Ph.D. oral examination field “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” should be introduced (plot spoiler: the resolution was tabled, at least for the time being).

_____________________

Economics Faculty Meeting Minutes
December 8, 1959

The Department of Economics met on Tuesday evening, December 8 [1959] at the Faculty Club. Those present: Messrs. Bergson, Chamberlin, Dorfman, Dunlop, Gerschenkron, Leontief, Mason, J. R. Meyer, Smithies (Chairman), Taylor, Black, McKie, Artle, Erbe, Daniere, Gill, Lefeber, Anderson, Baer, Gustafson, Hughes, Jones, Kauffman, Wilkinson, Mrs. Gilboy, and Miss Berman.

Abandonment of IBM-650

Professor John Meyer explained that with cheaper time available on newer computers within and outside the University the market for IBM-650 services is waning. A deficit on operations can be expected within a few months, and it will, therefore, be impossible to retain the machine. The problem the Department now faces is that of making available to students a computer training device comparable to the 650. The Harvard Univac can serve this purpose well although it is likely to disappear in the near future through the competition of better machines.

Professor Smithies called the attention of the meeting to two further effects of withdrawing the IBM-650:

(a) Students without outside financing will not, as in the past, be able to solve their problems by making use of free 650 time.

(b) It will no longer be possible to handle problems requiring a succession for short programs with some elements of trial and error; every program will have to be handed to an operator and the results, good or bad, will not be available until days later.

Both Professor Dorfman and Meyer vouched that, even under these impediments, the cost of most computations would be far lower through such a machine as the 704 than with the 650.

With respect to student training and student problem financing, Professor Leontief expressed the opinion that if scientific departments at Harvard can receive funds for the purchase of materials and equipment needed in the training of their students the Administration should certainly be ready to offer similar help in the social sciences. After hearing from Professor Meyer that the Dean’s offices had not been particularly responsive to this suggestion, Professor Leontief suggested than an arrangement could be entered with IBM by which we could contract at a discount for a large block of 705 time at their Cambridge Street laboratory with the understanding that we would sell some of the time to financially able Harvard users and utilize the remainder for training and computing students’ problems.

Professor Meyer agreed that this might become feasible in the near future when, with the appearance of an IBM-709 at the Smithsonian Institute and other 704’s in the neighborhood, IBM may face a buyers’ market. His proposal for the time being was to turn to Univac while it is still on our premises and to divert some of the departmental contributions now going to the support of the Littauer Laboratory to subsidize student training and to some extent student problems on the 704.

 

Introduction of a field labeled “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as an optional field for the oral Ph.D. examination

Professor Dorfman reintroduced his motion that “a field called ‘Mathematical Economics and Econometrics’ be one of the optional fields for the Ph.D. examination.” He recalled his previous arguments, i.e., that both Mathematical Economics and Econometrics become legitimate specialties in the general field of economics with a literature sufficiently abundant and specialized that a student well versed in economic theory and statistics will not generally know the former fields and that no student can become thoroughly familiar with them in his two years of graduate work unless his load is otherwise reduced. The substance of the proposed examination would be the literature in which relatively advanced methods of mathematical analysis are applied to economic theory and advanced methods of statistical analysis are applied to the processing of data relevant to economic problems.

The discussion centered around two objections: (1) to the extent that proficiency in economic theory is a prerequisite to mathematical economics and that an advance knowledge of statistics is required in econometrics, students who are examined in both the new field and one or both of the older fields of theory and statistics will obtain double credit for what is a single specialization and (2) an essential requirement of our Ph.D. is breadth of preparation in economics. As it is, nothing under the motion would prevent a student from presenting the following five fields: theory, statistics, mathematical economics and econometrics, mathematics and history. This clearly represents a narrow preparation and cannot be acceptable under our standards. The second objection, voiced most effectively by Professor Dunlop, was immediately recognized as valid, and Professor Dorfman amended his motion to include the condition that mathematics could not be presented jointly with the new field. He insisted, however, that students offering mathematical economics and econometrics are of such a type that, even without the amendment, they would not have taken advantage of the mathematics loophole. Their insistence on a mathematics examination is based entirely on the recognition that they cannot become proficient in their specialty while carrying in addition the same load as their colleagues.

Three different suggestions were offered as alternatives to the proposed motion.

(1) Professor Dunlop accepted the introduction of the new field as long as examinations in any or all of the three fields of theory, statistics, and mathematical economics and econometrics would not count toward more than two of the five fields required.

(2) Professor Chamberlin did not change the present field listing but proposed that a student could by previous arrangement ask to be examined in theory with emphasis on mathematical analysis, the requirements be correspondingly milder with respect to traditional theory and history of thought.

(3) Professor Bergson offered a variation of Professor Chamberlin’s proposal pointing out that, even without the introduction of mathematical analysis, economic theory is now a broad and somewhat ill-defined field so that, in order to better test the students’ analytical scale, fields of concentration should perhaps be agreed upon before the Ph.D. examination. He also emphasized that students do not after all stop learning after their oral examination and that since a student proficient in mathematics can be expected to make use of mathematical techniques in his thesis work the special examination might be the best time to test him on his ability in this field.

Professor Leontief injected a fatalistic note indicating that the problem will solve itself in the future as more and more students join the graduate school with a mathematical preparation such that the theory courses can make use of mathematical tools. For the present it would be unfortunate to have students neglect economic theory for the purpose of acquiring mathematical proficiency. We should, however, provide adequate training facilities for those who because of superior ability or previous preparation can benefit from courses in mathematical economics and, to the extent that recognition may be helpful, include a mention of their special skill in their records.

In view of the lack of agreement evidenced by the meeting, Professor Dunlop asked that the motion be tabled. All were in favor.

Andre Daniere
Secretary

Dictated 12/14/59

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961 and some earlier. (UAV349.11), Box 13.

Image Source: Harvard Faculty Club from JDeQ’s August 2, 2013  blog entry “Dinner at the Harvard Faculty Club“.