Categories
Economists Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror’s collection for Robert Solow at work and play, December 2023

 

Much has been noted and posted across traditional and social media regarding the contributions and reception of the work of Robert Solow who died on December 21, 2023. I was one of the legion of economics apprentices (a.k.a. graduate students) whom Bob Solow introduced to the art and craft of summoning meaning from the chaos of everyday trends and fluctuations. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has, to date, posted transcriptions of sixteen archival artifacts from his M.I.T. work-and-play-ground.

Bob Solow was like a favorite uncle to those lucky enough to have had him as a teacher. 99 years was one helluva long-run and besides having been a great economist, he was a good man.  

A great interview from March 3, 2023: Robert Solow on growing up in Brooklyn, fighting Nazis, and everything that came after.

___________________________

Solow at Work

Course Outline of Economic Statistics. Robert Solow, 1960

Advanced Economic Theory (Capital and growth). Solow and Phelps, 1962

Advanced Economic Theory Course, Solow, 1962

Advanced Economic Theory. Uncertainty and Capital Theory. Readings and Exam. Solow, 1965

Economic Growth and Fluctuations. Readings and Midterm Exam. Solow, 1966

Suggestions for New Fields. Domar, Kuh, Solow, Adelman, 1967

Core Economic Growth and Dynamics. Readings and Final Exam. Solow, 1968

Student evaluations of second term core macroeconomics. Solow, Foley. 1967-70

Applied Price Theory Readings. Robert Solow, 1971 or 1972

Core Dynamic Macro Half-course. Readings and exam. Solow, 1973

Capital theory. Course outline, suggested readings. Solow, 1975

Solow at Play

Dystopian Faculty Skit by Solow, 1969

Economics faculty M*A*S*H theme skit. Robert Solow, 1977

Faculty skit. Robert Solow as the 2000 year old economist, ca. 1979-80

Rewrite of 1940s blues hit “Why don’t you do right, like some other men do”. Solow, ca. 1983-84

Robert Solow’s Last Skit. “Dr Rudi Tells You How”, Late 1980s.

 

 

Categories
Curriculum Economics Programs Economists M.I.T. Teaching

M.I.T. Charles Kindleberger’s Ruminations on Professional Education, 1966

 

Today’s post was an absolute treat to prepare. It gives us an opportunity to rise above the tactical aspects of economics education (i.e. syllabi and exams) to consider issues of grand strategy in higher education.

Charles Kindleberger was one of my professors in graduate school. Though I did take his course in European economic history, I must confess that I was not ready to absorb much of the intuition and wisdom that he tried to share with us. That said, my classmates and I very much respected his old-school, gentlemanly charm and deeply appreciated the scholar-economist dutifully warning us whipper-snappers that “the second-derivative is the refuge of a scoundrel!”

While this essay from 1966 mostly appears to present a distillation of Kindleberger’s experience at M.I.T. in the economics department and as chairman of the Institute Faculty, in it you will find timeless insights into the nature of higher education in general and of training in economics in particular. 

Research Tip:  I found this jewel of an essay while trawling through the collection of Technology Review ar srchive.org.

_______________________

The following essay was one of three papers having the theme “Innovation in Education” prepared for the 1966 M.I.T. Alumni Seminar.

Charles P. Kindleberger is professor of economics and chairman of the Faculty at M.I.T. He is known for teaching and research on world trade and economic development, and he is a member of the President’s Committee on International Monetary Arrangements. As chairman of the Faculty, Dr. Kindlberger has participated directly in many of the recent developments in professional undergraduate curricula at the Institute.

_______________________

Professional Education:
Towards a Way of Thought

by Charles P. Kindleberger

Technology Review, November 1966

THE age of the amateur is dead. Professionalism rules — in the cockpit of spaceships, in football, and in learning. We have abandoned the British tradition of the amateur who was good at everything for that of the Grandes Ecoles, with rigorous scientific training leading to professional competence. “He’s a pro,” which used to be insulting in Britain, is now a compliment everywhere.

There is some room left for the amateur tradition —  in politics. It is not good enough to duck the question of where the Inner Belt road should be located by saying that these are matters for resolution by experts. In economics, also, the number of distinct opinions on a given issue is frequently greater than one and sometimes approaches the number of experts. Social scientists resent that mere people feel entitled to have opinions on issues on which popular knowledge and capacity for theorizing are limited, but they have found no way to prevent it. And there is claimed to be scope for flair, inspiration and style — the hallmarks of the amateur — at the frontiers of science, when the ordinary professionals have carried the subject as far as they can. On the whole, however, the demand for professionals and professional education is greater than it has ever been.

Part of this demand is wasteful. An economic study some years ago claimed that there was not so much a shortage of scientists and engineers as very wasteful use of those on hand. Some part of the demand for Ph.D.’s today could perhaps be satisfied with M.S.’s, and some of the jobs seeking master’s could be filled by bachelor’s. During the long years of inadequate effective demand and considerable unemployment, we have tended to upgrade job requirements throughout the economy.

But the upgrading of the educational requirements of business and the professions goes well beyond snobbism and cultural lag. Knowledge has expanded. There is 100 times more information to be obtained today than in 1900, and it is estimated that by 2000 A.D. there will be 1000 times as much knowledge. Periodicals have risen in number from 45,000 in 1950 to 95,000 currently. Librarians blanch under the prospect of coping with the accelerating torrent of periodicals, books, monographs. A major problem in research is to find out what has been done by others so as to avoid rediscovering the same information.

The result is more professional education and more specialization. Eighty-five per cent of today’s new doctors are trained as specialists rather than general practitioners. Lawyers are experts in taxation, trusts domestic or international corporate law, or anti-trust. The man who used to be merely an economist is now a specialist in international economics or African trade. The one year of internship in medicine which was normal in 1945 has been extended to two, three or even four. Business recruits directly from the universities but increasingly from graduate schools of business, and even then the bright young graduate in management is put into a training program. Increasingly the practice is to spend a year in post-doctoral work in another university to extend one’s research training even beyond the scope of the doctorate. This stretching of the educational process to the point where the first professional income is not earned until age 25, or in some lines, 30 is expensive in many, as has been widely recognized by foundations, government, and, somewhat earlier, by parents. Together with the knowledge explosion, it is putting enormous pressure on our educational institutions to break out of old patterns and to find new ways of producing and packaging professional education.

These problems can properly be discussed in three Parts — preprofessional education, professional education as such, and mid-career upgrading. The divisions are hard to keep distinct, as will become apparent, but each section presents particular problems for the university in trying to rationalize and increase the efficiency of its professional mission.

BY preprofessional education is meant the provision of the prerequisites for professional training. In some fields such as law these are nothing more than the good general education which used to be required of the British civil servant. But I refer rather to the mathematics and physics which are needed for engineering, to organic chemistry and anatomy which used to be all that were needed as prerequisites for medical school, and to the elementary courses in a given field which must be mastered before a student goes on to the advanced reaches of any subject.

Any subject can be taught as general education, as preprofessional training, and for professional uses freshman mathematics can be taught so that the student learns to differentiate and integrate, which he needs to know preprofessionally outside of professional mathematics, or he can be taught them and mathematical analysis as well, either for general education, which includes a glimpse of the beauties of the mathematician’s universe, or as part of preprofessional work in mathematics. The clash between two of the ways of addressing a subject was neatly illustrated last spring by the resignation of 11 members of the Dartmouth medical school faculty who wanted to teach biochemistry, micro-biology and cytology as professional subjects rather than as preprofessional training for medicine.

The problem in the humanities is easier. One can argue that the ability to write a simple sentence is preprofessional education widely neglected, but for the most part English is taught as general education. But mathematics, physics, and chemistry are general education of a special sort, preprofessional education more narrowly.

The Challenge of Teaching

Most professional mathematicians, physicists, and chemists — and economists, political scientists, and psychologists as well — prefer professional to general preprofessional teaching. Preprofessional teaching for the narrow group or students which you know is going to be drawn further into the professional subject being taught is challenging and fascinating, but as general education, or preprofessional training for other fields, such training often fails to engage the excitement of the ordinary as opposed to the great teacher. The ordinary teacher is more engaged by the subject than by the students as people. The result is that he may succumb to the temptation to neglect this teaching, or to make it interesting to himself by making it more professional, or both. On his side the student is either bewildered or bored, or both. It is on this account that the quality of teaching in the first two years presents a problem of particular difficulty.

The problem is met not only at the university level. In medical school, I understand, the first two years are taken up with some anatomy and physiology but with a great deal of preprofessional training in biophysics, biochemistry, and subjects like pharmacology. It is difficult to have these well taught on the one hand, and well learned on the other, when the main professional mission or the school is clinical medicine.

Articulation: Skip or Repeat?

Articulation is painful. If the superbly trained preprofessional has to follow the regular route he is bored and discouraged. If he tries to skip large portions of early professional training which his preprofessional work presumably covered, he is never quite clear what of the work the others are taking he has mastered and what he has not.

Medical schools’ admissions officers profess to be looking for broad-gauged young men and women with wide-ranging interests developed through general education rather than those who have extensive study and good grades in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. In their admissions choices, however, they are likely to favor the science specialist over the generalist on the score or preprofessional advantage. But this leaves the particularly well-trained young scientist likely to waste a great deal of the first two years of medical school while his generalist colleagues catch up. The problem is particularly acute for graduates of such preprofessional curricula as molecular biology at places like M.I.T. for they are catapulted somewhere into the middle of the normal first two years of training in medicine

We have a similar problem in graduate education in economics for those students who come to us with excellent training in social science from their undergraduate institutions. For them to take the first year of graduate training — the regular courses in micro- and macro-economic theory, mathematics, statistics and economic history — involves a duplication of some 60 to 75 per cent of what they have already studied. The second time around, and more systematically, this material is warmed-over porridge and not very appetizing. But to leap right into the second year of graduate work runs the risk of missing vital elements of preparation in the 25 to 40 per cent which has been missed. And we find that the undergraduate teachers have exhausted a considerable portion of the wonder and beauty of first looking into Marshall’s Principles, if I may transliterate a line from Keats; indeed, a small but disturbing fraction of our best-taught young men become sufficiently discouraged to drop out. This can be regarded perhaps a difficulty of articulating professional rather than preprofessional education, but it is a general one.

The Several Routes to a Profession

Some of these difficulties might be overcome if the choice of profession were made earlier and all students followed the same path. But this is impossible. Professional choices are not made consistently by various young people at the same stage, with the result that there must be a variety of avenues to professional education rather than merely one. And if professional choice is made only in the junior year of college, at 21, it is hard to push the preprofessional training to lower levels.

While there are children who have known since the age of five that they wanted to be involved with electricity, or machinery, or the human body as a life’s work, career choice is more and more presenting a difficult problem to American youth. Two generations ago father dominance helped, and hurt, such choice. Today fathers know enough not to push their children in directions of which they approve —  or most of them know enough. The result is that career choice is much more squarely left to youth and is consequently fraught with youthful tension. The college dropout phenomenon is one aspect. Some young men welcome the army, the Peace Corps, or a year of travel, as legitimate means of delay in facing the necessity for career choice. Certain types of graduate training — business and law — are an escape from the need for decision. But even at M.I.T. at least 30 per cent of our undergraduates end up majoring in a different field than they put down as their intended specialization when they were admitted, and 20 per cent actually switch majors after they have chosen one at the end of their freshman year.

The social sciences labor under a considerable disability here, because fixing on a social science as a career comes as a rule much later than comparable decisions in science, engineering, medicine, or humanities. Children are aware of the body, animals, earth, sky, machines, and even prose, poetry, and the existence of the past, long before they become aware of the complexities of human society. The early models for career choice, as is well known, are firemen, policemen, and, in my day, streetcar conductors.

The consequence of late career decision is that one cannot insist that all applicants for professional training have completed their preprofessional work on admission — that all M.I.T. students, for example, come with calculus, or all medical students already have molecular biology, biochemistry, and biophysics. The only equitable, and I may add efficient, system of education is to keep all options open as long as possible. In consequence preprofessional cannot be dumped completely onto other training systems — by the technological institutes on to the schools, and by the graduate training programs on to the colleges. Some preprofessional education must be kept side-by-side with the professional, to offer a chance for the later chooser to catch up. This means that professional education must maintain a several-track system.

To keep preprofessional and professional education side-by-side in the same institution presents problems of teaching, as has already been mentioned. The ordinary instructor finds it easy and productive to take on advanced professional students — undergraduates in their senior year, or graduate students who have mastered the fundamentals. They work together, as members of a scholarly team, able to communicate in two directions. Preprofessional teaching, as I have said is less interesting.

There is no good solution for this problem. To divide the university into upper and lower division, as is sometimes done, creates a two-class system with invidious overtones. To separate preprofessional training off into colleges with dedicated teachers, and admit students to the universities only into graduate school from the four-year colleges and into the upper classes from junior colleges would not only violate traditions — which are important in the lives of institutions — but also compound the problem of articulation. The solution we see at M.I.T. is to strengthen the place of preprofessional teaching in the value system of the Institute, to restore it to the high esteem it enjoyed before it slipped under the pressure on staff of research, consulting, professional service and keeping up with the literature. No one contemplates that it is possible to staff a first-rate technological institution completely with instructors who are first-rate at teaching as they are at research and professional service. But the administration, the faculty, and the students can let all instructing staff know that whatever the professional demands on their time, teaching is not the marginal and dispensable activity.

Professional Education

The central issues in professional education have mostly been touched upon already: the extension or the material to be mastered, the difficulties of starting earlier because of late career choice, the downgrading of the bachelor’s and master’s degrees, the development postdoctoral training, the need for a rigorous scientific (instead of rule-of-thumb and seat-of-the-pants) approach in the applied fields because of the rapid rate of obsolescence, and so on. But I would make three points.

First, there is a risk that the revulsion from the empirical approach to engineering and applied social science in favor of science and pure theory can be carried too far. The simplest solution to a problem is not only the most efficient; it is also the most elegant. While it is true that one can stumble on solutions to applied problems as a by-product of pure theory, it is also true that theory is sometimes pursued for its own sake beyond the point of diminishing returns. It is not clear how much biophysics should be known to the gynecologist, how much topology to the student of fiscal policy, how much communication theory to the professor of the French language. I sometimes characterize these problems by a reference to medieval scholasticism and ask how many angels can dance on the rate of interest. Theory and pure mathematics are at the top or the pecking order in the intellectual world, and this is as it should be, just as the theoretical and mathematical requirements for the lowliest professional specialties have been increased. But high power can be overdone.

Second, the question of interdisciplinary education remains complex. The practitioner continues to be trained in a variety of fields — history, law, economics and political science for the foreign service officer; contracts, property, wills, constitution and international law for the lawyer (although the Yale Law School curriculum has been altered to include a year and a half of specialization); finance, statistics, accounting, marketing, and psychology for business; and so on. At the same time, research is increasingly conducted by centers which bring different specialists to bear on a single problem with the vantage point of their own focus: aeronautical, electrical, and mechanical engineers in instrumentation, for example. But the professional teaching which produces these scholars cannot be widely interdisciplinary. A man must master one social or physical science before attempting to integrate two. In my experience, the joint degree which bridges two or more fields in one Ph.D. is satisfactory neither for the student nor the faculty involved, and not only because of jurisdictional jealousies. Each field has an intellectual integrity as a discipline, much as it may lack in providing the complete answer to a complex research problem. The attempt to master them all ends in a mastery of none.

This is a pat answer which does not fully satisfy me. More and more professional practice is becoming the equivalent of research. Architectural design of a building is no longer a simple problem of drawing and construction engineering; as we at M.I.T. are acutely conscious, an architect needs to master the Venturi principle if his skyscraper is not to set up wind currents or micro-meteorology which makes it difficult to open the building’s doors. The designer of a rehousing project has to understand sociological grouping into communities.

Third, the narrowing distinction between research and practice leads me to question the desirability or intermediate degrees between the master’s and the doctorate, which we have developed at M.I.T. in the engineer degrees. These degrees are awarded to students who have completed the course work for the doctorate but who do not write the thesis. Their justification is that the student has undertaken course work beyond the master’s level and should get academic recognition for it. I can understand awarding the intermediate degree as a consolation prize to a student who is not being allowed to go on for the doctorate because of insufficient research creativity, or to a fully competent student who is unable for one reason or another to finish his thesis and who has gone far beyond the master’s level. But these degrees should not become ends in themselves. Teachers should have had exposure to a substantial research experience. and so. if possible, should practitioners.

IF there is an overpowering amount for professionals to learn, not only in the separate fields but in combining one or more of them, there is no need to learn it all at once, in the four, five, six to ten years between high school and professional practice. One of the most interesting developments in professional education today is mid-career schooling. This began in the business schools and is spreading rapidly. At M.I.T. we have the Sloan School of Management programs for junior and senior executives, the new Center for Advanced Engineering Study, and a host of one- and two-week summer courses. The larger companies — General Motors, General Electric, I.B.M., to cite only those I have lectured to — run training programs for their own executives. The American Bar Association has a Committee on Continuing Legal Education which runs week-long, weekend and day seminars on new problems in the law. The medical associations, national, state, and specialty groups, conduct study sessions of varying length in new techniques, medicines, specialties.

Mid-career education presents serious teaching problems. The engineer returning to the Center for Advanced Engineering Study, or the young executive enrolled in the Sloan Fellowship Program at M.I.T., is likely to need preprofessional brushing up before he can handle the material taught in professional subjects. The Sloan Fellows’ beginning experience is a summer term spent in a specially designed course which gets them up to first-year graduate speed for the regular year. The Center for Advanced Engineering has had design and give special subjects in modern calculus and quantum mechanics. This preprofessional teaching, I can say from experience, has its own special rewards for the teacher, because the students have a fresh point of view, a capacity to relate theory to real situations in a way that the undergraduate and regular graduate student cannot do. But here is another special job of teaching, and that is expensive.

Mid-career education is expensive for the university, for the student (who must uproot his family for the time) and for his company, which normally pays both his salary and tuition charges. Its great contribution is not the correction of obsolescence though this has importance. The real point is to give an opportunity in today’s complex world for a man who has worked his way through one field, and demonstrated his capacity, to introduce a slight shift in orientation and train for wider responsibilities. It used to be that only the armed services were wise enough to see its desirability and budget for the expense of training at all stages of a successful career. The State Department has long had program of sending individuals to do a year of graduate work and is now beginning to operate its own foreign Service Institute course of six months. It seems inevitable that government, industry, the learned professions and, above all others, university instructors must count on continuing education and re-education in a world of changing knowledge and maturing people.

This mid-career training need not be undertaken by the universities. The costs of adding to the diversity of the multiversity are high. It is more cheaply done without uprooting families. And yet there is benefit in bringing people from different companies, backgrounds and experience to rub elbows, in plunging the man of affairs back into the scholarly environment. The profit is mutual, so long as mid-career trainees do not overwhelm the academic tradition. There are obvious limits to how far universities can respond to the demand. If mid-career education grows, as is likely, it is reasonable to expect the development of new institutions which provide the specialized preprofessional training and mix students from different backgrounds.

No pat series of answers emerges from a discussion of professional education. I feel confident in rejecting a number of proposals for major reform. Starting professional studies earlier is undesirable insofar as it cuts general education on the one hand and closes off options for late deciders on the other. Eliminating the doctoral dissertation, or converting it to a longish paper representing a couple of months’ work, abolishes the vital test of whether a man can organize and carry through a substantial research project, a test of increasing importance in a world where the distinction between research and practice is narrowing. Dividing the university into divisions for general education and professional training not only misses the point that the same treatment of a subject can be preprofessional, general, or professional education for students with different abilities, backgrounds, and programs, but divides the faculty into elite and non-elite members in a way which subverts morale and harms the teaching mission of the university. How to improve the university’s performance in discharging the mission of general and preprofessional teaching remains an imposing challenge. Social science is a long way from ability to change value systems, and the real solution to the problem of undergraduate teaching is to restore the prestige accorded to non-professional teaching in the value systems or university staffs.

We have come a long way in American education, I believe, when we recognize that we have serious problems of what, when and how to teach and are prepared to modify the traditional system and to experiment with new techniques. The exact character of the new techniques may be less important than the attitude that the subject is important and that present conditions can be improved.

My basic conclusion is the trite one: professional education is a vastly different process than providing a young man with a hatful of formulas and training him to select the right one for the right occasion. The real task is to teach — if it can be taught, or by example to train — the young to attack a problem as a good experimental physicist, biologist, engineer, or economist would; to have a feel for the data and for the limits of standard analytical techniques; to sense, after a time, the distinction between the run-of-the-mill textbook case and that with new and puzzling complications. It is not enough to do what a professional does: one must think the way a professional thinks. And this capacity is communicated in a complex osmotic process which may be independent of or only very loosely connected with prerequisites, examinations, credits, and theses, much less closed-circuit television, teaching machines, computers, and high-powered mathematics. The educational process is an elusive one, but I venture to predict that in the long run it will be found to resemble more the chemistry of slow-cooking on the back of the stove than that of infrared split-second broiling of steaks from the deep freeze.

Source: MIT, Technology Review, 69(1), November 1966.

Image Source: Portrait of Charles Poor Kindleberger at the MIT Museum website. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Graduate Student Support M.I.T.

M.I.T. Robert Bishop memo on importance of Woodrow Wilson funding for grad students, 1961

 

Research documenting a trend (long known by professional economists) that economics professors and policymakers have been trained at a relatively small number of institutions is attracting attention from outsiders looking in. The following 1961 memorandum written by the head of the M.I.T. economics department, Robert L. Bishop, provides evidence of the strength of that department already in 1961 to attract the lion’s share of Woodrow Wilson Fellows in economics. This pattern would be later observed over the coming decades in the graduate school choices of National Science Foundation graduate fellows in economics. 

The history of economics quants will have even more things to keep them busy when they turn to factors such as (i) of the relative quality of the inflow of graduate students and (ii) the educational “value-added” of the “top” programs.

In the meantime Economics in the Rear-view Mirror will add artifact by artifact to the pool of evidence. 

___________________________

Establishing 1961 as the likely year of Bishop’s memorandum

Robert Bishop (below) wrote: “This year we are the initial first choice or eighteen applicants.” Cf. 1961 MIT President’s report

“This year, too, M.I.T. was selected as first choice by more Woodrow Wilson Fellows in economics — eighteen out of eighty — than any other school in the country.”

Robert Lyle Bishop was head of the economics department 1958-1964.

John T. Norton served as acting dean of the graduate school in 1961

Robert Solow went to work at the Council of Economic Advisers as a senior economist 1961-62.

___________________________

To: John Norton and Committee on Graduate School Policy
From: Robert L. Bishop

Subject: Second-year Fellowships Out of Woodrow Wilson Funds

For the purpose of immediate discussion, I should like to submit this brief recapitulation of the major points that I made in our conversation yesterday.

  1. The most important question of policy from the point of view of the Institute as e whole concerns the award of these fellowships to engineering students. There are several questions in my mind about this practice: (a) Has this been done in previous years? If so, I think it must have escaped the attention of our representative on C.G.S.P., since I feel sure he would have protested. (b) Has the Woodrow Wilson Foundation been asked whether they approve this practice, since engineering is a specifically excluded field for Woodrow Wilson Fellowships? I strongly doubt that they would approve, and I am convinced that the Institute should seek their approval before beginning or continuing this practice. Even if the Foundation is neutral on the question, however, I think that the practice Is inadvisable for reasons given below.
  2. Originally, as you know, the humanities and social sciences were the only eligible field for Woodrow Wilson Fellowships. Several years ago, when the program was greatly expanded, certain scientific fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology were included. After one year on this basis, hoverer, the sciences were placed under a specially restrictive quota, mainly because N.S.F. Fellowships (usually more attractive than Woodrow Wilsons) were available in those fields. This helps explain why the great majority of Woodrow Wilson Fellows at M.I.T., both at present and prospectively, are in economics rather than in the sciences.
  3. This year there are eleven Woodrow Wilson Fellows in economics and only one in the School of Science. This is an abnormal disproportion, but economics is at least likely to have a majority of M.I.T. Woodrow Wilson Fellows in the visible future. Last year our department was the first choice of fourteen applicants initially, and we ended up with eleven fellows (because of some rejections and after several switches in and out). This year we are the initial first choice or eighteen applicants.
  4. The high proportion of M.I.T. Woodrow Wilsons in economics contrasts With thirty per cent of second-year fellowships awarded out of Woodrow Wilson funds to economics students.
  5. In general, fellowships are very important in our department because, with few exceptions, we are unable to give either teaching or research assistantships to first-year or second- year graduate students. Furthermore, in our area N.S.F. fellowships are available only to mathematical economists, who represent a minority of our graduate students. The availability of N.S.F. Fellowships to scientists and engineers, and on a comparably generous basis at all levels of graduate study, means that other departments at M.I.T. do not have the same kind of need that we have for second-year fellowships out of Woodrow Wilson funds.
  6. The present Institute practice is especially prejudicial to our department in relation to its competitors at other universities. Our chief competitor is Harvard, which has the only other economics department with comparable numbers of Woodrow Wilson Fellows currently. Our other significant competitors include California, Chicago, Yale and Princeton. These other economics departments all belong to divisions of their respective universities in which most If not all other departments have at least roughly comparable numbers of Woodrow Wilson Fellows. Hence these other departments have normal expectations that second-year fellowships out of Woodrow Wilson funds will go to their own students in roughly the same proportion as in the first year.

The availability of second-year fellowships is obviously a vital concern to the Woodrow Wilson Fellows themselves in deciding where to do their graduate work, and this is a question that some of them ask specifically. Clearly, the present Institute practice means that Woodrow Wilson Fellows in economics at M.I.T. would have an appreciably lower chance of receiving second-year fellowships than they would at the predominantly liberal arts universities.

  1. Our problem is all the more acute because, unlike such schools as Harvard, California, and Chicago, we have an appreciably more selective admissions policy. That is to say, we have enjoyed a remarkable increase in both the quantity and quality of applicants in recent years; and, since we have not expanded our numbers, we admit only people who would normally stand in the top half or higher of most other departments. Secondly, we have tightened our own grading standards and now give fewer A’s and more B’s, C’s, etc. than before. This year’s regular first- year graduate students, for example, have an aggregate cumulative slightly less than 4.3. In view of our selective admission policy, this means that students with cumulatives of 4.4 or 4.2 are still doing a highly creditable job, even though they are in the vicinity of the median of their own group. This to why we Feel that current Woodrow Wilson Fellows with such cumulatives deserve renewals of their fellowships.
  2. I apologize for the last-minute character of this plea. I should explain that the tentative decisions of the Scholarship Subcommittee come to us as more of a shock than they perhaps should, because — in Robert Solow’s absence –we thought that Institute policy on this question was nearer to our expectations then it has proved to be. For example, Solow said in his parting memorandum, which listed the eight present Woodrow Wilson Fellows whom we were to recommend for second-year fellowships, “If we do not get these, I would like to hear about it right away, because strong protest is in order.”

I should say finally, that we have several other non-Woodrow Wilsons whom we would have recommended for second-year fellowships, except that we felt — and thought it was general policy — that Woodrow Wilsons should have priority for renewals provided that they performed creditably.

Source: M.I.T. Archives. MIT Department of Economics. Records, 1947- (AC 394), Box 4, Folder “W”.

Image Source: Cropped portrait of Robert L. Bishop from the M.I.T. Museum website. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Bibliography Economists M.I.T.

M.I.T. Writings and addresses of Francis A. Walker, 1857-1897

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE WRITINGS
AND REPORTED ADDRESSES
OF FRANCIS A. WALKER.

The following bibliography, based upon memoranda and scrap books left by General Walker, has been prepared under the supervision of the Secretary of the [American Statistical] Association. It will be observed that references to newspapers have been included containing reports of addresses delivered on various occasions, but these have been mentioned only when the report was fairly complete, and appeared to be in the main accurate. The Secretary of the Association [David Rich Dewey] will be glad to receive corrections or additions.

1857. More Thoughts on the Hard Times. (Signed W.) National Era (Washington), October 29.

1858. Mr. Carey and Protection. (Not signed.) National Era (Washing top), January 21.

Why Are We Not a Manufacturing People? (Signed F. A. W.) National Era, January 28.
Mr. Carey on the History of Our Currency. (Signed F. A. W.) National Era, June 3.
Mr. Carey’s Letters.-Continued. (Signed F. A. W.) National Era, June 17.

1858-60. Contributions to the Ichnolite: a monthly magazine published by the students of Amherst College. Vols. 5, 6, 7, and 8.

1860. Contributions to The Undergraduate, New Haven. (After No. 1 the name of the magazine was changed to University Quarterly.) Vols. 1 and 2.

1868. On the Extinguishment of The National Debt. By “Poor Richard.” Bankers’ Magazine, July, vol. 23, pp. 20-34.

1868. Mr. Grote’s Theory of Democracy. Bibliotheca Sacra, October, vol. 25, pp. 687-733.

1868. Many editorial articles in the Springfield Republican.

1868-69. Editor of the Monthly Reports of the Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, on the Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Series 1868-69, Nos. 21-29, pp. 287. Series 1869-70, Nos. 1-3, pp. 152.

1869. Is It a Gospel of Peace? Lippincott’s Magazine, August, vol. 4, pp. 201-05.

1869. Annual Report of the Deputy Special Commissioner of the Revenue in charge of the Bureau of Statistics on the Commerce and Navigation of the United States for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1868. (Dated August 20, 1869.) Part 1, pp. 729; Part 2, pp. 352; Part 3, pp. 144. Also 40th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc., vol. 16. Washington.

1869. The National Debt. Lippincott’s Magazine, September, vol. 4, pp. 316-18.

1869. Annual Report of the Operations of the Bureau of Statistics to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Year 1869. (Dated October 13.) Pp. 6. Also 41st Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 2, vol. 4, pp. 337-42. Washington.

1869. American Industry in the Census. Atlantic Monthly, December, vol. 24, pp. 689-701.

1870. What to do with the Surplus. Atlantic Monthly, January, vol. 25, pp. 72-86.

1870. A Reply to Mr. Kennedy on the Errors of the Eighth Census. Letter in Washington Chronicle, January.

1870. An Oration at the Soldiers’ Monument Dedication in North Brookfield, Mass., January 19. Pph., pp. 5-35. Also in Springfield Republican, January 20.

1870. The Report of the Special Commissioner. Lippincott’s Magazine, February, vol. 5, pp. 223-30.

1870. The Legal Tender Act (With Henry Adams). North American Review, April, vol. 110, pp. 299-327. Also published in Chapters of Erie and Other Essays, by Charles F. Adams, Jr., and Henry Adams, pp. 302-32.

1870. Annual Report of the Deputy Special Commissioner of the Revenue in charge of the Bureau of Statistics on the Commerce and Navigation of the United States for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1869. (Dated February 7, 1870.) Pp. viii. Part 1, pp. 227; Part 2, pp. 436; Part 3, pp. 94. Also 41st Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc., vol. 15. Washington.

1870. Communication from the Superintendent of the Census submitting a draft of an Act amendatory of the Census Act of 1850. (Dated February 17.) 41st Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 161, pp. 3.

1870. A Statement of the Superintendent of the Census relating to the amount to be saved to the Treasury by dispensing with certain copies of the Census Returns required by the Act of 1850. (Dated April 6.) 41st Congress, 2d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 79, vol. 2, pp. 3. Washington.

1870. The Indian Problem. Review of Keim’s Sheridan’s Troopers on the Borders. The Nation, June 16, vol. 10, p. 389.

1871. Letter from the Superintendent of the Ninth Census addressed to Hon. W. B. Stokes relative to field-work performed by assistant marshals. (Dated January 14.) 41st Congress, 3d Session. House Mis. Doc. No. 31, vol. 1, pp. 3.

1871. Report of the Superintendent of the Census on Estimates of Expenditures, etc. (Dated December 20, 1870.) 41st Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 29, vol. 7, pp. 4.

1871. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, December 26. Reprinted as a preface to vol. 1 on Population. Pp. xlviii. Washington.

1872. Letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs upon the action of the Department relating to the Kansas Indian Lands in the State of Kansas. (Dated December 2, 1871.) 42d Congress, 2d Session. Senate Mis. Doc. No. 10, vol. 1, pp. 4. Washington.

1872. Letter from the Superintendent of the Census containing a report of the number of persons employed in obtaining the Ninth Census, time employed, amount paid to each, etc. (Dated December 6, 1871.) 42d Congress, 2d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 4, vol. 1, pp. 186.

1872. Reports of the Ninth Census, 1870. 3 quarto volumes and Compendium.

1872. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior for the year 1872, November 1. Washington. Pp. 471. Also 42d Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, vol. 3, Part 5, pp. 389-847. Washington.

1873. The Indian Question. North American Review, April, vol. 116, pp. 329-88. Also republished in book The Indian Question.

1873. Some Results of the Census of 1870. Read before the Social Science Association, Boston, May 15. Published in Journal of Social Science, No. 5, pp. 71-97. Also printed separately.

1873. American Irish and American Germans. Scribner’s Monthly, June, vol. 6, pp. 172-79.

1873. The Relations of Race and Nationality to Mortality in the United States. Read before the American Health Association. Published in Reports and Papers of the American Public Health Association, vol. 1, pp. 18-35. Also republished in Statistical Atlas, 1874.

1873. Our Population in 1900. Atlantic Monthly, October, vol. 32, pp. 487-95.

1874. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 15, 1873. 43d Congress, 1st Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 4, pp. 757-63.

1874. Indian Citizenship. International Review, May-June, vol. 1, pp. 305-26. Also republished in book The Indian Question.

1874. Handbook of Statistics of the United States, compiled by M. C. Spaulding. Review in The Nation, May 14, vol. 18, p. 319.

1874. Mr. D. A. Wells and the Incidence of Taxation. Letter in The Nation, June 11, vol. 18, pp. 378-79.

1874. The Wages Question. Address before the Alexandria and Athena Societies of Amherst College, July 8. Published in New York Times, July 9; also Springfield Republican, July 9.

1874. Statistical Atlas of the United States based on the results of the Ninth Census, 1870, with contributions from many eminent men of science and several departments of the Government. Compiled with authority of Congress. (The Preface and Introduction, and of the Memoirs and Discussions, The Progress of The Nation, and Relations of Race and Nationality to Mortality in the United States, were written by General Walker.) Washington. Plates 54.

1874. Legislators and Legislation. Letter in Providence Journal.

1874. Wages and the Wages-Fund. Letter to the Financier, August 29. (In reply to Prof. A. L. Perry.)

1874. The Indian Question. Boston. Pp. 268.

1874. Cairnes’s Political Economy. Review in The Nation, Nov. 12, vol. 19, p. 320.

1874. Our Foreign Population. Chicago Advance, November 12, December 10, and January 14, 1875.

1875. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 1, 1874. (Dated New Haven.) 43d Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 6, pp. 721-30. Washington.

1875. The Wage-Fund Theory. North American Review, January, vol. 120, pp. 84-119.

1875. The Hard Times. Address before the New Haven Chamber of Commerce, February 23. Abstract in Springfield Republican, February 25.

1875. The First Century of the Republic: Growth and Distribution of Population. Harper’s Monthly, August, vol. 51, pp. 391-414. Also published in book First Century of the Republic, pp. 211-37.

1875. Our Domestic Service. Scribner’s Monthly, December, vol. 11, pp. 273-78.

1876. Maps (three) in History of the United States, by J. A. Doyle. New York.

1876. Census. Encyclopædia Britannica (9th edition), vol. 5, pp. 334-40.

1876. The Wages Question. A Treatise on Wages and the Wages Class. New York; London, 1877. Pp. iv, 428.

1877. The Philadelphia Exhibition. Part 1. — Mechanism and Administration. International Review, May-June, vol. 4, pp. 363-96.
The Late World’s Fair. Part 2. — The Display. July-August, vol. 4, pp. 497-513.
The Late World’s Fair. Part 3. — The Display. September October, vol. 4, pp. 673-85.
These are also published in The World’s Fair: Philadelphia, 1876; A Critical Account, pp. 68; also in A Critical View of the Great World’s Fair, pp. 68.

1878. The United States. Johnson’s Cyclopædia (1st edition), vol. 4, Part 2, pp. 1029-56.

1878. United States Centennial Commission. International Exhibition, 1876. Editor of Reports and Awards. Philadelphia, 1878; also Washington, 1880. 6 vols.

1878. Money. (Lectures, Johns Hopkins University.) New York and London. Pp. xv, 550.

1878. Remarks addressed to the International Monetary Conference, Paris, August 22. 45th Congress, 3d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. 58, pp. 73-79. Also printed separately.

1878. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, January 17. (Dated New Haven.) Pp. 21. Also 45th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 9, pp. 839-57. Washington.

1878. Interview of the Select Committees of the Senate of the United States and of the House of Representatives to make provision for taking the Tenth Census, with Prof. Francis A. Walker, Superintendent of the Census, December 16. 45th Congress, 30 Session. Senate Mis. Doc. No. 26; pp. 20.

1879. The Monetary Conferences of 1867 and 1878, and the Future of Silver. Princeton Review, January, vol. 3, N. S., pp. 28-54.

1879. Money in Its Relations to Trade and Industry. (Lectures, Lowell Institute, Boston.) New York and London. Pp. iv, 339.

1879. The Present Standing of Political Economy. Sunday Afternoon, May, vol. 3, pp. 432-41.

1879. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 15. Pp. 16. Also 46th Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 10, pp. 307-20. Washington.

1880-82. Census Bulletins, Nos. 1-305. Also Extra Census Bulletins.

1880. The Principles of Taxation. Princeton Review, July, vol. 6, N. S., pp. 92-114.

1881-88. Reports of the Tenth Census, 1880. 22 quarto volumes and Compendium (Parts 1 and 2). Washington.

1881. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, December 1, 1880. 46th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 10, pp. 423-26. Washington.

1881. Letter to Secretary of Interior giving complete returns of the population of each State and Territory on the 1st day of June, 1880. Letter of January 17 to Hon. S. S. Cox, pp. 5-18. The Alabama Paradox — Letter to Hon. S. S. Cox, January 17, pp. 19-20. The Moiety Question. — Letter to Hon. S. S. Cox, January 15, pp. 20-24. 46th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 65, vol. 18, pp. 1-2. (The Moiety Question reprinted in 1891.)

1881. Letter from the Superintendent of the Census respecting the execution of the law for taking the Tenth and subsequent censuses, with accompanying schedules. (Dated January 25.) 46th Congress, 3d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 28, vol. 1, pp. 35.

1881. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 1, pp. 65. Also 47th Congress, 1st Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 10, pp, 665-727. Washington.

1882. American Agriculture. Princeton Review, May, vol. 9, N. S., pp. 249-64.

1882. The Growth of the United States. The Century, October, vol. 24, pp. 920-26.

1883. Remarks on the Character of President W. B. Rogers, October 12, before the Society of Arts. Published in Proceedings of the Society of Arts, 1882-83, pp. 5-7. Also printed separately.

1883. American Manufactures. Princeton Review, March, vol. 11, N. S., pp. 213-23.

1883. Remarks on Giving the Name of William B. Rogers to the Main Building, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 29. (Printed for private distribution.)

1883. Political Economy. New York and London. Pp. iv, 490.

1883. The Unarmed Nation. Our Duty in the Cause of International Peace. Address delivered at Smith College, Northampton, June 20. Published in the Springfield Republican, June 21.

1883. Henry George’s Social Fallacies. North American Review, August, vol. 137, pp. 147-57.

1883. Land and Its Rent. Boston and London. Pp. vi, 232.

1884. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 12, 1883. Boston. Pp. 31.

1884. The Second and Third Army Corps. Letter in The Nation, March 27, vol. 38, p. 274.

1884. Political Economy. (Briefer Course, abridged from work of 1883.) New York. Also republished under the title A Brief Political Economy. London, 1886. Pp. iv, 415.

1884. Industrial Education. Read before the American Social Science Association, September 9. Published in Journal of Social Science, No. 19, pp. 117-31.

1884. Public Revenue. Lalor’s Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and United States History, vol. 3, pp. 618-29; The Wage Fund, ditto, pp. 1074-77; Wages, ditto, pp. 1077-85.

1884. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 10. Boston. Pp. 20.

1885. Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, February 24, regarding the Accounts of Richard Joseph. 49th Congress, 1st Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 127, pp. 5-7.

1885. Shall Silver be Demonetized? North American Review, June, vol. 140, pp. 489-92.

1885. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 9. Boston. Pp. 24.

1886. Gettysburg. Lecture in Lowell Institute Course, Boston, March 4. Published in Boston Herald, March 5.

1886. What Industry, if Any, Can Profitably be Introduced into Country Schools? Science, April 15, vol. 9, p. 365.

1886. History of the Second Army Corps in the Army of the Potomac. New York. Pp. xiv, 737. Second edition, 1891, pp. xx, 737.

1886. The Military Character and Services of Major-General W. S. Hancock. Address delivered at the meeting of the Vermont Officers’ Reunion Society, Montpelier, Vt., November 3. Published in Free Press (Burlington), November 5. Read (revised and corrected) before the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts, February 13, 1888. Published in the Papers of the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts, vol. 10, pp. 49-67. Under the title Hancock in the War of the Rebellion, read before the New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion, February 4, 1891. Published in Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion. (New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion.). Vol. 1 (1891), pp. 349-64. Published in the Brooklyn Standard Union, February 7 and 14, 1891.

1886. Geography of New England: A Supplement to Maury’s Manual of Geography. Pp. 24.

1886. Sumner at Fair Oaks. National Tribune (Washington), October 14. Couch at Fredericksburg, ditto, October 21. Hancock at Gettysburg, ditto, October 28. Warren at Bristoe, ditto, November 4.

1886. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 8. Boston. Pp. 32.

1887. Socialism. Scribner’s Magazine, January, vol. 1, pp. 107-19. Also published in Phillips Exeter Lectures (1885-86). Boston, 1887, pp. 47-78.

1887. A Plea for Industrial Education in the Public Schools. Address to the Conference of Associated Charities of the City of Boston, February 10. Pph., pp. 34.

1887. General Hancock and the Artillery at Gettysburg. The Century, March, vol. 33, p. 803. Also published in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (The Century Co.), vol. 3, pp. 385-86.

1887. The Source of Business Profits. Read before the Society of Arts, March 24. Published in Proceedings of the Society of Arts, 1886-87, pp. 76-90. Also published, with additions and alterations, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, vol. 1, pp. 265-88. Printed separately, Pph., pp. 26.

1887. Wolseley on Lee. Letters in The Nation, March 31, vol. 44, p. 269; April 28, pp. 362-63.

1887. Arithmetic in Primary and Grammar Schools. Remarks before the School Committee of Boston, April 12. Published as School Document No. 9, 1887. Pp. 20. Also Pph., pp. 29.

1887. Sketch of the Life of Amasa Walker. In History of North Brookfield, Mass. The same expanded in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, April, 1888, vol. 42, pp. 133-41. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 14.

1887. Meade at Gettysburg. Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (The Century Co.), vol. 3, pp. 406-12.

1887. Memoir of William Barton Rogers, 1804-82. Read before The National Academy of Sciences, April. Published in Biographical Memoirs of National Academy, vol. 3, 1895, pp. 1-13. Also Pph., pp. 13.

1887. The Socialists. The Forum, May, vol. 3, pp. 230-42.

1887. Political Economy. (Revised and enlarged.) New York and London. Pp. vi, 537.

1887. Reply (before the Boston School Board) to Supervisor Peterson on the Study of Arithmetic in Grammar Schools, June 14. Published in Popular Educator, September, vol. 3, pp. 209-11.

1887. The Labor Problem of Today. Address delivered before the Alumni Association of Lehigh University, June 22. Printed by the Association. New York. pp. 29.

1887. Manual Education in Urban Communities. Address before The National Educational Association, Chicago, July 15. Published in Addresses and Proceedings of The National Educational Association, 1887, pp. 196-205.

1887. What Shall We Tell the Working Classes? Scribner’s Magazine, November, vol. 2, pp. 619-27.

1887. Arithmetic in the Boston Schools. Read before the Grammar School Section of the Massachusetts Teachers’ Association at Boston, November 25. Published in The Academy, Syracuse, N. Y., January, 1888. vol. 2, pp. 433-44. Also printed separately.

1888. United States: Part III.-Political Geography and Statistics. Encyclopædia Britannica (9th edition), vol. 23, pp. 818-29.

1888. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 14, 1887. Boston. Pp. 39.

1888. Remarks at the Opening of the Sixteenth Triennial Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association, September 27, 1887. Published in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of January 18, 1888, p. 56.

1888. The Eleventh Census of the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, vol. 2, pp. 135-61. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 27.

1888. The Military Character and Services of Major-General Hancock. (See 1886.)

1888. The Bases of Taxation. Political Science Quarterly, March, vol. 3, pp. 1-16.

1888. A Reply to Mr. Macvane: On the Source of Business Profits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, vol. 2, pp. 263-96. Also printed separately; Pph., pp. 36.

1888. Economy of Food. Science, May 18, vol. 11, pp. 233-34.

1888. Efforts of the Manual Laboring Class to Better Their Condition. Address as President, American Economic Association, May 21. Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. 3, pp. 7-26.

1888. The Intermediate Task.—Protection and American Agriculture. The National Revenue. A Collection of Papers by American Economists. Edited by Albert Shaw. Pp. 135-151. (Pp. 137-151 reprinted from the revised edition of Political Economy. New York, 1887.)

1888. The Knights of Labor. Princeton Review, September, vol. 6, N. S., pp. 196-209.

1888. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 12. Boston. Pp. 50.

1888. Philip Henry Sheridan. Eulogy delivered before the City Government of Boston, December 18. Published in Sheridan Memorial, pp. 41-117; Boston Herald, December 19. Also printed separately.

1889. Recent Progress of Political Economy in the United States. Address as President, American Economic Association, December 27, 1888. Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. 4, pp. 17-40.

1889. Memoir of E. B. Elliott. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 24, pp. 447-52.

1889. Census. Johnson’s Cyclopædia (Revised, 1889-90), vol. 1, pp. 78-88 (New edition, 1895); vol. 2, pp. 152-59.

1889. Ventilating Public Buildings. Letter in Boston Post, January 22.

1889. Can Morality be Taught in the Public Schools without Sectarianism? Christian Register, January 31.

1889. The Laborer and His Employer. Lecture delivered at Cornell University, February. Published in Scientific American, June 1, Supplement No. 700.

1889. The Growth of The Nation in Numbers, Territory, and the Elements of Industrial Power. Oration before the Phi Beta Kappa, Brown University, June 18. Published in Providence Journal, June 19.

1889. Indian Schools. Letter to General Armstrong in Southern Workman, October, 1889; quoted in Proceedings of Seventh Annual Meeting, Lake Mohonk Conference, pp. 36-37.

1889. First Lessons in Political Economy. New York; London, 1890. Pp. viii, 323.

1889. The Nation’s Celebration. The Independent (New York), September 26.

1889. Address before the Newton Tariff Reform Club, November 20. Abstract in Springfield Republican, November 22.

1889. Industrial Training. A Talk to the Commercial Club of Providence, November 17. Reported in Providence Journal.

1889. Civil Service Reform. Thanksgiving-Day Discourse. The Independent (New York), November 28.

1890. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 11, 1889. Boston. Pp. 48.

1890. The Nation That Was Saved. Oration at Reunion of New Hampshire Soldiers, Weirs, August 29, 1889. Printed in Veteran’s Advocate, Concord, N. H., January, vol. 7, pp. 2-3.

1890. The Study of Statistics in Colleges and Technical Schools. Technology Quarterly, February, vol. 3, pp. 1-8.

1890. Mr. Bellamy and the New Nationalist Party. Atlantic Monthly, February, vol. 65, pp. 248-62. (Address delivered before the Economic Association of Providence, December, 1889. Reported in Providence Journal.) Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 15.

1890. America’s Fourth Centenary. The Forum, February, vol. 8, pp. 612-21.

1890. The Eight-Hour Agitation. Address before the Young Men’s Christian Union, Boston, March 1. Published in Boston Journal, March 3.

1890. Protection and Protectionists. Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, vol. 4, pp. 245-75.

1890. Address at the Memorial Exercises of the Thomas G. Stevenson Post, G. A. R., May 30. Published in Boston Journal, May 31.

1890. The Eight-Hour Law Agitation. Atlantic Monthly, June, vol. 65, pp. 800-10. Also printed separately, Pyh., pp. 22.

1890. The Great Review. Oration before the Society of the Army of the Potomac, Twenty-first Annual Reunion, Portland, Maine, July 3. Published in Report of the Proceedings of the Society of the Army of the Potomac, 1890, pp. 18-32; also in Boston Journal, July 4.

1890. Address on Presenting Diplomas of Graduation, June 3. Boston Journal, June 4; also Technology Quarterly, August, vol. 3, p. 202.

1890. Statistics of the Colored Race in the United States. Publications of the American Statistical Association, September-December, vol. 2 (Nos. 11-12), pp. 91-106.

1890. Democracy and Wealth. The Forum, November, vol. 10, pp. 243-55.

1890. The Changes of the Year. Technology Quarterly, November, vol. 3, pp. 281-86.

1890. Why Students Leave School. Letter in Boston Herald, December 14.

1890. The Tide of Economic Thought. Address as President of the American Economic Association, December 26. Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. 6 (1891), pp. 15-38. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 24.

1891. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 10, 1890. Boston. Pp. 52.

1891. Panic from Coinage. Evidence before the Committee on Coinage, January 29. 51st Congress, 2d Session. House Report 3967, Part 3. Reports and Hearings, pp. 54-58.

1891. Against Free Coinage of Silver. Speech in Faneuil Hall, January 20. Published in Boston Journal, January 21.

1891. Hancock in the War of the Rebellion. (See 1886.)

1891. Testimony before Committee of New York Legislature, March 7, regarding Eleventh Census of the United States in New York. Reported in New York Times, March 8.

1891. Charles Devens. An address delivered before the Commandery of the State of Massachusetts Military Order of the Loyal Legion, March 19. Published in Circular No. 7, Series 1891, March 20; Boston Journal, March 20; also Pph., pp. 20.

1891. Usefulness of a Five-Year Course. Letter in The Tech, April 9, vol. 10, pp. 177-79.

1891. The United States Census. The Forum, May, vol. 11, pp. 258-67.

1891. The Great Count of 1890. The Forum, June, vol. 11, pp. 406-18.

1891. The Place of Schools of Technology in Education. Remarks at the Graduating Exercises of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, June 18. Published in W. P. I., Worcester, July 15, pp. 79-80.

1891. A Reply to the Article: The Economists and the Public. Letter in Evening Post (New York), June 27.

1891. The Place of Scientific and Technical Schools in American Education. Address delivered at the 29th University Convocation of the State of New York, Albany, July 8. Published in Regents’ Bulletin, No. 8, January, 1893, pp. 375-88; also the larger portion in Technology Quarterly, December, vol. 4, pp. 293-303; and in the Educational Review under the title The Place of Schools of Technology in American Education, October, vol. 2, pp. 209-19.

1891. The Colored Race in the United States. The Forum, July, vol. 11, pp. 501-09.

1891. The Doctrine of Rent and the Residual Claimant Theory of Wages. Quarterly Journal of Economics, July, vol. 5, pp. 417-37.

1891. Immigration and Degradation. The Forum: August, vol. 11, pp. 634-44.

1892. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 9, 1891. Boston. Pp. 56.

1892. Growth and Distribution of Population in the United States. The Chautauquan, March, vol. 14, pp. 656-58.

1892. Dr. Böhm-Bawerk’s Theory of Interest. Quarterly Journal of Economics, July, vol. 6, pp. 399-416.

1892. Immigration. Yale Review, August, vol. 1, pp. 125-45.

1892. Normal Training in Women’s Colleges. Educational Review, November, vol. 4, pp. 328-38.

1893. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 14, 1892. Boston. Pp. 65.

1893. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. — Length of Course. — Degrees at Scientific Schools. Letter in Engineering News, January 26, vol. 29, pp. 90-91; February 2, p. 108.

1893. Scientific and Technical Schools. Address delivered at opening of Engineering Building, Pennsylvania State College, February 22. Published in Proceedings at the Formal Opening of the Engineering Building, Pennsylvania State College, pp. 23-30; also in Pennsylvania School Journal, April, vol. 41, pp. 435-38.

1893. Remarks on the Dedication of the New Science and Engineering Buildings of McGill University, Montreal, February 24. Published in Technology Quarterly, April, vol. 6, pp. 65-68. Also printed separately.

1893. The Free Coinage of Silver. Journal of Political Economy, March, vol. 1, pp. 163-78.

1893. Sickles at Gettysburg. Letter in The Nation, May 11, vol. 56, p. 346.

1893. College Athletics. Address before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, Alpha of Massachusetts, at Cambridge, June 29. Published in Boston Transcript, June 30; Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, September, vol. 2, pp. 1-18; Technology Quarterly, July, vol. 6, pp. 116-31. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 16.

1893. How Far Do the Technological Schools, as They Are at Present Organized, Accomplish the Training of Men for the Scientific Professions, and How Far and for What Reasons Do They Fail to Accomplish Their Primary Purpose? Address on opening Congress of Technological Instruction, Chicago, July 26. Published in Addresses and Proceedings of International Congress of Education, Chicago, pp. 528-34.

1893. The Technical School and the University. A Reply to Prof. Shaler. Atlantic Monthly, September, vol. 72, pp. 390-94. Technology Quarterly, October, vol. 6, pp. 223-29. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 7.

1893. Address on Taking the Chair as Président-Adjoint, International Statistical Institute, Chicago, September 11. Published in Bulletin L’Institut International de Statistique, Tome viii, 1895, pp. xxxvi-ix.

1893. Value of Money. Paper read before the American Economic Association, September 13. Published in Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, vol. 8, pp. 62-76. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 17.

1893. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 13. Boston. Pp. 61.

1894. International Bimetallism. Address delivered before the Liberal Club of Buffalo, N. Y., February 16. Published in book The Liberal Club, pp. 107-38.

1894. [Neo-Bimetallism in Boston.] Letter in Evening Post (New York), February 24.

1894. State House Reconstruction. Remarks at a Hearing at the State House, March 1. Published in Boston Transcript, March 6. Also in Pph. Save the State House, pp. 20-24.

1894. Bimetallism: A Tract for Times. Pph., pp. 24.

1894. Bimetallism. Address delivered before the Boston Boot and Shoe Club, March 28. Published in The Shoe and Leather Reporter, April 5. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 15.

1894. Par of Exchange. Letter in Evening Post (New York), April 3.

1894. General Hancock. (Great Commanders Series.) New York. Pp. vi, 332.

1894. How May Closer Articulation Between the Secondary Schools and Higher Institutions be Secured? Discussion of the question at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the New England Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools, October 12. Published in Addresses and Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the New England Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools, pp. 22-25. Also published in School Review, December, vol. 2, pp. 612-15.

1894. The Relation of Professional and Technical to General Education. Educational Review, December, vol. 8, pp. 417-33.

1894. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 12. Boston. Pp. 86.

1895. Bimetallism. Address delivered before the Springfield Board of Trade, March 27. Published in Springfield Union, March 28.

1895. The Making of The Nation. (The American History Series.) New York. Pp. xv, 314.

1895. Reply to Criticism on Springfield Address. Letter in Evening Post (New York), April 5.

1895. The Restriction of Immigration. Address delivered at Cornell University, April 12. Published in the Transactions of the Association of Civil Engineers of Cornell University, 1895, pp. 73-85.

1895. The Growth of American Nationality. The Forum, June, vol. 19, pp. 385-400.

1895. Obituary: Samuel Dana Horton. The Economic Journal, June, vol. 5, pp. 304-06.

1895. The Relation of Manual Training to Certain Mental Defects. Paper read at the Sixty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Instruction, July 9. Published in Journal of Proceedings of American Institute of Instruction, 1895, pp. 23-32. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 12.

1895. The Quantity-Theory of Money. Quarterly Journal of Economics, July, vol. 9, pp. 372-79.

1895. The Argument for Bimetallism. The Independent (New York), October 10.

1895. “Severe Work at the Tech.” Letter in Boston Herald, November 20.

1895. The Restriction of Immigration. Address delivered before the Manufacturers’ Club of Philadelphia, December 16. Published in Manufacturers’ Record, December 21.

1896. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 11, 1895. Boston. Pp. 74.

1896. Reply to General Greeley Curtis regarding General Hooker. Letter in Boston Herald, February 5.

1896. Bimetallism in the United States. The Bimetallist (London), February, vol. 2, pp. 38-41.

1896. Currency and Prices. Letter in The Economist (London), April 18, vol. 54, pp. 491-92. Also published under the title A Criticism of the Right-Hon. G. J. Shaw-Lefevre, in The Bimetallist (London), May, vol. 2, pp. 97-98.

1896. The Relation of Changes in the Volume of the Currency to Prosperity. Paper read before the American Economic Association, December 28, 1895. Published in Economic Studies (American Economic Association), April, vol. 1, pp. 23-45.

1896. Letter to Senator Teller on the Silver Question, April 13. Quoted as an appendix to Senator Teller’s speech in the Senate, April 29.

1896. On Teaching English Composition in Colleges. Boston (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Pph., pp. 5.

1896. Something About the Par of Exchange. Letter in Evening Post (New York), May 29.

1896. Money. Dictionary of Political Economy (Edited by R. H. Inglis Palgrave), vol. 2, pp. 787-96. Quantity-Theory of Money. (To be published in vol. 3.)

1896. Henry Saltonstall. Technique, 1897, pp. 32-34.

1896. Restriction of Immigration. Atlantic Monthly, June, vol. 77, pp. 822-29.

1896. Address before the British Bimetallic League, London, July 13. Published in The Bimetallist (London), July, vol. 2, pp. 139-45. Also published in The National Review, under the title The Monetary Situation and the United States, August, vol. 27, pp. 783-92.

1896. International Bimetallism. (Lectures delivered at Harvard University.) New York and London. Pp. iv, 297.

1896. International Bimetallism: A Rejoinder. Yale Review, November, vol. 5, pp. 303-12.

1896. International Bimetallism. Address delivered before the School masters’ Club of Massachusetts, November 7. Published in the Boston Herald, November 7; also in The Bimetallist (London), December, vol. 2, pp. 218-29.

1896. Technical Education. Address delivered at the Dedication of the Thomas S. Clarkson Memorial School of Technology, Potsdam, N. Y., November 30. (To be published.)

1897. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 9, 1896. Boston. Pp. 80.

1897. Remarks at the First Meeting of the Washington Members of the American Statistical Association, Washington, December 31, 1896. Publications of the American Statistical Association, March, vol. 5 (No. 37), pp. 180-87.

1897. General Gibbon in the Second Corps. Paper read before the New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion, May 6, 1896. (To be published in Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion. New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion. Vol. 2.)

Source: D. R. D. [David Rich Dewey], Bibliography of the Writings and Reported Addresses of Francis A. Walker. in Publications of the American Statistical Association, vol. 5 (1896-1897), pp. 276-290.

Image Source: MIT Museum website. Francis Amasa Walker file. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Bibliography Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Public Finance

M.I.T. History of Public Finance Bibliography. Dewey, 1936

As a graduate student at M.I.T. nearly fifty years ago, I spent a good part of my time when on campus at one of the many study desks along the windows at Dewey Library. At that time I had no idea who Davis Rich Dewey (after whom the library had been named) was. I presume this was true for most of my classmates too, M.I.T. not being known for  the study of the history of economics, though Paul Samuelson’s continuous interest in casting old theories in mathematical form was by no means chopped liver. 

As is noted in the short biography below, Dewey’s long career neatly overlapped with the first half-century of economics as a distinct academic discipline in North American universities. Thus it is fitting that Economics in the Rear-View Mirror gather and preserve artifacts left by Dewey in the course of his research and teaching.

Dewey’s magnum opus Financial History of the United States, first published in 1903, went through twelve editions (seven revisions) by 1934He dedicated the book to the Seminary in History, Politics, and Economics at Johns Hopkins University which he attended from 1883 to 1886. That dedication immediately follows the brief biography. This in turn is followed by a fully-linked fourteen item bibliography of general works on the history of U.S. public finance suggested “for students, teachers, and readers.”. Further suggestions by Dewey will be added sometime sooner or later, so stay tuned.

_____________________________

Davis Rich Dewey, 1858-1942

Davis Rich Dewey was Professor of Economics at M.I.T. and one of several people who helped shape the profession of economics as it is practiced today. Best known for his writings on United states economic history, his professional career spans fifty years (1886-1940), the formative period of the modern economics profession.

In 1883 Davis R. Dewey entered the graduate department of economics at Johns Hopkins University, secured a fellowship, and spent summers working as a correspondent for Bradstreet’s Financial Review. He graduated from Johns Hopkins with the doctorate in 1886 having studied history, economics and political economy. His Ph.D. thesis, entitled “A History of American Economic Literature…” was a survey of the practice of the early U.S. economics profession.

Upon his graduation, Dewey received an appointment as instructor in history and political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From the first he was integrally involved in research, publishing his first articles, “Municipal Revenue from Street Railways” [AEA Publications, Vol. II, No. 6 (1888), pp. 551-562] and “A Syllabus on Political History since 1815…” in 1889.

At M.I.T. Dewey served as an Instructor (1886-1888), then Assistant Professor of Economics and Statistics (1888-1889), Associate Professor (1889-1892) and finally Professor and Department Chairman (1893-1933). He taught a course in engineering administration from 1913- 1931, when a separate department of engineering administration was created, largely due to his efforts. He served as the Chairman of the M.I.T. Faculty from 1911-1913.

Dewey was influential in the internal affairs of two major professional organizations, the American Economic Association and the American Statistical Association. While still a graduate student, he had participated in the founding meeting of the American Economic Association and in 1909 he became its president. When that Association’s journal The American Economic Review was started in 1911, he served as its first editor, a post he held until 1940. The medal on the Dewey Library homepage was awarded to Davis R. Dewey upon the occasion of his retirement as editor of American Economic Review in 1940. Also in his first year of service at M.I.T., he became a member and was elected secretary of the American Statistical Association, an office he held until 1906. As secretary, and as a member of the Publications Committee, Dewey helped to edit the publications of that organization as well.

Davis R. Dewey was interested in the quality of education, as demonstrated by the following quotation,

“The Student will too often leave with…no systematic knowledge of the economic world, nor any well-defined theory of its workings. There must therefore be a far greater insistence upon…methods which will improve the missing experience.”

Davis R. Dewey was an associate of M.I.T. President Francis Amasa Walker whose Discussions in Economics and Statistics [Volume I: Finance and Taxation, Money and Bimetallism, Economic Theory. Volume II Statistics, National Growth, Social Economics] he edited for publication in 1899, shortly after Walker’s death. He was also associated with the editor Albert Bushnell Hart. Davis R. Dewey wrote his acclaimed Financial History of the United States for Hart’s American Citizen Series in 1903, and a volume entitled National Problems for Hart’s American Nation Series in 1907. In 1904 Financial History of the United States won the John Marshall Prize offered by Johns Hopkins. Dewey was a contributor to Palgrave’s Dictionary of Political Economy, the New International Encyclopedia Americana, Encyclopedia Britannica, American Year Book and the Commonwealth History of Massachusetts.

A representative of the modern field of economics, Davis R. Dewey was indifferent to theorizing which had little to do with empirical fact. He was above all a practitioner, insisting that applied knowledge we the true realm of the academic economist. Davis R. Dewey also maintained a lively interest in the politics of academe and followed several academic freedom cases of his day.

He died on December 13, 1942. The Dewey Library was named in his memory.

Written by Keith Morgan, Dewey Library Economics Bibliographer, 1994

Source: Webpage “Davis Rich Dewey, 1858-1942,” MIT Libraries, Dewey Library for Social Sciences and Management. Links added by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

_____________________________

Financial History of the United States (12th edition).
New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1936.
by
Davis Rich Dewey, Ph.D., LL.D.,
Emeritus Professor of Economics and Statistics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

To the Seminary
of the
Department of History, Politics, and Economics
of Johns Hopkins University,

Of which the author was a member from 1883 to 1886. Under the guidance of Adams, Ely, and Jameson, we read and learned. The first has gone, leaving affectionate memories and organized activities of permanent usefulness; the others are still doing their work in a spirit of broad-minded sympathy and fine scholarship.

_____________________________

Suggestions for Students, Teachers, and Readers

[Following three pages dedicated to general works on U.S. political history and biography, Dewey offers almost seventeen full pages dedicated to the subject of public finance. In this post we begin with the transcription of the most general works in public finance Dewey recommends. The curator of Economics in the Rear-View Mirror has been able to find links to the fourteen annotated items in Dewey’s list.]

II. Financial Histories

There are but few histories devoted exclusively to public finance; only one, indeed, that by Bolles, covers the general field over an extended period. The reader must therefore rely upon works on taxation, the tariff, coinage, and banking, and for special topics and episodes will often find the most satisfactory treatment in the political histories and biographies already referred to. The following volumes represent those which are most general in their treatment; of these the works of Bolles and Noyes are especially to be recommended; the narrative by Bolles stops with 1885, while the smaller work by Noyes is confined to the period 1865-1907. There is a great need of detailed works on the expenditures of the government and the various phases of treasury administration.

Adams, Ephraim D. The Control of the Purse in the United States Government. (Reprinted from the Kansas University Quarterly, April, 1894.) — An academic study of the debates in Congress on the interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to treasury management, loans, taxation, and money bills. Careful references are given.

Bolles, Albert Sidney. American Finance, with Chapters on Money and Banking. (N. Y., 1901.) — Especially valuable on expenditures; treats also of State finance. A discussion of present conditions rather than historical.

Bolles, Albert Sidney. The Financial History of the United States. (2d ed. N. Y., 1884-1886. 3 vols.) — Vol. I includes the period 1774-1789; II, 1789-1860; III, 1861-1885. The only single work which covers an extensive period; it represents research, and is closely restricted to questions of finance; no attempt is made to sketch in the political and social background, and the reader may be confused without preliminary reading. The author leans to protection, and takes the banker’s point of view in questions of currency. The work is especially valuable for chapters on accounting and expenditures. Referred to as Bolles.

1st edition (1879), Vol. I (Frank Taussig’s copy!)
1st edition (1883), Vol. II
1st edition (1886), Vol. III
2nd edition (1884), Vol. I
2nd edition (1885), Vol. II
2nd edition (1885), Vol. III
3rd edition (1892), Vol. I

Bourne, Edward Gaylord. The History of the Surplus Revenue of 1837. (N. Y., etc., 1885.) — A brief, scholarly monograph with abundant references and bibliography. In addition to the historical account, it summarizes the earlier proposals of distribution of surplus funds in the treasury.

Bronson, Henry. Historical Account of Connecticut Currency, Continental Money, and the Finances of the Revolution. (In New Haven Colony Hist. Soc. Papers, Vol. I. New Haven, 1865.) — This is more than a local study; the author is drawn into a general review of the financial measures of the Revolutionary War. The essay is scholarly and the style vigorous.

Bullock, Charles Jesse. Finances of the United States, 1775-1789, with Especial Reference to the Budget. (Madison, 1895. Univ. of Wisconsin. Bulletin, Economics, etc., Vol. I, No. 2.)  — The best monograph on the finances of the Revolutionary period, with bibliographies at the beginning of each chapter. Indispensable to the advanced student.

Kearny, John Watts. Sketch of American Finances, 1789-1835. (N. Y., 1887.) — A brief study of 150 pages, clear and helpful in questions concerning the treatment of the debt. Little attention is given to taxation.

Noyes, Alexander Dana. Thirty Years of American Finance, 1865-1896. (N. Y., etc., 1898.) — Treats the earlier period very briefly, but is of special value for 1878-1895. Relation of public finance to the money market is given prominence. This has been replaced by Forty Years of American Finance (1909), bringing the history down to 1907. The references to the earlier edition have been allowed to stand.

Schuckers, Jacob William. Brief Account of the Finances and Paper Money of the Revolutionary War. (Philadelphia, 1874.) — The style is somewhat rhetorical, and, while the writer has on the whole chosen sound authorities, the essay does not indicate a very wide research. Is an interesting account within a moderate space.

Scott, William A. The Repudiation of State Debts. (N. Y. etc., 1893.) — Chapters 2-6 are historical, describing various acts of repudiation in twelve States. Of value as explaining some of the remote influences affecting federal credit, 1825-1850.

Spaulding, Elbridge Gerry. History of the Legal Tender Paper Money issued during the Great Rebellion. (Buffalo, 1869.) — The title is hardly accurate; the volume is largely a collection of documents, speeches, etc., relating to the legal tender acts.

Sumner, William Graham. The Financier and Finances of the American Revolution. (N. Y., 1891. 2 vols.) — Contains a mine of valuable material, but is not clearly arranged.

Vol. 1 (1892)
Vol. 2 (1892)

Sumner, William Graham. A History of American Currency. (N. Y., 1874.) — A series of topical notes designed for reference rather than consecutive reading.

Wells, David Ames. Practical Economics. (N. Y., etc., 1885.) — Treats of the silver question, tariff revision, and, most valuable of all, experience of the United States in taxing distilled spirits, subsequent to the Civil War.

 

Source: Davis Rich Dewey, Financial History of the United States (Twelfth edition). New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1936, pp. xi-xiii.

Image Source: Davis Rich Dewey portrait at the MIT Museum website. Retouched and colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Economic History M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

M.I.T. Reading list for Problems in Russian Economic History. Domar, 1975

Evsey Domar’s 1970 article, “The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom” (The Journal of Economic History. Vol. XXX, March, 1970) made him a one-hit wonder in the field of economic history. But what a hit!

He shared some of his life-long passion for Russian economic history  with M.I.T. graduate students back when M.I.T. could boast having three professors teaching economic history — Charles Kindleberger covered modern European history, Evsey Domar focussed on his Russian peasants, and Peter Temin was there for U.S. economic history of the new cliometric fashion. Just about ten years ago Peter Temin wrote a memoir on “the rise and fall of economic history at MIT“.

One salient memory I took from Domar’s Russian economic history class is associated with the very first meeting when Domar, not a very tall man, lugged into the classroom a huge rolled-up map of Russia to hang on the blackboard. He hardly referred to the map so I presumed he once ordered it in a fit of enthusiasm that far exceeded its pedagogical usefulness. Or maybe Domar was a kindred spirit of The Dude (see “Lebowski, Big”) and thought his Russia map really tied the classroom together. 

________________________

PROBLEMS IN RUSSIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY
14.732

E.D. Domar
Spring Term 1974-75

The purpose of this list is to indicate to the student the sources in which the more important topics of the course are discussed from several points of view. He will be held responsible for the topics rather than for “who said what.”

Since it is difficult to understand the economic and social developments in a country without a good general background in the country’s history, it is suggested that students who have not had a course in Russian history familiarize themselves with some standard textbook, such as A History of Russia by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), to which some references will be made here.

The book which will be used from cover to cover is Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961). It would be best to buy a copy. (Paperbacks are available).

Each student is expected to write a term paper of about 30 double-spaced pages on a subject agreed upon with the instructor.

There will be a 80 minute final examination on the last day of class in May.

PART I – KIEVAN RUSSIA
PART II – APPANAGE RUSSIA

REQUIRED

Riasanovsky, Parts I, Il, and III.

Blum, Introduction, Chapters 1-7.

RECOMMENDED

Karl Bosl, Alexander Gieysztor, Frantisek Graus, M. M. Postan, and Ferdinand Seibt, Eastern and Western Europe in the Middle Ages (Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1971).

Francis Dvornik, The Slavs in European History and Civilization (Rutgers University Press).

James Gregory, Russian Land, Soviet People: A Geographical Approach to the U.S.S.R. (London, 1968).

V. O. Kliuchevsky, A History of Russia, translation by C. J. Hogarth.

Peter Liashchenko, History of the National Economy of Russia to the 1917 Revolution, translated by L. M. Herman (New York: 1949, 1970).

Frank Nowak, Medieval Slavdom and the Rise of Russia (Greenwood Press, Inc.)

W. H. Parker, An Historical Geography of Russia (London: 1968).

Henry Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia (New York: 1969).

M. N. Pokrovaky, History of Russia from the Earliest Times to the Rise of Commercial Capitalism(Bloomington, Indiana: 1966).

B. H. Slicher (van Bath), The Agrarian History of Western Europe, A.D. 500-1850.

Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, Vol. III, pp. 391-454.

George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven: 1948).

George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven: 1953).

Warren B. Walsh, Readings in Russian History from Ancient Times to the Post-Stalin Era, Vol. I, (Syracuse University Press, 1963).

PART III — THE DEVELOPMENT OF SERFDOM BEFORE PETER I
XVI and XVII CENTURIES

REQUIRED

Riasanovsky, Part IV (as a background)

Blum, Chapters 8-14.

Evsey D. Domar, “The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom,” The Journal of Economic History. Vol. XXX, March, 1970, pp. 18-32.

Richard Hellie, Enserfment and Military Change in Muscovy (Chicago: 1970). Introduction, Parts I, II (omit the details and get the man ideas).

Joseph T. Fuhrmann, The Origins of Capitalism in Russia: Industry and Progress in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Chicago: 1972), Chapters 1, 2, 10-13 (omit the details).

RECOMMENDED

Paul Avrich, Russian Rebels, 1600-1800 (Schocken Booke, 1972).

Lloyd E. Berry and Robert O. Crummey, editors, Rude & Barbarous Kingdom (The University of Washington Press, 1968).

V. O. Kliuchevsky, A Course in Russian History: The 17th Century (Quadrangle Books, Inc.)

James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia (New York: 1965), two volumes.

R. E. F. Smith, The Enserfment of the Russian Peasantry (Cambridge: 1968).

George Vernadsky, The Tsardom of Moscow, 1547-1682, in two volumes, (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969).

Jerome Blum, “The Rise of Serfdom in Eastern Europe,” American Historical Review, Vol. LXII, 1957, pp. 807-836.

T. S. Wellan, The Early History of the Russia Company (New York: 1969).

See also Part I and II of the Reading List.

PART IV – FROM PETER I TO THE EMANCIPATION OF THE PEASANTS
1700 — 1861

REQUIRED

Blum, Chapters 15-27.

James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia (New York: 1925, 1965), pp. 100-141 (omit the details).

A. Kahan, “Continuity in Economic Activity and Policy During the Post-Petrine Period in Russia,” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. XXV, March, 1965, pp. 61-85.

A. Kahan, “The Costs of ‘Westernization’ in Russia: The Gentry and the Economy in the Eighteenth Century,” The Slavic Review, Vol. XXV, March, 1966, pp. 40-66.

R. Portal, “The Industrialization of Russia,” The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Vol. VI, Part II, (Cambridge: 1965), pp. 801-810.

W. Blackwell, The Beginnings of Russian Industrialization, 1800-1860 (Princeton: 1968), (Get the main ideas and omit all details).

RECOMMENDED

Clifford M. Foust, Muscovite and Mandarin: Russia’s Trade with China and its Setting, 1727-1805 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1969).

Baron August Von Haxthausen, Studies on the Interior of Russia (University of Chicago Press, 1972).

Baron August Von Haxthausen, The Russian Empire, Volume 1 and 2.

James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia (New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1925, 1965), pp. 142-374, Volume I.

Anatole G. Mazour, The First Russian Revolution, 1825: The Decembrist Movement — Its Origins, Development, and Significance (Stanford: 1937).

Walter McKenzie Pintner, Russian Economic Policy Under Nicholas I (Cornell University Press, 1967).

Charles H. Pearson, Russia by a Recent Traveller (Frank Cass and Co. Limited, 1970).

S. P. Turin, From Peter the Great to Lenin: A History of the Russian Labour Movement with Special Reference to Trade Unionism (W. Heffer and Sons)

PART V — FROM THE EMANCIPATION OF THE PEASANTS TO
THE SOVIET REGIME 1861-1917

REQUIRED

A. Gerschenkron, “Agrarian Policies and Industrialization: Russia 1861-1917,” The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Vol. VI, Part II, (Cambridge: 1965) , pp. 706-800 (Get the main ideas and skip the details).

G. T. Robinson, Rural Russia Under the Old Regime (New York: 1962).

A. Gerschenkeron, “Russia: Patterns and Problems of Economic Development, 1861-1958,” Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, Mass.: 1962), pp. 119-151.

A. Gerschenkron, “The Rate of Industrial Growth in Russia Since 1885,” The Tasks of Economic History, Supplement VII, 1947, to The Journal of Economic History, pp. 144-174.

R. W. Goldsmith, “The Economic Growth of Tsarist Russia, 1860-1913,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. IX, April, 1961, pp. 441-475 (only pp. 441-443 are required).

Paul Gregory, “Economic Growth and Structural Change in Tsarist Russia: A Case of Modern Economic Growth?” Soviet Studies, Vol. XXIII, January, 1972, pp. 418-434.

T. H. Von Laue, Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia (New York: 1963), (not in detail), pp. 1-35, 262-308.

RECOMMENDED

Dorothy Atkinson, “The Statistics on the Russian Land Commune, 1905-1917,” Slavic Review, Vol. 32, Number 4, December, 1973, pp. 773-787.

Alexis N. Antsyferov, Russian Agriculture during the War: Rural Economy (New Haven: 1930).

Haim Barkai, “The Macro-Economics of Tsarist Russia in the Industrialization Era: Monetary Developments, the Balance of Payments and the Gold Standard, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. XXXIII, June, 1973, pp. 339-371.

A.V. Chayanov, The Theory of Peasant Economy (Homewood, Illinois: 1966).

T. Emmons, The Russian Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation to 1861 (Cambridge: 1968).

A. Gerschenkron, Continuity in History and Other Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: 1968).

A. Gerschenkron, Europe in the Russian Mirror: Four Lectures in Economic History (Cambridge University Press, 1970).

Geoffrey A. Hosking, The Russian Constitutional Experiment: Government and Duma, 1907-1914 (New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 1973).

Isaac A. Hourwich, The Economics of the Russian Village (New York: Columbia University, 1892).

Stefan Kieniewicz, The Emancipation of the Polish Peasantry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

V. I. Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, (second Russian edition, Moscow: 1907; English translation, Moscow: 1956).

James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia (New York: Russell & Russell, 1925, 1965).

John P. Mckay, Pioneers for Profit: Foreign Entrepreneurship and Russian Industrialization, 1885-1913(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

Margaret Miller, The Economic Development of Russia, 1905-1914, second edition, (New York: 1967).

W. H. Parker, A Historical Geography of Russia (London: 1968).

Alfred J. Rieber, editor, Politics of Autocracy: Letters of Alexander II to Prince Bariatinskii, 1857-1865 (New York: 1966).

Amende Roosa, “Russian Industrialists and ‘State Socialism’, 1906-1917,” Soviet Studies, Vol. XXIII, January, 1972, pp. 395-417.

Teodor Shanin, The Awkward Class: Political Sociology of Peasantry in a Developing Society: Russia 1910-1925 (Oxford: 1972).

Mikhail I. Tugan-Baranovsky, The Russian Factory in the 19th Century, Richard D. Irwin, 1970.

Wayne S. Vucinich, editor, The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968; London: 1970).

Reginald E. Zelnik, Labor and Society in Tsarist Russia: The Factory Workers of St. Petersburg, 1855-1870(Stanford: April, 1971).

Male, D. J., Russian Peasant Organisation Before Collectivisation. A Study of Commune and Gathering 1925-1930. (Cambridge University Press, 1971).

Source: Personal copy of Irwin Collier.

Image SourceMIT Economics Facebook post (Evsey Domar, In Memoriam) of October 10, 2014.

Categories
Harvard M.I.T. Math Pedagogy Princeton Teaching Wisconsin

Harvard. Draft memo on “Basic Mathematics for Economics”. Rothschild, ca. 1970

 

“These bewildering cook-books [Allen, Lancaster, Samuelson, Henderson & Quandt] are as helpful to those without mathematical training as Escoffier is to weekend barbecue chefs.”

The 1969 M.I.T. economics Ph.D. Michael Rothschild served briefly as assistant professor of economics at Harvard, a professional milestone that went somehow unmentioned in his official Princeton biography included below. He co-taught the core graduate microeconomic theory course with Zvi Griliches in the spring term of 1971 which is probably why a draft copy of his memo proposing  “a course which truly covers ‘Basic Mathematics for Economists'” is found in Griliches’ papers at the Harvard Archives.

Tip: Here is a link to an interview with Michael Rothschild posted in YouTube (Dec. 4, 2012). A wonderful conversation revealing his academic humility and wit as well as an above-average capacity for self-reflection.

_________________________________

Courses Referred to in Rothschild’s Memo

Economics 199. Basic Mathematics for Economists

Half course (fall term). M., W., F., at 10. Professor G. Hanoch (Hebrew University).

Covers some of the basic mathematical and statistical tools used in economic analysis, including maximization and minimization of functions with and without constraint. Applications to economic theory such as in utility maximization, cost minimization, and shadow prices will be given. Probability and random variables will be treated especially as these topics apply to economic analysis.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction, Harvard and Radcliffe 1969-1970. Published in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. LXVI, No. 12 (15 August 1969), p. 142.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Economics 201a. Advanced Economic Theory

Half course (fall term; repeated spring term). Tu., Th., (S.), at 12. Professor D. Jorgenson (fall term); Professor W. Leontief (spring term).

This course will be concerned with production theory, consumption theory, and the theories of firms and markets.
Prerequisite: Economics 199 or equivalent.

Source: Ibid., p. 143.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Economics 221a. Quantitative Methods, I

Half course (fall term; repeated spring term). Tu., Th., S., at 11. Assistant Professor A. Blackburn (fall term); Assistant Professor M. Rothschild (spring term).

Probability theory, statistical inference, and elementary matrix algebra.

Prerequisite: Economics 199 or equivalent

Source: Ibid., p. 146.

_________________________________

DRAFT
[Summer or Fall 1970?]

M. Rothschild

Economics 201a, as Professor Jorgenson now teaches it1, presumes much specialized mathematical knowledge. (See attachment 1) There is no single course which covers all these topics, (chiefly the implicit function theorem, constrained maximization and Euler’s theorem), in either the economics or mathematics departments at Harvard. We are in effect demanding that our students arrive knowing these things or that they learn them on their own. The former is unlikely, the latter more so. Imagine trying to learn the mathematics necessary to follow the standard derivation of the Slutsky equation by studying the standard sources such as Allen, Mathematical Analysis for Economists, Lancaster’s Mathematical Economics or the appendices to Samuelson’s Foundations or Henderson and Quandt. These bewildering cook-books are as helpful to those without mathematical training as Escoffier is to weekend barbecue chefs. Those with some knowledge of mathematics will not find the standard sources much more helpful for they are written in a spirit alien to that of modern mathematics; they give almost no motivation or intuition for their results.

There are other bits of mathematics necessary for a thorough understanding of basic economic theory. For instance, the stability theory of difference and differential equations, the theory of positive matrices and rudiments of duality and convexity theory are required for the stability analysis of simple macro models, input output economics, and linear programming respectively. These are hardly new fangled and abstruse parts of economic theory. Indeed they are topics which should be part of every economist’s competence.

There are courses at Harvard where one can learn these things; the difficulty is that there are so many. Advanced courses in mathematical economics treat of positive matrices, duality and much more. Few students take these courses and almost no first year students do. I have no doubt that somewhere in the mathematics or applied math department, there is a course where one may learn all one would want to know and more of difference and differential equations. But all economists really need to know can be taught in three weeks or less.2

There is an obvious solution to these problems, namely for the department to offer a course which truly covers “Basic Mathematics for Economists.”3 A proposed course outline is attached. The course begins with linear algebra because most of the specialized topics needed for mathematical economics are applications of the principles of linear algebra. I know of no one semester course at Harvard which teaches linear algebra in a manner useful to economists. Another advantage to including linear algebra in this course is that it would make it possible to drop the topic from Economics 221a which is presently supposed to teach linear algebra, probability theory, and statistics in a single semester.4 I doubt this can be done. If linear algebra were excluded from the syllabus of 221a, there would be less reason for offering the course in the economics department. We could reasonably expect that our students learn statistics and probability theory from the statistics department (in Statistics 122, 123 or 190).

*  *  *  *  *  *

1…and, I hasten to say, as it should be taught

2A word must be said here about Mathematics 21. This excellent full year course in linear algebra and the calculus of several variables contains all the insights, and almost none of the material, which economists should know. With a slight rearrangement of topics, principally the addition of the implicit function theorem, constrained maximization, and the spectral theory of matrices this would be a great course for economists. As it is now it is a good, but rather time consuming, way to develop mathematical maturity which should make it easy to learn the mathematical facts economists need to know.

3The present title of Economics 199 which is a remedial calculus course taken only by those students with almost no mathematical training.

4I became aware of the need for such a course while teaching 221a. After spending three very rushed weeks developing some of the basic notions of linear algebra I had to drop the subject just when it would have been easy to go on and explain the mathematics behind basic economic theory. The desire of the students that I do so is indicated by the fact that most of them were enticed to sit through a second (optional) hour of lecture on a Saturday by the promise that I would unravel the mysteries of the determinental second order conditions for maximization of a function of several variables.

*  *  *  *  *  *

Proposed course outline:
  1. Linear Algebra, vector spaces, linear independence, bases, linear mappings, matrices, linear equations, determinants.
  2. Cursory review of the calculus of several variable from the vector space point of view, the implicit function theorem, Taylor’s theorem.
  3. Quadratic forms and maximization with and without constraints; diagonalization, orthogonality and metric concepts, projections.
  4. The Theory of Positive matrices; matrix power series.
  5. Linear Difference Equations, stability.
  6. Linear Differential Equations, stability.
  7. Convex sets and Duality. (If time permits.)

_________________________________

Michael Rothschild

Mike Rothschild first came to Princeton in 1972 as a lecturer in economics and quickly rose to the rank of professor three years later. Mike is an economist with broad interests in social science. His 1963 B.A. from Reed College was in anthropology, his 1965 M.A. from Yale University was in international relations, and his 1969 Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was in economics.

In the early 1970s, Mike published a string of ground- breaking papers studying decision making under uncertainty and showing the effects of imperfect and asymmetric information on economic outcomes. With Joseph Stiglitz, Mike proposed now- standard definitions of what it means for one random variable to be “riskier” than another random variable. He studied consumer behavior when the same good is offered at different prices and when the consumer does not know the distribution of prices. He studied the pricing behavior of fi when they are uncertain about demand and showed that a fi may end up setting the wrong price even when it optimally experiments to learn about the demand for its product. Arguably, Mike’s most important early work was a 1976 paper with Stiglitz on insurance markets in which insurance companies did not know the heterogeneous risk situations of their customers. Mike and Stiglitz showed that under certain circumstances a market equilibrium exists in which companies offer a menu of policies with different premiums and deductibles that separate customers into appropriate risk groups. This research is one of the landmarks in the field of information economics.

Mike left Princeton in 1976 for the University of Wisconsin and moved to the University of California–San Diego (UCSD) seven years later. His research over this period included papers on taxation, investment, jury-decision processes, and several important papers in finance. Mike’s research contributions led to recognition and awards: he became a fellow of the Econometric Society in 1974, received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1978, became a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1994, and in 2005 was chosen as a distinguished fellow of the American Economic Association.

In 1985, Mike decided to branch out from teaching and research, and he spent the next 17 years in university administration. Shortly after arriving at UCSD he became that university’s first dean of social sciences. Under his watch, the division grew dramatically in the number of students, faculty, departments, and programs. He presided over the launching of cognitive science, ethnic studies, and human development. During his deanship, the UCSD social sciences soared in the national rankings, reaching 10th nationally in the last National Research Council tally for 1996.

Mike was lured back to Princeton in 1995 to become the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. During his seven-year tenure as dean, Mike started the one-year Master in Public Policy program for mid-career professionals; the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy; the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics; and the Center for Health and Wellbeing. Under his leadership, the Wilson School added graduate policy workshops to the curriculum, expanded course offerings, added multi-year appointments of practitioners to the faculty, and enhanced professional development. Mike shared his dean duties with his trusted and loyal dog, Rosie, who became an important part of the school’s community and accompanied Mike throughout campus.

Finally, Mike likes to wear a hardhat. At UCSD he oversaw the planning and construction of the Social Sciences Building, and at Princeton he built Wallace Hall and renovated Robertson Hall. The Princeton community may remember Mike most for turning Scudder Plaza from the home of a formal reflecting pool where guards kept people out of the fountain into a community wading pool that welcomes and attracts students, families, and children (many under the age of three) each summer evening.

Source: Princeton University Honors Faculty Members Receiving Emeritus Status (May 2009), pp. 18-20.

Image Source: Screenshot from the interview (Posted Dec. 4, 2012 in YouTube).

Categories
Economics Programs M.I.T. Undergraduate

M.I.T. Economics department committee (re-)organization. 1976-78

During my second year in graduate school at M.I.T. (1975-76), the economics department professors were engaged in a discussion about reforming the administration of their department. At the time I was completely unaware of this discussion that had been provoked by the following memorandum written by then Department Head, Professor E. Cary Brown, based on his experience with the growing overload of administrative chores and responsibilities in a department with the scale of that attained by M.I.T.’s economics department.

Brown’s memo to the faculty is followed by a transcription of a copy of the letter Brown wrote to Robert Solow, who as an administrative reorganization committee member, must have been asked for some further testimony. The entire committee’s (Peter A. Diamond, Stanley Fischer, Jerry Hausman, Paul Joskow, Robert M. Solow) report was completed two months after Brown’s memo. In the same departmental file from the M.I.T. archives, one finds a copy of the actual assignment of administrative responsibilities for the academic year 1977/78.

Many, if not most, of the administrative tasks had been allocated and faithfully executed before this “reorganization”. I know that Evsey Domar had long been covering the placement of new Ph.D.’s and also proudly serving as the departmental representative for library-related affairs. I sense reading these documents that the truly neglected child all along was the undergraduate program for which some arm-twisting was required to achieve equitable burden-sharing among the faculty. But perhaps there were other specific items that had been sore points too. Maybe Brown simply wanted an explicit organization chart to forestall “whataboutism” from the mouths of relatively uncooperative colleagues. But like I wrote above, this was a discussion that was invisible to me (appropriately so) at the time.

Cf. The committee assignments in the Harvard economics department during the 1972-73 academic year

__________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

March 12, 1976

Economics Department Faculty

Dear [blank]

For some time I have become increasingly dismayed at the increase in the administrative burden in the Department, and now find the present job as Head to be a nearly impossible one. If the job is to be made tolerable, it must have substantial additional faculty support in some form to cut it down to a scope manageable either by me or a successor.

There are two basic ways that this can be achieved: (1) by spreading the administrative activities and responsibilities more widely among the faculty; or (2) placing these tasks on essentially an associate departmental head, whose precise title could take various forms Executive Officer, Academic Officer (e.g., Tony French in Physics), or Associate Head. I personally would favor the Associate Head route, but regard it as an open question subject to further discussion and consideration, and to Administration approval. This new structure should be treated as an experiment, to last no longer than until the next Head is chosen, and to be reconsidered at that time.

My own thinking about the administrative tasks of the Department separates them into four major areas: undergraduate programs, graduate programs, research programs, and personnel and budgeting. While these can be headed by an administrator or by faculty, it seems to me that the first two programs should have formal faculty control regardless of the form the administrative reorganization takes. The graduate program nearly has that form now and largely runs itself, with the exception of a few odds and ends that now lie outside the responsibility of the graduate registration officers. The undergraduate program is a long way from this structure and will require a good deal of imagination, initiative and effort to resuscitate the Undergraduate Economics Association and provide more guidance and support for majors. The research programs (student and faculty) focus more or less clearly under the Committee on Economic Research. Personnel and budgeting are an administrative responsibility. They have involved increasing amounts of time as budgets have tightened, space has tightened, and the search for new faculty has expanded.

The administrative structure is an important matter to the Department. Because it involves departmental administration and the role of the Department Head, it concerns the Administration through Dean Hanham. He has asked me to appoint the following committee to consider these questions of reorganization and to make recommendations: Bob Solow, Peter Diamond, Stan Fischer, Paul Joskow, and Jerry Hausman. Please give your views to members of the committee as soon as you can.

Sincerely,
[signed “Cary”]
E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/sc

__________________________

Brown to Solow

March 16, 1976

Professor Robert Solow
E52-383

Dear Bob:

I shrink from making organization charts, but the following diagram is intended to give some idea of the orders of magnitude of faculty involvement in departmental chores.

Chairman, Committee on Undergraduate Studies

  1. Faculty counselors (we have agreed with the UEA to keep members to 10 or less, and let faculty build up expertise by staying adviser for freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior year).

—10 faculty: 2 for each class. 4 for seniors

  1. Faculty adviser for humanities concentration in economics (advises and signs up students); also considers the eligibility of economics subjects, what we consider concentration, etc.
  2. Closely related to (2) is possible membership on the so-called Humanities Committee that approves and reviews the whole Humanities, Arts, and Social Science requirement and program. (We have no one on this year but as the largest concentration will surely need to have a presence.)
  3. Approval of transfer of credits from other schools to M.I.T.
  4. Advising with Undergraduate Economic Association in matters academic, professional, social.
  5. Undergraduate placement, while an Institute responsibility, could be supervised and assisted by a faculty member who would keep up to date on summer placement, interning possibilities, salaries. The experience our students have applying to graduate schools, actual jobs offered and taken.
  6. Design of curriculum, cooperative program, etc.
  7. Various activities, such as providing information to undergraduates in their choice of major (Midway in fall, seminar in spring), Open House activities, Alumni activities, etc.
  8. Relations with other Departments at undergraduate level, such as subject offerings, subject content, etc.
  9. Supervision and staffing of undergraduate subjects with multiple sections — 14.001, 14.002, 14.03, 14.04, 14.06, 14.30, 14.31.
  10. Catalog copy.

Chairman, Committee on Graduate Studies

  1. Graduate Registration Officers, so far one each for first two years, and one for thesis writers. Has been suggested that we have an additional adviser for foreign students and minority and women?
  2. Admissions Committee has, in the past, had three members.
  3. Placement, both summer and permanent.
  4. Supervision of core subjects.
  5. Ph.D. and M.S. requirements, program, size.
  6. Financial aid — coordinating various GRO; Admissions Committee, and Budget limitations.
  7. Graduate School Policy Committee meetings.
  8. Annual revision of brochure.
  9. Graduate Economics Association, Black Graduate Economics Association.
  10. Catalog copy.
  11. Various activities — professional and social that are not contained within a particular class.

Chairman, Committee on Economic Research (I faculty)

  1. Organized list of faculty projects requiring research assistants and the supply of them (both graduate and undergraduate). Assignment of R.A.’s.
  2. Assistance in research proposals.
  3. Inventory of internships and off-campus research.
  4. Supervision of unscheduled subjects, such as UROP, Undergraduate Seminar, and thesis.
  5. Supervision of M.I.T. Working Paper Series.
  6. Allocation of computer funds, developing rules, developing alternative sources.

Personnel and Budgeting (Administrative Officer and a large chunk of my time)

  1. Personnel
    1. Nonfaculty is supervised by the Administrative Officer.
    2. Faculty Personnel

(1) Employment — new Ph.D.’s and senior faculty
(2) Review and promotion
(3) Assignments, leaves, research

    1. Postdoctoral personnel
  1. Space allocations, revisions.
  2. Budget Proposals
  3. a. Proposals
    b. Implementation

Telephone
Xerox & Ditto
Supplies
Equipment

There may be other matters that I am leaving out – routine meetings average probably a day a week, and things like that. Consultations with faculty, students, and other Departments, would probably add a couple more days.

If there are questions, I’ll oblige, of course.

Sincerely,
E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/sc

__________________________

MEMORANDUM

May 10, 1976

TO:       Department Faculty
FROM: Committee on Reorganization (PAD, SF, JH, PJ, RMS) [Peter A. Diamond, Stanley Fischer, Jerry Hausman, Paul Joskow, Robert M. Solow]

SUBJECT:         Reorganization

ECB’s [E. Cary Brown] letter of March 12, which created this committee, starts from the premise that the administrative burden on the Department Head has become essentially impossible. This seems clearly to be the case. It has happened because the department has increased in size and complexity without any corresponding adaptation of its administrative arrangements. Every new function has fallen into the Head’s lap. (Top that, anyone.) Apart from the sheer burden of work thus created, another problem is the difficulty of communications, because that is also time-consuming.

After some palaver and negotiation, we have a reorganizational package to suggest. It rests on two conditions; since it is something of an interconnected web, it will probably unravel if the two conditions can not be met. (1) Since the only way to correct an excessively centralized structure is to decentralize it, we propose to diffuse administrative responsibility more widely through the department; there will be at least one serious administrative post for everyone, or perhaps two minor posts instead, but everyone will have to participate. (2) The administrative load attached to the undergraduate program has increased with the size of the enrollment and the improvement of the curriculum; no one wants to manage an inadequately staffed program. We propose, therefore, that the normal teaching load for everyone in the department be agreed to be half graduate and half undergraduate teaching. This definition should be extended to everyone on the departmental budget: joint appointees, visiting professors, etc. As soon as there are a couple of exceptions to this understanding, there will be more. Then the management of the undergraduate program will break down, and it will revert or default to the Department Head, and that is what we are trying to stave off.

The particular organization we have in mind is as follows.

  1. The central functions (budgeting, space, leaves, relations with the MIT hierarchy, etc.) will be in the hands of the Department Head and an Associate Head namely PAD [Peter A. Diamond]). In addition, one of them (probably ECB [E. Cary Brown]) will be an ex officio member of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies to be proposed below, and the other will be an ex officio member of the Committee on Graduate Studies. The precise division of labor is obviously a matter of taste; for the moment, ECB [E. Cary Brown] will probably do most of the relations with the MIT structure and PAD [Peter A. Diamond] will concentrate on intra-departmental matters.
  2. There will be a Director of Undergraduate Studies (PT [Peter Temin]), who will be chairman of a Committee on Undergraduate Studies (with 2 or 3 additional members, possibly RD [Rudiger Dornbusch], PJ [Paul Joskow] and one other). This committee will be responsible for revisions of the undergraduate curriculum adding and subtracting subjects, staffing them, degree requirements, etc. In recent discussions with the Undergraduate Economics Association, the proposal has merged that there should be a larger number of Undergraduate Advisors (i.e., registration officers) than there is now, with each taking care of at most 10 students. That suggests we would need about 8 such advisors. The members of the Committee might serve as advisors, plus others. Merely serving as registration officer for 10 undergraduates is by itself not an onerous job.
  3. There seems to be no need for change in the organization of graduate studies in the department. We suggest that there be a Director of Graduate Studies (RSE [Richard S. Eckaus]) and a Committee on Graduate Studies which would, as now, consist of the other two Graduate Registration Officers. Things are going very well now with REH [Robert E. Hall] handling the first-year students. MJP [Michael J. Piore] the second-year students and RSE [Richard S. Eckaus] the thesis-writers. REH [Robert E. Hall] is prepared to take on the task or devising a scheme to keep track of post-generals students, and see that they find themselves a reasonable thesis topic in a reasonable amount of time. The scheme may need another person to look after it.
  4. We suggest the creation of Committee on Staffing whose functions would include looking after the hiring of assistant professors, the dovetailing of visiting professors with faculty leaves, and the rationing of visiting scholars. The picture we have is that the members of committee would do the interviewing and preliminary screening of new Ph.D.’s at the annual meetings, and decide which of them to invite to come and give seminars. At that stage and thereafter, the whole department faculty would be in on the act, and final decisions would be made, as they are now, in a department meeting. The main time-consumer for this committee would be the correspondence in connection with hiring. Since that would fall on the Chairman, that post would be a major one. For the other members of the committee, the burden would be relatively light. We suggest REH [Robert E. Hall] as chairman, plus perhaps 3 others.
  5. There seems to be no reason to change the way the Admissions Committee now functions.
  6. We see no need for major change in the Placement process. Our only suggestion are (a) perhaps to provide EDD [Evsey D. Domar] with another person to share the load, and (b) to have a pre-season department meeting, analogous to the post-generals meeting, at which each graduate student entering the market could be discussed by the full facuIty, and information and ideas collected.
  7. There are other details. RLB [Robert L. Bishop] is functioning as advisor to MIT undergraduates thinking about economics as part of their Humanities requirement, and we are happy to preserve that human capital. MAA [Morris A. Adelman] who has been our representative to CGSP is to begin a term on the CEP, which should count as a major administrative burden. We need his successor on CGSP.

One last point: we hope that each committee chairman will promptly send a written notice of each substantive decision to the Head and Associate Head for distribution to the department faculty, so that communications are well looked after. That plus rational expectations should do the trick.

Source: MIT Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records. Box 2, Folder “Department Organization”.

__________________________

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES:
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT 1977-78
  1. UNDERGRADUATE COMMITTEE
Chairman: Peter Temin
Members: Cary Brown Senior Faculty Counsellor, Ex Officio
Jerry Rothenberg Senior Faculty Counsellor
Peter Temin Senior Faculty Counsellor
Rudiger Dornbusch Junior Faculty Counsellor
Jeffrey Harris Junior Faculty Counsellor
Jagdish Bhagwati Sophomore Faculty Counsellor (Fall)
Henry Farber Sophomore Faculty Counsellor (Spring)

Summer Jobs: Jeffrey Harris
Humanities Adviser: Robert Bishop
Transfer of Credits: Cary Brown

  1. GRADUATE COMMITTEE
Chairman: Richard Eckaus Thesis, Graduate Registration Officer
Members: Paul Joskow/Mike Piore Second Year Graduate Registration Officer
Marty Weitzman First Year Graduate Registration Officer
Jerome Rothenberg CGSP Representative
Stan Fischer, Ex Officio

Admissions Committee:

Chairman: Robert Bishop
Members: Frank Fisher and Lance Taylor

Placement: Evsey Domar
Harvard-MIT Theory Seminar: Eric Maskin
Theory Workshop: Kevin Roberts

  1. OTHER DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Staffing Committee: Chairman: Rudiger Dornbusch

(For New Ass’t Profs.) Members:

Paul Joskow
Jerry Hausman
Stan Fischer, Ex Officio
(Added for Temporary Visitors: Robert Solow)

Independent Activity Period: Jeffrey Harris/Marilyn Simon
Unstructured Subjects Committee: Peter Temin, Undergraduate; Richard Eckaus, Graduate
Computer Allocation: Richard Eckaus

ADDENDUM: INSTITUTE COMMITTEES

CEP: Morris Adelman
Associate Chairman of the Faculty: Michael Piore
Visual Arts: Jerry Rothenberg
Library System, Chairman: Evsey Domar

Image Source:  For this portrait of members of the M.I.T. economics department in 1975 see the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror post that provides identifications.

Categories
Chicago Funny Business Harvard M.I.T.

Chicago. Lyrics from “With a Little Bit of Luck”, ca. 1962

 

The following number comes as the last sheet of a stapled collection of skit numbers, beginning with an economics version of “Dear Officer Krupke” from West Side Story, already posted. That number was written about 1962 and My Fair Lady ran on Broadway from 1956 through 1962, so this too could have been written sometime around 1962 as well.

_____________________________

FINALE
(To the tune of “With a Little Bit of Luck
from My Fair Lady)

Oh we are all perpetually students
Because the army we would like to shirk
Oh we are all perpetually students
But with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck
We will never have to go to work

With a little bit, with a little bit
With a little bit of bloomin’ luck

The men upstairs harass us with their prelims
To write the answers always makes us fret
The men upstairs harass us with their prelims
But with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck
We will pass them all without a sweat

(Repeat Chorus)

Ingersoll and Earhart pay us money
And the reason we don’t understand
Oh Ingersoll and Earhart pay us money
But with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck
They’ll increase it by another grand

(Repeat Chorus)

Oh we have spent long years in these damn workshops
Hearing all the young professors shout
Oh we have spent long years in these damn workshops
But with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck
They’ll have pity and they’ll let us out

(Repeat Chorus)

The MIT men get the best job offers
The Harvard men get all the business dough
The MIT men get the best job offers
But we just never get the luck, we just never get the luck
All that’s left for us is Chicago

We just never get, we just never get
We just never get the bloomin’ luck

Oh everybody thinks that we are madmen
And we have no say in policy
Oh everybody thinks that we are madmen
But with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck
We will publish in the J-P-E.

No final Chorus

Source: Harvard University Archive. Papers of Zvi Griliches. Box 129, Folder “Faculty Skits, ca. 1960s.”

Image Source: Stanley Holloway (center) as Alfred P. Doolittle from the Broadway presentation of My Fair Lady. At left is Gordon Dillworth and at right, Rod McLennan. From Wikimedia Commons.

Categories
Exam Questions M.I.T.

M.I.T. Midterm and final exam questions for first half of international economics. Kindleberger, 1961-1967

 

The two term graduate sequence for international economics 14.581 and 14.582 provided the following course description in the M.I.T. catalogues, unchanged over the better part of the 1950’s and 1960’s:

The foreign exchange market, foreign trade and commercial policy, with emphasis on the relation of the items in the current account to national income, international finance and the achievement and maintenance of equibrium in the balance of payments as a whole; current problems of international economics.

For this post I have transcribed six sets of the 1960’s exams for the first course of the sequence taught by Charles Kindleberger. 

Kindleberger’s exams for both 14.581 and 14.582 for 1954-55 have been posted earlier, as have his exams for 1950-51.

_____________________________

Fall Term 1961-62

14.581 International Economics. Professor C. P. Kindleberger.  3 hours/week, 37 Students.

 

14.581
November 9, 1961
HOUR QUIZ

Answer two questions (equal weight).

  1. Discus some of the choices which balance-of-payments statisticians must make, and illustrate how the outcomes are governed by the purposes to be served on the one hand, and the nature of the raw material on the other.
  2. Indicate the contribution which the establishment of a forward market can make to hedging facilities for foreign traders
  3. Evaluate the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem as an explanation of comparative advantage.

 

14.581 – International Economics
FINAL EXAMINATION
C. P. Kindleberger
January 23, 1962

NO BOOKS ALLOWED.
Answer question 1 and any three of the following five.

  1. (one hour) Discuss the relevance to the theory of international trade taken in the widest sense of any three of the classical assumptions of:

a) full employment
b) mobility of resources within but not between countries
c) perfect competition
d) the labor theory of value
e) Say’s Law of markets

How is the theory modified, and the prescription of free trade altered, if the assumptions you deal with have to be revised?

Answer three questions (forty minutes each).

  1. Which side do you favor in the debate between the elasticities and absorption in the exchange -devaluation problem? Explain.
  2. To what extent, if at all, does international trade theory illuminate the tariff history of some country with which you are familiar? Give details.
  3. How do tariffs affect the distribution of income within and between countries? Illustrate, with reference to the relevant theorems.
  4. Under what circumstances, if ever, are two of the following three weapons of commercial policy justified: a) tariffs; b) quota restrictions; c) foreign exchange control? Compare the measures you treat with alternative means of achieving the same goals, and include in your justification, if you find one, reasons for why the means indicated are superior to the alternatives.
  5. How is the theory of international trade, and of commercial policy, altered by moving from two to a greater number of countries?

_____________________________

Fall Term 1962-63

14.581 International Economics. Professor C. P. Kindleberger. 3 Hours/week, 46 Students.

Quiz
14.581
November 6, 1962

Answer both questions. (25 minutes each)

  1. How does the United States Department of Commerce define a “deficit” in the balance of payments? Comment on the adequacy of this definition.
  2. Evaluate the success of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory in explaining the basis of international trade.

 

 

Tuesday, January 22, 1963
Time 1:30 – 4:30 P.M.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Scheduled Examination in
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS 14.581

NOTE: Students are not permitted to use any books, notebooks, or papers in this examination. If brought into the room, they must not be left on the desks

Answer any five questions (36 minutes each).

  1. What difference does the establishment of a forward-exchange market make to the conduct of international trade and exchange?
  2. The underlying theory of international trade is sometimes called a theory of “comparative costs” and sometimes one of “comparative advantage.” Is there any real distinction between these views? Explain in detail.
  3. Explain how trade and restrictions of trade alter the distribution of income within and between countries.
  4. If you were called upon to judge the Alexander-Machlup debate over the adjustment mechanism under changing exchange rates, which side would you favor and why?
  5. What is the “foreign repercussion” in the adjustment mechanism? How does it operate? Evaluate its significance.
  6. What difference does it make, when a country restricts its international trade by a given amount, whether it uses tariffs or quotas?
  7. Do customs unions enlarge welfare?

_____________________________

Fall Term 1963-64

14.581 International Economics. Professor C. P. Kindleberger. 3 Class Hours/Week, 19 Students.

[Note:  one additional section  of 14.581 was taught by L. Lefeber with 22 students]

14.581
One-hour Test
November 14, 1963

Answer both questions, which have equal weight.

  1. What is meant by a deficit in the balance of payments?
  2. Expound the law of comparative advantage in modern economic terms.

 

Tuesday, January 28, 1964
Time: 1.30 – 4.30 P.M.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Scheduled Examination in
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS – 14.581

NOTE: Students are not permitted to use any books, notebooks or papers in this examination. If brought into the room they must not be left on the desks.

Answer six (6) questions (one-half hour each).

  1. In balance-of-payments accounting, practice differs or is disputed in connection with the following items, among others. What are the various ways in which a country may treat five of them, and what is the justification for each possible treatment?

i) immigrants’ remittances
ii) payments to own nationals for carriage of imports
iii) foreign aid
iii) reinvested profits of foreign-owned enterprises
iv) new gold production sold abroad
v) short-term U.S. claims of commercial banks on foreigners
vi) prepayments of U. S. government loans to foreign governments,

  1. Provide a geometric demonstration of the effect on the terms of trade of technological change in the export good which economizes the scarce factor. State all necessary assumptions explicitly, making them as neutral as possible.
  2. Does the shift of the analysis of the theory of international trade from two to many countries change the theory? In what respects and to what extent?
  3. Explain how currency devaluation under full employment affects the balance of payments, and the terms of trade
  4. Meade states that the adjustment mechanism in international trade is virtually the same under the gold standard and under flexible exchange rates. How does he justify this assertion? Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
  5. The marginal propensity to spend on home goods out of national income in Country A is 2/3rds, and to spend on imports, 1/6. Country B has similar propensities of 1/2 and 1/4. Country A undertakes new expenditure of 100 divided normally between home and abroad. What amount does B have to change its expenditures to preserve internal balance? What happens to A’s balance of payments?
  6. The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Acts of 1934 and thereafter, and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 called for reciprocal reductions of trade barriers. Under what circumstances and to what extent is it useful for a single country to reduce its tariffs by itself without matching tariff reductions abroad?
  7. Set out at length and in detail the conditions under which customs unions increase world welfare.

_____________________________

Fall Term 1964-65

14.581 International Economics. Professor C. P. Kindleberger. 3 Class Hours/Week, 29 Students.

HOUR TEST
14.581
November 12, 1964

  1. Define accurately “lags and leads” in the balance of payments, and discuss their significance.
  2. What assumption does the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem make about factor inputs of commodities, and what is the significance of this assumption.

 

Tuesday, January 26, 1965
Time: 9:00 – 12:00 A.M.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Scheduled Examination in
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS – 14.581

Answer one question from each of Groups I to IV, and the single question in Group V.

Group I

  1. Expound the theory of comparative advantage as simply and clearly as you can.
  2. Does it make a significant difference to the theory of international trade to move from an analysis of two to more than two countries? Explain.
  3. What are the gains from trade? How are they distributed? How does the gain of a single country change in response to a change in supply abroad? demand at home?

Group II

  1. Is the purchasing-power-parity doctrine best described as a) a truism; b) a fallacy; c) a useful operational hypothesis? Explain.
  2. Discuss the similarities and differences between the gold standard and the flexible exchange system.

Group III

  1. Is free trade the best policy?
  2. Analyze the slogan “There is nothing that a tariff can do that a subsidy cannot do better”.
  3. Argue for or against international commodity agreements.

Group IV

  1. Does a flexible exchange rate make it possible to pursue an independent monetary and fiscal policy internally? Explain.
  2. What happens to the terms of trade when exchange rates alter?

Group V

  1. What is the effect on its balance of payments of an increase in foreign demand for a country’s exports.

_____________________________

Fall Term 1965-66

14.581 International Economics. Professor C. P. Kindleberger. 3 Class Hours/Week, 46 Students.

 

[Note:  No hour midterm exam questions found for the fall term 1965-66.]

Monday, January 24, 1966
Time: 1:30-4:30 p.m.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Scheduled Examination in
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS – 14.581

NOTE: Students are not permitted to use any books, notebooks or papers in this examination. If brought into the room they must not be left on the desks

Answer Question 1 and 3 others–all of equal weight. 45 minutes each.

  1. Discuss the significance for the pure theory of international trade of two of the following assumptions:

1) two countries, two commodities, two factors
2) identical linear homogeneous production functions of the first degree
3) the labor theory of value
4) perfect competition in goods and factor markets
5) no transport costs.

  1. What are the effects of a tariff on the distribution of income between countries and within them?
  2. Comment at length on the Meade view that financial policies can be used to achieve internal balance, and exchange-rate variation to achieve external balance.
  3. Write an essay on the “gains from trade,” including, inter alia, a discussion on what countries gain, how much, and under what circumstances.
  4. Argue for or against discrimination in international trade, including, as one case, the customs union.

_____________________________

Fall Term 1966-67

14.581 International Economics. Professor C. P. Kindleberger with P. Bardhan, 3 Class Hours/Week, 39 Students.

Hour Test
14.581
December 1, 1966
10:30 a.m.

Answer one question under each of A and B (two in all, half hour each). Use a separate book for each question. Mark with your name and letter and number of the question.

  1. Describe in detail how a central bank can use forward exchange operations a) to protect its foreign exchange reserves in the event of capital outflow; and b) to gain reserves. What are the benefits of such forward operations? their limits?
  2. For 1964, 1965, and 1966 first nine months at an annual rate, the United States balance of payments showed the following data:
1964 1965 1966*
(in billions of dollars)
Gold sales -0.1 -1.7 -0.6
Liquidity balance -2.8 -1.3 -1.2
Official Reserve Transactions Balance -1.5 -1.3 +0.8

*First nine months of 1966 at an annual rate, seasonally adjusted except for gold sales.

Did the balance of payments improve or worsen each year? If one cannot say, what more would one need to be able to do so? Explain fully.

B

  1. Suppose you have a model with two countries, three goods, three factors, and internationally identical fixed-coefficients production functions for each good. What are the sufficient conditions for factor-price equalization in this model?
  2. In the usual two-by-two trade model if all of wage income is spent on one good and all of rental income from capital is spent on the other good, find out the conditions for uniqueness of static equilibrium in such a model.
  3. Take a small country in a large world with given terms of trade. Suppose in this country capital grows at a higher rate than labour and there is Hicks-neutral technical progress at a uniform rate in all the industries. What will happen to the wage rate and the rental rate on capital?

 

14.581T
24 January 1967
FINAL EXAMINATION

Answer question 1 or question 2 (one hour) and three others (forty minutes each)

  1. Compared to a pre-trade situation how will free trade affect income distribution in the trading countries in terms of the Heckscher-Ohlin model, comment on the assumptions of this model.
  2. What do you think are the most important limitations of the existing theory of international trade? Give suggestions, in as much detail as possible, about how you would go about removing one or two of them.
  3. Defend or refute the view of those who claim that free trade hinders rather than stimulates economic growth.
  4. What difference does it make to the impact of a tariff in general equilibrium what happens to the proceeds of the tariff?
  5. Comment at length on the usefulness of the purchasing-power parity theory.
  6. Suppose you have a country large enough to affect world prices. In that context comment on Samuelson’s proposition that “some trade is better than no trade.”
  7. In a standard two-sector two-factor neoclassical trade model with constant proportions of income being spent on each good, show how patterns of specialization will change with factor accumulation.
  8. Protectionists argue out — occasionally successfully — a case for government intervention, but a case for government intervention is not necessarily a case for tariffs. Illustrate with reference to the case of external economies in production.

Source:  M.I.T. Institute Archives. Charles Kindleberger Papers, 1934-1999. Box 22, Folder “Examinations 14.581, 1949-1966”.

Image Source: Charles P. Kindleberger from the MIT Museum.