Categories
Harvard Regulations Teaching

Harvard. On the organization of the Division of History, Government, and Economics. Burbank, 1934

 

Professor Harold H. Burbank (Burbie to his friends) was a decades-long administrative multitasker during the first half of the 20th century. His realms covered both the tutorial system in the Division of History, Government, and Economics as well as the chairmanship of the economics department.The document transcribed for this post appears to have served as Burbank’s background briefing on the organization of the Division of History, Government, and Economics for the committee, chaired by the President of Princeton, Harold W. Dodds, tasked with establishing a school of public administration at Harvard.

_________________________

Who’s Who

James Bryant Conant (1893-1978) was a chemist, educator and public servant. The wide variety of his interests and occupations are reflected in the title of his memoirs, My Several Lives. Conant’s “several lives” included periods as a chemistry instructor, University president, national director of defense research, ambassador to Germany and as an author of critical works examining secondary education in the United States. Conant’s pursuits carried him from his boyhood home in Boston to Harvard University and eventually around the globe.

Conant graduated from Harvard College in 1914, completing a three-year program as an undergraduate concentrator in chemistry. He remained at the University, studying with Elmer Kohler, and received his degree two years later. An academic career followed, during which time Conant worked at Harvard as an instructor (1917), assistant professor (1919) and eventually as a tenured professor (1927) of organic chemistry. In 1921 he married Grace Thayer Richards, daughter of chemistry professor Theodore William Richards, whom Conant had met at a dinner for graduate students at Professor Richards’ house.

In 1933, despite the fact that his only previous administrative experience was a term as chair of the Chemistry Department, Conant was appointed to succeed A. Lawrence Lowell as President of Harvard University. President Conant worked to enhance Harvard’s position as a national institution with an international reputation for academic achievement. He established the National Scholarships which allowed young men of intellectual promise to attend Harvard College regardless of their financial circumstances or proximity to Cambridge, Massachusetts. He also broadened the intellectual scope of the undergraduate student body through the General Education Program. This program required each undergraduate, regardless of his concentration, to take courses in three broad disciplines: the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. President Conant further promoted intellectual exchange through the establishment of the prestigious University Professorships, which gave leading scholars tenured appointments at the University, unencumbered by ties to specific faculties or departments.

Conant’s achievements also included expansion in the teaching of education and of journalism. In the fall of 1935 the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Graduate School of Education voted to recommend his plan for the establishment of a new degree, the Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.). The M.A.T. required prospective teachers to demonstrate a command of educational theory as well as familiarity with specific subjects by undergoing examination by members from both the teaching faculty and their specific subject faculty. Three years later, Conant helped to establish the Nieman Fellowships. These fellowships fund a year of study at Harvard for professional journalists.

During wartime, Conant balanced his service to the University with a commitment to national affairs. In 1917 he briefly left Harvard to join the Chemical Warfare Service and by the end of the First World War he was promoted to the rank of major. Conant, an outspoken critic of Nazi Germany, played a more prominent role during the Second World War. As a member and chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, he and his colleagues were responsible for the technical direction of military scientific research, including atomic research. At the end of the war he declined to become the first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, although he continued to serve as Chairman of the National Science Board.

Conant retired from Harvard in 1953. He immediately began another of his “lives,” serving as U.S. High Commissioner to Germany and Ambassador to Germany. In 1957 he resigned his diplomatic post and once again turned his attention to American education. In 1957, Conant, along with the Educational Testing Service, administered a large scale study of American high schools. Following this, he studied and reported on teacher education in American Universities. In 1964, he returned to Berlin for eighteen months as an educational advisor under the auspices of the Ford Foundation.

Conant spent his final years as a resident of New York City, Summering in Hanover, New Hampshire. He took ill in Hanover during the spring of 1977 and remained there until his death on February 11, 1978. He was survived by his wife who died in 1985 and his sons James Richards and Theodore Richards.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Collection overview: Papers of James Bryant Conant, 1862-1987.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Vernon Munroe, Jr., Harvard Class of 1931. One of three members of a special committee of the Student Council who wrote a report “The Tutorial System in Harvard College” (published as a supplement to the Harvard Alumni Bulletin, October 9, 1931).

SourceReport of the President of Harvard College 1930-31, p. 96.

MUNROE RESIGNS AS SECRETARY TO PRESIDENT CONANT

The Harvard Crimson, May 7, 1934

Announcement was made at University Hall yesterday of the resignation of Vernon Munroe, Jr. ’31, as secretary to President Conant.

Munroe has held the position since September 1, 1933 when he was appointed by the Corporation to a new post as assistant to the President of the University.

Graduating from Harvard in 1931 he spent the next year at the Law School, leaving there to assume his post as aide to the President. He plans to continue next year with his work in the Law School.

At college Munroe was President of the Student Council, Captain of the University track team, Chairman of the Dunster House Committee, and Third Marshal of his class. As President of the Student Council he was active in preparing a special undergraduate report on the Tutorial System at Harvard.

Although no one yet has been chosen to succeed Munroe, it is believed that the appointment of his successor will be made in the near future.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Princeton University President (1933-57) Harold W. Dodds  was appointed by President Conant as head of a commission to consider the establishment of a new school of public administration (today’s John F. Kennedy School of Government).

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College 1934-35, p. 23.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Harold Hitchings Burbank. Chairman of the department of economics 1927-38 and 1942-46 and Chairman of the Board of Tutorials in the Division 1916-46.

From the active list, Harold Hitchings Burbank, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy, died on February 6, 1951, in his sixty-fourth year. He began his career in the field of Economics at Dartmouth where he taught for one year, 191o-11. He came to the University in 1911 as an Assistant in Economics, becoming an Instructor in 1912. In 1914 he was appointed a Tutor in that Department, and from 1916 to 1946 he served as Chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government and Economics. He was Assistant Professor of Economics from 1919 to 1923, Associate Professor from 1923 to 1926, and Professor of Economics from 1926 to 1932. From 1932 until his death he held the David A. Wells Professorship of Political Economy. He was also Chairman of the Department of Economics from 1927 to 1938, and again from 1942 to 1949; he acted as Chairman of the Division of History, Government and Economics from 1942 to 1946. Few Harvard teachers ever worked with as many students individually or gave so lavishly of their time and energy.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1950-51, p. 29.

Cf. Burbank’s earlier report, transcribed and archived at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror:  Report on the Tutorial System in History, Government and Economics. Burbank, 1922.

_________________________

Background information on the Division of History, Government, and Economics written by the Chairman of Economics Department, 1934

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

H. H. BURBANK

41 HOLYOKE HOUSE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

May 21, 1934

Dear Mr. Munroe,

The organization of the Division of History, Government, and Economics is complicated. I am listing below some comments on the questions raised by President Dodd. [sic, almost certainly should be “Dodds”] I can give you complete details should you require them.

  1. The Division has developed through the separation from History of the Departments of Economics and Government. The Division is composed of the members of these three departments.
  2. The Division unit was maintained before 1914 primarily for the administration of graduate degrees. Emphasis was placed upon the formulation and administration of the degree requirements rather than on the development and coordination of the curriculum. I believe that some attention was given also to candidates for Honors for the Bachelors‘
  3. As I recall it, there was a small independent budget to provide for secretarial assistance to the Chairman of the Division and to provide for the printing of the Division pamphlet and the schedule of graduate degree examinations.
  4. The administration of graduate degrees has continued since 1914, but latterly, the programs of the three departments have become characterized by their differences rather than by their unity of conception and action.
    1. The independent Division budget for the purposes summarized above has been continued. It is prepared and administered by the Chairman of the Division.
  5. In 1914 on the recommendation of the Division, Comprehensive Examinations and a system of Tutorial Instruction were initiated. To a small degree the curriculum within the Division was coordinated. Correlation among the subjects taught in the several departments was required. To meet the new objectives, an Examining Committee, appointed by the President, was created, and the general development and supervision of the Tutorial Instruction was placed in the hands of a new Division officer — the Chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government, and Economics.
    1. All tutors, whether in History, Government, or Economics, were, in theory, recommended by the Division. The appointment was, and is, in the Division rather than in a particular department.
    2. Until about 1925, a Division Committee on Appointments — the Chairman of the Board of Tutors, the Chairman of the Division, and the Chairmen of the three Departments — passed upon all recommendations for appointments in the Division as tutors. Since 1925, this Committee has not been active. All appointments as tutor therefore are now on the basis of Departmental recommendation. The Chairman of the Board of Tutors is usually consulted.
    3. With the appointment of Divisional Examiners and Tutors, a budget was called for, which included the expenditures for Tutorial Instruction, for the Examiners, and for Administration.
    4. Until 1931, this budget, prepared by the Chairman of the Board of Tutors was altogether distinct from Departmental budgets, although it was always prepared in consultation with the Division Chairman.
    5. During the last five years there has developed a tendency toward complete Departmental control of Tutorial Instruction. With the development of Departmental control and responsibility, the Division budget has become less important, until for the forthcoming year it will practically disappear except for the maintenance of a small sum for administration and examining.
  6. It may be stated that from 1914 to 1928, or 1929, there was thorough Division control in the development of Tutorial Instruction. After the functions and methods of instruction had been established on a satisfactory plane, Division control was slowly withdrawn and instruction decentralized. The Division still operates unqualifiedly as a unit in the administration of examinations.
  7. With the rapid increase in the membership in the Division since 1914, the group became ineffective as an administrative unit. For some years, the affairs of the Division have been administered by a Committee of Seven— the Chairman of the Division, the Chairmen of the three Departments, and delegates from each Department — which meets when necessary. Although the principal work of the Committee is confined to the administration of graduate degrees, the Committee frequently concerns itself with Tutorial Instruction and with questions of the curriculum which have common interest. The Division meets as a group for the recommendation of degrees — A.B., A.M., and Ph.D.
  8. Until 1930, instruction in Sociology was offered by the Department of Economics. Also, some subjects ordinarily regarded as belonging to the subject of Sociology were offered by the Department of Social Ethics which was affiliated with the Department of Philosophy. Independent instruction in Sociology has been established and the Department of Sociology stands as a Division without direct affiliation with other Departments.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
H. H. Burbank

Mr. Vernon Munroe, Jr.
VS

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 9, Folder “History, Government & Economics, 1933-1934.”

Image Source: Portrait of Professor Harold H. Burbank in the Harvard Classbook 1934. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Cambridge Harvard Oxford Princeton Regulations Undergraduate

Harvard. Tutorial System and Divisional General Final Examinations, 1920

 

The Division of History, Government and Economics played a pioneering role in implementing the curricular reforms at Harvard College initiated by President A. Lawrence Lowell around the time of the First World War. The Department of Economics was to play a leading role in the administration of the divisional tutors in history, government and economics.

President Lowell wanted to get away from the extreme laissez-faire implicit in the system of electives left by his predecessor, Charles W. Eliot, to combine elements of concentration with distributional requirements that would leave students a guided sovereignty to elect their courses. Divisional General Examinations and Tutors to provide individually tailored instruction and counseling were institutional means seen as necessary to escape “the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated”.

“…the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation…”

In the opinion of the faculty Committee on Instruction the tutorial system should be established to support the best and brightest students to achieve their individual potentials rather than as a support system to provide remedial instructional services for the “mediocre and lazy”. 

“…there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.”

__________________________

The General Final Examination and the Tutorial System

       The most important educational change, however, in Harvard College during recent years has been the establishment, as a requirement for the bachelor’s degree, of a general final examination on the student’s field of concentration; the problems which arise in connection with this plan are interesting and complex.

       When the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1909-10 voted to require each student to concentrate at least six courses in some single field or in related fields of knowledge, it thereby indicated its belief that knowledge of a subject is of more importance than the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated and which were often soon forgotten. Provision was made, at the same time, against undue concentration by a system of distribution, which, however, need not be considered here. Yet the requirement of concentration proved not to secure, in all cases, the choice of courses well related, and least of all did it require, or sufficiently encourage, the student to articulate and complete his knowledge of his field, by himself, through work outside the classroom. The next logical step, therefore, was taken in the autumn of 1912-13 when the Faculty passed the following vote:

  1. That the Division of History, Government, and Economics be authorized to require of all students whose field of concentration lies in this Division, in addition to the present requirements stated in terms of courses for the bachelor’s degree, a special final examination upon each student’s field of concentration; and that the passing of this examination shall be necessary in order to fulfill the requirements for concentration in this Division.
  2. That students who pass this special examination may be excused from the regular final examinations in such courses of their last year as fall within the Division of History, Government, and Economics, in the same way that candidates for distinction who pass a public test may now be excused under the rules of the Faculty.
  3. That this requirement go into effect with the class entering in 1913.
  4. That the Division of History, Government, and Economics submit for the sanction of the Faculty the detailed rules for the final examinations and such a detailed scheme of tutorial assistance as may be adopted before these are put into effect by the Division.

       The examinations thus established were first given at the close of 1915-16. Between that date and the end of the year 1919-20, these general examinations had been given to 444 men, of whom 26 (5.8+%) failed and therefore did not receive their degrees unless they passed the general examinations in some subsequent year; of the 418 who passed, 73 (17.4+%) won distinction and 345 (82.5+%) obtained a pass degree.

       General examinations had been used in the Medical School since 1911-12, and in the Divinity School since 1912-13, so that considerable knowledge of the actual working of such examinations was available by the opening of the academic year 1918-19. Accordingly on December 3, 1918, the Faculty passed the following vote under which a committee of nine was established:

       That a Committee be appointed to investigate the working of the general final examinations for degrees now used in various Departments of the University, and to consider the advisability of employing general final examinations on the fields of concentration in all Departments of Harvard College.

       After studying the subject for some months the Committee came to the conclusion that the advantages of the general final examination, particularly as employed in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, might be stated as follows:

    1. The examination has secured “concentration” in related subjects.
    2. It has encouraged the mastery of subjects or fields rather than of courses.
    3. It has given the Division a survey of the student’s capacity at the end of his college course.
    4. It has provided a more satisfactory method of awarding the degree with distinction than the plan formerly in use.

       The Committee therefore made the following recommendations, which the Faculty adopted April 1, 1919:

  1. That general final examinations be established for all students concentrating in Divisions or under Committees which signify their willingness to try such examinations, and that adequate means be provided to enable such Divisions and Committees to administer these examinations; it being understood that the control of the general final examinations shall rest with the several Divisions and Committees in the same manner as the control of the examinations for honors and distinction now given by them.
  2. That the new general final examinations be first employed for the members of the present freshman class.
  3. That, so far as possible, the adviser to whom each student is assigned, be a teacher in the student’s field of concentration.

       All Divisions had previously indicated their desire or willingness to employ such examinations except the Divisions of Mathematics and of the Natural Sciences. The chief reason for the attitude of the Divisions declining appears to lie in the nature of the subjects which they represent, for Mathematics and the Natural Sciences have, by and large, fairly fixed paths of advancement for the undergraduate, so that an examination in an advanced course is, at the same time, an examination on all the work which has preceded, as may very well not be the case in Literary, Historical, and Philosophical subjects.

       Beginning then, with the year 1921-22, general final examinations on the fields of concentration will be required of all candidates for the bachelor’s degree, save in the Divisions named above. The plan is an experiment, and the experience of at least ten years may be needed before its virtues and defects can be fully estimated; but in the meantime, the successful working of such examinations in the Medical School, the Divinity School, and especially in the Division of History, Government, and Economics under this Faculty, the welcome given the plan by the more serious part of the student body, and the interest in the experiment shown by other colleges, give grounds for entertaining much hope.

       The very plan of a general final examination, however, requires that the student shall select his courses wisely, do work outside his formal courses, and by reading and reflection coordinate the details he has learned into a body of ordered knowledge of his subject, so far as this can be done in undergraduate years. In all this he requires guidance and stimulus. The Division of History, Government, and Economics, therefore, from the first, has employed Tutors whose business it is to guide and assist students, individually, in their preparation for the general final examination. Tutoring for this purpose was, on the whole, a new problem in American education, although Princeton University had made some important experiments with its Preceptorial system, and “advisers” for undergraduates had long existed here and elsewhere; moreover, the Oxford and Cambridge system of Tutors obviously could not be transplanted without change to this country because of the differences in secondary and college education. Therefore it was, and still is, necessary to experiment in methods and to develop men for the work. At first tutorial duties were superimposed on other teaching, thus increasing the total amount of instruction given by those who were appointed Tutors, but this plan proved unwise for reasons which now seem fairly clear, but which were not so easily seen in advance. More recently many Tutors have given all their time to tutorial duties, and in some cases this may always be a wise plan; but it appears probable that in many cases it will be unwise for a Tutor to be excluded wholly from giving some formal instruction in his subject by means of a “lecture” course or otherwise, for it is important that every teacher should grow in depth as well as in breadth of knowledge, and such growth can probably usually be best assured him by having him give a course in the subject which he is making especially his own. At present, then, the arrangement which seems most promising is to provide that, so far as possible, each Tutor who desires it shall use a certain proportion of his time in giving formal instruction with the usual classroom methods, the rest, usually the major part of his teaching, being given in the less formal but equally important work of a Tutor.

       Tutorial work means work with the individual student. General suggestions and directions can be given to small groups about as effectively as to single students; yet since the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation, the Tutors must generally deal with individual students; and this is the regular method employed at the present time. The Tutor meets the students under his charge every week to discuss with them the reading which they have done, to help them solve their difficulties, and to give them suggestions for their future guidance. The good Tutor is in no sense a coach, but a friendly counselor whose knowledge and wisdom are put at the disposal of his students. Unquestionably the total amount of work now required of each student has been somewhat increased over that formerly exacted, but the amount is not so excessive as to call in itself for any remission of the present requirements of courses. The most important purpose, however, of this work done by the student outside his courses under the direction of the Tutor is to teach him how to learn and how to assimilate his knowledge. Ambitious and able students realize the value of such training and give themselves much of it, becoming candidates for distinction in their fields of concentration; the indolent and slow are content with a bare degree. When more experience has been gained the Faculty may well consider relaxing somewhat the requirements of four courses in the Senior year for candidates for distinction, whose previous records give promise of success; but the pass man deserves no increased opportunities for self-discipline since he will ordinarily have proved that he cannot or will not use them.

       In this connection the question may well be raised whether all men should receive equal attention from the Tutors. That there should be equal opportunities for all until some have shown themselves indifferent or unequal to them is beyond doubt; but when the wills and abilities of men have been well tested, as should ordinarily be the case by the end of the sophomore year, it seems only justice to the willing and able to give them more attention than is bestowed on the men who are content with a pass degree. Of course a chance must be given the repentant laggard to climb into the more deserving, and therefore more favored, group during his last two years. But there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.

       In the vote of April, 1919, the Faculty wisely left each Department or Division free to determine the nature of the assistance to be given students concentrating under it and the means by which such assistance shall be given. The Divisions of Philosophy and of Fine Arts propose to use Tutors, as the Division of History, Government and Economics has done from the beginning of the experiment; the several Departments of Languages and Literatures, ancient and modern, will employ advisory committees. But whatever names and methods are employed, the aim will always be to give the individual student assistance and encouragement in acquiring a body of well-organized knowledge in his field. In this direction apparently lies the next advance in the improvement of instruction in Harvard College.

CLIFFORD H. MOORE, Chairman.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1919-1920, pp. 100-104.

__________________________

Related previous posts

Harvard. First Undergraduate General and Specific Exams in History, Government and Economics Division, 1916.

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

 

Categories
Economic History History of Economics Johns Hopkins Regulations

John Hopkins. Proposals for First and Second Year Graduate Examinations. Musgrave, 1960

Having had just served as a member of the economics faculty at the University of Michigan for the preceding twelve years, Richard A. Musgrave demonstrated the seriousness and enthusiasm for his new job at the Johns Hopkins University starting with the academic year 1960-61. It is interesting to see one and the same person arguing for both more mathematics and more history of economics to be included in the graduate general microeconomic and macroeconomic examinations.

_____________________________

October 19, 1960

MEMO TO:     Members of the Department
FROM:             R. A. Musgrave

            As we mentioned before, it would be desirable to make some announcement to the graduate students indicating how the examinations would be handled this year. I think the announcement could be framed in such a way to relate to this year only, without establishing a new policy or making a precedent for what is to be done thereafter. I indicated to the graduate students at the opening meeting that some such statement would be forthcoming.

            As I understand it, there was a fairly general feeling at the close of last year that it was not very satisfactory to insist upon equal-emphasis examinations in twelve fields, with the result that performance in some areas (as was the case with International Trade) would be below the senior level. At the same time, there also seemed general agreement that the Hopkins tradition of avoiding over-specialization is sound. The following proposal attempts to be in line with these ideas and is herewith submitted for discussion.

            With regard to the proposal for the second year exam, these two questions may be thought about:

  1. I do think it is sound that a certain amount of mathematical economics and history of thought should be worked in with the general theory examinations rather than be treated as a special area. A person specializing in mathematical economics would be free to choose econometrics as one of his fields anyhow. A person specially interested in history of thought might be permitted to offer this as a special field. In other words, history of thought might be added to the optional fields listed on the next page.
  2. If the student chooses two out of the six optional fields, this of course means that there remain four fields which are not at all covered. If we are worried about this, we might add a requirement that a student must have done a certain amount of course work in these fields. Or one might add sort of “minima examinations” in these other fields, as distinct from the more intensive examinations in the special fields. But this would again greatly increase the examination load.

Graduate Students’ Examinations in Political Economy
Spring 1961

            Our examination procedure this year will be as follows:

First Year Graduate Students. There will be an oral examination in the latter part of May. This examination is designed to give the Department an opportunity to confirm its judgment that the incoming graduate students have the ability to meet the requirements of Ph.D. work, to explore the extent of the students’ preparation in various areas, and to determine in what areas additional work is needed. The Staff is aware of the work which a student has done before coming to Hopkins, and of the courses which he is taking this year. The examination is conducted accordingly, and no preparation distinct from regular course work is required.

Second Year Graduate Students. In May, second year graduate students will come up for their Ph.D. generals. The generals consist of a set of written examinations and an oral examination. The oral examination covers the general range of work which has been completed. The written examination will include the following papers, four hours each.

  1. Theory. There will be a paper on micro theory and macro theory each. There will be no separate papers in mathematical economics and history of thought. Rather, the papers dealing with micro and macro theory will contain some questions demanding an answer which involves mathematical tools; as well as questions involving a historical perspective on the development of doctrine. The examination in micro theory will include the theory of relative prices, incomes, and welfare economics. The examination in macro theory will include the theory of income determination, growth and stabilization policy.
  2. Statistics.
  3. Economic History. The examination in Economic History will include questions on American and European economic history. Students who have not taken work in economic history here will be held responsible for two books, as follows: (To be inserted).
  4. Optional Fields. In addition to the preceding four examinations, the student may choose two of the following fields: International trade, industrial organization, labor, public finance, money, economic development, and econometrics. A substantial familiarity with the chosen field is required.

Source: The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives of the Eisenhower Library at Johns Hopkins University. Department of Political Economy, Series 7, Subseries 1.  Box No. 3/1. Folder “Graduate and Undergraduate Curriculum 1953-1961.”

Image Source: Richard A. Musgrave page at the University of Michigan’s Faculty History Project.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Reform of the PhD dissertation printing requirement, 1936-1940

 

The following extracts from the minutes of Columbia’s Faculty of Political Science (an amalgam of the Departments of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science) provide milestones along the tortuous bureaucratic road taken to implement a fairly modest reform in the publication-of-the-dissertation requirement for the Ph.D. at Columbia University back in the 1930s. The reform initiated sometime in early 1936 only saw the light of day first with the printed Faculty announcement published at mid-year 1940.

See: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-1941 published in Columbia University Bulletin of Information, 40th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 14.

______________________

April 17, 1936

            Professor [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics] presented for consideration a Memorandum on the Printing Requirement for Ph.D. Dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science, signed by Professors [Robert Morrison] MacIver [Political Philosophy and Sociology], [Robert Livingston] Schuyler [History], [Robert Emmet] Chaddock [Statistics], [Carter] Goodrich [Economics], and [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics], a copy of which is attached to these minutes. He also presented, and moved the adoption of a resolution providing for a modification of the present printing requirement. After amendments, offered by Professors [Samuel McCune] Lindsay [Social Legislation] and [John Maurice] Clark [Economics], had been accepted, the resolution read as follows:

WHEREAS, the Faculty of Political Science believes that the University printing requirement for dissertations imposes a heavy financial burden on candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty; that the printing requirement as it actually works does  not impose equivalent burdens on the candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in certain other parts of the University; that the printing requirement operates as a severe property qualification impeding the access of otherwise competent students to receipt of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, and that the printing requirement on occasion impels first-class graduate students, who apart from financial considerations would prefer to do their work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Columbia, to go elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, in 1932 the Committee on Publications of this Faculty made a Report to the Faculty, and recommended a reconsideration of the printing requirement with a view to its relaxation; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction, after considering this Report, went on record as it that time favoring retention of the printing requirement, and in the absence of any definite proposal by the Faculty of Political Science did not recommend any change; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science now records itself as desiring a modification of the printing requirement with respect to dissertations offered under the Faculty of Political Science, so that the requirement may be met in any one of three ways, at the option of the candidate, subject to the approval of the committee examining the dissertation, as follows:

(1) By publication of the original approved dissertation in full through a recognized publisher, or otherwise in a form approved by the Dean of the Faculty; or,

(2) By publication of an article, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a professional journal, or otherwise acceptable to the examining Committee; or,

(3) By publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a series of abstracts of dissertations to be published at intervals as volumes in the Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law. The abstracts should ordinarily not exceed 15 pages in length. The candidate will defray his pro rata share of the cost of publication.

Under the second and third alternatives, the candidate shall submit five copies of the proposed article or abstract at least three weeks in advance of the final examination in defense of the dissertation itself. Under such alterative, the requirements for the deposit of copies of the approved printed document and for its distribution to the members of the Faculty are those stated in the Graduate Announcement. In addition, if the dissertation is printed in abridged or abstracted form provision shall be made for preserving at least two legible copies of the original dissertation.

RESOLVED, further, that the foregoing Resolution be transmitted to the University Council, with the request that the Council take action permitting the Faculty of Political Science to realize its desire as above stated.

RESOLVED, further, that the attention of the University Council be also invited to the appended Memorandum on the Printing Requirement, prepared informally by certain members of the Faculty.

After a general discussion, in which fourteen members of the Faculty participated, Professor [Lindsay] Rogers [Public Law] moved that the following resolution be substituted for the resolution under consideration:

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science transit the pending resolution and the accompanying Memorandum prepared by certain or its members, to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction and request that the Joint Committee inquire into the results of the publication requirement at Columbia University and the results of differing requirements at other universities and make the findings of such inquiry available to the Faculty of Political Science for the farther consideration of the publication requirement at the Faculty’s regular meeting in the autumn.

The Faculty being evenly divided, President [Nicholas Murray] Butler cast the deciding vote in favor of the resolution presented by Professor Rogers and it was adopted.

[…]

Appendix to Minutes

To the members of the faculty of Political Science:

We enclose herewith a memorandum on the printing requirement for Ph.D. dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science. It contains proposals which will be advanced formally at the meeting of the Faculty on April 17th next. By signing the memorandum we desire to indicate our belief that the questions raised and the proposals made deserve to be brought before the attention of the whole Faculty, but do not express our concurrence on all points.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. L. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
[April 17, 1936]

The question of prolonging or abolishing the present temporary arrangement, under which Ph.D. dissertations may be offered for examination in typescript, must be passed on by the Faculty of Political Science at its meeting on April 17th. This provides on appropriate occasion for examining the whole question of the printing requirement in the Faculty.

At the present time, the situation is broadly this. The Faculty will accept dissertations in typescript for the purposes of the defense examination, and if the defense is successful a certification is given the candidate, announcing that he has met all the requirements for the Ph.D. degree except that of actual publication of the dissertation.

The degree itself is not awarded, however, until the candidate has secured actual publication — “publication” having recently been defined to include in effect some, though not all, of the non-printing forms of reproduction, such as photostating, and provided that certain conditions are met.

Columbia University and the Catholic University of America are apparently the only two large institutions of higher learning which have retained in full the printing requirement, which was once wide-spread in this country. By enforcing the requirement, Columbia imposes on itself a prime facie impairment of its power to attract first-class graduate students who will become candidates for the Ph.D. degree, and who are free to choose between the several leading institutions. No University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. If retention of the printing requirement is to be justified, it must be shown to yield benefits which offset this disadvantage.

In addition, the requirement works unevenly as between different, sections of the University. In the Faculty of Political Science, as in that of Philosophy, the requirement is extremely burdensome in financial terms to the average Ph.D. candidate. For that large proportion of candidates whose means are limited, its fulfillment imposes genuine hardship. In the Faculty of Political Science the typical dissertation is essentially literary in character, runs to at least 250 to 300 printed pages in length, and even after allowance for royalties usually costs the candidate $600 to $800 to publish — often much more. The fact that perhaps a quarter of the dissertations are published in the Studies at a saving to the candidate of 20% of the price charged by the University Press, does not greatly alter the situation, nor does it operate to lighten the average financial burden very much. For many students, the sum involved is equivalent to their total living expenses for 6 to 8 months or more: the burden is real. In the Faculty of Pure Science and in the Medical School, on the other band, the typical dissertation is not more than 20 or 25 pages in length (often less than 10), and is published in one of the technical or professional journals at no cost at all to the candidate. Moreover, though this is not relevant for present purposes, the Pure Science dissertation is commonly a joint product of the candidate and the supervising Faculty member, and is published under both signatures.

In defense of the retention of the printing requirement by the faculty of Political Science, the most common contention is that its abolition would lead to a disastrous lowering of our standards for the Ph.D. degree. This contention, of course, cannot be tested directly except from future experience. It is significant, however, that apparently none of the other leading American universities which had abolished the printing requirement has restored it. Moreover, it seems highly improbable that the existence of the printing requirement and the maintenance of high standards are related to one another as cause is related to effect. It could not be contended seriously that merely enforcing a printing requirement would enable a faculty of inadequate scholarly competence to maintain high standards, nor that the existence of a printing requirement would ensure, in such circumstances, the production of distinguished dissertations. Equally it cannot be contended that the modification or withdrawal of the printing requirement will alone cause a faculty of high scholarly competence to deteriorate its standards, nor that modification or withdrawal will alone lead to the production of low-grade dissertations under such a faculty. Indeed, to assert that such results would ensue is to imply that the members of such a faulty maintain high standards only from fear of being “found out”, should they lower their standards, through the publication of discreditable Ph.D. dissertations.

            It is also contended that publication is an advantage to the candidate, in that it brings his name and work to the attention of other scholars and also helps him to get a better position. This is undoubtedly true to many cases. But the same or better general results can be obtained in a different way, to be suggested in a moment, which entails relatively little cost to the candidate. As things now stand, most candidates apparently feel that they would gladly forego the not always unequivocal advantages of this type of advertising, in order to void the expense and sacrifice now imposed upon them.

Finally, it is contended that the typescript dissertations found in the libraries of other Universities are in general less finished and sometimes less scholarly products then those which have undergone publication; and that they are less accessible to the generality of scholars. This last is of course true. The contention would have granter force as an argument in favor of retaining the publication requirement, however, if there were any way of shifting the bulk of the financial burden of publication to those other scholars who would allegedly be such large beneficiaries from the act of publication itself. It would also here greater force If any substantial number of other universities had indicated, by retaining the requirement, that they felt the cogency of these considerations. In actuality, and from their very nature, many and perhaps most Ph.D. dissertations in Political Science are not of sufficiently broad interest to merit publication as books. Some suggestions for publishing their essential contents, however, will be outlined presently. It is believed that adoption of these suggestions will give the authors and their work rather wider publicity than is now obtained, in the average case, and will do so without impairing the dissemination of scholarly knowledge.

The principal positive arguments against the retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science have already been indicated, directly or by implication. They are two in number. One turns on the financial costs and other burdens placed on the candidate. The great bulk of our students are not well-to-do. In the majority of cases, financing the publication of the dissertation exacts a genuine and often a disproportionately large sacrifice from the candidate or his family. It is not easy to see that the candidate of the University receives a return commensurate with this sacrifice. However, as the present system works out in practice it frequently means that the actual receipt of the Ph.D. degree itself is delayed by one or more years after the completion of the work, while the candidate is accumulating enough money to pay for publication. To the extent that this happens, as it seems to in what is not far from a majority of the cases, one of the alleged advantages of the publication requirement — that it helps the candidate secure a better position — may turn into a positive disadvantage, because of the delay involved. The present practice of examining on typescript has helped this situation somewhat, but apparently not as greatly as had been hoped; and of course, it still leaves the candidate with a serious financial burden to carry into future years, before he can obtain the actual Ph.D. degree. The fact that so large a proportion of our candidates now elect to be examined on typescript is surely not wholly unrelated to the matter of their financial ability or inability, at the time of the examination, to defray the cost of printing.

There is also some evidence that the existence of the printing requirement influences candidates to select topics for the Ph.D. dissertation with a view to the probable popularity of the topics, rather than with a view to their scholarly merit and interest alone, in order to lighten the burden of the printing costs.

The second argument against retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science turns on the best interests of the University itself. What we are really doing is to enforce a fairly severe property qualification for the Ph.D. degree, and one which is in effect inoperative in certain parts of the University. It is a property qualification imposed by only one other large University. There is much evidence to indicate that — as seems natural enough — this property qualification drives elsewhere many first-class students who would prefer, except for financial considerations, to come to Columbia for their Ph.D. work in the Political Science field. To repent what was said before, no University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. A property qualification is surely the wrong basis on which to select our Ph.D. candidates.

In connection with the earlier discussion of standards, it should also be pointed out that such a modification of the printing requirement as would eliminate its more serious disadvantages to the student would presumably contribute to the actual raising of the general standards of scholarship and performance prevailing, rather than to their deterioration. This would happen to the extent that the modification increased the number of high-calibre through impecunious students who come to us for their training.

Both the material evidence available and the logical argument against retention of the present form of publication requirement in the Faculty of Political Science are thus extremely strong. We therefore make two suggestions:

(1) At the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science on April 17th, action should be taken looking to the immediate modification of the printing requirement, in its present form, for Ph.D. dissertations under the Faculty. At the same time, however, in the interests of the Ph.D. candidates, of other scholars elsewhere, and of the University as a whole, it seems desirable to retain something of the advantages of the present requirement. Outright abolition of the requirement is therefore not proposed. It is suggested that it be modified as follows:

(2) Action should be taken by the Faculty to provide that, the printing requirement, subject to confirmation by the University Council, may be met in any one of three ways: namely either by,

(a) Publication of the complete dissertation under the present regulations; or, by,

(b) Publication of an article, presenting the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in one of the recognized professional journals; or by,

(c) Publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting briefly the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in a new annual or semi-annual volume of Abstracts to be published as a regular part of or supplement to the present Studies; the costs of publication and distribution of the volume to be paid by the candidates pro rata. The abstracts would not exceed perhaps 15 pages each, and the average cost to the individual candidate would probably be under $50. The numerical majority of the dissertations would presumably be handled through these new Abstracts.

In each of the three options, the present requirement for the deposit of 75 copies — whether of book, article or abstract — would be retained; and in the last two cases deposit of two copies of the original dissertation would also be required. Dissertations would be defended on typescript, unless the candidate himself preferred to defend on galleys.

These alternatives leave candidates who have the funds, or who can secure commercial publication without a subsidy, free to publish as heretofore. The alternatives take the present severe burden off those candidates who have not sufficient funds, however; and at the same time retain for them most of the advantages, from getting their names and work more widely known, which they obtain under the present arrangements. Indeed, it seems probable that the publicity they thus receive, and the accessibility of the main content of their work to other scholars, will be substantially greater under the proposed arrangements than under those now prevailing. The average sale of the present full-length dissertation hardly exceeds 250 to 300 copies; the circulation of the better-known professional journals runs to several thousand.

In order to make it easier to secure publication in full of most of the best dissertations, without placing an undue burden on the candidates, we also suggest that the present Studies be made substantially more selective in character than they now are, with a diminution in the number of volumes issued per year and with a higher average standard of quality required for acceptance. To illustrate, we suggest that not more than one or two full-length dissertations a year should be published in the Studies from each Department, apart from the proposed new volumes of Abstracts. We believe that the resulting increase in the average quality of the Studies, by increasing the average sales per volume would enable the Studies to carry a much larger proportion of the costs of publication then at present, perhaps 50% or more. We also believe that the improvement in quality and the decrease in number of issues per year would raise the general standing of the Studies to a basis of comparability with the similar series published by various other leading Universities. Probably the most nearly ideal arrangement would be one under which the publication of a dissertation in the studies would be in the nature of a prize award, entailing no cost at all to the successful candidate. Since financial limitations make this impossible at present, we suggest the arrangement just outlined.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. E. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 759-775.

December 11, 1936

For the information of the Faculty the following memorandum was presented, concerning the action of the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction on the subject of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. At its April, 1936, meeting the Faculty of Political Science adopted a resolution transmitting to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction a memorandum by certain members of the Faculty urging modification of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. On May 19, following, the Joint Committee appointed a sub-committee to study and report on the subject.

The sub-committee submitted its report, accompanied by a digest of information, to the Joint Committee at its meeting on November 9, and on November 16, 1936, the Joint Committee adopted the sub-committee report and its opinions as follows:

“For the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction:

Your sub-committee empowered to consider the question of the printing of doctoral dissertations, composed of the undersigned as chairman and of Professors Angell, Gray, Patterson, Pegram, and Rogers, has duly elicited the information as to the practice in this matter in the leading American universities as well as the pertinent sentiment of three hundred and twenty-one of our own recipients of the doctoral degree in the decade from 1924 to 1933 inclusive. A digest of the information as elicited is now available for the members of the Joint Committee.

After full consideration of this digest and of all other aspects of the question, your sub-committee would submit the following opinions:

  1. That the present requirement of printing should be maintained. Our vote on this recommendation stands four to two, Professors Angell and Patterson dissenting.
  2. That we regret the hardship which the printing of the dissertation now entails on certain of the recipients of the degree.
  3. That it is advisable to make due effort to relieve this hardship as much as possible by any reduction that may be feasible in the cost of printing, and in particular by the establishment, if possible, of a subsidy from University funds to aid in the cost of printing; and that the Joint Committee, or its chairman, should make due inquiry into this possibility.

The second and third opinions were unanimous.”

While opinion in the Joint Committee was not unanimous on point (1) of the adopted report, discussion on certain amendments that were offered and not carried led the Committee to agree as to the substance of two points of the rejected amendment. A sub-committee consisting of Professors Pegram, MacIver, Rogers, and Wright was appointed to rephrase these two points for communication to the Faculties, which they have done as follows:

“(a) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting date which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.

(b) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that the Dean has authority under the present regulations to accept dissertations printed in part or in whole by photo offset process or other manifolding process when there are special reasons, arising out of the nature of the dissertation (tabular and statistical matter, reproductions of texts, etc.), making such offset process appropriate.”

For the information of members of the Faculty of Political Science, it is to be noted that the problem of printing dissertations under the Faculty of Pure Science is rarely a serious one to students. Dissertations are short as compared to those in the other Faculties and are usually published in the professional Journals. In the Faculty of Philosophy the cost of printing dissertations is serious. That Faculty, at its November meeting, unanimously voted to place on record its opinion in favor of the three numbered paragraphs of the sub-committee report adopted by the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee will proceed further with inquiry into means of reducing the cost of printing dissertations and into the possibility of securing funds for aiding publication.

Respectfully submitted,
George B. Pegram,
Chairman
Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction

In connection with the proposal of the Joint Committee that an effort be made to establish a subsidy from University funds to aid graduate students in the printing of doctoral dissertations, the President pointed out some of the administrative problems involved in providing for the judicious and far allotment of such aid. He stated, however, that if a satisfactory administrative method could be devised, a revolving fund of $25,000 or $30,000 would go far toward lightening the financial burden which the present printing requirement imposes on certain candidates for the doctoral degree.

The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction presented a memorandum (a copy of which is appended to these Minutes) reminding the Faculty that at its meeting in April, 1986, it had neglected to provide for the dissertation examination on typescript beyond June 30, 1936, but that the privilege had been extended to candidates under the Faculty with the consent of the Dean’s office. After discussion of the memorandum Professor [Vladimir Gregorievitch] Simkhovitch [Economic History] moved that the motion concerning examination on typescript, which lapsed on June 30, 1938, be re-enacted and remain in effect for a term of one year. The motion was adopted, after Professor [Philip Caryl] Jessup’s [International Law] amendment substituting “until revoked by the Faculty” for the words “for a term of one year”, had been accepted. As re-enacted, the resolution then read:

“RESOLVED; that candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science, upon recommendation of the Department concerned, may be granted the privilege of examination on dissertations presented in typescript — five or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that the dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee require extensive revision shall be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision.”

Discussion of the resolution emphasized the fact that permission to be examined on typescript is granted only on recommendation by the department. It would appear, therefore, that a department may refuse to make any recommendation, require its candidates to stand examinations on galley proofs, or it may recommend in some cases and refuse to recommend in other cases.

[…]

Memorandum Concerning Dissertation Examination on Type-script

At the meeting of the faculty of Political Science on December 9, 1932, Professor Schuyler, as chairman of the Committee on Publications, raised the question of substituting for the then requirement that the examination must be on galley proof, a requirement that dissertations must be presented in typescript. After discussion the Faculty amended Professor Schuyler’s proposal. The resolution as passed provided that for the remainder of the academic year, 1932-33, candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science could be granted, upon the recommendation of the department concerned, the privilege of examination upon typescript four or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee required extensive revision should not be accepted subject to such revision, but should be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision. (Minutes, p. 699)

At its April meetings in 1933, 1934, and 1935 the Faculty continued the provisions of this resolution in affect for the ensuing academic years.

At the November 1935 meeting of the Faculty the Dean called attention to the fact that the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction had discussed the desirability or requiring five typescript copies of dissertations. the Faculty thereupon amended its regulations to require five instead of four copies.

At the April 1936 meeting the Faculty discussed the modification of printing requirement for dissertations. By inadvertence the Faculty neglected to provide for the examination on typescript alternative. with the consent of the Dean’s office, however, candidates under the Faculty of Political Science have been permitted to present their dissertations in typescript even though technically this privilege lapsed as of June 30, 1936.

Earlier this month a question rose in respect of the period which shall elapse between the presentation of the typescript copies and the date of the final examination. Under the terms of the resolution adopted by the Faculty of Political Science the period was three weeks. Under the printed terms of the regulations of the Faculties of Philosophy and of Pure Science the period is three weeks. As a matter of fact, this regulation is not enforced. Two weeks is deemed a sufficient period.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 783-790.

April 21, 1939

            The Chairman of the Committee on Publications further reported that, on the initiative of the Managing Editor of the Studies, the Committee had given consideration to the problem of reducing the financial burden upon doctoral candidates who publish their dissertations in the Studies. In consequence of this discussion, upon the recommendation of the Managing Editor, and in accordance with a unanimous resolution of his Committee, he offered the following resolution which was unanimously passed;

  1. Be it RESOLVED; That in order to afford to doctoral candidates an alternative method of publishing dissertations in the Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law at a lower cost than is possible under the existing requirements, these requirements be so modified as to permit, after October 1, 1939, at the option of the candidate,
    1. the use of paper binding
    2. the use of a double-column format, and of type smaller than that now employed, and
    3. the relegation of footnotes to the end of each chapter.
  2. Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to advance the sum of fifty dollars to each student publishing his dissertation in the Studies, said sum to be a first claim against the author’s royalties. In the event that said author’s royalties do not total fifty dollars within three years after the publication of the dissertation, the full receipts thereafter accruing to such volume shall be paid over to the University until such a time as the University is fully reimbursed for its advance.
  3. Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to authorize the Library to pay to each doctoral candidate who had published his dissertation in the Studies, the sum of fifty dollars, upon his depositing with the Library one hundred copies of the said dissertation.

[…]

            The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction reported that since receipt of the report of the Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (of which Professor Woodbridge was Chairman) the Committee on Instruction had given further consideration to the printing requirements. He submitted the following motions which were passed:

  1. BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty favored such modification of the present requirement for the printing of the doctoral dissertation as would allow candidates certain options, as follows:
    1. The dissertation may be printed from type and published in book form.
    2. The dissertation may be published as an article or series of articles in a scholarly journal.
    3. The dissertation may be reproduced by an offset process approved by the Dean of the Graduate Faculties.
  2. BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the sense of the Faculty that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting data which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.
  3. BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty, realizing that in the past insufficient attention has sometimes been paid to a student’s choice of subject, resulting in the necessity of the preparation of a manuscript of unreasonable length, calls attention to the need for considering the scope of the task when a topic for a dissertation receives its preliminary approval.
  4. BE IT RESOLVED, that the next available edition of the Bulletin of the Faculty include the first resolution on this subject stated abo e, setting forth the three options, and that in the Bulletin this be followed by a paragraph substantially as follows:

The departmental approval mentioned above relates to both the content of the dissertation and to the form in which it is printed. Students are therefore advised to consult their departmental representatives before exercising the option.

  1. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty authorize its Committee on Instruction to prepare a special leaflet for the benefit of candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, the leaflet to contain a full explanation of all the regulations on this subject.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 21, 1939) pp. 842-3, 845-846.

Image Source: Low Memorial Library, Columbia University from the Tichnor Brothers Collection, New York Postcards, at the Boston Public Library, Print Department.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Language Requirements for PhD Report, 1951

In 1950 the economics department of the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University was able to amend the foreign language requirement for a Ph.D. in economics to allow mathematics to substitute for one of the two required non-English languages. In 1951 the sociology department wanted to follow suit but this led to a faculty meeting discussion “so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it” ending in a special committee being formed to consider the matter further. The eleven page report of that committee has been transcribed for this post. It follows the excerpt from the minutes of the faculty meeting that would lead to the appointment of the special committee.

The portions of the report that explicity address the issue of the substitution of mathematics literacy for additional foreign language literacy have been highlighted for convenience. Connoisseurs of the discourse of academic rule-making will find much to savour in the minutes and report below. I find it hilarious that a three person committee speaks of  “majority” and “minority” recommendations when the humble fact was that “two of the committee members” disagreed with “the other one”.

It is unfortunate that I happened to have stopped my collection of faculty minutes with the year 1951, so that at the present moment I don’t know the ultimate fate met by the report’s recommendations at a later general meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, presumably sometime in early 1952.

___________________

Excerpt from the Minutes of the annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, April 27, 1951.

…Professor Lazarsfeld [Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, Professor of Sociology] offered a resolution to permit students in Sociology and Economics to substitute Mathematics for one of the two foreign languages normally required for the Ph.D. degree. In the discussion Professor Wuorinen [John H. Wuorinen, Professor of History] asked to be enlightened on the tendency of the motion. The answer was that Mathematics is a language and one far more necessary to the statistical student of society than any of the languages that consist of words.

Professor Evans [Austin Patterson Evans, Professor of History] opposed the motion on two grounds: first, the principle that all Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University are rightly deemed able to use the literature of their fields in two foreign languages besides their own; second, the technicality that any change in the requirement must be approved by all three faculties.

From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality. Professor Angell [James W. Angell, Professor of Economics] urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright [James Cummings Bonbright, Professor of Finance] uttered the suspicion that our language requirement was not really effective, and implied that a mathematics requirement would be. Dean Krout rose to reinforce Professor Evans’ point that we could not take separate action as a Faculty.

Professor Evans introduced an amendment of which the effect was to reduce the requirement to one language for all fields. The amendment was not accepted by the first mover and Professor Angell called for a test vote on the original motion. It was carried 25-10; but given the Faculty lack of power to act independently on this matter, Professor Angell moved the appointment of a committee to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree. This suggestion was powerless to stem the debate. Professor Stigler [George Joseph Stigler, Professor of Economics]urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis [Kingsley Davis, Asssociate Professor of Sociology] wondered how much mathematics would equal one language. Dean Krout likewise wished to know what would be meant by “mathematics”. Professor Lazarsfeld replied that a committee exists and has expressed itself on the nature of the mathematical equipment required by social scientists. Professor Angell revealed that the Department of Economics has the specifications all worked out. Professors Macmahon [Arthur W. Macmahon, Eaton Professor of Public Administration] and Shoup [Carl Sumner Shoup, Professor of Economics] both agreed in considering mathematics a language and raised the spectre of a three-language requirement.

Finally the question was called for, and Professor Angell’s motion to appoint a committee was passed 26-9.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962, pp. 1039-40.

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
[Nov. 5, 1951]

Summary

Findings of Fact:

  1. The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements of faculties and departments.
  2. Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees retain residual powers which they may exercise when they wish.
  3. Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the requirements.
  4. The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirements, and they differed widely.
  5. In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took account of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages. The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-editing of the language requirement. Thus was established without specific discussion a Faculty rule requiring two languages.

Conclusions:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faculty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

A minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

 

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PH.D. DEGREE

By letter, dated October 1, 1951, Dean John A. Krout constituted the undersigned as a Special Committee of the Faculty of Political Science to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree.

The Special Committee was asked to treat the subject generally in its report and to give special attention to the following questions: (1) Is it wise for the Faculty to permit its Departments to modify the existing language requirement; and (2) If the Faculty determines that it is wise to permit Departmental modification, should the Faculty recommend to the University Council such a change in the language requirement rules without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

A third question emerges from a reading of the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on April 27, 1951. Some of the members expressed the question in terms of debate over the authority of the Faculty of Political Science under the currently existing “constitutional law” of the University to take action on the language requirement without reference to the University Council for approval.

In an effort to answer the three questions raised, the Special Committee has divided its study into its component parts, namely (1) Have the Departments and the Faculty of Political Science present authority under the Statutes of the University, the resolutions of the Trustees and of the University Council and accepted. practice to change the language requirements for the Ph.D. degree; (2) From a policy point of view, should a change be made; and (3) From a policy point of view, should such a change be made without concurrence of the Faculties of Pure Science and Philosophy?

The Findings of Fact

(a) Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees here residual powers which they may exercise as they wish.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Trustees of the University have supreme authority over the “educational policy” of the University. No proposal involving a change in this policy may take effect until after approval of the Trustees, or until after the termination of the second meeting following the introduction of the proposal, in the event that the Trustees remain silent on the subject.

This is so by virtue of the terms of Article 24 of the Statutes of the University, which reads as follows:

Chap. II. The University Council

Art. 24. LIMITATION OF POWERS. No exercise of the powers conferred upon the Council which involves a change in the educational policy of the University in respect to the requirements of admission or the conditions of graduation, shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting of the Trustees shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

The University Council has the right under the Statutes of the University to consider every proposal, submitted by the Faculties which involves a change in the educational policy of the University.

This is so by virtue of Articles 33 and 142 of the Statutes of the University, which read as follows:

Chap. III. Faculties and Administrative Boards

Art. 33. LIMITATION OF POWERS. Every proposed exercise of the power conferred on any of the Faculties, which involves a change in the educational policy of the university in respect to the requirements of admission, the program of studies or the condition of graduation shall be submitted to the University Council before being recommended to the Trustees, and such recommendation shall not be laid before the Trustees until the Council has acted thereon, or until another meeting of the Council has been held, subsequent to that at which the recommendation was submitted. No exercise of such power by any Faculty shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

Chap. XIV. Faculty of Political Science

Art. 142. DEGREES. (b) Ph.D. Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall be qualified to receive that degree upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by the University Council by concurrent action with the Faculty of Political Science.

While the authority of the Trustees and the University Council is clearly superior to that of the Faculties in matters concerning the “educational policy” of the University (which would seem to include the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree), the record seems to indicate that this authority has been delegated to the Faculties. The second finding of fact, is therefore:

(b) The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements for faculties and departments.

The finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute book of the University Council contains the following resolution, dated April 18, 1916, which reads as follows in its pertinent provisions:

“A student admitted to the University under the jurisdiction of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy or Pure Science, who wishes to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which his research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

    1. The student must have satisfied the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the faculty prescribe.

Such an interpretation of, the meaning of the resolution of the University Council, dated April 18, 1916, is supported by the action of the Faculty of Political Science in years subsequent to the adoption of the University Council’s resolution. The record is sufficiently clear on this score to permit the Special Committee to make the third finding of fact:

(c) Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the language requirements.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

On various occasions the Faculty has altered the language requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as will be indicated later in this report, but after April 18, 1916, the Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and of the University Council are silent as to any reference of changes in the language requirement to the University Council. References to the University Council appear in the minutes before April 18, 1916.

Compare the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on February 25, 1916 (Minute Book, page 404), with the minutes of the meetings of the Faculty of Political Science, held on March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468) and on February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488).

While the Faculty has established a practice of acting on language requirements without reference to the University Council, a minority of the Special Committee feels it desirable to raise with the Faculty the question of whether it might not be courteous to inform the University Council of changes in the future, with an indication that the change has been made under the provisions of the delegation of authority under the resolution of April 18, 1916. There would then be no possibility of a misunderstanding. The majority of the Special Committee believe such informative procedure unnecessary.

The record of the action of the Faculty of Political Science on the language requirements is sufficiently clear to permit the special Committee to make the following fourth finding of fact.

(d) The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free up until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirement, and they differed widely.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute Book of the Faculty of Political Science records the following action of the Faculty on language requirements for the Ph.D. degree.

(1) December 12, 1913: (Minute Book, page 371)

“The Dean then presented to the Faculty for its consideration certain resolutions of the Joint Committee on Instruction of the several graduate faculties, as follows:

…After the completion of at least one year of residence…..students may present themselves for examination in any two of the subjects, of graduate instruction. The satisfaction of this examination together with a demonstration of ability to read French and German or such other languages as may be accepted will entitle them to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ……”

The matter was referred to the Committee on Instruction for consideration and report.

The Committee on Instruction reported at, the meeting of January 23, 1914, and the following was ordered entered upon the Minutes of the Faculty: (Minute Book page 375).

“…. (2) Each department shall prescribe, by regulations approved by the faculty and by the dean, the subjects and languages in which the student must show himself proficient and the manner in which his proficiency shall be determined.”

(2) February 25, 1916: (Minute Book, page 404)

“The Dean then recommended to the Faculty the adoption of the following revised regulations for the control of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:

Students who wish to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which their research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

….2. The candidate must satisfy the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the Faculty prescribe.”

The recommendation was adopted by the Faculty and referred to the University Council. It was this resolution which evoked from the University Council the resolution quoted above in connection with the discussion of the powers of the Faculty.

(3) March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468)

“The following were moved as a substitute for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy approved by the faculty at its meeting of May 25, 1916.

    1. Admission to Candidacy.

“2. Languages. The applicant shall demonstrate his ability to read at least one modern European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally the requirements in the several fields are as indicated in the list of subjects below. The language requirement must be satisfied at least one academic year prior to the admission of the applicant to candidacy for the degree.”

(4) February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488)

A substitution in the requirements approved on March 28, 1919 was moved and accepted:

“4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for each subject as indicated in the following paragraphs:”

There were then listed a considerable number of subjects with varying language requirements for each. There were as much as four languages required of those obtaining their degree in Ancient History, and in American Government, always in addition to English.

(5) April 19, 1940 (Minute Book, page 865)

The Faculty voted to rephrase the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to read as follows, In the pertinent section:

“6. Matriculation as a Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After not less than one year of graduate residence, after satisfying the department that he is proficient in such languages as it prescribes for a candidate and after satisfying the department that he is prepared to undertake research under its direction, the prospective candidate will be recommended by the department to the Dean for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.”

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1940-1941 continued to carry without change the paragraph adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, and quoted under (4) above. See Announcement for 1940-1941 at pp. 12-13. An examination on the list of subjects with the language requirements for each indicates that there was no longer a single subject which required but one language other than English. All required two languages or more.

The crucial change in Faculty practice on the language requirement occurred in 1941. The Special Committee finds it possible to make the following fifth finding of fact.

(e) In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took count of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages.

The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-edited language requirement. In effect there was established in this manner a Faculty rule requiring two languages when no general Faculty rule requiring a specific number of language had existed previously.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1941-1942 changed one word in the paragraph which had been adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, namely the word “one”. This word was changed to “two”, making the statement on languages read as follows: “The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to read at least two languages other than English…” The list of subjects, which had been printed in the Announcement in previous years, continued to appear, there being varying requirements for each subject, but none less than two languages.

No Minute of Faculty action concern specifically the question of the language requirement.  Professor Austin P. Evans, who was Chairman of the Faculty’s Committee on Instruction at the time, has informed the Special Committee that he recalls making the change in editing the Announcement. He noted that all of the subjects listed required two languages, and to avoid any confusion on the part of students in reading a general rule requiring only one language and a list of subjects in which all required at least two languages; he made the change. The Announcement was then submitted, for adoption by the Faculty, so that the change in the general statement of the language requirement was adopted as a new Faculty rule.

In the Announcement for the following year, 1942-1943, the list of subjects with the specific foreign languages required of candidates for the Ph.D. degree in each field was dropped. The list has never reappeared, leaving the sole statement of the language requirement the paragraph which has been altered for the Announcement of 1941-1942.

No Faculty action has been found authorizing requirement by subject. It is possible that the deletion occurred as a part of the campaign of the Secretary of the University for shortened Announcements to save money. Whatever the reason, the change strengthened the rule, as amended in the previous year, and removed any indication that the rule had originally been a summarizing of the requirements as established by each department for the subjects under its control.

Conclusions

Having made the above five findings of fact, the Special Committee believes it possible to conclude at this point the following:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Considerations Underlying Recommendations

In seeking to find the basis for appropriate recommendations to the Faculty, the Special Committee has examined the report of the special committee for the review of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, appointed by the President of the University in the autumn of 1937, under the Chairmanship of Professor Woodbridge. The “Woodbridge Committee” report is the most recent of the exhaustive studies of the subject of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Reference was made to the language requirement, and this reference seems pertinent to the matter under discussion in this report.

In a preliminary report, dated May 12, 1937 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 349) the Woodbridge Committee proposed that no one should be admitted to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until he had passed an examination. In stating the ground to be covered by such an examination, the Woodbridge Committee included “command of English usage, and ability to read such foreign languages as the department may require”. The Committee suggested further that “The examination including that in foreign languages shall be written, and the quality of the writing be used as a test of the student’s command of English.”

In its final report, dated April 21, 1939 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 361) the Woodbridge Committee reaffirmed the recommendation of its preliminary report that there be an examination of prospective candidates, but said that it had changed its mind as to the manner of administration and was now of the opinion that the type of examination to be given should be determined by the department concerned and not by any central authority.

Parts of the Woodbridge Committee report were adopted by the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science in March, 1939. The resolution of the Faculties, as set forth in the record of the University Council (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 373) reads, as follows, in its pertinent provisions:

“1. An applicant may be admitted as a regular graduate student only after he has satisfied, in addition to the general University requirements for admission, any further requirements which may be specified by the Department of his major interest, and which may relate especially to the content and the quality of his prior studies and to his ability in the use of foreign languages.”

The practice of other Universities also seems appropriate to consideration of recommendations. The Special Committee has been informed of the results of a surrey of 18 Universities conducted by the Department of Economics of the University Oregon communicated to Dean John A. Krout by letter dated July 26, 1951. It reads as follows:

“About half of the Universities allow no substitutions or restrict substitutions, such as by prohibiting use of two romance languages. Five Universities have provided for substitution of subjects for a language. These are Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, Minnesota and Stanford, the substitutions being allowed mainly on economics in the first three institutions. Mathematics and statistics are the usual substitutes, though the practices vary. Ohio State requires only one language of candidates with a high competence in one language. The faculty of the University of Oregon was not disposed to allow any modification of language requirements, although the Economics Department and some other departments were seeking modification.”

The Special Committee has considered whether it is desirable that the Faculty of Political Science prescribe minimum language requirements for all departments, and the majority has decided in favor of such a minimum. Such a provision minimizes the probability of subsequent intervention by the Faculty in the affairs of the departments. It is believed also that a large number of the members of the Faculty share the majority’s view that, in so far as it is feasible, there should common minimum standards for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy throughout the Faculty. Prior to 1941 when departments were autonomous in the matter of language requirement they had in fact arrived at a common minimum which became a matter of Faculty decision thereafter.

The establishment of a minimum requirement involves the level of the minimum. The minimum resulting from the decisions of the separate departments prior to 1941 and thereafter endorsed by the Faculty was two foreign languages. For the majority of the students in the Faculty this still seems to be the minimum number of languages required for competence in their fields, especially to give them access to the work of eminent scholars of the past and present. In some fields of study there is a growing body of ideas in mathematical form. It seems desirable therefore, to acknowledge the increasing importance of this means of communication by permitting students to present mathematics in place of one language. We do not suggest that this substitution be permitted by all students but that it be allowed by the departments only where it appears to be especially appropriate to the individual student’s program of study. In fields where statistical analysis is important or desirable this option will assist the student who desires to acquire the mathematical basis for graduate work in statistical methods. It will also facilitate the use of analysis in mathematical form.

There may remain students who appear to need neither mathematics nor foreign languages as suggested above. The Special Committee is somewhat doubtful whether there are such  students because in most fields there are works in the basic theory or philosophy in foreign languages or mathematics to which the student should have access. Furthermore, the Doctor of Philosophy degree should certify more than competence in a selected and possibly narrow field of study. It should indicate also a measure in a cultural maturity. Finally students trained by the Faculty are likely to participate in increasing numbers in international associations, private and public, and the University should do nothing, especially at the present time, to discourage the acquisition of a knowledge of languages, except where it is necessary to permit some students to participate competently in the use of mathematical forms for the communication of ideas. These considerations all suggest the maintenance of the present requirement of a minimum of two languages apart from the exception above mentioned in favor of mathematics.

A minority of the Special Committee, while accepting in full the majority’s argument as to the importance of language for any scholar, dissents on the method proposed for enforcing the requirement. The minority finds that language requirements were dictated successfully by the departments without Faculty intervention prior to 1941. The development of the Faculty rule in 1941 seems not to have been caused by any abuse of autonomy by the departments. On the contrary it followed departmental action, which in several cases went beyond it. Its origin as the result of re-editing of the Announcement seems to the minority to have presented no occasion for thoughtful consideration of the change in principle involved. The minority would prefer to return to the procedure existing prior to 1941 when the departments set their own requirements, subject always to the authority of the Faculty to veto the proposal of a department if it seems to have been made without adequate consideration of the issues.

Such a return to departmental autonomy, subject to a reserved right of faculty veto seems to conform to the spirit of the Woodbridge Report. It also seems to have merit in that it would render unnecessary the present attempt of some departments to reduce the language requirements for their students by attempting to fit some other requirement for scholarship in the discipline under the rubric of “language”. Although the minority appreciates that there is reason to argue that some of these substitutions may aid communication between scholars, the minority would prefer calling the subjects what they are, and leaving the departments free to adopt them, whether they be mathematics, statistics, political theory or historiography, without attempting to call them a “language.”

To the minority the mixing of mathematics with the language requirement seems only to becloud the issue, which can be kept clear if no rigid Faculty rule of two foreign languages is set. The departments in the past indicated that they could be trusted. The Faculty has ample power through the veto to restrain any department in the future which exceeds the bounds of the “reasonable”. In consequence the minority prefers the return to the pre-1941 situation, with reservation in the Faculty of the veto with which it can maintain the uniformity as seems to be required.

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing, the majority of the Special Committee makes the following recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faulty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

The minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

Action by the Faculty Alone

One question asked of the Special Committee remains unanswered, namely, Should the Faculty recommend to the University Council a change in the language requirements without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

Since the Faculty’s Special Committee is recommending no change in the existing the Special Committee, the question is academic, but if the Faculty should vote with the minority, the question would be pertinent.

Even if the Faculty should vote to change the rule, there appears to be necessity for parallel action by the three graduate faculties, in view of the delegation of power by University Council in 1916 to the faculties. As the requirements for competent training in the three faculties differ markedly, it is desirable to permit each to deal independently with this problem.

Respectfully submitted

Arthur R. Burns
John N. Hazard
Richard B. Morris

November 5, 1951

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962.

Image Source: From Roberto Ferrari, “August Rodin and The Thinker“, Columbia University Library Blog. June 8, 2014.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Regulations

Harvard. Graduate Exam Grade Distributions, 1971-72

 

From the distribution of grades for graduate economics examinations from the academic year 1971-72 at Harvard we see that the range from Good-minus through Good-plus covered the majority of grades awarded at that time…except for economic history. Gerschenkron fought grade inflation his way (zero grades of  “excellent”), stingy award of grades of “good”).  Economic history now sits in a n.e.c. (not elsewhere classified) requirement to get a Harvard Ph.D. in economics (a course in economic history or political economy or behavioral economics).

Previous posts dealing with economics Ph.D. requirements fifty-some years ago:

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Regulations, 1968

Harvard. Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
December 12, 1972

To: All Professors in the Department of Economics

From: Nancy Frolkis, Graduate Secretary

The tabulation of examination results for the academic year 1971-72 has been completed. We have enclosed a copy since we thought it would be of interest to you.

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

EXAM RECORDS
September 1971-September 1972

Written Theory Examination

Excellent

2

Excellent Minus

2

Good Plus

6

Good

16

Good Minus

7

Fair Plus

2

Fair

6

Fair Minus

6

Fail

3

TOTAL

50

 

Quantitative Methods Examination

Pass

5

Fail

1

TOTAL

6

 

Oral History Examination

Excellent

0

Excellent Minus

0

Good Plus

0

Good

3

Good Minus

1

Fair Plus

0

Fair

5

Fair Minus

1

Fail

3

TOTAL

13

 

General Oral Examination

Excellent

1

Excellent Minus

1

Good Plus

5

Good

10

Good/Good Minus

1

Good Minus

13

Fair Plus

10

Fair

2

Fair Minus

2

Fail

1

TOTAL

46

 

Thesis Grades

Excellent

2

Excellent Minus

6

Good Plus

6

Good

6

Good Minus

5

Fair Plus

4

Fair

2

Fair Minus

0

Fail

0

Not yet graded

1

TOTAL

32

 

Special Examination

Excellent

2

Excellent Minus

5

Good Plus

7

Good

7

Good Minus

7

Fair Plus

3

Fair

1

Fair Minus

0

Fail

0

TOTAL

32

 

Comparison between Thesis
and Special Examination

Same grade for exam and thesis

13

Exam ½ grade higher than thesis

6

Exam ½ grade lower than thesis

9

Exam 1 full grade higher than thesis

2

Exam 1 full grade lower than thesis

1

Unknown (thesis not graded)

1

TOTAL

32

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Alexander Gerschenkron, Box 3, Folder: “Economics (General) 1972/73”.

 

Categories
Economics Programs M.I.T. Regulations

MIT. Revising Economics Ph.D. General Examinations. E.C.Brown, 1975

 

What makes this memo from E. Cary Brown particularly useful is that it provides us with a list of the graduate economics fields along with the participating faculty members as of 1975. Also the major revision proposed was to have a system of two major fields (satisfied with general examinations) and two minor fields (satisfied by course work). Interesting to note that graduate student input was clearly integrated into the revision procedure.

________________________

Memo from Chairman E. Cary Brown
on a Revision of General Exams, 1975

April 28, 1975

To: Economics Department Faculty and Graduate Students
From: E. C. Brown
Re: Revision of General Examinations

While it has been left that a Committee would be appointed to review the procedures of the general examination (see minutes of the Department Meeting of April 23, 1975), further informal discussion has moved toward a proposed concept of these examinations that I am submitting for consideration and agreement.

  1. There seems reasonable satisfaction about the structure of the present examinations, subject to clarification of the final 2 field examinations and their relationship to the 2 field write-offs.
  2. It is proposed that the 2 fields satisfied by passing the “general” examinations be designated major The examination will be offered in a field, will cover the field in a general way, and will be separated from course examinations. Minor fields will be satisfied by course work. A somewhat lower standard will be imposed in minor fields than in major fields. The “generals” examination, therefore, would apply to the fields of the candidate’s expected expertise, and emphasis would be on a broad coverage of the field.
  3. Each field should, therefore, describe its general requirements for the field as a major one, and list the subjects that may reasonably be offered as a write-off to satisfy the field as a minor one. There should also be some details on the requirements when fields are closely linked (e.g., the proposal for the transportation field and its relationship to urban economics).
  4. Assuming this proposal to be agreeable, the question of term papers still needs settling.

I propose, therefore, the following procedures:

  1. Would each of you give Sue Steenburg a list of your graduate subjects for this academic year, with an indication of whether or not a term paper was required and, if so, the percentage of final grade it represented.
  2. Would faculty in each field submit a list of subjects that may be used to satisfy major and minor requirements in their field as it would ultimately appear in the brochure. The fields to be covered are as follows, the faculty in the field are listed, and the responsible member underlined.
Advanced Economic Theory Bishop, Diamond, Solow, Fisher, Samuelson, Varian, Hausman, Weitzman
Comparative Economic Systems Domar, Weitzman
Economic Development Eckaus, Bhagwati, Taylor
Economic History Kindleberger, Temin, Domar
Finance Merton
Fiscal Economics Diamond, Friedlaender, Rothenberg, Brown
Human Resources and Income Distribution Thurow, Piore
Industrial Organization Adelman, Joskow
International Economics Kindleberger, Bhagwati
Labor Economics Piore, Myers, Siegel
Monetary Economics Fischer, Modigliani
Operations Research Little, Shapiro
Russian Economics Domar, Weitzman
Statistics and Econometrics Hall, Hausman, Fisher, Kuh
Transportation Friedlaender, Wheaton
Urban Economics Rothenberg, Wheaton

If there are any difficulties with these suggestions, let me know right away. If we can proceed along these lines, it appears to be simply a clarification of our recent past and a substantial timesaver. The reports can be looked at this summer by a student-faculty group, with responsibility for faculty on me and for students on Dick Anderson.

Source:  M.I.T. Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder “Grad Curriculum”.

Image with identifications: Economics Faculty group portrait, 1976.

Categories
M.I.T. Regulations Teaching Undergraduate

M.I.T. Dean’s request for writing requirements for elective subjects in economics department, 1953

 

The following exchange between the M.I.T. Dean of Humanities and Social Studies (John E. Burchard) and the representative of the chairperson of the Economics Department (Charles A. Myers covering for Ralph E. Freeman) gives us a short list of undergraduate courses that would have regularly had non-economics B.S. students attending to satisfy their distributional requirements in 1953. Dean Burchard’s informational request seems to be a fishing expedition with the hope of landing any evidence that some instructor in some course was helping to improve M.I.T. undergraduate writing skills. It is also interesting to see that sociology, psychology, and political science were all subjects  administered by the economics department.

____________________________

Dean Reminding Economics Department about Information Request

May 6, 1953

Memorandum to Professor [Charles Andrew] Myers:

I asked Ralph [Evans Freeman] a while ago to get me some information but have not heard from him and imagine it got left and wonder if you could undertake this survey for me in the near future and give me an answer.

The problem is that those of us who were worried about the English style of our students at M.I.T. are pretty certain that we will never get a good overall performance on the mere basis of instruction in the first two years where writing is required and read and criticized. The burden of continuously upholding the standard obviously is going to rest with the professional departments and I have no doubt there are great inconsistencies in this throughout the Institute, and I also have no doubt most of them are pretty remiss in this obligation.

Before starting any campaign on this question, however, it is obvious that I need to know whether the house of my own School is in point of fact in order, or if not how far it is out of order.

I accordingly asked Professor [Howard Russell] Bartlett and Professor [Ralph] Freeman to get me an indication of the amount of writing required in the various subjects which might be elected by students in the School. In the History Department this was obviously limited to non-professional subjects and for the moment I am more interested in the general electives in the Department of Economics than I am in what policing you do of your own majors. It would be more helpful to know about both.

What Professor Bartlett did was write me a general answer which told me how many papers were required each semester, the approximate length, and how many written examinations. I wonder if it would be possible for you to dig out the same information for the various appropriate subjects in the Department of Economics and report to me fairly soon. I would like to be thinking about this problem during the summer.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

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

Economics Department’s First Response to Dean’s Request for Information

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

May 11, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

This is in answer to your memorandum of May 6th. I guess this is something Ralph was unable to compete before he left and I thought I should get done promptly since I will be leaving tomorrow for the annual research meeting of the Committee on Labor Market Research of the Social Science Research Council in Minneapolis. George Shultz is one of the invited guests.

Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to list what the various people in charge of the various undergraduate subjects reported:

14.01 [Economic Principles I] ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 3 or 4 written hour examinations, mostly of the essay type
14.02 [Economic Principles II] ([Edgar Carey] Brown) — 4 written hour examinations, no term papers
14.03 [Prices and Production] ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 2 to 3 hour examinations; no term papers
14.09 [Economic Problems Seminar] ([Paul Anthony] Samuelson) — no written exams, but 2 written papers, one long and one short, plus oral presentation of the content of the paper prior to the submission of the written paper
14.51 [International Relations] ([Norman Judson] Padelford) — 8 written quizzes of 35 to 40 minutes in length; no term paper, except that sometimes there are written projects.
14.61 [Industrial Relations] (Doug [Douglass Vincent] Brown and [John Royston] Coleman) — 3 hour examinations and 3 written case reports
14.63 [Labor Relations] ([George Pratt] Shultz) — 3 written hour examinations and one term paper
14.64 [Labor Economics and Public Policy] ([George Benedict] Baldwin) — 3 hour examinations and one written term paper
14.70 [Introductory Psychology] ([George Armitage] Miller) — 2 or 3 written hour examinations, partly objective in character; no term paper
14.72 [Union-Management Relations] ([Joseph Norbert] Scanlon) — 2 hour examinations and a special paper on a particular case
14.73 [Organization and Communications in Groups] ([Alex] Bavelas and [Herbert Allen] Shepard) — 2 objective-type examinations and one written essay-type examination
14.75 [Experimental Psychology] ([Joseph Carl Robnett] Licklider) — no examinations, but a written paper on the experiment, suitable for publication — this latter test is never quite met but students are expected to write with that end in view
14.77 [Psychology of Communication] ([George Armitage] Miller) — 3 objective-type examinations
14.91 and 14.92 [The American Political System;
Comparative Political and Economic Systems]
([Jesse Harris] Proctor and [Roy] Olton) — 3 written hour exams, no term paper in the first term — 3 written hour exams plus a written term paper in the second term
15.30 [Personnel Administration] ([Paul] Pigors) — 4 written cases, one term paper and one hour examination

 

I think this pretty well covers the principal courses which are taken by undergraduate students in other departments. I think my own experience in teaching such undergraduate courses as 14.61 and 14.63 is similar to that of most of the staff, in that I have called attention to students of misspelled words, poor grammar, and generally poor organization and expression of written answers and papers. I really doubt if we can do much more or should do much more. It would be quite a task to go over each written examination with each student in detail, or even to do this after they have submitted a term paper. From time to time I have done this with some theses but not as a general rule, since the student is warned in advance that his grade will depend not only on content, but on expression.

I hope this gives you the information you need.

Sincerely
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

m:g

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

Follow-up Request by Dean

May 12, 1953

Memorandum to Professor Myers

Dear Charlie:

Your memorandum of yesterday answers my question about the writing in part.

I guess I agree, though I wish I didn’t have to, that people in the department cannot be expected to act as writing critics for students who are still defective in their English. Though I wish more people required papers and fewer examinations, this is obviously a matter of individual teachers’ methods.

The remaining question which I think is not answered is I believe a critical one, namely, does poor writing really result in a lower grade, and if it does is that single comment written on to the paper when it is returned with the grade to the student?

I hate to trouble you further but wonder if you would be able to explore this with the same group of people.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

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

Economics Department’s Response to Follow-up Request by the Dean

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

June 1, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

These are some further thoughts on your memo of May 12th, asking me to check again on whether poor writing really results in a lower grade in our courses and whether comments are written on the papers when they are returned with grades to the students.

Nearly everyone with whom I have talked here agrees that poor writing does result in a lower grade, if by “poor writing” is meant poor organization, hasty sentence construction, and confusing or fuzzy thinking as expressed in written words. Poor spelling apparently does not count so much, although Bob Bishop and I specifically do encircle misspelled words on written exams and papers. Comments on poor organization, etc., are specifically written on papers and exams when returned to students, and I know that many of us have stressed to students before writing exams and papers that their grades will depend in part on the way in which their material is organized and presented.

One further experience might be of interest in connection with your comment that you wish more people would require papers and fewer examinations. During the past term Jim Baldwin gave term papers in 14.64 and found that the pressure of senior theses on the students was so great that they did a very poor job on the papers. His grades reflect this, but he is bothered about the apparent conflict between the senior thesis and the term paper requirement in senior Humanities and Social Studies courses. Maybe we ought to place more emphasis on good writing in the senior thesis in the Department and in other Departments.

Sincerely,
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

CAM:dg

Source: M.I.T., Institute Archives and Special Collections, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Office of the Dean, Records, 1934-1964. Box 3, Folder “103, Economics Department, General, March 1951-1956”.
For [first and middle names of instructors] and [course titles]: Course Catalogue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1952-53.

Image Source: (Left) John Burchard ; (Right) Charles A. Myers. MIT Museum Legacy Website (People Collection).

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Faculty of political science’s discussion of Ph.D. requirements, 1905

Welcome to a 1905 discussion about the requirements for a Ph.D. in American History, Economics or Sociology from the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science. Should sufficient knowledge of Latin (repeat, Latin) be the subject of examination for those fields. From the minutes of the meeting transcribed below we learn that a no-brainer motion to dismiss the Latin language examination was postponed, pending inquiries about the Latin language requirements at other universities. 

Can a I hear a Gloria in excelsis Deo?

______________________

Discussion Questions Regarding Revision of Ph.D. Requirements
Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University (1905)

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

January 25, 1905

President Butler
Columbia University

Dear Sir:

It gives me pleasure to advise you that the Faculty of Political Science decided at its last meeting to hold a special meeting on Friday, January 27, at 3:30 p.m. For the informal and preliminary discussion of the questions submitted by its committee on the Revision of Requirements for the Ph.D. degree, of which I enclose a copy.

Respectfully yours
[signed] Henry R. Seager
Secretary

 

  1. Is it desirable to distinguish the candidates for the doctorate from the rest of the student body and to prescribe preliminary tests or examinations for admission to such candidacy?
  2. Should proficiency in the required languages be treated as such a preliminary requirement?
  3. Should candidates with a major in (a) Economics, (b) Sociology or (c) American History be excused from examination in Latin?
  4. If so, should a third modern language be required of those candidates who do not offer Latin?
  5. How early in his period of residence, or how long before admission to the candidacy for the doctorate, should a student select the subject of his dissertation?
  6. Is it desirable that seminar work should be so organized as to encourage preliminary studies by the candidate in the field of his dissertation?
  7. When the subject selected as a major is one in which relatively few courses (less than eight hours) are offered, should attendance upon other courses, in addition to those now required in the minor subjects, be made compulsory? If this is desirable, should the end be attained by increasing in such cases the requirements in the minor subjects?
  8. When the subjects selected as a major subject is one in which more than eight hours of lectures are offered, should be existing requirements as regards attendance be decreased?
  9. Should it be required, before any candidate is admitted to the general examination on his subjects, that he be recommended by the professors in charge of his major and minor subjects?
  10. Is it desirable that the professor in charge of his major subject should refuse such recommendation unless the work of the candidate upon his dissertation has been carried to such a point as to render it probable that a satisfactory dissertation will be produced within the legal term?
  11. If any of the above changes seem desirable, shall your committee prepared, for submission to the faculty, rules adopted to realize said changes? Or shall say, where ever it seems practicable, draft resolutions which, if adopted, will merely express the general policy of the Faculty, to be made effective in practice by the action of his several members?

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder “11. Seager, Henry R.”

______________________

Minutes of Special Meeting
Jan. 27, 1905

In the absence of the President, the meeting was called to order by the Dean.

Present: Professors Burgess, Munroe Smith, Goodnow, Seligman, Osgood, Dunning, Giddings, Robinson, Sloane, Moore, H.L., and Seager.

Excused: Professors J.B.Moore and Clark

The reading of the minutes of the last meeting was passed over.

On motion, the Chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Requirements for the Ph.D. degree was requested to read abstracts of the replies received from the different members of the Faculty to the questions propounded by that Committee. On further consideration this action was, on motion, revoked.

The Faculty then proceeded to the consideration of the questions submitted seriatim.

On motion it was

Resolved: That the sentiment of the Faculty is adverse to the plan of distinguishing candidates for the doctorate from the rest of the student body.

On motion, it was decided in connection with the second question, that any candidate for the Ph.D. degree may take the required examination in the languages one year in advance of the examination on his subjects. After some further discussion the Faculty adjourned to meet as a committee of the whole on Friday, February 3rd at 3:30 P.M.

[signed] Henry R. Seager.
Secretary

 

Minutes of Special Meeting
Feb. 3, 1905

In the absence of the President the meeting of the Committee of the Whole was called to order by the Dean.

Present: Professors Burgess, Munroe Smith, Seligman, Dunning, Moore, J.B., Giddings, Robinson, Moore, H.L., and Seager.

On motion it was

Resolved: That the following motion be substituted for that passed at the close of the last meeting: Resolved that it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that it is desirable to permit and encourage students to take the examination on their languages in advance of the examination on their subjects.

The following resolution was then proposed: Resolved that it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that it is desirable to excuse candidates for the Ph.D. degree in Economics, Sociology and American History from the examination in Latin, provided that the professors in charge of their major studies certify that that language will not be necessary in connection with the preparation of their theses. After some discussion a substitute motion was passed instructing the Secretary to make inquiry as to the practice of other universities in reference to requiring Latin in connection with the Ph.D. degree.

On motion, Question 4 was passed over for later consideration.

On motion, Questions 5, 9 and 10 were taken up together. After some discussion it was on motion

Resolved: That it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that a recommendation from one or more professors be pre-requisite to admission to examination for the Ph.D. degree.

On motion it was

Resolved: That it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that no candidate shall be admitted to examination on his subjects until recommended by the professors in charge of his major and minor subjects, and that in case of disagreement among the latter the decision of the professor in charge of the major subject shall prevail.

After some discussion it was decided that the point covered by Question 10 was sufficiently provided for by the resolution adopted by the Faculty at its regular meeting in May, 1904. [*See below]

On motion, Questions 5 and 6 were laid on the table.

On motion, Questions 7 and 8 were taken up together.

On motion it was resolved, in answer to 8, that it is the sense of the Committee of the Whole that when more than eight hours of lectures are offered in the major subject, the existing requirements in reference to attendance should be decreased.

No action was taken in reference to Question 7.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.

[signed] Henry R. Seager.
Secretary

*From the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
May 20, 1904

…The following resolution was offered by the Secretary:

RESOLVED that it is the sense of this Faculty that no candidate shall be admitted to examination on his major and minor subjects for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until the professor in charge of the major subject certifies that such progress has been made by the candidate in the investigation of the subject selected by him for his dissertation, as to render it probable that a satisfactory dissertation will be produced.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1897-1919, Minutes of The Faculty of Political Science (October 22, 1897 to May 9, 1913), pp. 133-134, 144-148.

Image Source: From archive.org:  Xenophontis Socratici liber, qui Oeconomicus inscribiturBernardinus Donatus Veronensis vertit, 1539. Repository: National Central Library of Rome.

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Specific regulations for the economics Ph.D., 1954-55

 

The following item provides some granular information about the hurdles between an economics graduate student and the award of a Ph.D. from Columbia University as of 1954-55. It is interesting to see that economic history was still one of the three required fields, that knowledge of mathematics through basic differential and integral calculus was regarded sufficient as a substitute for either German or French reading ability. What I found most interesting is the list of fields: socialism and the economic organization of Soviet Russia were two distinct fields; mathematical economics was distinct from economic theory; and what sort of field was “Prices” anyway? I would also be curious to see which fields outside of economics were included as minor subjects, as well as the frequency of extra-economic subjects.

Columbia Ph.D. regulations for 1916.

____________________________

Doctor of Philosophy
Columbia economics regulations, 1954-55

The degree of Master of Arts is not a prerequisite to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree. Candidates may find it desirable, however, to endeavor to satisfy the requirements for the A.M. degree in the course of their preparation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Qualifying Examination. — As early as possible in his graduate residence, the student shall notify the Executive Officer of his intention to become a candidate for the Ph.D. degree in economics and choose his subjects in consultation with the Executive Officer. A written examination, intended for students who have thus indicated their intention, will be given January 8, 1955, and again on May 7, 1955. This examination must be taken before the student may register for more than thirty points of course credit for graduate work. (Students requesting credit for fifteen or more points for graduate courses completed at other institutions must take the examination before registering for more than forty-five points of course credit, including those points for which they request credit from another university.) Upon passing this examination a student is classed as a prospective candidate.

The department may deny registration privileges to students who have completed graduate courses aggregating thirty or more points of course credit who have not passed the Qualifying Examination and will deny registration privileges to students who have completed graduate courses aggregating forty-five points of course credit but who have not passed this examination.

Languages: Option in Mathematics. — The prospective candidate must satisfy the Department of Economics that he can read French and German. Other languages (but not two Romance languages) may be substituted, with the permission of the Executive Officer, if they are of special value to the candidate’s scholarly interests. Mathematics may also be substituted for one language with the permission of the Executive Officer. A student selecting this option will be required to demonstrate his knowledge of algebra, analytical geometry, and differential and integral calculus.

The student must pass the test in at least one of the languages or in mathematics before registering for courses which will bring the total of the graduate work which is recorded for him as credit toward the doctorate, including work done both at Columbia and elsewhere, to more than thirty points. (A student who has requested graduate credit at Columbia for thirty points of work done elsewhere must pass at least one of these tests prior to his initial registration at Columbia for work leading to the doctorate.) The second test, either in a language or in mathematics, must be passed before the student may register for more than forty-five points of course credit (including points credited from another university). The examinations in languages and in mathematics will be held on the following dates Monday, September 20, 1954, from 10 to 12; Thursday, January 20, 1955, from 2 to 4; Friday, May 6, 1955, from 10 to 12. Students are required to register their intention to take such an examination with the secretary of the Department of Economics at least one week prior to the date of the examination.

Certification of Candidacy. — The Executive Officer will recommend that the Dean certify a candidate for the Ph.D. degree when the candidate has completed not less than one year of graduate residence, has met Departmental language requirements and has passed the Qualifying Examination. Certification constitutes formal admission to candidacy for the degree.

Examination on Subjects: Scope. — The candidate must give satisfactory evidence of his grasp of six of the subjects indicated below. Three of these subjects must be economic theory, economic history, and statistics. Four of the subjects (including economic theory) are considered the student’s field of primary interest; the remaining two are considered his field of secondary interest. The procedure for meeting this requirement consists of an oral examination in the four subjects of primary interest and prior proof of competence in the two fields of secondary interest.

Examination on Subjects: Secondary. — Before making formal application for the examination, the candidate must satisfy the appropriate professors of economics in the Faculty of Political Science that he has done work which is adequate both in scope and quality in the two subjects of secondary interest. This requirement may be met in a manner satisfactory to the professors concerned. All such proofs of competence lapse after five years from their date but may be renewed after further examination.

Examination on Subjects: Oral Examination.—The candidate who has fulfilled the preliminary requirements may make application, through the Executive Officer of the Department, to the Dean for the oral examination on subjects. This oral examination is conducted by a committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. It will be on subjects not on courses.

When the candidate applies for his examination on subjects he must submit a memorandum outlining his dissertation project, analyzing it with respect to source material and the research techniques required. This memorandum must be approved by the sponsor of the dissertation and by the Executive Officer before the candidate may be admitted to the oral examination.

The subjects are as follows:

1. Accounting 11. Monetary Economics
2. Business cycles 12. Prices
3. Corporation and investment finance 13. Public finance
4. Economic geography 14. Public utilities (including transportation)
5. Economic history (required) 15. Socialism
6. Economic theory (required) 16. Statistics (required)
7. Industrial organization and control 17. Types of national economic organization*
8. International trade and finance 18. Economic organization of Soviet Russia*
9. Labor problems and industrial relations 19. Any other subject approved by the Executive Officer of the Department
10. Mathematical economics

*The candidate may offer either 17 or 18 but not both these fields.

 

Economic theory and any subject or subjects approved under item 19 on the above list must be included among the four subjects presented for oral examination. The Executive Officer of the Department should be consulted before making a choice of emphasis in preparation for examination.

It is the policy of the Department of Economics to encourage candidates to devote part of their effort to studies outside the Department. The candidate’s field of secondary interest, to the extent of the equivalent of two of his six subjects, may fall in one of the departments under the Faculty of Political Science, or in philosophy, psychology, or another discipline dealing with matters germane to the student’s scholarly interests. A candidate proposing to offer a field lying outside the Department must obtain the approval of the Executive Officer of the Department in advance.

Dissertation. — Investigations and researches for the dissertation may be pursued either in connection with the work of some research course or under the direction and supervision of some member of the Faculty of Political Science independently of any course. Students working on dissertations must keep their sponsors informed of the status of their work.

It is desirable that a substantial start be made on the dissertation while the student is still in residence. If a candidate works on his dissertation in absentia an annual written report of progress will be required.

If more than five years have elapsed between the date when the candidate has successfully passed the Examination on Subjects and the date of his application for the Final Examination in defense of the dissertation, the candidate will be regarded as having abandoned his proposed dissertation topic unless he makes a written request for an extension of time and obtains the written approval of the sponsor of the dissertation and of the Executive Officer.

Final Examination: Defense of the Dissertation. — The candidate may apply to the Dean for the defense of his dissertation only after having obtained the approval of the sponsor and of the Executive Officer. The candidate will defend his dissertation in respect to its content, the sources upon which it is based, the interpretations that are made, and the conclusions that are drawn, as well as demonstrate his acquaintance with the literature and available sources of information upon subjects that are cognate to the subject of his dissertation.

Minor in Economics. — Candidates for the Ph.D. degree in other departments who propose to offer a minor in economics will be required to offer two of the subjects listed [above in] this Announcement. One of the subjects must be economic theory. Such candidates should consult the Executive Officer of the Department of Economics at the earliest possible point in their graduate work.

Minor in Economic History. — Candidates in other departments offering a minor in economic history will be required to show a knowledge of the economic history of two major regions.

 

Source. Columbia University. Announcement of the  Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1954-1955. Bulletin of Information. 54th Series, No. 23 (June 19, 1954), pp. 31-33.

Image Source: Rare Book Division, The New York Public Library. “Broad Exchange [historic place on 25 Broad Street], New York, N.Y.; Columbia University [Fayerweather Hall], New York, N.Y.” New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 8, 2019.