The letter below written by Henry Simons to Henry Schultz in 1937 is evidently a typed copy of what was originally a letter on official University of Chicago stationary. The typed header matches the printed header of University of Chicago stationary and there is no signature at the end.
Simons appears to be seeking Schultz’s support for the introduction of a “Mathematics for Economists” course into the undergraduate economics curriculum as well as for providing different courses for students who intend to go on to more advanced economics training versus the sort of survey courses that would constitute the entirety of the life-time economics education of non-econ-majors. An interesting aside: Simons problematized the lack of analytical preparation displayed by the students coming from Social Services Administration that he saw reducing the standards in the economics courses that they were required by their program to attend.
_____________________________
The University of Chicago
The Department of Economics
Memorandum to Members of the Department from Henry Schultz. July 8, 1937
The attached letter from Mr. Henry C. Simons might very well serve as a basis of discussion. It may be necessary to call a meeting to discuss this question before the quarter is over.
* * * * * *
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Department of Economics
June 4, 1937
Dear Mr. Schultz:
Out at Ames last week I heard about some plans of their economics department which made me very envious. They are getting ready to offer next year a sequence of three courses combining elementary mathematics and statistics; and they expect afterwards to make these courses prerequisites to their advanced (divisional) courses in economics. Moreover, they seem to be facing squarely the task (1) of providing a significant amount of training in the calculus, (2) of eliminating or cutting down those parts of the usual freshman mathematics which are of little use for their students, and (3) of mixing in with the formal mathematics perhaps as much statistics as is covered in a one-Quarter course.
If they carry out these plans, their students will soon be better prepared for substantial economics training than are even those few students here who complete Math. 104, 105, and 106—not to mention those who meet only our minimum requirement of one course in college mathematics. Meantime, nothing is being done to improve our situation here. Mrs. Logdon’s courses were a slight improvement over the old elementary mathematics; but they represent only a small beginning toward what might be done. The 104 course has its merits; but the two following courses, I gather, largely compensate for any departures from tradition which the first course involves. We still have not faced the fact that the traditional freshman mathematics, however suitable for students who will specialize in mathematics or physics, is very ill-suited to the needs of students going into other divisions or of those concluding their formal education at the college level.
I feel that we should face now the responsibility of providing a suitable minimum of training in mathematics, formal and applied, for all students in the College. Nothing can more easily be defended as a part of general education or as intellectual preparation for serious work in the Divisions. The need here might well be met by a three-course sequence of the kind which they are planning at Ames—although I am not competent to prescribe, or disposed to quarrel, about details. There are obvious advantages in mixing a certain amount of applied mathematics with the more formal training; and the fundamentals of statistics can be taught to best advantage only as mathematics and in the atmosphere of mathematics courses. As regards these fundamentals, there is no need for differentiation of courses according to divisions or departments—except possibly in the case of the physical sciences. With appropriate work in the College, divisional statistics courses in the various departments might then achieve their proper emphasis upon special applications in the special fields.
Our own Division probably could not now be induced to impose such a requirement for admission. Some departments would doubtless oppose it vigorously. This situation, however, does not argue against developing in the College the sequence of courses which would be most useful. If the proper courses were available, we could make them prerequisite for divisional work in economics; and, at the least, we could urge the advisers in the College to explain that students coming to us without such preparation would be somewhat handicapped on that account. Some other departments and divisions might go along with us. The Division of Biology certainly should do so; the School of Business and the Law School would probably cooperate eventually; and the School of Social Services Administration needs this sort of thing badly, both to protect their own standards and to guard us against the demoralization of standards which a large influx of their ill-prepared students can produce in the economics courses which they require.
It remains to point out that an important step could be taken now by our own department. Our announcements indicate that “Social Science II or equivalent” is prerequisite for divisional courses in economics. The policy here involved is, I believe, grossly mistaken. Instead of requiring this sequence, we should recommend against it in the case of students preparing for divisional work with us, or, at least, indicate clearly that the existing mathematics sequence is distinctly preferable as preparation. The typical student now gets a survey of social science in the first year, another in the second year, and still another (the five 201 courses) in the first two quarters of the third year. This represents an outrageous squandering of the student’s time, considering the alternatives actually sacrificed. Social Science II has perhaps a proper function; but it is not that of preparing students for divisional work. It may be appropriate to offer such a sequence for students who will enter other divisions and who will have no further work in social science fields. Our own students, however, should be getting more fundamental education—should be taking courses involving the more rigorous intellectual discipline in which their subsequent training will be somewhat deficient.
If there be disagreement on some of these suggestions, there should be little opposition to my minimum proposal, namely, that Math. 106 be indicated in our announcements as a prerequisite alternative to Social Science II. Frankly, this is what it is in fact now, when I am acting as departmental counselor.
In passing, I will mention another suggestion which I have urged repeatedly in meetings and in memoranda. Something should be done to stop this concentrating of the 201 courses in the first two quarters of the student’s divisional work. These courses should not constitute merely another hurdle which students must get over before they are permitted to concentrate upon departmental courses. They should be spread throughout the last two years, as a continuing correction against narrow departmental specialization in outlook and interest—not studied hastily in a lump and forgotten.
The advisers in the College have finally discovered that Math. 104 is useful for students going into economics. They should all be told now to recommend105 and 106 as well and to suggest that good and serious students should be prepared to take at least some calculus after they leave the College (if not before). It is surprising how many of our seniors now complain bitterly because their College advisers failed to offer such suggestions.
I trust that some of these suggestions will seem to merit discussion.
Sincerely,
Henry C. Simons
Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 12.
Image Source: Henry Calvert Simons portrait at the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07613, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.
Henry Schultz from “[Photograph]: Henry Schultz 1893-1938.” Econometrica 7, no. 2 (1939).