Columbia. 1931-50 graduate economics alumni survey 1950

Robert M. Haig was a public finance economist at Columbia University, the successor to Edwin R. A. Seligman as McVickar Professor of Political Economy. In Haig’s papers is the following memo from James Angell (the “Executive Officer”, i.e. chairperson, of the department of economics within Columbia’s faculty of political science) reporting the results of a 1950 survey of former graduate students in the department. Just under 1,200 questionnaires were sent out. The response rate was about one-third. Duration data for different stages of graduate study, occupations/salaries in 1950 by final completed stage of graduate study were tabulated.

A gender breakdown for occupation/salaries is also provided. It is interesting to note that the 1950 gender gap between men and women for people with economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) who were teaching was 7.2%.

In current prices, the average 1950 salaries of the economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) were: $59,000 (teaching); $88,500 (government); $94,000 (other economics related work); $108,000 (all non-economic-research related work).

Note: The urban CPI has increased by a factor of 9.9 since then: (CPI July 1950 24.1, July 2015 238.7).

_____________________________

June 20, 1951

To: The Members of the Department of Economics
From: James W. Angell
Subject: Occupations and Salaries of Our Former Graduate Students

Last summer, in order to improve our records on former graduate students in the Department, brief questionnaires were sent out to the 1,182 students who had received the M.A. degree, or passed the Ph.D. oral examination, or received the Ph.D. degree, in the twenty years 1931-1950. We were primarily concerned to obtain their present addresses and occupations, but we also asked for the dates when the several academic standings had been achieved, and for the latest (1950) salary.

We received only 377 replies, or 32 per cent of the number of questionnaires sent out. Of the total sent, 84 questionnaires, or 7 per cent, were returned because the Post Office could not locate the addresses.

It is probably that the replies received do not constitute a representative sample, especially with respect to salaries: in the main, the less successful students are presumably those who are less likely to reply to such inquiries. But a partial check of the names of those who did not reply shows that this was not always so. A number of the group who did not reply are known to be holding good positions.

An analysis of the replies has been made by our colleague, Frank W. Schiff chiefly with respect to (1) the time intervals between the dates of achievement of the several academic standings, (2) present (1950) occupation, and (3) present (1950) salary. Not all those who replied answered all the questions, and the several group totals are hence not always consistent. The various results are summarized in the following tables.

Number of Replies, Grouped by Half-Decade When Highest Academic Standing Achieved by Student Was Attained: 1931-1950

		Highest Standing Attained
Years	Total Replies	M.A.	Passed Orals	Ph.D.
1931-35	39	18	4	17
1936-40	60	26	11	23
1941-45	68	26	12	30
1946-50	210	126	48	36
1931-1950	377	196	75	106

Table 2 shows the arithmetic average of the number of years which were required to move from one level of academic standing to another. Because the number of observations is small, extreme values have considerable influence. It was felt that eliminating a few extreme values would hence give a more representative result; but the unadjusted totals are also shown, for comparison. The retarding effect of the war is conspicuous in most cases. Table 3 shows the distribution for each stage, over the period as a whole, of the numbers of years required; and the median values to the nearest whole year (these values in some cases differ markedly from the arithmetic averages shown in Table 2).

Average (Arithmetic) Number of Years Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing: 1931-1950 (Extreme Values Omitted)

Years	A.B. to M.A.	A.B. to Orals	A.B. to Ph.D.	M.A. to Orals	M.A. to Ph.D.	Orals to Ph.D.
1931-35	2.8	6.2	9.4	3.7	6.3	2.5
1936-40	2.4	5.2	10.8	3.1	7.6	3.1
1941-45	2.3	4.7	9.8	2.9	7.1	3.7
1946-50	3.6	6.6	11.7	2.2	9.3	5.6
1931-1950^a	3.0	5.8	10.6	2.8	7.8	4.1
Number of observations before adjustment	324	155	98	145	87	78
Number omitted	20	6	3	9	2	3
1931-50: unadjusted averages^a	3.8	6.4	11.2	3.5	8.4	4.5
^aArithmentc averages for the whole period, not of the averages for the sub-periods.

Distribution, by Numbers of Years, of Periods Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing, 1931-1950

Number of Years Elapsed	A.B. to M.A.	A.B. to Orals	A.B. to Ph.D.	M.A. to Orals	M.A. to Ph.D.	Orals to Ph.D.
1-2	179	31	0	78	3	28
3-4	56	32	2	31	12	18
5-6	36	28	11	12	19	15
7-8	19	26	19	13	18	8
9-10	11	13	15	2	16	3
11-12	5	11	21	5	8	4
13-14	6	7	13	3	3	1
15-16	7	2	7	0	5	0
17-19	2	2	4	0	0	1
20-29	2	2	4	1	2	0
30-40	1	1	2	0	1	0
Totals	324	155	98	145	87	78
Medians	2	6	11	2	8	4

It is interesting to note that although the sum of the medians of the numbers of years elapsed between A.B. and M.A., plus M.A. to Orals, plus Orals to Ph.D. is only eight, the median for that relatively small number of students (less than one-third of the whole sample: Table 1.) who actually covered the whole course to the Ph.D. itself is 11 years. This is presumably due in largest part to the fact that relatively few students had the financial means to go straight through from A.B. to Ph.D. without interruption. Most of them had to take time out to earn more money.

Table 4, taken from a study by Professor Stigler, compares data for Harvard and Columbia.¹ The Harvard students may or may not be brighter; but the substantially greater financial assistance given to students at Harvard must also help to account for the conspicuous differences in most years and fields.

Average Number of Years Elapsed Between A.B. and Ph.D. at Columbia and Harvard, 1900-1940

	1900	1910	1930	1940
Natural Sciences
Columbia	7.6	8.0	9.4	9.2
Harvard	6.8	8.3	6.2	6.1
Social Sciences
Columbia	4.3	9.8	10.3	12.9
Harvard	4.8	4.5	10.5	8.7
Human-ities
Columbia	4.7	9.3	13.9	14.3
Harvard	[6.3]	[9.2]	[7.9]	[8.8]
All Fields
Columbia	6.3	9.2	10.8	11.7
Harvard	6.2	8.4	8.0	7.8

¹George J. Stigler, Employment and Compensation in Education (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1950), p. 37.

[Note to Table 4: I have added the figures for the row Humanities/Harvard from Stigler (1950). In the original memo this row was for some reason left blank.]

Table 5 shows the percentage distribution of students, by the highest academic standing achieved and by half-decades, according to their 1950 occupations. The category “Other Economic Work” includes those engaged in economic research and economic advisory work with business firms, banks and foundations, and those who are self-employed in such work. It excludes those who are in business management or operation. The absolute numbers in each group were given in Table 1, above.

Occupations in 1950, Grouped by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950 (In Per Cents)

Occupation, and Highest Academic Standing Attained		Entire Period 1931- 50	1931- 35	1936-40	1941- 45	1946-50
M.A.
	Teaching	29.1	27.8	23.1	23.1	31.7
	Govern-ment	24.5	11.1	46.2	34.6	19.8
	Other economic work	25.5	33.3	11.5	34.6	25.4
	All other	20.9	27.8	19.2	7.7	23.1
		100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Passed Orals
	Teaching	53.3	0	36.4	50.0	62.5
	Govern-ment	21.3	50.0	27.2	50.0	10.4
	Other economic work	22.7	50.0	36.4	0	22.9
	All other	2.7	0	0	0	4.2
		100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Ph.D.
	Teaching	59.4	58.8	47.8	63.3	63.9
	Govern-ment	17.9	11.8	26.2	16.7	16.7
	Other economic work	17.0	17.6	21.7	20.0	11.1
	All other	5.7	11.8	4.3	0	8.3
		100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Totals
	Teaching	42.4	38.5	35.0	45.6	44.3
	Govern-ment	22.0	15.4	35.0	29.4	17.1
	Other economic work	22.6	28.2	20.0	22.1	22.4
	All other	13.0	17.9	10.0	2.9	16.2
		100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Finally, Table 6 shows the average sizes and distribution of salaries, by occupation and by highest academic standing attained, on the same general basis as Table 5. But not all the replies received contained data on salaries, so that this sample is 12 per cent smaller than that used for Table 5 (331 replies instead of 377). The omissions are fairly uniform by major groups, however, and to avoid complicating the Table, the absolute numbers of relies in each group are not given. The few groups in which high average salaries were reported each contain, regrettably, only 1 to 4 cases; even the $10,300 group (Ph.D.’s, Other Economic Work, 1936-40) has only 5 members. It should also be emphasized that the data cover salaries only, not total earnings. Royalties, lecture fees and the like are not included. Thirty-one, or 9.4 per cent of the total, reported salaries of $10,000 or more.

All figures are arithmetic averages for the relevant groups. Thus the first column shows the averages for the entire period, 1931-1950, not the averages of the sub-period averages. Since the lowest-paid group (1946-50) is also much the largest (Table 1), the averages for the period 1931-50 as a whole are in one sense heavily biased downward. For example, for the period as a whole the average salary as computed by averaging the sub-period figures is $6,579, not $5,714.

Average Salaries in 1950, Grouped by occupations and by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950

Highest Academic Standing Attained		Entire Period 1931-50	1931- 35	1936- 40	1941- 45	1946- 50
M.A.: aver-ages		$4,772	$6,709	$6,830	$5,534	$3,988
	Teaching	3,891	5,294	5,525	3,980	3,503
	Govern-ment	5,436	8,113	6,867	5,881	4,110
	Other economic work	5,123	7,890	11,150	5,371	4,240
	All other	4,660	4,625	4,900	12,000	3,935

Passed Orals: aver-ages		5,862	11,375	7,055	6,738	4,709
	Teaching	4,066	—	5,438	4,737	3,783
	Govern-ment	6,993	7,250	6,450	8,340	5,760
	Other economic work	7,887	15,500	8,975	—	5,711
	All other	16,000	—	—	—	16,000

Ph.D.: aver-ages		7,175	8,593	7,719	6,691	6,622
	Teaching	5,964	7,700	6,009	6,077	5,017
	Govern-ment	8,936	8,350	8,900	9,360	8,808
	Other economic work	9,494	17,250	10,300	6,480	11,167
	All other	10,900	—	—	—	10,900

Totals: aver-ages		5,714	8,089	7,240	6,306	4,679
	Teaching	4,806	7,023	5,786	5,531	3,979
	Govern-ment	6,523	7,904	7,358	7,628	5,331
	Other economic work	6,592	10,495	9,973	5,833	5,031
	All other	5,963	6,166	4,900	12,000	5,747

Table 6 makes no differentiation between men and women. Of the 377 replies received, 73 (19 per cent) were from women. Of these women, 49 were regularly employed in 1950 and reported their salaries. Of the remaining 24, most were apparently married (though information on marital status was not requested), and either not working for a salary or only working part-time.

Table 7 therefore shows the break-down for average salaries as between the 282 reporting men and the 49 reporting women who were regularly employed in 1950. There is no category for “unemployed;” no respondent, with one possible exception, reported difficulty in finding employment.

It is striking that although the average salaries for women usually run well below those for men in comparable brackets, the difference for teachers in the various categories is relatively small.¹ The table also does not indicate the wide dispersions for the several groups of women. In 1950 2 women Ph.D.’s were earning $10,000 or more.

¹No significance should be attached to the fact that the average salary for all women in teaching slightly exceeds the salary shown for men. These figures are not comparable because a much higher percentage of women teachers who reported were in the Ph.D. category than of men teachers.

For the group as a whole, 28 men and 3 women were earning $10,000 or more in 1950.

Average Salaries in 1950 (Table 6), Grouped by Sex: for Entire Period, 1931-1950

		Men		Women		All Graduates
		Num-ber	Aver-age Salar-ies	Num-ber	Aver-age Salar-ies	Num-ber	Aver-age Salar-ies
M.A.: aver-ages		134	$4,843	30	$4,455	164	$4,772
	Teaching	43	3,923	7	3,695	50	3,891
	Govern-ment	34	5,758	12	4,524	46	5,436
	Other economic work	37	5,129	8	5,125	45	5,123
	All other	20	4,734	3	4,173	23	4,660

Passed Orals: aver-ages		62	5,939	6	5,066	68	5,862
	Teaching	37	4,066	—	—	37	4,066
	Govern-ment	10	7,480	4	5,775	14	6,993
	Other economic work	13	8,538	2	3,650	15	7,887
	All other	2	16,000	—	—	2	16,000

Ph.D.: aver-ages		86	7,368	13	5,892	99	7,175
	Teaching	53	6,033	10	5,600	63	5,964
	Govern-ment	18	8,936	—	—	18	8,936
	Other economic work	13	10,100	3	6,666	16	9,494
	All other	2	10,900	—	—	2	10,900

Totals: aver-ages		282	5,854	49	4,912	331	5,714
	Teaching	133	4,803	17	4,816	150	4,805
	Govern-ment	62	6,959	16	4,837	78	6,523
	Other economic work	63	6,858	13	6,300	76	6,592
	All other	24	6,186	3	4,173	27	5,963

Source: Robert M. Haig Papers, Columbia University Archives. Box 107, Folder: “Haig Correspondence A, 1949-1952”.

Image Source:Unveiling Alma Mater by Roberto Ferrari (July 15, 2014).

Related