Tag: Bishop

Categories
Graduate Student Support M.I.T.

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

Robert L. Bishop, 1964

 

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

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

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

___________________________

Establishing 1961 as the likely year of Bishop’s memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

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

Subject: Second-year Fellowships Out of Woodrow Wilson Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Economics Programs M.I.T. Undergraduate

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

March 12, 1976

Economics Department Faculty

Dear [blank]

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

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

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

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

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

ECB/sc

__________________________

Brown to Solow

March 16, 1976

Professor Robert Solow
E52-383

Dear Bob:

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

Chairman, Committee on Undergraduate Studies

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

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

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

Chairman, Committee on Graduate Studies

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

Chairman, Committee on Economic Research (I faculty)

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

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

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

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

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

Telephone
Xerox & Ditto
Supplies
Equipment

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

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

Sincerely,
E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/sc

__________________________

MEMORANDUM

May 10, 1976

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

SUBJECT:         Reorganization

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

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

The particular organization we have in mind is as follows.

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

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

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

__________________________

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

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

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

Admissions Committee:

Chairman: Robert Bishop
Members: Frank Fisher and Lance Taylor

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

  1. OTHER DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Staffing Committee: Chairman: Rudiger Dornbusch

(For New Ass’t Profs.) Members:

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

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

ADDENDUM: INSTITUTE COMMITTEES

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

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

Categories
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
Economics Programs M.I.T.

M.I.T. Minutes of the Visiting Committee of Department of Economics and Social Science, 1958

 

From a cover letter, dated March 25, 1959, written by R. T. Haslam, Chairman of the Visiting Committee for the Department of Economics and Social and Science at M.I.T., it appears that the mimeographed document  transcribed below was described as “the full transcript of the Meeting” sent by the Department of Economics for the report to be submitted by the visiting committee to the M.I.T. Corporation. At that time the department of economics and social studies included sections for economics, industrial relations, psychology, and political science together with a center for international studies. 

_______________________

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
Meeting of the Visiting Committee
October 7, 1958

Present: Visiting Committee

Robert T. Haslam, Chairman
Consultant and Director, W. R. Grace and Company

James A. Lyles
Senior Vice President, Frist Boston Corporation
Robert L. Moore
Chairman of the Board, Sheraton Corporation of America

Robert V. Roosa
Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Willard L. Thorp
Professor, Merrill Center for Economics, Amherst College

Max L. Waterman
Vice President and Director, Singer Manufacturing Company

Clarence Wynd
Eastman Kodak Company

 

M.I.T.

John E. Burchard
Dean, School of Humanities and Social Studies

Robert L. Bishop
Professor of Economics; Head, Department of Economics and Social Science

Ralph E. Freeman
Professor of Economics; former Head, Department of Economics and Social Science

E. Cary Brown
Professor of Economics; in Charge of the Undergraduate Program

Roger W. Brown
Associate Professor of Psychology

Davis H. Howes
Assistant Professor of Psychology

Norman J. Padelford
Professor of Political Science; Director, Political Science Section

Ithiel deS. Pool
Professor of Political Science

Charles A. Myers
Professor of Industrial Relations; Director, Industrial Relations Section

Max F. Millikan
Professor of Economics; Director, Center for International Studies

Charles P. Kindleberger
Professor of Economics; in Charge of the Graduate Program

 

As the membership of the Committee is entirely new to the Department of Economics, Professor Bishop opened the meeting by giving a brief resume of its present organization and activities.

Teaching and research cover four main fields: Economics, Industrial Relations, Political Science, and Psychology. In one or more of these four fields, the Department teaches at least five distinguishable types of students: (1) undergraduates who elect one or more of the Department’s four fields as a part of their Humanities and Social Science program; (2) undergraduates who major in Course XIV, in (a) Economics or Political Science and (b) Science or Engineering; (3) graduate students in Course XIV, who are mostly Ph.D. candidates in either Industrial Economics or Political Science; (4) regular graduate students in the School of Industrial Management; and (5) members of the two Executive Development programs administered by the School of Industrial Management, including both Sloan Fellows (who are here for twelve months) and Senior Executives (who are here for ten weeks in either the Fall or Spring).

(1) Until the 1940’s, all juniors at the Institute took two terms of Economic Principles; and this was the substance of the Department’s contribution to the Humanities and Social Science program. Subsequently, we have added the fields of Industrial Relations, Political Science, and Psychology. As a result, the Department now offers four of the ten fields from which all students select their Humanities and Social Science subjects in their junior and senior years. (The attached Tables I and II [only a Table II was present in the departmental records. It is transcribed below] show total enrollments during 1956-57 and 1957-58 in the Department’s four fields and in the individual subjects within those fields. Most of the undergraduate enrollment represents students in the general Humanities and Social Science program). In 1957-58, as Table II shows, total undergraduate enrollments were: Economics 1206, Labor Relations 242, Political Science 378, and Psychology 519.)

(2) For eleven years the Department has had its own undergraduate major in Economics (Course XIV). At first this was just Economics and Engineering; later the option of Economics and Science was added. More recently there has been added an option in Political Science, which is an alternative to Economics but is also joined with Science or Engineering. In the future, Psychology might become a similar option; but Psychology is not now a major subject for undergraduates.

(3) The program for a Ph.D. degree in Economics, now one of the largest in this country, was in operation for some years before the Department had an undergraduate major in Economics. This year for the first time we are offering a program for a Ph.D. in Political Science. Our S.M. program is relatively small, and it is limited to Economics and Engineering (or Science). Unlike the Ph.D. program, it is open only to students who have studied Science or Engineering at the undergraduate level, as in our own undergraduate Course XIV.

(4) The Department offers several special subjects for the regular graduate students in the School of Industrial Management, who are all S.M. candidates. In addition, these students sometimes enroll in the same classes with our own graduate students in Economics; and, indeed, this has increased the size of some of our graduate subjects substantially during the past year or two. Furthermore, a small but increasing number of Industrial Management graduate students are becoming interested in going on to a Ph.D. in a combination of Economics and Industrial Management. Our colleagues in the School of Industrial Management have also been considering the addition of a Ph.D. program of their own. If this should materialize, it is likely that our Department will continue to participate substantially on the Economics side of such a program.

(5) The other teaching activity carried on in cooperation with the School of Industrial Management is in their two executive development programs. The older of these is the Sloan Fellowship program, for which executives in the 32- to 36- year age bracket spend a full calendar year at M.I.T. The other, shorter executive development program in which the Department teaches is aimed at a higher executive level. Our department handles about one-quarter of both of these programs.

Dean Burchard stated what he considers to be the present problems of the Department of Economics.

(1) To have the undergraduate program in Course XIV better known to secondary schools so that students will come to M.I.T. specifically for these combinations of humanities and sciences.

(2) To organize our offering in Psychology. A number of years ago a committee recommended that a Department of Psychology be established in the School of Science; but the latter was not prepared to take on such a department. Although there are courses in Psychology given in other Schools at M.I.T., the largest amount of teaching in Psychology comes under the School of Humanities. Therefore the development and improvement of the Psychology Section within the Department of Economics and Social Science is our responsibility.

(3) The new Political Science Section is fairly well organized; yet it still faces the problem of integration with the work of the Center for International Studies, particularly on research projects.

 

Undergraduate Program

Professor E. Cary Brown, chairman of the Committee on the Undergraduate Program, reported on his committee’s consideration of possible revisions in the curriculum in Course XIV. Normally the M.I.T. student can spend 80 per cent of his time in Science and Engineering, with the remaining 20 per cent in Humanities or Social Science. In Course XIV, the student spends the equivalent of a year in Economics or Political Science, instead of taking the more advanced or specialized subjects in his field of Science or Engineering.

After reviewing the experience of the past ten years on the Economics side—looking over thesis topics, the electives chosen by our majors, and finally the jobs that our graduates have held—it seems clear that we are dealing mostly with students who become engineers first of all, with social science skills on the side. For these students, we shall continue to offer our option in General Economics. We have also recommended, however, the addition of two other options in Economics. One will be in Industrial Economics, including Industrial Relations. The other will be in Quantitative Economics and Methods.

The program in Industrial Economics will be aimed at the range of problems confronting business firms on an industry-wide basis. We shall aim to turn out students in this option who will be industry analysts in the broadest sense.

The Quantitative Economics option will be even more professional in orientation. Emphasis will be on technical training in analytical methods, with primary attention to statistics, econometrics, and programming and decision theory, including “operations research,” for which there is a rapidly growing demand.

At present, too many of our basic Economics subjects are not taken until the senior year; so we have recommended changes that will allow our majors to take these subjects earlier. We have also recommended several new subjects, including a research seminar as thesis preparation in the first term of the senior year.

There followed a discussion of a variety of departmental problems. One concerns the fact that, in the Economics wing, we have relatively many young full professors, in their early forties, with relatively few associate and assistant professors. The demands of our graduate program and our undergraduate major are such that relatively few senior members of the staff participate at any one time in the elementary subjects, 14.01 and 14.02. There also was discussion of the assistance that can be given by the older members of the Department to graduate students who are carrying out their first teaching assignment in the sections of elementary Economics. As Mr. Haslam pointed out, these are the first instructors that the student meets in the Department of Economics, and a favorable impact is very important.

 

The Psychology Section (reported by Professors Roger W. Brown and Davis Howes)

At present Psychology teaching is limited to the Humanities program; but within the next year or two we hope to set up a Psychology option in Course XIV. The decision that we have to make with the administrative authorities is whether to be content with a purely routine service in teaching elementary Psychology or whether to have a Psychology Section composed of persons with significant research activities who will develop a broader teaching program.

There are other psychologists at the Institute in both the School of Industrial Management and in the new Communications Center. These people are concerned with a limited set of rather specialized applications of Psychology. Collaboration with these other psychologists would be very fruitful if a graduate program of training Ph.D.’s in Psychology could be set up, and some of them occasionally teach Psychology subjects in the Humanities program; but, for the time being, the responsibility for manning and administering that program rests wholly on the Psychology Section in our Department.

There is a remarkable opportunity at M.I.T. for collaboration between psychologists and other scientists—in computers, to name one example, and also in such fields as electronics and the chemical effects of drugs on human behavior. These potential opportunities will always draw able young research-oriented psychologists to M.I.T.; but they will not stay beyond about three years unless there is more chance for growth and development of the psychology program than at present. Now there is no senior member of the Psychology group; the four psychologists of faculty rank consist of one associate professor and three assistant professors. It was agreed that a constructive step would be the appointment of a full professor of psychology.

 

The Political Science Section (reported by Professors Norman J. Padelford and Ithiel de S. Pool)

Political Science has gone through some of the problems that Psychology is now facing. Immediately after the war we started out as a purely service group, offering as part of the Humanities program undergraduate courses which have averaged from 350 to 400 students. Three years ago we came to feel, as the psychologists do now, that a mere service function would not satisfy us professionally. As the first step to broaden our base we set up an undergraduate course combining Political Science with Science and Engineering. After this course was launched and operating satisfactorily, there were discussions about a Ph.D. program in Political Science. The same arguments that were used for Economics and for Psychology came up—namely, that the ablest men cannot be recruited and retained unless they have good graduate students around them. We have had to go to Harvard and to Fletcher School for young teachers in our undergraduate courses.

A program for a Ph.D. in Political Science was launched this Fall. We have 13 mature and talented graduate students whose interests are focused on policy problems. We put these students to work on research projects. This is possible with a small group only slightly outnumbered by staff; for each student can work as assistant to a staff member.

As far as our group is concerned, we see no point in simply duplicating what is done at other institution. Our range of interests covers the following major topics:

(1) We are concerned with the growth and evolution of political communities from an elementary stage to maturity, whether in such places as Burma or at the international level, where we have been studying the process by which a group of nations in the so-called Atlantic community can become knitted together.

(2) We have a strong interest in the role of communications in the political process between men and between groups in the political process. This is an important topic, which has been inadequately stressed elsewhere.

(3) The touchstone of our approach is a study of the place of government and the role of public policy against the background of changes in science and technology.

One final word about our needs as we look ahead. We have set up six fields of study: (1) International Relations and Foreign Policy, (2) Political Communications, (3) Defense Policy, (4) Government and Science, (5) Political and Economic Development, and (6) Political Theory and Comparative Politics. In the areas of Defense Policy and Government and Science, we are not provided with faculty as we should be. We need to find individuals for each of these fields and also the wherewithal to support them at the faculty level. Our second need—and the most urgent at the moment—is for fellowships and scholarships. We are encouraging our graduate students to take loans for their education, paying them back afterwards rather than depending on scholarship money.

 

The Industrial Relations Section (reported by Professor Charles A. Myers)

The Industrial Relations Section is the oldest of the sections in the Department of Economics. Last November we had a 20th Anniversary Conference in which we reviewed what we have been trying to do. Originally we set up our teaching program solely at the undergraduate level; but we have expanded to include participation in the doctoral program of the Department. Today M.I.T. has more students working for doctor’s degrees in Economics with emphasis on Industrial Relations than has any other university in this country. Our activities include courses for management, both in the programs of the School of Industrial management and in the new Greater Boston program for executive development. As we have no staff of our own but share our teachers with the Department of Economics, we confine our activities to certain areas such as the Scanlon Plan—a union-management cooperation plan, which has annual conferences attracting about 200 participants from all over the country. In addition, we have held conferences on research administration; some trade unions have come here for conferences under our auspices; and we hold each year a one-day workshop in connection with the Boston Chamber of Commerce.

Professor Pigors has pioneered in a method of management training and development called the incident process, which is now used by 800 companies. We think it offers more challenge to students than the case method. The case method presents a problem with all the material supplied; the incident process gives the student only an incident, leaving him to seek out the pertinent facts by questioning the discussion leader. As a teaching device it has had wide impact outside of M.I.T.

Some of our recent research has been on comparative international studies. As we learned more about economic development, we saw its close connection with problems of industrial relations. We obtained a Ford Foundation grant; and my two trips to India and a book have come out of that. We plan to cover India, Mexico, Japan, Western Germany, Indonesia, Sweden, England, France, and Italy in our studies of management in industrial societies.

 

The Center for International Studies (reported by Professor Max F. Millikan)

Although the CIS has a Visiting Committee of its own, its work is so closely connected with that of the Department of Economics and Social Science that they share each other’s problems. There are two ways in which the Center’s activities are important to the Department of Economics. First, there is a considerable overlap of staff members who conduct research in the Center and teach in the Department; so the Center and the Department have a joint interest in recruiting an outstanding and stable staff. Second, The Center’s research program provides opportunities for graduate students in the Department to undertake thesis work in the international field.

Briefly, the Center was founded in 1951, growing out of a contract which M.I.T. undertook on behalf of the State Department to explore a defense against jamming the Voice of America. Growing out of this study appeared the need for a research organization on problems related to American foreign relationships, as there are many ways in which technology and science have become involved in foreign policy and international relations. The Center then removed itself from government affiliation and became a permanent member of the M.I.T. family.

Since 1952, with the support of the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie Funds, it has carried on projects in four different fields: (1) relations between the United States and the Soviet bloc, especially in the area of Soviet scientific publications and the administrative handling of research and development in the Soviet Union; (2) economic and political development of the underdeveloped countries—especially the process of economic growth in Indonesia, India and Southern Italy; (3) international communications—especially the pattern of information-flow in foreign countries and its effect upon attitudes and decisions of significant political groups; (4) Professor Rostow, who was responsible for the studies on the Soviet Union and on China which we have published, has now turned his attention to the features in American society which influence our attitude toward foreign policy.

Our principal problem for the future is to provide some stability for our research staff. We have drawn key people to M.I.T. who have made a substantial contribution through their research; but many members of our staff are listed as visiting professors because M.I.T. cannot provide tenure positions for them. What we need is a continuing corps to devote half time to research in the Center and the other half to teaching.

The Center is in a position to offer to graduate students research opportunities second to none in this country. In the future we look toward using the Center’s resources at the undergraduate level. In these new areas it is normal for development to begin at the graduate level and work down.

 

The Graduate Economics Program (reported by Professor Charles P. Kindleberger)

In the first place, our graduate program aims primarily at a Ph.D. degree; we do not offer a Master’s degree except in a combination of Economics with Science or Engineering (mostly as a fifth year for our own Course XIV graduates). In the Ph.D. program we limit ourselves to a small group of high-quality candidates—about 20 to 25 new students each year.

Admission of Graduate Students. These 20 to 25 new students are chosen from a group of about 120 applicants, who have various reasons for wanting to study at M.I.T. Some are attracted by the men on our teaching staff and some by the prestige of M.I.T. in general. We should also face the fact, however, that competitive fellowship offers also play a prominent role in applicants’ decisions to come here or go elsewhere. On the other side of the picture, some would-be applicants are scared away if they are not highly skilled in mathematics, even though only a minority of our graduate students specialize in areas of economics where high-powered mathematical techniques are used.

Financing Graduate Students. There are various ways in which a graduate student can pay his way here: he may get a fellowship from an outside source to be used at any university of his choice—National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Woodrow Wilson Fellowship support comes this way; also, we have some privately endowed “name” fellowships in our department—Goodyear, Westinghouse, and Hicks; and we have some departmental and Institute funds to offer; lastly, a student may pay his own way. Sometimes students who do not qualify for financial assistance at first, but who come on their own, turn out to be very good. We hire no teachers from the group of first-year graduate students, so this source of earning is not open until at least the second year of graduate study, and usually not until the third.

Ph.D. Curriculum. At the end of the second year, the graduate student takes his general examinations—four written and four oral. After this comes his thesis. We are very much interested in the process of writing a thesis, as we believe that it is here that the student acquires professional maturity. We do not go along with the movement to cut down on the time of the Ph.D. degree by reducing the thesis to the proportions of an article.

Post-Doctoral Students. More and more M.I.T. is attracting post-doctoral scholars from abroad—last year a Swede, a Norwegian, a Dutchman, and a Turk; this year two Germans, a Swede, an Italian, a Belgian and a Frenchman. These people add to the scholarly atmosphere; and we need mature students for training at a post-doctoral level. This, however, requires more money; and we have already applied to the Ford Foundation for funds for this purpose.

*  *  *  *  *  *

            In the general discussion of pressing problems Professor Bishop mentioned the following:

The Economics Library Budget. The state of our Dewey Library budget can be held over for discussion at the next meeting of this committee. If we have not been successful in our drive for funds, we shall need to ask the assistance of the committee.

Ours is very much of a library department, as we have no laboratory. Although our library budget is high compared with that of some engineering departments, it is low compared with that of other leading departments in Economics. For example, our library budget stands at $4,000 annually, compared with $6,000 for that of Johns Hopkins. Ours is possibly the best industrial relations library in the country; but it is a second-class economics library. I should like to see the budget figure raised by $2,000.

(Mr. Maslam offered to approach Mr. Bradley Dewy for a donation for this purpose.)

Age Distribution of Department Members. It happens that our department has an unusual age distribution in the field of Economics. There is a great gap between the full professors and the instructors. The former are all in their early forties; and there are few runners-up at the associate professor and assistant professor level. This is a problem of major importance.

*  *  *  *  *  *

            Professor Thorp suggested this kind of Committee report to the Corporation: that the Committee has met; that all its members are new; that they therefore need time to get acquainted with what is going on in the Department; that they find no problems requiring immediate action; and that they are looking forward to a meeting next year. There was also agreement in recommending that there be somewhat more continuity of membership on the Visiting Committee than in the past.

*  *  *  *  *  *

TABLE II
Comparative Numbers of Students Completing Individual Subjects in the Department of Economics and Social Science, 1956-57 and 1957-58
[Note: Course titles provided after Table II]

1956-57

 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total

Net Change
Economics—Undergraduate

14.01

 466 292 758 460 316 776 +18
14.02 58 117 175 94 143 237

+62

14.03

 26 — 26 26 18 44 +18
14.04 — 14 14 — 8 8

-6

14.09

 27 28 55 25 19 44 -11
14.20 — 23 23 — — —

-23

14.30

 — 25 25 — — — -25
14.32 — 20 20 — 17 17

-3

14.33

 18 — 18 16 21 37 +19
14.40 — 20 20 — 20 20

—

14.43

 11 — 11 13 — 13 +2
14.54 — 11 11 — 10 10

-1

Totals

 1156 1206

+50

 

 

1956-57

 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total

Net Change
Economics—Graduate

14.101

 11 — 11 14 — 14 +3
14.102 — 5 5 — 8 8

+3

14.115

 34 — 34 36 — 36 +2
14.116 — 34 34 — 36 36

+2

14.117

 18 24 42 15 20 35 -7
14.121 32 — 32 31 — 31

-1

14.122

 — 30 30 — 31 31 +1
14.132 — 6 6 — — —

-6

14.151

 6 — 6 11 — 11 +5
14.161 15 — 15 15 — 15

—

14.162

 — 12 12 — 16 16 +4
14.171 11 — 11 8 — 8

-3

14.172

 — 6 6 — 9 9 +3
14.174 — 5 5 — 14 14

+9

14.192

 — 5 5 — 1 1 -4
14.195 10 — 10 1 — 1

-9

14.196

 — 11 11 — 5 5 -6
14.271 11 — 11 7 — 7

-4

14.272

 — 7 7 — 7 7 —
14.281 13 — 13 15 — 15

+2

14.282

 — — — — 18 18 +18
14.292 — 7 7 — 10 10

+3

14.371

 34 — 34 35 — 35 +1
14.372 — 15 15 — 16 16

+1

14.381

 56 — 56 27 — 27 -29
14.382 — — — — 1 1

+1

14.451

 23 — 23 24 — 24 +1
14.461 8 — 8 8 — 8

—

14.471

 — 15 15 — 12 12 -3
14.481 9 — 9 6 — 6

-3

14.581

 20 — 20 23 — 23 +3
14.582 — 16 16 — 17 17

+3
Totals

509

 497

-12
Totals—Economics

1665

 1703

+38

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

1956-57 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Net Change
Industrial Relations—Undergraduate
14.61 12 — 12 — — — -12
14.63 86 75 161 80 75 155 -6
14.64 47 75 122 36 51 87 -35
Totals 295 242 -53

 

1956-57 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Net Change
Industrial Relations—Graduate
14.671 — 6 6 — 7      7 +1
14.672 10 — 10 — — — -10
14.673 — — — 18 — 18 +18
14.674 — — — 10 — 10 +10
14.681 17 — 17 18 — 18 +1
14.682 — 19 19 — 10 10 -9
14.694 — — — — 16      16 +16
Totals 52 79 +27
Totals—Industrial Relations 347 321 -26

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

1956-57 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Net Change
Political Science—Undergraduate
14.51 50 93 143 73 72 145 +2
14.52 29 25 54 31 25 56 +2
14.53 7 — 7 — 25 25 +18
14.90 17 13 30 14 11 25 -5
14.91 25 36 61 26 23 49 -12
14.92 — 18 18 — 42 42 +24
14.93 7 11 18 — 26 26 +8
14.95 22 — 22 — — — -22
14.96 — 14 14 — — — 14
14.97 6 — 6 3 — 3 -3
14.98 — — — — 3 3 +3
14.99 — — — 4 — 4 +4
Totals 373 378 +5

 

1956-57 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Net Change
Political Science—Graduate
14.521 6 — 6 — — — -6
14.523 — — — 4 — 4 +4
14.524 — — — — 2 2 +2
14.531 — 15 15 3 — 3 -12
14.533 18 — 18 12 — 12 -6
14.571 — 34 34 — 36 36 +2
14.941 — — — — 8 8 +8
14.953 10 — 10 7 — 7 -3
14.954 — 1 1 — 5 5 +4
14.956 — 5 5 — 8 8 +3
14.957 6 — 6 7 — 7 +1
14.958 — — — — 6 6 +6
Totals 95 98 +3
Totals—Political Science 468 476 +8

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

1956-57 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Net Change
Psychology—Undergraduate
14.70 112 175 287 83 126 209 -78
14.73 83 73 156 32 35 67 -89
14.77 47 — 47 27 16 43 -4
14.79 — 42 42 8 29 37 -5
14.81 — 14 14 — 9 9 -5
14.82 — — — 11 43 54 +54
14.84 — — — — 35 35 +35
14.85 — — — 32 — 32 +32
14.86 — — — 18 32 50 +30
14.88 — — — — 3 3 +3
Totals 546 519 -27

 

1956-57 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Net Change
Psychology—Graduate
14.771 32 — 32 — — — -32
14.772 — — — — 6 6 +6
14.774 12 — 12 5 — 5 -7
14.791 5 — 5 8 — 8 +3
14.792 — 11 11 — 2 2 -9
Totals 60 21 -39
Totals—Psychology 606 540 -66

 

1956-57 1957-58
Subject Fall Spring Total Fall Spring Total Net Change
Grand Totals for the Department 3086 3040 -46

Source: M.I.T. Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records, Box 4, Folder “V.C. [19]47-64”.

________________________

Course numbers, names and instructors
1957-58*

ECONOMICS (UNDERGRADUATE)
14.01 Economic Principles I (Bishop)
14.02 Economic Principles II (E. C. Brown)
14.03 Prices and Production (A. Williams)
14.04 Industrial Organization and Public Policy
14.09 Economic Problems Seminar (Bishop)
14.20 Building Economics (Maclaurin)
14.30 Elementary Statistics (Ando)
14.32 Statistical Quality Control (H. A. Freeman)
14.33 Elementary Statistics (Ando)
14.40 Money and Income (R.E. Freeman)
14.43 Public Finance (E.C. Brown)
14.54 International Trade (Kindleberger)
ECONOMICS (GRADUATE)
14.101 Mathematics for Economists (H. A. Freeman)
14.102 Mathematics for Economists (H. A. Freeman)
14.115 Economics and Finance: Principles and Policies II (Kindleberger, R.E. Freeman)
14.116 Economics and Finance: Principles and Policies III (Kindleberger)
14.117 Economics and Industrial Management (Solow, E.C. Brown)
14.121 Economic Analysis (Bishop)
14.122 Economic Analysis (Samuelson)
14.132 Schools of Economic Thought (Bishop)
14.151 Mathematical Approach to Economics (Samuelson)
14.161 Economic History (W. W. Rostow)
14.162 Economic History (W. W. Rostow)
14.171 Theory of Economic Growth (Rosenstein-Rodan)
14.172 Research Seminar in Economic Development (Millikan)
14.174 Non-Economic Factors in Economic Growth (Hagen)
14.192 Economics Seminar
14.195 Reading Seminar in Economics
14.196 Reading Seminar in Economics
14.271 Problems n Industrial Economics (Bishop)
14.272 Government Regulation of Industry (N.N.)
14.281 Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Development (Maclaurin)
14.282 Economics of Innovation Seminar (Maclaurin)
14.292 Industrial Economic Seminar
14.371 Statistical Theory (H. A. Freeman)
14.372 Statistical Theory (H. A. Freeman)
14.381 Statistical Method (Houthakker, Durand)
14.382 Economic Statistics (Houthakker)
14.451 National Income (Millikan)
14.461 Monetary and Banking Problems (Higgins)
14.471 Fiscal Policy? (E. C. Brown)
14.481 Business Cycles (Houthakker)
14.581 International Economics (Kindleberger)
14.582 International Economics (Kindleberger)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (UNDERGRADUATE)
14.61 Industrial Relations (D. V. Brown)
14.63 Labor Relations (Siegel)
14.64 Labor Economics and Public Policy (A. R. Weber)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (GRADUATE)
14.671 Problems in Labor Economics (Miernyk)
14.672 Public Policy on Labor Relations (Myers)
14.673 Labor-Management Relations and Public Policy (D. V. Brown, Myers)
14.674 The Labor Movement: Theories and Histories (Siegel)
14.681 Seminar in Personnel Administration (Pigors)
14.682 Seminar in Personnel Administration (Pigors)
14.694 Seminar in Union-Management Cooperation (N.N.)
POLITICAL SCIENCE (UNDERGRADUATE)
14.51 International Relations (Padelford)
14.52 Principles and Problems of American Diplomacy (Pye)
14.53 Seminar in International Politics (Schilling)
14.90 Government, Politics and Technology (R. C. Wood)
14.91 The American Political System (Tillman)
14.92 Comparative Political and Economic Systems (L. W. Martin)
14.93 Seminar: Issues in Contemporary American Politics
14.95 Politics, Society, and Policy Making (Pool)
14.96 Influences on Policy Decisions (N.N.)
14.97 Political Science Seminar (Padelford)
14.98 Political Science Seminar (Padelford)
14.99 International Political Communication (Davison)
POLITICAL SCIENCE (GRADUATE)
14.521 Strategic and Political Geography (N.N.)
14.523 National Security and Military Technology (McCormack, Schilling)
14.524 Politics and National Defense Policy (Schilling)
14.531 Asian Politics and United States Foreign Policy (Pye)
14.533 Social Science and U. S. Foreign Policy (Millikan)
14.571 Major Problems in Untied States Foreign Policy (Padelford)
14.941 Government and Public Administration (R. C. Wood)
14.953 Mass Media and Communication Systems (Lerner)
14.954 Methods of Communication Research (Lerner)
14.956 Public Opinion and Propaganda (Davison)
14.957 Research Seminar in International Communications (Davison)
14.958 Research Seminar in International Communications (Davison)
PSYCHOLOGY (UNDERGRADUATE)
14.70 Introductory Psychology (Swets)
14.73 Organization and Communication in Groups (Swets, Gleicher)
14.77 Psychology of Language and Communication (N.N.)
14.79 Learning (Howes)
14.81 Psychology of Perception (Swets in 1958-59)
14.82 Psychology of Motivation (N.N. in 1958-59)
14.84 Theories of Personality (R. W. Brown in 1958-59)
14.85 Social Psychology (R. W. Brown in 1958-59)
14.86 Behavior in Groups (M. E. Shaw in 1958-59)
14.88 Advanced Psychology Seminar (Staff in 1958-59)
PSYCHOLOGY (GRADUATE)
14.771 Interpersonal Relations Seminar (N.N.)
14.772 Industrial Sociology Seminar (N.N.)
14.774 Social Psychology Seminar (R. W. Brown)
14.791 Reading Seminar in Social Science
14.792 Reading Seminar in Social Science

 

Source:  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bulletin, General Catalogue Issue 1957-58. Chapter 10, Descriptions of Subjects, 14. Economics and Social Science, pp. 233-238.

*For 14.81/14.82/14.84/14.85/14.86/14.88 information from the General Catalogue Issue 1958-59 pp. 237-8.

Image Source:  From Technique (1949), M.I.T. Yearbook cover.

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
Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Economics Faculty Skit à la Rowan and Martin’s “Laugh-In”, December 1968

 

This post continues our series “Funny Business” that features successful and less-than-successful attempts at humor by economists. Reading one of these historical skits demands the reader to concede that the defense, “It seemed funny at the time,” might actually be valid for fifty year old jokes.  At the December 1968 Graduate Economics Association party the M.I.T. economics faculty offered its version of the wildly popular, frenetic comedy series “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In” (like “Sit-in”, get it? As I just said, “it seemed funny at the time”). 

For young and non-U.S. historians of economics, remote learning of the original Laugh-In content is easy:

Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In information at IMDb.
Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In highlights on YouTube.

The tag-line “Sock it to me” was a creation of the 1960s and made a meme by Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In. Paul Samuelson closing the skit with that line is almost up there with 1968 Presidential candidate Richard Nixon’s saying it in his cameo appearance on Laugh-In.

The skit transcript below includes some square-bracketed comments to help the reader. Of course, nothing says “joke” more than a good footnote.

______________________

Reminder/Invitation

December 11, 1968

Graduate Students, Faculty Members
and Secretaries

DON’T FORGET!!

            A week from today is the GEA Christmas Party—Tuesday, December 17th. The festivities will begin at 8:00 pm in the Campus Room of Ashdown House. Admission is only $1.00 and the entertainment is free.

______________________

GEA CHRISTMAS SKIT 1968
[Faculty]

 

Music
[Franklin M.] Fisher: It’s the Faculty Laugh-In.

Music

(Enter [E. Cary] Brown, [Paul A.] Samuelson and [Robert L.] Bishop,
Brown and Samuelson sit.)
Samuelson: For the first question on your advanced theory oral:
Who was the greatest economist of all time?
Bishop (After much thought) Pigou…

Music
[Morris] Adelman: It is written: when offer curve bend backwards, then is time to send [Walt] Rostow to Texas.
[For background to Rostow Affair, see Appendix below]

Music—through
[Matthew D.] Edel (carries sign) “Economics is a dismal science”

([Peter] Temin and [Duncan] Foley enter as Rowan and Martin)
Foley: It certainly was a swell idea to put on a faculty laugh-in.
Temin: It’s so much easier than thinking up a connected skit.
Foley: Well, what cute laugh-in type feature do we have coming up next?
Temin: I see by my script here that we’re going to have a “Laugh-in looks at…” next.
Foley: Yes, it says: Faculty laugh-in looks at the new [Nixon] administration.

Music
[Jerome] Rothenberg: Washington: James Reston has expressed outrage at news reports that the University of Maryland has no plans to hire Spiro T. Agnew.
[Motivation for James Reston mention here see, Appendix “Rostow Affair” below]
Temin: Meanwhile at the Council of Economic Advisers, Republicans begin to grapple with the unaccustomed complexities of the Federal budget.

(enter Bishop and Foley)
Bishop: They always said Art Okun could do it with a pencil on the back of an envelope.
[See Appendix below]
Foley: I still think we’d better wait for the computer printout.
Bishop: No, look, its easy. Let’s see, how does it go? Is it Y = C + the deficit, or does the deficit = Y + C?

Music
Temin: At the same time we hear the swan song of liberals seeking sanctuary on college campuses.
Fisher: Song “Hey Dick [Nixon]”
[presumably to the tune of “Hey Jude”, lyrics to parody not in the file]
Rothenberg: Washington: the M.I.T. economics department has again startled Washington circles by announcing that it will not hire Henry Kissinger in 1972.
[cf. Appendix below on “Rostow Affair”]
Foley: Why don’t we just use their budget?
Bishop: And give up on the job? It can’t be that hard.
Foley: We don’t even have the computer printout yet.
Bishop: Doesn’t investment come in here someplace?

Music
Rothenberg: Washington: It has just been learned that the M.I.T. economics department, responding to the furor over the Rostow affair has abolished its economic history requirement.
[see Appendix below]

Music

(Man seated, knock on door: goes to answer, returns)
Adelman: Dear, Mr. Brower is here to fix the point (calling).
[Punny reference to Brower’s fixed-point theorem  that is a building block for the proof of the existence of a general equilibrium.]

Music—through
Edel (carries sign) “Pigou Power”

(Enter Bishop, Brown, Samuelson)
Brown: Describe an Edgeworth-Bowley Box.
Bishop: (gesturing) It’s about so wide…

Music

(Enter Foley and Temin)
Foley: What movie did you see last night?
Temin: “Thoroughly Modern Miltie”
[clearly “Milton Friedman”, the film’s title was “Thoroughly Modern Miltie”]

Music—through
Fisher (carries sign) “Nest principal minors”
[Linear algebra joke, written like a creepy, even pedophilic, command here, “nested principal minors” or “nest of principal minors” would be proper.]
Rothenberg: The negative definite is equivalent to the lie direct.
[Shakespeare As You Like It, V:iv in Appendix below]

Music
Foley: The computer printout is here!

(enter tons of printout)
Bishop: I think I’ve got it!
Foley: What?
Bishop: One of Okun’s envelopes. How old do you think this is anyway?

Music
Samuelson:

A Poem
by Paul A. Samuelson

Some people cover lots more ground
But no one handles the New York Times like Carey Brown.

[Likely another reference to the Rostow Affair, see Appendix Below]

Music

(Adelman seated, door knock)
Adelman: Dear, Mr. [Evsey] Domar is here to compare the systems.
[One of Evsey Domar signature courses was “Comparative Economic Systems”]

Music
Foley: What movie did you see last night?
Temin: Ride the high Pontry
[“Ride the High Country”, 1962 Western film by Sam Peckinpah]
Foley: What Pontry again?
[A punny reference to Pontryagin’s maximum principle in optimal control theory.]

Music

(Enter Bishop, Samuelson, Brown)
Brown: What was Marshall’s greatest contribution?
Bishop: In 1903, Marshall gave £1500 to King’s College.

Music

(Enter Fisher and Temin with box)

“2 squares least stage”
(sign)
[“2-stage least squares” is the name of statistical procedure, here Fisher and Temin are the two “squares“.]

Music
Adelman: Mark Hopkins said the ideal education is a professor and a student sitting on a log, with the professor talking to the student. I sometimes think I would get the same results sitting on the student and talking to the log.

Music
Bishop: Sock it to me

Music

(Enter Temin and Foley)
Temin: Here we are out here again imitating Rowan and Martin.
Foley: Shouldn’t you be standing on the other side? What now?
Temin: Now we’re giving the “Flying Fickle Finger of Fat Award” just like on TV.
Foley: And who gets the “Flying Fickle Finger of Fat Award”?
Temin: Fate. The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award goes to…

(Music cue—fanfare)
Temin: Kenneth Boulding for receiving a vote of confidence from…himself.
[Boulding gave his Presidential address to the American Economic Association a few weeks later on “Economics as a Moral Science”. For likely background to the joke see the Appendix below.]

Music
Fisher: A Bordered hessian is a German mercenary surrounded by continentals.

Music
Samuelson:

(carries sign) “I am an external economist.”

Music
Foley: What movie did you see last night?
Temin: “Closely watched brains”
[“Closely watched trains”, 1966 Czech film directed by Jiří Menzel]

Music
Foley: (Poring over computer printout). I think the whole idea of the budget is a stupid, dumb, stupid idea. Why do we even need a budget?
Bishop: Look, we’ve got to have something to send down to the Congress tomorrow.
Foley: I’m going to hold my breath until the stupid deficit comes out right.
Bishop: Just try to remember whether capital gains are part of income or not.

Music cue

(Enter Fisher, Temin, Edel)
“3 squares least stage”
(sign)
[“3-stage least squares” is a statistical procedure, and Fisher, Temin and Edel are the three “squares“.]

Music
Brown: The students are revolting.
Bishop: Yes, I’ve though so for a long time.

Enter Everybody
Rothenberg: SDS Sam
[SDS=Students for a Democratic Society…
(wild guess) impression of Bogart saying “Play it Again Sam”?]
Foley: Well, here we are out here again, and it’s time to say…
Temin: Long joke.
Foley: Say goodnite, Peter.
Temin: Goodnite, Peter.
Samuelson: Sock it to me.

Source: M.I.T. Archives.  Folder “GEA 1967-68”.

_________________________

Appendix

 

Rostow Affair

Source: Howard Wesley Johnson, Holding the Center: Memoirs of a Life in Higher Education. From Chapter 8, pp. 189-90.

*   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

 

Art Okun’s Reputation as an economic forecaster “on the back of an envelope”

Source: Joseph A. Pechman contribution for In Memoriam: Arthur M. Okun. November 28, 128–March 23, 1980 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1980), p. 14.

*   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

 

From Shakespeare’s As You Like It
Act V, Scene 4.

JAQUES

Can you nominate in order now the degrees of the lie?

TOUCHSTONE

O sir, we quarrel in print, by the book; as you have
books for good manners: I will name you the degrees.
The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the
Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the
fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the
Countercheque Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with
Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct. All
these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may
avoid that too, with an If. I knew when seven
justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the
parties were met themselves, one of them thought but
of an If, as, ‘If you said so, then I said so;’ and
they shook hands and swore brothers. Your If is the
only peacemaker; much virtue in If.

Source: From the Shakespeare homepage at M.I.T.

*   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

 

Kenneth Boulding’s Vote for AEA to Meet in Chicago in 1968

 

Source:  Robert Scott, Kenneth Boulding: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).

 

 

Categories
Economics Programs Faculty Regulations M.I.T.

M.I.T. “Industrial Economics” Ph.D. name changed to “Economics”, Economics S.M. recognized as exit ramp, 1965

 

Somewhat surprising is the late date (1965!) of the name-change for the economics Ph.D. at M.I.T. from “Industrial Economics” to “Economics”. Also interesting in the transcribed memorandum below is the request to lower the math and science prerequisites for the economics S.M. to that of the Ph.D. in order to facilitate the graceful, early exit of graduate students unlikely to complete the Ph.D. 

____________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

MEMORANDUM

February 5, 1965

To: Committee on Graduate School Policy
From: Robert L. Bishop, Head, Department of Economics and Social Science

For some time now, there has been a strong sentiment in our Department that our graduate degree programs should be changed and supplemented. The changes that we should now like to propose officially will require action by the Faculty and the Corporation, because they involve changes in degree titles, in one instance a change in prerequisites and content of the degree, and in another instance the addition of a new degree. On the other hand, the changes are not really of a radical nature and will not involve any additional staff or any augmenting of the numbers of our graduate students.

At present we have programs for a Ph.D. in Industrial Economics, a Ph.D. in Political Science, and an S.M. in Economics and Engineering or in Economics and Science. Our proposals are: (1) to change the title of the Ph.D. in Industrial Economics to a Ph.D. in Economics; (2) to substitute for the present S.M. degrees a single S.M. in Economics, with admission requirements the same as for the Ph.D. in Economics; and (3) to add an S.M. in Political Science, having an analogous relationship to the existing Ph.D. in Political Science.

Dropping the adjective “Industrial” from the title of our Economics Ph.D. is merely a belated recognition of the considerable broadening of that program that has taken place since it was first established in the years just prior to World War II. At that time, the designation of Industrial Economics appropriately reflected the limited kind of study that was then visualized. Since then, however, our program has expanded in its scope and diversity so that the original designation has become a decided anachronism for the majority of our Ph.D. recipients.

Even in the beginning, as now, the admission requirements for our Economics Ph.D. have differed from those in most Departments, in that they did not include the amount of mathematics and science taken by M.I.T. undergraduates. Instead, only one full year of college mathematics and one full year of college work in science have been required. These requirements reflect, of course, a desire to make our program accessible to most Economics majors in liberal arts colleges. The requirements for our present S.M. degrees, by contrast, constitute essentially the subjects taken by an undergraduate in the Economics option of Course XIV. It is those admission requirements that we propose to change, so that a candidate for the Ph.D. might alternatively be a candidate for an S.M.

Professional training for a career in Economics is such that the Ph.D. has really become the essential degree for anyone who aspires to the fullest professional status. Nor is it our intention to admit candidates solely for the S.M., except in very special circumstances. Over the years, however, we have felt the desirability of being free to award and S.M. in Economics to some students. These include some foreign students, often connected with research programs at the Center for International Studies, who can profit significantly from graduate study at M.I.T. but who are unable to stay long enough for the full Ph.D. program. In all frankness, too, it must be confessed that we have sometimes wished that we were free to divert a Ph.D. candidate toward the lesser degree because of inadequacies of performance after enrollment at the institute. Naturally, the student whose performance is acutely disappointing should not be given any favorable consideration. In many cases, however, performance is not up to the high standard that I think we have maintained for the Ph.D., but still high enough to merit continuance for an S.M.

The reasons supporting a new S.M. degree in Political Science are exactly the same. The only difference here is that there is no S.M. of any kind available in Political Science.

These changes involving S.M. degrees are also in line with some changes that we are simultaneously proposing to the Committee on Curricula with respect to our undergraduate degrees in Course XIV. It is being proposed that these degrees be redesignated more simply as in Economics (Course XIV-A) or in Political Science (Course XIV-B). A copy of these proposals is attached.

Provided that both the undergraduate and graduate program changes are approved, we shall then adopt the same distinction between Course XIV-A and Course XIV-B at the graduate level as at the undergraduate. This will achieve the important administrative reform of distinguishing, as is not now the case, the Economics and Political Science graduate students.

As to the details of the revised graduate degrees, I enclose alternative catalogue copy that would replace the descriptions on pages 142-144 in the present catalogue.

To the extent that the Committee on Graduate School Policy may wish some further discussion of these changes, my colleagues and I will be very pleased to provide it.

RLB:e

 

Source: MIT Institute Archives. Department of Economics records. Box 1, Folder “Comm. On Grad. School Policy”.

Categories
Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Economics Christmas skit with basketball theme, 1961

Boston, MA - 1/1/1960: From left, Boston Celtics players Tom Heinsohn, Bill Russell, Capt. Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman and Frank Ramsey pose together at the Boston Garden in Boston circa 1960. (Boston Globe Archive/) --- BGPA Reference: 170504_BS_001

 

Spoiler alert: you are about to encounter one of the least funny economics skits in the history of the genre, so this artifact is regrettably low on entertainment value.  Still the six acts have a certain seven-acts-of-man structure: Act I (the department recruits), Act II ( advising the first-year student), Act III (graduate student complaints), Act IV (choosing guest speakers), Act V (general examinations), Act VI (job market). 

After reading the skit, you might need a palate cleansing or better: for that purpose here are a few links to the key word “Funny Business” at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror that take you to some of the greatest hits of economics skits.

____________________

ANOTHER TWO POINTS FOR THE FACULTY,
ANOTHER FOUL ON THE STUDENTS

A Christmas Drama (with suggestions for a cast), December 15, 1961

ACT I

(The curtain rises on a scene of [Edgar Cary] Brown, [Franklin Marvin] Fisher, [Charles Poor] Kindleberger and [Abraham J.] Siegel seated around a table reading applications.

SIEGEL: Here’s a guy who may be OK…No…the place is no good. A cow college. They average only 50 points a game.

BROWN:  Here’s a good one.

FISHER: What’s his record?

BROWN: Pretty darn good. Worth at least tuition plus $500. Maybe $750.

FISHER: What’s his record?

BROWN: Pretty darn good. He’s from Podunk. And they’re pretty good. He was the best they had.

FISHER: How did he score, for crying out loud?

BROWN: He’s six-feet-five, weighs 195 pounds, and fast; he averaged 23.7 points a game. He has a great set shot, never misses from the foul line, and superb off the backboard. He’s just what we need in Graduate Economics at M.I.T.

 

ACT II

(An office: Siegel is advising a student.)

SIEGEL: For the first year I would take pretty standard fare: theory, history, statistics, finance, and international, plus of course the workshop. There’s no use trying to take too much. Pace yourself.

STUDENT (perhaps [Stephen Herbert] Hymer?): I don’t have much math. Why do I need to take statistics?

SIEGEL: Ando is very good. He doesn’t always make things completely clear, but you have to take statistics if you want to be able to handle averages, to work out the point per game and point per shot records; and you need probability to help compute odds on all the league games. Statistics is a must.

STUDENT: Why the history, finance and international?

SIEGEL: International is important. You ought to know how to schedule the Harlem Globetrotters, and who has the best chance in the Olympics. One of our best graduates played on the Oxford team against Poland and Czechoslovakia. That was Chuck Cooper, and it got him a job as Walter Heller’s assistant at the Council. Finance is important. When the gamblers start bribing players you need to know how to invest the funds. And history is vital. On the general exams they always ask who was James Naismith, the man who invented basketball. That’s for every student. The good students they ask when it was invented…of course 1891. And the very best students they ask where…past, Springfield, Mass. Remember, it’s not Springfield, Illinois. That’s Abe Lincoln.

STUDENT: OK. But tell me about the last one.

SIEGEL: Theory isn’t much. [Paul Anthony] Samuelson teaches about how to make inputs for two points, and when to dribble.

STUDENT: Samuelson teaches drivel?

 

ACT III

(A group of students, griping.)

STUDENT 1 (Francis Michel Bator?): This place is no good. It’s theory, theory, theory all the way. Anyone knows that the way to win at basketball is to practice. Practice makes perfect. Theory makes perfect fools. All you do is study and take exams. “Who was James Naismith? Who was Adam Yea-Smith? When do you chop down the tree?” Bah! I say we ought to study policy. With a two-point lead and three minutes to go, should you freeze the ball or plop in an input for an output of two points?

STUDENT 2 ([Paul Narcyz] Rosenstein-Rodan?): They tell me [Robert Merton] Solow has been converted from theory to policy. He is no longer interested in questions like whether the best set shot is an inverted rectangular parabola, but real issues, like the queuing problem: how many substitutes does a team need to field five men for an hour, with one personal foul every six minutes and four personal fouls per man disqualifying. If you have too many players on the bench you get unemployment. The team needs growth. Maybe you ought to add a man and play six.

STUDENT 3 ([Robert] Evans?): What’s bad is to have to play far away from the Sloan building. Those workshops on top on Walker and over in the Armory are OK, but they are too far away. We need the Ford Foundation to give us a workshop right here.

STUDENT 1: Haven’t you heard? The talk is that the new building to go up in the back lot is a library. But as I see its dimensions unfold- 90 feet by 50 – and transparent backboards and netting and grandstands, I can’t believe it’s a library. It must be a basketball court.

 

ACT IV

(A meeting of the G.E.A.)

RALPH BULL (played by [Robert Lyle] Bishop?): Do any of you fellows have suggestions for speakers besides Cousy, Russell, Jungle Jim Lusketoff, and that 6.8 outstanding economist, [John Kenneth] Galbraith, who can stand with his head coming up through the basket?

STUDENT B: What about Milton Friedman? He is under the five feet which some say is the minimum allowable in a monetary theorist, but he sure is good at the far-fetched shot.

STUDENT B: Why not get Clifford Odets?

RALPH BULL: Clifford Odets? Why him?

STUDENT B: Don’t you remember the famous line in “Awake and Sing”? “My brother Sam joined the Navy. He don’t know from nothin’, that dumb basketball player.” I want to know whether the emphasis is “that dumb basketball player” or “the [sic] dumb basketball player”. Are there any smart basketball players?

 

ACT V

KINDLEBERGER: As chairman of this exam, let me tell you that you have the right to pick the order of your exam. Do you want to start with Theory, or Statistics?

STUDENT (Samuelson?): I think I’ll start by jumping against Fisher, your professorship, sir. Ando’s the smaller, so I’ll take him last when I’m tired.

KINDLEBERGER: All right. (Student and Fisher face each other. Kindleberger blows whistle and throws imaginary ball. Cheers of amazement from faculty.)

FISHER: Very well. I have decided to let you combine Theory and Economic History.

STUDENT: Hey, Ref, your Ph.D.ship, sir, I’m not responsible for History. Isn’t that a foul?

KINDLEBERGER: I didn’t see nuthin’.

FISHER: Consider the population explosion of the last 150 years. Discuss the relative roles of (a) men and (b) women in this affair.

ANDO [Albert Keinosuke] : Good shot. That’s two points for our side.

STUDENT: I don’t know that, your cap-and-gownship, sir, but I know the roles are neither reflexive, symmetric, or transitive.

KINDLEBERGER: (blows whistle) Foul. You used big words in a generals. That’s only permitted the faculty.

FISHER: I’ll give Albert my free throw.

ANDO: (taking the foul shot) Please discuss the role of the nearly decomposable take-off in the application of a priori oligopoly theory to the A&P case.

STUDENT: Hey! You guys are ganging up on me.

ANDO: Well, you outnumber us in class.

STUDENT: (driving hard for basket) It can be set up as a nine-dimensional matrix problem and the latent roots dispensed with. I think the take-off is fine if done along the turnpike, watching out for model changes in passing cars.

ANDO: Fantastic! (Faculty huddle.)

KINDLEBERGER: That was a good answer. We’ve decided to give you an Excellent minus for being a good scorer, but to ask you to leave the Institute for fouling out on personals.

KINDLEBERGER, ANDO, FISHER: Rah, team!

 

ACT VI

DOMAR [Evsey David]: Well, you have the degree wrapped up, and now want a job. Not bad. You got a good grade on the orals, and would have gotten a top grade if you hadn’t thought that Stilt Chamberlain played for the Celtics and failed to distinguish Slippery Sam Jones from Casey Jones. Your thesis was entirely satisfactory, on a good topic: How to Get to the Boston Garden from Madison Square Garden: An Application of the Turnpike Theorem. And you even did languages: basketball communication in the Ivy League, or basketball with a broad A. Now the job. What do you think? Big Ten? Ivy League? Small liberal arts? Girls’ rules like Wellesley or Vassar? Or maybe the real big time: Kentucky, Long Island University, St. Joseph’s in Brooklyn, Notre Dame. L.I.U. is to economics like M.I.T. was to economics.

STUDENT (perhaps [Max Franklin] Millikan?): I don’t now if I’m ready for the Big Time.

DOMAR: What about applying some of your basketballmetrics for the government? They need our graduates. Or for an oil company. Maybe you would like to take a ball and a whistle and go abroad, demonstrating technical assistance to underdeveloped countries. There are jobs like that.

STUDENT: No. I guess I’m fussy. What I’d like is just what all the gang would like, to stay here at Cambridge with Harvard and the Celtics, and to referee like you and [Robert Lyle] Bishop and Samuelson, always blowing off your whistle and shouting foul, going first class to conferences, and shouting foul, foul, foul at the students.

 

Source:  M.I.T. Archives. MIT Department of Economics records, Box 2, Folder “GEA 1961-67”.

Image Source:  Boston Celtics players Tom Heinsohn, Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman and Frank Ramsey in 1960. “Twelve of the greatest Celtics players of all time”  from Boston.com website (March 18, 2018)

 

Categories
Courses Curriculum M.I.T. Uncategorized

M.I.T. Student evaluations for first term core micro theory. Bishop, 1966-69

 

The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were: 

 14.121 (Term 1) 14.122 (Term 2) 14.451 (Term 1) 14.452 (Term 2)
1966/67 Bishop Samuelson Eckaus

Solow

1967/68

 Bishop Samuelson Domar Solow
1968/69 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

1969/70

 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

In other posts we have the responses for Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122), Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451) and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).

In this post we’ll look at Robert Bishop’s course, Economic Analysis (14.451), that covered the topics:

Preliminary view of General Equilibrium
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:

Monopoly and pure competition
Imperfect competition.

Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income.

First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. The official course staffing and enrollment data that follow the course announcement confirm that Robert Bishop taught 14.121 in the four consecutive years surveyed. We also learn the names of the instructors who taught the recitation sections for Bishop’s course as well as those of several of the graduate assistant graders. Incidentally, two of his section leaders went on to win Nobel prizes in economics (Stiglitz and Engle)!

Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.

Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning Bishop’s course.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

 

14.121T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Bishop]
Prereq.: 14.03
Year: G (1) 4-0-8

14.122T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Samuelson]
Prereq.: 14.121
Year: G (2) 4-0-8

General theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Theory of consumer choice, of demand, of the firm, of production and distribution, of welfare economics.
Bishop (14.121), Samuelson (14.122).

MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 289.

page 219:

“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.

‘(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…

‘G’ is a graduate subject.

The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”

M.I.T. Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T, p. 305

M.I.T. Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.121 changed to 14.04T, p. 310

M.I.T. Catalogue 1969-70:  Prerequisite for 14.121 dropped ‘T’, p. 293.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.121
First term of 1966-1969

1966: Term I. 3 hours/week. 50 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor J. Stiglitz and Teaching Assistant D. E. Black (grader)

1967: Term I. 3 hours/week 62 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor C. D. MacRae

1968: Term I.  4 hours/week, 62 regular students, 0 Listeners

Professor R. L. Bishop with V. Snowberger (grader)

1969: Term I. 3 Hours/week. 47 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Assistant Professor R.F. Engle (recitation) and J. Herrero (grader)

 

Source: M.I.T. Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Assignments”

____________________

THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE

There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.

These pertain to each heading in the course outline:

Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?

For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.

Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.

 

[Summary from 22 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 121: Economic background Math Coverage
Preliminary view of General Equilibrium Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 4

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 4
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:
Monopoly and pure competition Too little: 11

Too much: 0

 Too little: 14

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 4

Not deep enough: 5
Imperfect competition Too little: 5

Too much: 1

 Too little: 8

Too much: 1

 Too deep: 5

Not deep enough: 4
Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income Too little: 6

Too much: 0

 Too little: 12

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 2

Not deep enough: 9

 

From the student comments
Each bullet point from a different student.

YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67

  • Not enough emphasis on distribution theory.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • Need to emphasize modern production theory rather than Marshallian theory. Neither of the courses [121 nor 122] give any mention to the modern treatments (esp., set-theoretic approach) of this material.
  • Both these courses [121 and 122] are excellent for covering the technical aspects of price theory—but both fail to provide a “total picture” of what price theory is about.
  • 121 spends too much time working out the solution to particular cases and too little time developing tools of analysis more sophis. treated than simple calculus.
  • more general equilibrium needed.
    little or no attention given to disequil
  • In general, I thought both terms [121 and 122], despite their widely differing methods, were quite good.
  • [note from secretary: “not in tabulation—she just gave it to me”]. Math in this part assumed we hardly knew a thing—could have assumed more.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: [not deep enough checked with following comment:] but if this is going to be more thorough, shouldn’t be very first thing taught.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • Was tedious at times but is worth doing—in fact has to be done. Perhaps the disc. of externalities could be related to Samuelson on pubic goods. And the part on distortions to the HG Johnson-Bhagwati-Ramaswamy literature on this in trade theory.
    Should have also included at least SOME reference to more modern theories of the firm (behavioral etc) and to more recent devs in other parts of micro theory (e.g. Becker on costs of time JPE 1966(?), Stigler et al on information and its costs and Lancaster on consumer theory.
    Imperfect competition: too much on the oligopoly stuff, overly simplified Stackelberg warfare etc.
  • Bishop should make more use of the mathematical techniques applicable to the general case and less of the geometry and prose of special instances. This, I think, would clarify rather than obscure. As it is, one tends to get lost in a mass of detail. Still, however, the course was very useful.
  • Monopoly and pure competition: slight shift of emphasis desirable.
  • General Comment: While analysis of this kind (the entire course) is an enjoyable mental exercise, I feel that its actual practical use for anything but expository purposes is severely limited. At all stages, an attempt should be made to make economics more relevant. At the least, areas of realistic extension and limitations should be pointed out to the class as each topic is considered.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: done a little too quickly near the end more time should have been allotted.
    Game theory à la Nash…What was presented here was obviously quite complicated, but given such a cursory treatment that it would have best been left out. I feel that more time should have been spent on more basic analyses such as min-max. and espec. an introduction to the practical aspects of game theory.
  • Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: excellent
    Too much oligopoly theory, too much game theory.
  • Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: Fine in classic sense, yet more of income dist. needed.
  • The last part of the course, that connecting the results of partial analysis of production and distribution with the simple general equilibrium model of the first lectures, seems to me very illuminating and I feel it should be given more emphasis. A posteriori, I would have suggested one lecture less on duopoly and one more on that cost part.
  • I think a more thorough and rigorous treatment of the theory of partial welfare economics (consumers surplus etc) would be very helpful in 121.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium:This material should be eliminated from the course, and covered in 122.
    Revenue and Cost equilibrium: covered too slowly
    Imperfect Competition: Never seemed clear. Either cut it down or spend more time on it.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: More time should have been spent in this area.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70

  • 121—A good course, not very enjoyable but worthwhile.
  • 121 is an incredibly dull course. And irrelevant.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Robert Bishop obituary in MIT News, February 13, 2013.

Categories
Exam Questions M.I.T.

MIT. Final exam for second term core economic theory, Samuelson 1956

 

 

This post offers two items of interest. The main item is the final examination for Paul Samuelson’s half of the core economic theory course taught at M.I.T. during the 1955-56 academic year.

Years ago I downloaded the slideshow prepared for the April 10, 2010 memorial service held at M.I.T. for Paul Samuelson from which the photo above has been cropped. Below I provide a working link via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to the original photo page from the memorial service so that others can enhance their presentations with a variety of classic photos of Paul Samuelson.

__________________

Enrollments for Economic Analysis

Twenty-two students were enrolled in 14.121 [Fall term, Robert L. Bishop]. Twenty students were enrolled in 14.122 [Spring term, Paul A. Samuelson]

Source:   MIT Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 3, Folder “Teaching Responsibility”.

__________________

Course Announcement 

14.121 [Bishop], 14.122 [Samuelson]. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (A). Interdependent growth of theory and fact, general theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Findings revalued under conditions which more closely approach reality.

Source:  Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bulletin, Catalogue for 1955-56 Session (June 1955), p. 150, 189.

__________________

 

Tuesday, May 29, 1956
Time 1:30 – 4:30 P.M.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Scheduled Examination in
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 14.122

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

Answer any Four

  1. Write a 45 minute essay describing what Hicks does in Books I and II of Value and Capital, relating the parts to each other.
  2. One million exactly identical men start out with identical technological conditions or endowments. How will the resulting competitive equilibrium be defined? Describe some of its properties.
  3. In 45 minutes, state the fundamental problems of bilateral monopoly, duopoly and/or game theory. What solutions have been advanced? Appraise them.
  4. Given a world of 2 men and 2 goods with all production fixed. What can the welfare economist say about the various points of the resulting box diagram? (Distinguish between “Act III” interpersonal aspects and those of “Act II.”)
  5. Two industries produce x and y with constant-returns-to-scale production functions in terms of labor (L) and land (T) alone. Describe the competitive equilibrium that would result when 1 million identical laborers face 1 thousand identical landowners.
  6. In 45 minutes, discuss the principal theories relative to capital and interest. Appraise.

 

Source:   Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives. Paul Samuelson Papers, Box 33, Folder “Teaching Exams 1952, 1956”.

Image Source:  Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service.  Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.