Author: Irwin Collier

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions

Chicago. Graduate economics prelim. Theory of income, employment and price level, 1969

 

The price theory prelim for 1969 at Chicago was transcribed for the previous post. Today’s post gives us the 1969 prelim examination questions for core macroeconomics (in Chicago speak of the day: “Theory of Income, Employment and Price Level”).

The M.I.T. general macroeconomic exams for 1959-1971 were transcribed and collected into a single post.

The copy of the exam in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution includes (Warning: Plot-spoiler!) the answers to the True-False-Uncertain questions:    1=F; 2=F; 3=T; 5=T; 5=F; 6=T; 7=T.

_____________

CORE EXAMINATION
Theory of Income, Employment and Price Level
Winter, 1969

Preliminary Examination for the Ph.D.

WRITE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON YOUR EXAMINATION PAPER:

Your Code Number and NOT your name
Name of Examination
Date of Examination

Results of the Examination will be sent to you by letter

Answer all questions. Time: 3 hours

 

I.

  1. [20] Indicate whether each of the following statements is True (T), False (F), or Uncertain (U), and state briefly your reasons:

____1. If the capital stock is growing, then the marginal efficiency of investment is greater than the marginal product of capital.

____2. In an economy growing at a rate of 4 percent per year in which the income elasticity of demand for money is 2.0, a budget deficit of up to 8 percent of government expenditures can be financed by money creation without producing inflation.

____3. In a simple income determination model, the elasticity of income with respect to changes in the marginal propensity to consume is mpc/(1-mpc).

____4. The instability of the growth equilibrium in Harrod-Domar models can validly be attributed to the particular assumptions made about the production function.

____5. A decline in prices raises real balances for a fixed quantity of money. This is known as the real balance effect.

____6. A real balance effect is compatible with a liquidity trap.

____7. A decrease in rental rates on cars which led to no change in the total number of cars in operation would raise recorded national income.

  1. [20] Fill in the missing numbers and briefly describe how you obtained them. Neglect any effects of the corporation or personal income taxes. Assume all rates are on an annual basis.
Annual interest rate on government consols = 6.5 percent
Annual dividends as a percent of earnings = 25 percent
Dividend yield of common stock = 3 percent
Rate of return on real estate = 5 percent
Annual percentage rate of change of a price index of goods and services =  ______
Percentage rate of change in the price per share of common stock =   ______
  1. [40] Assume that in a closed economy [with flexible prices] tax revenue is proportionate to income, that the government fixes the level of its spending, and that the government finances all budget deficits by money creation. Analyze the consequences of this policy for [What is] the equilibrium level or rate of change of nominal income and show the effect of an increase in the level of government spending from an initial position of equilibrium[?] Discuss separately two cases: (a) the government fixes the nominal level of its spending; (b) the government fixes the real level of its spending.
  2. [30] “It is of no manner of consequence with regard to the domestic happiness of a state whether money be in a greater or less quantity. The good policy of the magistrate consists only in keeping it, if possible, still increasing” (David Hume, 1742). What is the verdict of two centuries of further writing on money on this proposition?
  3. [30] “Many commentators have written as if commercial banks were losing deposits to their non-banking competitors. A closer look, however, shows that this notion is misleading.
    “If a commercial bank depositor writes a check in favor of his mutual savings bank, the savings bank will either re-deposit the check in its own commercial bank account or extend mortgage credit to an individual. The individual, in turn, will either deposit the check in his bank account or turn it over to the seller of the house he is buying. And the seller will either put the check in his bank account or turn it over to his creditors who will put it in theirs….
    “The crucial point is that commercial banks compete for deposits only with other commercial banks. They cannot lose deposits to other financial institutions or financial instruments.”
    Discuss.
  4. [30] Consider the following neo-Keynesian system in which Ctis real consumption, Itis real investment, Ytis real income and Xtis real autonomous expenditures.

{{C}_{t}}-\gamma {{C}_{t-1}}=k\left( 1-\nu \right){{Y}_{t}}
{{I}_{t}}-\delta {{I}_{t-1}}=m\left( 1-\delta \right){{Y}_{t}}+{{X}_{t}}-\delta {{X}_{t-1}}
{{Y}_{t}}={{C}_{t}}+{{I}_{t}}

What are the necessary conditions for stability? If these are satisfied, can the model generate cycles?

  1. [30] Panama has no central bank but uses U. S. currency (plus some coin of its own), relabeling a dollar as a Balboa.
    Netherlands has a central bank, which issues a national currency denominated in guilders.
    The U. S. has a central bank which issues a national currency denominated in dollars.
    The U.S. and Netherlands have fixed exchange rates with other major currencies. Assume that none of the countries has any extensive exchange control.
    The monetary authorities of all three countries proclaim that they cannot control the quantity of money.
    Discuss.

 

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 77, Folder 8 “University of Chicago , Econ 331”.

Image Source: David Hume’s toe in Edinburgh.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions

Chicago. Graduate prelim exam questions for price theory, 1969

 

For comparison’s sake, here are the questions for the price theory prelim exam at the University of Chicago in 1964.

_________________

PRICE THEORY
Preliminary Examination for the Ph.D. and the A. M. Degree
Winter Quarter, 1969

WRITE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON YOUR EXAMINATION PAPER:

Your code number and NOT your name
Name of examination
Date of examination

Results of the examination will be sent to you by letter

Answer all questions. Time: 3 hours

I.

  1. A recent survey found that supermarkets in low income areas charge higher average prices than supermarkets in high income areas for many identical items. This is consistent with

_____(a) price discrimination in the sale of groceries

_____(b) no price discrimination

_____(c) lack of competition in the retail grocery market

_____(d) competition in the retail grocery market.

Check those that apply.

 

On the following questions, indicate whether True (T), False (F), or Uncertain (U), with brief explanation.

  1. A firm produces output xusing inputs a1 and a2, which it purchases competitively at prices p1 and p2. Its total cost is given by

C=A{{x}^{\gamma }}p_{1}^{{{a}_{1}}}p_{2}^{{{a}_{2}}}

where A, ?, a1, a2 are constants.

_____(a) The demand for the first factor is given by

{{a}_{1}}=\frac{\partial C}{\partial {{p}_{1}}}=\frac{{{\alpha }_{1}}C}{{{p}_{1}}}

_____(b) The production process of the firm exhibits constant returns to scale.

_____(c) The above cost function corresponds to a Cobb-Douglas production function.

 

  1. Consider a price system involving four commodities, q1, q2, q3, and q4. If the goods are gross substitutes, it can be shown that the equilibrium will

_____(a) Satisfy the Hicks conditions of perfect stability, and

_____(b) Be dynamically stable.

Assume demand shifts from the first commodity to the second commodity. Again, assuming that the commodities are gross substitutes, it can then be demonstrated that:

_____(c) P1/P2falls and P3/P4remains unchanged;

_____(d) P2/P3rises and P1/P4falls;

_____(e) P3/P1rises by a smaller proportion than P2/P1.

 

_____ 4. If the consumer’s utility function is separable, then his marginal utility must be declining for all goods.

_____ 5. In a two good world, consumer indifference curves must be everywhere convex to the origin. Otherwise there is no solution to the consumer’s problem of maximizing his satisfaction subject to his budget constraint.

_____ 6. Three top executives leave company A and join company B. The price of company A’s stock falls and the price of company B’s stock rises. This proves that the executives are being exploited.

 

II.

In Ronald Coase’s celebrated article on the nature of social cost the first example concerns the externality imposed by a cattle ranch that is next to a corn farm. The cattle can wander into the corn farm and eat some of the corn. This increases cost to the corn farmer and imposes an externality on him. Construct a formal analysis of the following situation:

(i) Let there be two firms such that the output of each firm is an “input” in the production function of the other. Let the other inputs be of the same kind, say, labor and capital. Let the output prices be given and let the input prices be given. Derive the profit maximizing solution for the two firms.

(ii) Give a precise measure of the externality and show that the solution in (i) does not depend on who pays whom.

(iii) Under what conditions will the dollar amount of the externality be proportional to the output of the other firm?

 

III.

Consider an economy with two, L and K, factors of production producing goods, X and Y, under conditions of constant returns to scale. Assume that X is relatively L-intensive at all factor prices.

(a) Analyze the effect of an increase in L on the production of X and Y on the assumption that the relative price of X and Y is constant. How would the increase in L affect the share of L in the economy’s income?

(b) Analyze the effect of an increase in the relative price of X on relative and absolute factor rewards, and on the share of L in the economy’s income. Would your answer be altered if both production functions were of Cobb-Douglas type?

(c) Analyze the effect of an increase in K on the relative price of X on the assumption that neither X nor Y is inferior in the community’s consumption.

 

IV.

What effect would you expect the British devaluation of the pound from $2.80 to $2.40 to have had on the dollar price of Rolls Royce cars? Justify your conclusion, preferably by diagrams describing the position of the company, indicating explicitly any assumptions you regard as relevant. Assume that wage rates in Britain in pounds are not affected by the devaluation.

 

V.

The difference between the price of foreign crude oil and the price of domestic crude oil (landed at the same U.S. port) times the quantity of oil consumed in the U.S. is roughly $5 billion. This has been cited as an estimate of the cost to the U.S., in terms of wasted resources, of the whole set of governmental measures special to oil (oil import quotas, percentage depletion allowances, prorationing of oil, etc.). Indicate as specifically as you can the defects, if any, in this measure, and the information needed to set a dollar value on each defect.

 

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 77, Folder 8 “University of Chicago , Econ 331”.

Image Source: Lecture Hall 1, Social Science Research Building. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf2-07482, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Regulations

Columbia. Economics graduate students’ memo of suggestions, 1939

 

The following memo with its cover letter was later attached as “Exhibit B” to a general statement submitted October 25, 1939 to Professor Austin P. Evans, Chairman, Committee on Instruction, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.

“There is appended a confidential memorandum submitted to the executive officer of the Department by a graduate student committee which contains interesting comment and suggestions. (Exhibit B).”

__________________

Cover letter for the graduate students’ memo

Columbia University
May 9, 1939

Dean R. C. McCrea,
Columbia University,
New York City.

Dear Dean McCrea:
As we agreed at luncheon with you and Professor Mills the other day, we are sending you the typed notes of student suggestions to the Department of Economics. We believe that these represent the concurrence of general student opinion, plus the thought we have given these matters.
Hoping that the notes will prove useful to you,

Sincerely yours,

WYLLIS BANKDLER
DICKSON RECK
VON DUSEN KENNEDY
FRANK PIERSON

* * *  *

Notes on some student suggestions for the operation of the Department of Economics, Columbia Graduate Faculty. 5/7/39.

The suggestions concern chiefly gaps that are felt to exist in the offering of the department. There are also a few notes on the method of conducting various types of course, and on the requirements placed on students, and on the allotment of credits.

1) History of Economic Thought. Intrinsic interest in this subject is amplified by a) Oral requirement, and b) the fact that many students feel that they will some day be called upon to teach it. Some feel that the subject is already overemphasized. In any case, there is the feeling that students should not be held responsible for so large a topic unless it is offered.
Various treatments are possible. a) A mere recital of doctrines. b) A tracing of current ideas. c) A combination with Economic History, concerned with the influence of the times on the theories, and vice versa. Treatment (c) is that followed by Professor Mitchell in his former course, and in the extremely useful Lecture Notes made from it.
Student feeling is against being held for “all the doctrines, man by man, and all the men, doctrine by doctrine”. A combination of (b) and (c) above would probably be well received.

2) Economic theory. Statements in the first paragraph under (1) above hold here. This topic is understood to include (a) Systematic presentation of current schools of thought, and (b) in particular, the structure of Neo-Classical (and derivative) Theory. The material under (b) is very well handled by Milton Friedman’s Extension course. Convenience would be served by bringing this into the Graduate Catalogue, so that it would count, without special action, for the 15 central points for Master’s candidates.
Further particular large branches include c) Socialist Theory and d) Institutionalism. Student objection to the existing offering of Socialist Theory falls under two heads. First, it is claimed that the subject matter is not covered adequately in class, that the treatment is diffuse, incomplete and wandering. Second, it is protested that the treatment is not either so fair or so sympathetic as that given, say, Neo-Classical Doctrine.
Institutionalism is handsomely handled by Dr. Dorfman. There is some feeling that the material might be expanded to cover modern Institutionalists and their work and problems more intensively.

3) Economic History. Dr. Hacker’s treatment of American Economic History is very popular, as is Professor Burn’s course in modern capitalism. A course in Modern European Economic History, from the breakdown of Feudalism, would be very well received in addition, although the Burns course could be expanded to fill this need.
There is dissatisfaction with the existing Seminar. Auspices that would concentrate more closely on the material are rather widely held to be desirable. Professor Stockder’s seminar might fill this gap were it admitted to graduate economics standing. A suggestion for procedure should this prove impossible is included under “Catalog” below.

4) Labor. This may be discussed under two heads, a) Offering for the student specializing elsewhere, and b) Specialization in Labor Economics.

a) A General Survey Course in Labor Economics under capable, sympathetic auspices will be subject to very wide demand. Students whose major interest is elsewhere seem to feel quite generally that so important a branch of economics should not be left blank in their education. A large demand will also be forthcoming from first-year students who have not previously studied labor, either at all or adequately, whether or not they intend to specialize here. Such a course is of necessity a large lecture type, and requires in its instructor the specific technique relevant.
A counter-suggestion by the Faculty is that Professor Wolman expand the subject-matter of his course. A very wide and almost unopposed sector of student feeling would prefer bringing in an outsider more cordial to the material and more tolerant of the viewpoints and questions of the members of the class.
b) A Seminar in Labor Relations for the specialist would find many applicants. Student desires as to the auspices are in agreement with the above comments. No university adequately specializes in training labor economists, and it is suggested that Columbia might consider filling this more than local gap.

5) Public Economic Policy. It is safe to say that no subject arouses wider interest among students. At present, public policy is dealt with piecemeal among the several courses, with by no means all the most important aspects being covered at all. (The most thoroughly considered section is monetary policy, both existing and proposed.) It is submitted that this is an important need which Columbia is well fitted to meet without much extra trouble.
Suggestions on this score represent the fusion of two streams of thought; a) The proposal of a joint seminar to explore specific areas of planning and policy, and to be conducted by academic experts in the various fields (Angell, Bonbright, Gayer, Orchard, Macmahon, Lynd, etc.); b) The feeling that contact with people actually engaged in forming and executing public policy would provide a realistic knowledge of problems actually faced (economically, politically, administratively, etc.), as well as valuable personal relations. The suggestion under (b) would involve the invitation to Columbia for one, several, or all meetings of the seminar such men as Berle, Ezekiel, Currie, Tugwell, Mumford, Wallace, etc. etc.
Experience with the mere importation of outside lecturers, as in an instance in the Public Law Department, seems to show that a course so built lacks continuity and depth in grappling with such problems as would be considered under (a) above.
Yet to define the benefits of (b) to the membership of a seminar of manageable size would be wasteful and otherwise undesirable. Two solutions have been advanced, which are not mutually exclusive. The first involves the holding of “public” and “private” meetings in the manner of the Banking Seminar. This could be assisted by co-operation with the Economics Club, that is, the visitors could partially be drained off into luncheon meetings. This solution suffers from several difficulties including the discontinuity of having each outsider only once. The second solution is embodied in the suggestion for Panel Seminars below.
Students would greatly like to co-operate in the organization of this seminar.

6) Agricultural Economics. While this is already a subject of inter-university specialization, a survey course is part of a rounded general offering.

7) Population. Students do not feel that this is ably handled. The suggestion has been made that Professor Goodrich’s course in Internal Migration could be expanded to cover this, and also Regionalism (see under (8) below).

8) Economic Geography. The offering in the School of Business is excellent, and needs only to be given graduate economics status. See also under (7) above and “Catalogue” below.

9) Method and Technique of Research. This includes a thousand little troublesome matters that each professor assumes that the student learns elsewhere. What are the Journals in economics and related fields? How do we keep up with current developments in economics? What are the basic sources in various branches? Where are all these things scattered in the library? How do we begin the investigation of a new topic? How doe we prepare a bibliography? And many others.
The suggestions here fall under three heads. First, it is felt that a booklet answering the above and related questions would prove extremely helpful. Second, instructors should keep this need in mind, and clarify the portions of techniques and bibliography that fall in their sphere. Third, careful bibliographies already existing for various courses, and others that may arise, could be assembled and sold at cost.

10) Panel Seminar. This refers to a method of conducting seminars that shows promise of solving the dilemma of the unwieldiness of large numbers on the one hand, and the wastes of exclusiveness on the other. The discussion is conducted by a panel, consisting of one or more instructors and visitors and a carefully selected small group of students. Where student reports are to be presented, the selection is keyed to guaranteeing excellence and pointedness. An “audience” of students interested in the topic may ask occasional questions from the floor, but does not act to lower the tone of the discussion nor to encumber its progress. The “audience” may be regularly enrolled, receiving attendance credit, or may vary with the particular meeting’s content. Large and varying “audiences” are probably too much for this structure to carry.
It is felt that this method would meet the need in several situations. It should operate to raise the quality of the reports, doing away with the boredom and consequent loss of enthusiasm and tempo that so often assails large seminars now. But at the same time, it would avoid the narrow exclusiveness that operates to keep interested students from an organized study of subjects offered only in seminars.
The seating arrangements suggested by the above description seem rather stiff and stilted and disruptive. In point of fact, they are not a necessary corollary of this division of labor. Ordinary seminar seating can be used, the only requirement being that there is a staff of students who are considered capable, intelligible and interesting, and who do the reporting.
The panel seminar method is especially suggested for the discussion of public economic policy advocated in (5) above, where it is felt that wide student interest would be aroused and should be encouraged.

11) Doctor’s Oral Examinations. Under existing conditions, orals engender a period of rather heavy strain in most students. This period is of the order of two weeks or so, and is not related to the quantity of work being done, but rather to the crisis quality of the examinations. No useful purpose is served by this strain, in fact it is generally considered a hindrance to efficiency.
The remedy seems to be a removal of some of the critical focus upon orals. This may be accomplished, with no loss of academic standards or relevant rigor, by the process of having the true examination take place informally with each of the professors involved before the formal oral is taken. The formal assembled examination then assumes the character of a more official formality, in which passing is nearly certain barring a strong reason to the contrary. This division between the investigation of proficiency and ability on the one hand, and the ceremonial opportunity to forbid the banns on the other, should not only relieve most of the strain on the candidate, but also afford the faculty a more intensive chance to satisfy itself as to the student’s competence.
There are some indications that the present situation approximates this suggestion more closely than appears on the surface. Insofar as this is true, all that is necessary is to let this true state of affairs become clear to the candidates. In any event, more could be done along these lines with benefit and relief to all concerned.

12) Training for Careers. It is important periodically to review the types of career for which students in economics at Columbia are acquiring training, and at the same time to survey the curriculum with respect to the kind of training it chiefly affords. The student body is divided in proportions unknown at present* mainly among those preparing for teaching, for research, and for government service. The curriculum is skewed in the direction of training research workers. This fundamental educational divergence is worth noting, and worth investigating in its effects upon the value of the Economics offering to the students.

*One of the questions on this year’s questionnaire will be directed to this problem.

Many of the curricular suggestions above are directed as much to the problem “what kind of work” as to the problem “research in what field”, and are worthy of reconsideration in this light.

13) Catalog. The arrangement of the catalog, and the standing given by it to various courses, can prove a powerful aid in broadening the area of endeavor for which preparation may be secured here, as well as filling many of the lesser holes mentioned above.
In regard to the standing given courses in other departments, particularly in the School of Business, the effort has been made above to mention fields in which benefit would accrue to Master’s candidates if Graduate Economics Standing were given to certain courses. Particularly does this apply to the offerings of Brissenden, Stockder, perhaps Morgan, and to the advanced courses in Economic Geography. Where this is not feasible, something can be done by way of the advisory committee, see below.
Positive encouragement rather than permission can be given to students to broaden the scope of their studies if the catalog, or if necessary a separate printed or mimeographed announcement, would list as fully as possible all courses in related fields, or isolated courses of interest, that would be profitable to economists. In this way many gaps that the Economics Department cannot hope to fill itself would be plugged, and the benefits of intra-University division of labor would be received.

14) Advisory Committee. This has proved itself useful this year, and should certainly be continued. Its mention here is in connection with the potentialities of cooperation between it and the administration and faculty.
Many of the suggestions in these notes that may prove impossible of fulfillment, particularly those which come together under “Catalog”, may be aided by the unofficial action of the advisory Committee. If the committee is in possession of information concerning related courses, for instance, then even in the absence of official action the broadening of courses of study can be advanced. In this and many similar cases, the worthwhileness of the Department to new students can be increased.

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1 “General departmental notices, memoranda, etc. Curriculum material”, Folder “Committee on Instruction”.

Image Source:  Butler Library, 1939. Columbia’s Rare Book & Manuscript Library blog. April 19, 2018.

Categories
ERVM Irwin Collier

Third Anniversary of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror, 2018

 

Today, 8 May 2018, Economics in the Rear-view Mirror celebrates its third anniversary. As your faithful scribe and curator of this digital collection of archival artifacts from the history of economics, I am happy to report that the project is on right on schedule, and I have been able to add artifacts at a rate of 250 per year. Here is the catalogue of (at this moment exactly 750) items.

The following table lists the top twenty postings/pages ranked by page-views for year three. As one might expect, names like Schumpeter, Hayek, Samuelson, Friedman and Solow are the big draws for what is after all a pretty nerdy boutique blog. It is my hope to entice visitors to check out some of the 19th and early 20th century artifacts and to help expand the market for the young historians of economics who have been generous in their likes and retweets over at the Twitter and Facebook outposts of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

While it should be obvious, let me explicitly say that the work here is strictly and solely motivated by educational and research purposes and that this blog is not in any way a commercial enterprise. It is merely a publicly viewable log of my ongoing research into the evolution of undergraduate and graduate education in economics for (approximately) the century before I began my own economics education. Beware ye who may attempt to exploit for non-educational-and-research purposes my good-faith in remaining well within the fair-use of material to which copyright might rightfully be claimed!  

Title   Views
Harvard. Final Examination for Paul Sweezy’s Economics of Socialism, 1940 4,832
Harvard. Graduate economic theory exams. Taussig, 1930-35 2,687
NBER. Mitchell to Burns about Friedman. 1945 1,439
M.I.T. Student evaluations for core microeconomics course taught by Samuelson, 1970 1,403
M.I.T. Complaint about ill-treatment of woman in job interview, 1982 818
Harvard. Exams from Principles of Economics. Day, Davis, Burbank et al., 1917-18 687
Wisconsin. Business Cycles. Readings and Exam. Friedman 1940-41 604
M.I.T. Student evaluations of second term core macroeconomics. Solow, Foley. 1967-70 584
Harvard. Graduate Core Economic Theory, Readings and Exams. Schumpeter, 1936-37 504
Harvard Economics. Course. Economics of Socialism. Sweezy. 1940 490
Harvard. History of Economic Theory. Final exam questions, Taussig, 1887-90 487
Chicago. Monopoly course proposal by Abram Harris with George Stigler’s (Dis)approval, 1961 486
Chicago. Hayek’s Seminar “Equality and Justice”, 1950-51 457
Harvard. Graduate core economic theory exams and enrollments. Taussig, 1926-30 441
Yale. James Tobin on Freedom to Friedman in 1964 333
Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory, Scope and Methods. Carver, 1914-15 308
Chicago. Milton Friedman from Cambridge to T.W. Schultz. 29 Mar 1954 239
M.I.T. Economics skit from about 1971 233
Harvard. Exam questions for Mason and Leontief’s Marxian economics course, 1937 231
The Economics Rare Book Reading Room. Classic Economics. 227
Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Proposed plan to review economics curriculum, 1944

 

A transcription of a 1945 memo from the curriculum committee of the department of economics at Columbia University regarding curricular issues brought up during discussions during the spring of 1944  was posted earlier. In a different box of departmental records I found the following memo that initiated the series of meetings and that provides us some of the backstory for the 1945 memo. I find the curious ordering of the meetings by topics rather random, e.g. theory courses only to be discussed in the second to last session. 

As the note stapled to the bottom of the memo indicates, the proposed days for the meeting were suggested to be shifted to Mondays. The penciled dates shown in square brackets in the transcription are all Mondays.

______________________

Plan to review Columbia’s economics curriculum

January 13, 1944

To the Members of the
Graduate Department of Economics

At our meeting on December 6th there was, we think, general agreement on the need of reviewing our course offerings and some of our present methods of graduate instruction. For such review, and for a more careful consideration of the problems we shall face in the Department during the years immediately following the war, we suggest that a series of meetings be held during the Spring Session. Each meeting could be devoted to consideration of a particular subject or group of subjects in our present curriculum. One meeting could be given to economic theory, another to economic history, another to labor and industrial relations, and so on. It would be desirable, of course, that at each session we have, not the casual and rather unfocussed discussion that was inevitable at our first meeting, in December, but intensive examination of what we are doing, and a consideration of what we should and can do.

As an indication of what might be covered, we list certain matters that might be given attention, each time:

—the substance of our present offering (i.e. a summary account of what is given in our present courses, including an indication of the subjects covered and of the manner in which each course is organized.
—chief present problems in this field of knowledge, and prospective problems in the post-war period.
—relation of work in this field to other fields and the curriculum as a whole.
—teaching procedures employed, and appraisal of results (If seminar system, how effective? If lecture system, or modified lecture system, how effective?)
—relation of our work to what is done elsewhere (in several other leading graduate schools) in this field.
—needs of this field, in the way of equipment of trained men (What equipment is needed by men undertaking work in this field? What are the best means of providing the needed equipment and research experience?)
—recommendations, if any, as to what we should do in the future in this field at Columbia.

This list is, of course, suggestive only; it is not intended to be an outline that should be followed each time. We should doubtless, throughout, keep the whole curriculum in mind, and the relations among activities in different fields, although the discussion at each meeting would center on a particular topic.

Following is a provisional grouping of subjects for discussion at successive meetings:

  1. Labor and industrial relations (including labor law and social insurance) [February 14]
  2. Economic history (excluding the courses on capitalism and investment, which are placed in group #6) [February 21]
  3. International trade and finance [February 28]
    Banking, and monetary economics
  4. Industrial organization [March 6]
    Capitalism in the 19thand 20thcenturies
    Investment and economic change
    Economics of business enterprises
  5. Business cycles[March 13]
    Structure of the American Economy
    Prices
  6. Types of economic organization [March 20]
    …Socialism
    …Types of national planned economy
  7. Statistics[March 27]
    Accounting
  8. Economic theory (including all courses on theory, the history of theory, institutional economics and mathematical economics) [April 3]
  9. Public finance and taxation [April 10]
    Corporation finance
    Public utilities

This tentative grouping is subject to modification, if the general plan is approved by the Department. We hesitate to suggest covering several important topics at a single meeting, but we can see no other way to keep the time schedule within reasonable limits.

Our purposes in holding these meetings would perhaps be better served by afternoon meetings, running for two hours, than by evening sessions. As a possibility we suggest Wednesday, from 3 to 5 o’clock in 304 Fayerweather, beginning on February 9th. We should probably plan to have the discussion of each topic opened with a statement from the Department member concerned—a statement that might run from 20 to 40 minutes, depending on the number of subjects to be covered at that meeting. Thereafter time should be given for general discussion. Particular attention would be given in this discussion to the relation of the topic in question to other subjects covered in our curriculum.

The Curriculum Committee would be glad to have the judgment of the members of the Department on this proposal. If you approve the general plan, will you let us know whether you could attend meetings on Wednesday afternoon from 3 to 5 o’clock?

Sincerely yours,

CARTER GOODRICH
FREDERICK C. MILLS
CARL S. SHOUP
WESLEY C. MITCHELL, Chairman

[added] NOTE: We find that a Wednesday afternoon schedule for the proposed meetings would involve at least one serious conflict. Accordingly, we suggest that the meetings be held on Monday afternoon from 4 to 6. Is this time suitable? If so, our first session might be held on Monday, February 14th.

Curriculum Committee

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2 “Faculty”, Folder “Department of Economics—Faculty, Beginning January 1, 1944”.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Princeton Salaries Stanford UCLA Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Economics Faculty Salaries for 15 U.S. universities. Hart Memo, April 1961

 

Here we have a memo written by member of the Columbia University economics department executive committee, Albert G. Hart, that presents the results of what appears to be his informal polling of the chairpersons of 21 departments. Fifteen of the departments provided the salary ranges at four different ranks. No further details are provided, this one page memo was simply filed away in a folder marked “memoranda”. Maybe there is more to be found in Hart’s papers at Columbia University. Up to now I have only sampled Hart’s papers for teaching materials and perhaps next time, I’ll need to look into his papers dealing with departmental administrative affairs.

For a glance at salaries about a half-century earlier:  Professors and instructors’ salaries ca. 1907. 

________________

AGH [Albert Gailord Hart] 4/21/61

CONFIDENTIAL information on economic salaries, 1960-61, from chairmen of departments

Institution

 Professors Associate professors Assistant professors

Instructors
Harvard

$12,000-22,000

 $9,000-12,000 $7,500-8,700

$6,500
Princeton

$12,000-…?…

 $9,000-11,500 $7,000-8,750

$6,000-6,750
California

$11,700-21,000

 $8,940-10,344 $7,008-8,112

$5,916-6,360
MIT

$11,000-20,000

 $8,000-11,000 $6,500-9,000

$5,500-5,750
Minnesota

$11,000-18,000

 $8,500-11,000 $6,800-8,400

?
COLUMBIA

$11,000-20,000

 $8,500-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-5,750
Northwestern

$11,000-…?…

 $8,000-11,000 $6,800-7,500

?
Duke

$11,400-16,000

 $8,200-10,000 $7,200-8,200

$5,800-6,500
Illinois

$11,000-15,000

 $7,500-10,000 $6,900-8,600

$6,500-7,100
Cornell

$10,000-15,000

 $8,000-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-6,500
Indiana

$10,000-14,800

 $8,300-10,000 $6,500-7,500

?
Michigan

$10,000-…?…

 $8,700-..9,500 $6,600-8,000

$5,000
Virginia

$..9,800-15,000

 $7,800-..9,800 $6,600-7,800

?
Wisconsin

$..9,240-16,150

 $8,000-..9,000 $6,550-8,460

$5,250-5,450
Iowa State (Ames)

$..8,500-13,000

 $7,500-..8,500 $6,700-8,000

$4,700-6,600

[…]

Note: The following institutions for which data were not included in the source materials are believed to pay their economists at scales at or above the Columbia level:

Carnegie Tech
Chicago
Johns Hopkins
Stanford
Yale
UCLA

[…]

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbia University, Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials: Box 11, Folder: “Economics—Memoranda”.

Categories
Chicago Courses Suggested Reading

Chicago. Reading list for Price Theory (Econ 300 A&B). Friedman 1958

 

The reading assignments for the two-quarter core price theory sequence taught by Milton Friedman in 1948 have been posted earlier.  This post gives the reading assignments with open and gated links where available (some of the papers are only available at the gated jstor.org) for the same sequence ten years later. I have put in boldface the 1958 additions to make a comparison with the 1948 version easier. Worth noting: an asterisk designates optional and not required reading.

Only one item was dropped from the 1948 reading list:

Meyers, A. L. Elements of Modern Economics, ch 5, 7, 8, 9.

______________________________

September, 1958

ECONOMICS 300 A and B
Reading Assignments by M. Friedman

(Notes:

  1. It is assumed students are familiar with material equivalent to that contained in George Stigler, Theory of Price, or Kenneth Boulding, Economic Analysis.
  2. Mimeographed lecture notes on 300A and B summarize the main points covered in the course.
  3. The American Economic Association Readings in Price Theory contains an excellent selection of articles on our general topic, only a few of which are listed separately below.
  4. Readings marked with asterisk (*) are recommended, not required.)

 

KNIGHT, F. H., The Economic Organization, esp. pp. 1-37.  HB172.K73.

KEYNES, J. N., The Scope and Method of Political Economy, Ch. I and II, pp. 1-83.  HB171.K45.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics.

HAYEK, F.A., “The Use of Knowledge in Society,”American Economic Review, Sept. 1945; reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order. HB1.A6.

 

MARSHALL, ALFRED, Principles of Economics, Bk III, Ch 2, 3, 4; Bk V, Ch 1,2. HB171.M36.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” Journal of Political Economy, Dec. 1949. YF6. Reprinted in Essays in Positive Economics.

SCHULTZ, HENRY, The Meaning of Statistical Demand Curves, pp. 1-10. HB201.S398.

WORKING, E. J. “What do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, XLI (1927), pp. 212-27. HB1.Q3.

KNIGHT, F. H. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Ch 3. HB601.K7. 1940.

*LANGE, O., “On the Determinateness of the Utility Function”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol I (1933-34), pp. 218 ff. HB1.R45.

*ALLEN, R.G.D., “The Nature of Indifference Curves,” Ibid, pp. 110 ff. HB1.R45.

HICKS, J. R., Value and Capital, Part I (pp. 11-52). HB171.H64.

*HICKS, J. R., A Review of Demand Theory.

*SAMUELSON, PAUL, Foundations of Economic Analysis.

*WOLD, H., Demand Analysis. Ch. 1.

*FRIEDMAN, MILTON, A Theory of the Consumption Function.

*STIGLER, G., “The Early History of Empirical Studies of Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Political Economy, April, 1954.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “Income and Substitution Effects of a Change in Price”. (Mimeographed). YF4.

*SLUTSKY, EUGEN, “On the Theory of the Budget of the Consumer”. Readings in Price Theory, pp. 27-56.

MOSAK, J. L., “On the Interpretation of the Fundamental Equation in Value Theory”, in Lange, et. al., Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. HB99.C5.

*WALLIS, W. A., and FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “The Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions”, in Lange et al, Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. HB99.C5.

*FRIEDMAN, MILTON and SAVAGE, L. J., “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy, LVI (August 1948) pp. 279-304. HB1.J7. Reprinted in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 57-96. HB99.C5.

___________, “The Expected-Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, Dec. 1952, pp. 463-474. HB99.C5.

ALCHIAN, ARMEN, “The Meaning of Utility Measurement”, American Economic Review, March 1953, pp. 26-50.

MARSHALL, Book V, Ch 3, 4, 5, 12, Appendix H. HB171.M36.

*ROBINSON, JOAN, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch 2. HB201.R65.

CLARK, J. M., The Economics of Overhead Costs, Ch 9. HB201.R65.

*VINER, JACOB, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves”, Zeitschrift fuer Nationaloekonomie, Bd III (Sept, 1931), pp. 23-46. H5.Z55. Reprinted in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 198-232.

APEL, HANS, “Marginal Cost Constancy and Its Implications”, American Economic Review, XXXVIII (Dec. 1948), pp. 870-885.

SMITH, CALEB, “Survey of the Empirical Evidence on the Economies of Scale”, in Business Concentration and Price Policy, pp. 213-30 and Comment by Milton Friedman, pp. 230-38.

CHAMBERLIN, EDWARD, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch 3, sec. 1, 4, 5, 6; Ch 5. HB201.C44.

*HARROD, R. F. “Doctrines of Imperfect Competition”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1934, sec. 1, pp. 442-61.

STIGLER, G. J., “Monopolistic Competition in Retrospect”, and “Competition in the United States”, in Five Lectures on Economic Problems. HB171.S82.

*TRIFFIN, ROBERT, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, esp. Part II. HD41.T8 AND H31.H33, v. 67.

HARBERGER, A. C., “Monopoly and Resource Allocation”, Proceedings, American Economic Review(May, 1954).

*ROBINSON, E. A. G., The Structure of Competitive Industry. HO45.R732.

STIGLER, G. J., “The Statistics of Monopoly and Merger”, Journal of Political Economy, February, 1956.

STIGLER, G. J., “The Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve and Rigid Prices”, in Readings in Price Theory.

*ROBINSON, E. A. G.,  Monopoly.

*PLANT, ARNOLD, “The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions,” Economica, Feb, 1934. HB1.E42.

*DENNISON, S. R., “The Problem of Bigness,” Cambridge Journal, Nov. 1947. YO3.

 

MARSHALL, Book IV, Ch 1, 2, 3; Bk V, Ch 6. HB171.M36.

CLARK, J. B., The Distribution of Wealth, Preface, Ch 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 23.

MILL, JOHN STUART, Principles of Political Economy, Book II, Ch 14.  HB171.M667.

HICKS, J. R., The Theory of Wages, Ch 1-6. HD4909.H63.

SMITH, ADAM, The Wealth of Nations, Bk I, Ch 10. HB161.S652.

MARSHALL, Bk VI, Ch 1-5. HB171.M36.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON and KUZNETS, SIMON, Income from Independent Professional Practice, Preface, pp. v to x; Ch 3, Sec 3, pp. 81-95, Ch 4, Sect 2, pp. 118-137, App, Sec 1 & 3, pp. 142-151, 155-61. HD4965.U6F8.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “Choice, Chance, and the Personal Distribution of Income,” Journal of Political Economy, Aug., 1953, pp. 277-90.

KNIGHT, F. H. “Interest” in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, also in Ethics of Competition. HO4965.E46.

KEYNES, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Ch 11-14. HB171.E46.

LERNER, ABBA P., “On the Marginal Product of Capital and the Marginal Efficiency of Investment”, Journal of Political Economy, Feb. 1953, pp. 1-14.

CLOWER, R. W., “Productivity, Thrift, and the Rate of Interest”, Economic Journal, March 1954, pp. 107-15.

WESTON, J. F., “A Generalized Uncertainty Theory of Profit”, American Economic Review, March 1950, pp. 40-60. HB1.A6.

___________, “The Profit Concept and Theory: A Restatement”, Journal of Political Economy, April 1954, pp. 152-170.

CASSELL, GUSTAV, Fundamental Thoughts in Economics, Ch. 1, 2,3. HB179.C283.

___________, The Theory of Social Economy, Ch 4. HB179.C31

HICKS, J. R., “Mr. Keynes and the ‘Classics’; A Suggested Interpretation”, Econometrica, Vol. 5, April 1937, pp. 147-159. HB1.E23, V. 5.

MODIGLIANI, F., “Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest and Money,” Econometrica, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan. 1944) esp. Part I, Sec. 1-9, Sec 11-17, Part II, Sec 21. HB1.E23, v. 12. Reprinted in American Economic Association, Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 186-240.

*PIGOU, A. C., “The Classical Stationary State,” Economic Journal, Vol. 53, Dec. 1943, pp. 343-51. HB1.E3, v. 63.

___________, “Economic Progress in a Stable Environment,” Economica, 1947, pp. 180-90. HB1.E42, v. 14. Reprinted in Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 241-251.

PATINKIN, DON, “Price Flexibility and Full Employment”, American Economic Review, XXXVIII, 4, Sept. 1948, pp. 543-564. YP6. Reprinted in Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 252-283.

 

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 77, Folder “1. University of Chicago, Econ 300A & B”.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive apf1-06230, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Undergraduate International Monetary Affairs. Metzler, 1962

 

It is interesting to see that University of Chicago economics undergraduates in 1962 were still expected to learn something about mercantilism and classical international economic theory with a dash of Friedrich List as a chaser in Lloyd Metzler’s course on international monetary relations and policies. Oh yes, and Alfred Marshall gets into the act as well! 

_____________________

Lloyd A. Metzler

ECONOMICS 271
Reading List
Winter, 1962

  1. Mercantilism and the Classical Theory of Comparative Advantage.

P. T. Ellsworth, The International Economy, Revised Edition, chapter 2.
Eli Heckscher, “Mercantilism,” in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X.
David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chapter 7.
John Stuart Mill, Essays on Some Unsettled Questions in Political Economy, Essay 1.

  1. Mechanism of the Foreign Exchange Market.

Alan R. Holmes, The New York Foreign Exchange Market, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, March 1959.
P. T. Ellsworth, The International Economy, Revised Edition, chapter 15.
Frank A. Southard, Jr., Foreign Exchange Practice and Policy.
Peter B. Kenen, Giant among Nations, Harcourt Brace, 1958.

  1. National Income and the Balance of Payments.

J. E. Meade, The Theory of International Economic Policy, Vol. I, The Balance of Payments, Oxford University Press, Part I.
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Income and Output, 1958.
R. F. Bennett, “Significance of International Transactions in National Income,” in Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. VI, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Alfred Marshall, Money, Credit, and Commerce, Book III, chapters 1-4.

  1. Postwar Monetary Developments.

Randall Hinshaw, “Toward Currency Convertibility,” Princeton University, Essays in International Finance, No. 31, 1958.
Robert Triffin, Europe and the Money Muddle, Yale University Press, 1957.
Alice Bourneuf and E. A. Goldenweiser, “The Bretton Woods Agreements,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 1944.

  1. Regional Monetary Arrangements.

Jacob Viner, The Customs Union Issue, Chapter 4.
Committee for Economic Development, The European Common Market and its Meaning to the United States, CED, May, 1959.
James E. Meade, Problems of Economic Union, University of Chicago Press, 1953.

  1. Undeveloped Areas and the Theory of Economic Growth.

Friedrich List, A National System of Political Economy.
Walter W. Rostow, The Process of Economic Growth, chapters 1-4.
Colin Clark, Conditions of Economic Progress, chapters 2, 3, 4, 11.
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, chapter 1.
A. J. Brown, Introduction to the World Economy, chapters 1-4, chapter 6.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder “271 Class Notes. Win. ‘62”.

_____________________

L. A. Metzler

ECONOMICS 271
COURSE EXAMINATION
Winter, 1962

(1) Outline the principal policies of mercantilist economics and show how these policies were justified as being in the national interest of the country concerned.

(2) How were the mercantilist doctrines refuted by the classical economists, particularly by Ricardo and Mill?

(3) Did the classical economists establish a case for universal free trade? Explain.

(4) What are the main features of an undeveloped or backward country and how can the obstacles to economic development be overcome?

(5) How do you account for the decline in public interest in Malthus’ doctrine of population during the middle of the nineteenth century? What explains the recent revival of interest?

(6) Suppose that England, France and the United States have flexible exchange and that, at a given moment of time, these rates are:

New York—London: $4 = £1.
New York—Paris: $0.25 = F. 1
London—Paris: F12 = £1

If an arbitrageur has bank balances in all these countries, show how he can operate in such a way as to leave all of his foreign balances unchanged and at the same time increase his domestic balances. What effect will these operations have on all three rates?

(7) Demonstrate the conditions under which devaluation will improve a country’s balance of trade. In doing this you should define the balance of trade in both domestic and foreign currencies.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder “Course Exams 270-271”.

Source Image: Posting by Margie Metzler on the Metzler Family Tree at the genealogical website, ancestry.com.

Categories
Courses Curriculum M.I.T.

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

 

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.

Previous posts provided the responses for Robert Bishop’s Economic Analysis (14.121), Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122) and Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451).

In this post we’ll have a look at Robert M. Solow and Duncan Foley’s course, Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452) covering the topics:

Growth theory
Empirical Aspects of growth
Cycle theory
Empirical aspects of cycles
Monetary aspects of growth.

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. From the departmental course staffing reports in the M.I.T. archives, we discover that the course announcements for 1968/69 and 1969/1970 incorrectly listed Miguel Sidrauski and Solow as instructors of 14.45. Duncan Foley replaced Solow as instructor of this course in those two years. Here is an example where having the ex post staffing reports allows us to identify some inaccuracies found in the catalogues.

 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 the course. Of the four courses that together made up the economic theory core at M.I.T. in the late 1960’s, students were clearly the most satisfied with their Economic Growth and Fluctuations  course.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

14.452T Economic Growth and Fluctuations (A)

[Solow]
Prereq.: 14.451
Year: G (2) 4-0-8

Application of theory of income and employment to analysis and measurement of changes in level of economic activity over time, and to study of inflation. Solow

MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 292.

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.”

Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T, p. 307

Catalogue 1968-69: course instructor listed as Sidrauski [Note: Duncan Foley actually taught the course, see below], p. 312

Catalogue 1969-70:  course instructor listed as Solow [Note: Duncan Foley actually taught the course, see below],p. 294.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.452
Second terms of 1966/67 through 1969/70

1967: Term II. 3 hours/week. 39 regular students, 1 Listeners.

Professor R. M. Solow with Instructor M. Sidrauski

1968: Term II. 3 hours/week 52 regular students, 2 Listeners.

Professor R. M. Solow with Instructor M. Sidrauski

1969: Term II.  3½ hours/week, 49 regular students, 1 Listeners

Assistant Professor D. K. Foley with Michael Rothschild

1970: Term II. 3 Hours/week. 43 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Associate Professor D. K. Foley with Instructor S. Kennedy (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 for Robert Solow from 10 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68]

Ec 452:

 Economic background Math

Coverage

Growth theory

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 1

Empirical Aspects of growth

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 0

Cycle theory

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 0

Empirical aspects of cycles

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 0

Monetary aspects of growth

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 2

From the student comments on Solow’s course
Each bullet point from a different student

YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67

  • Cycle theory: Should be dropped.
    Monetary aspects of growth: Needs to be intensified.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • An excellent course.
  • This course is very adequate—except more could be done perhaps by going faster with no loss of comprehension.
  • Well-done course.
  • As these courses were taught two years ago there was too little integration of the two terms. Partly this reflects a real gap in macro theory itself; I would like to see an integration of the Patinkin-type of analysis into growth theory.

 

[Summary for Duncan Foley from 12 student responses:
of which 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 452:

 Economic background Math

Coverage

Growth theory

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 1

 Too deep: 3

Not deep enough: 1

Empirical Aspects of growth

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 4

Cycle theory

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 4

Empirical aspects of cycles

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 5

Monetary aspects of growth

 Too little: 0

Too much: 1

 Too little: 0

Too much: 2

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 3

 

From the student comments on Foley’s course
Each bullet point from a different student

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • Cycle theory and Empirical aspects of cycles: little done but that’s probably a good think.
  • 452 is, by and large, a very good course
    Growth theory: very good
    Empirical aspects of growth:  good
    Cycle theory: We covered difference eq. cycle models in one day which is what they deserve. Some other approach might be worthwhile.
    Empirical aspects of cycles: Not covered at all
    Monetary aspects of growth: very good
  • Growth theory: course devoted almost solely to this topic.
    Difference equations ought to be specifically covered, with some applications [noted for both 14.451 “multiplier and accelerator” topic and 14.452 “Cycle theory”.
  • General comment: Heuristic “proofs” and extensive examples to tie in reality would have been most useful.
    The course was not as satisfying as it undoubtedly could have been. This was an obvious case of the teacher trying too hard in a new course. Too much of the Socratic method was employed.
  • Foley let students ask irrelevant questions.
  • Empirical aspects of growth: data was almost nonexistent!
    Cycle theory: difference equations in 2 days! Monetary aspects of growth: This was covered but a little more would have suited my personal taste only.
  • In general 452 was good; 451 seemed weak.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70

  • I do not like the Socratic method, especially when applied to solving differential equations.
    Monetary aspects of growth: good.

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 Sources: Duncan Foley  from his homepage. Robert Solow from the website MIT Museum.

 

 

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.