Author: Irwin Collier

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Microeconomics

Chicago. Price Theory Core Examination. Winter 1965

Another specimen of the Chicago price theory exam featuring True/False/Uncertain questions. This copy found in the Zvi Griliches’ papers in the Harvard Archives.

____________________

Chicago Price Theory
Preliminary/Core Exams
Previously Posted

Summer 1949
Summer 1951
Summer 1952
Winter 1955
Summer 1955
Winter 1957
Summer 1960
Winter 1964
Winter 1969
Summer 1975

____________________

CORE EXAMINATION
Price Theory
Winter, 1965

Preliminary Examination for the Ph.D. and A.M. Degrees

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

  1. Indicate whether you believe each of the following statements to be true, false, or uncertain. In each case write a few sentences explaining your answer. Your grade will depend heavily on your explanation.
    1. A monopolist can always get more revenue from a consumer by a fixed sum plus price-per-unit system of charging than by the price-per-unit alone.
    2. A flat sum tax on the firms in an industry will never have an effect upon output in the short-run.
    3. If a demand curve is defined as the relationship between price and quantity of X, the real income and the prices and quantities of other goods held constant, it will have an elasticity of -1.
    4. If a cartel assigns quotas to its member firms on the basis of their “capacity” there will be more than the profit-maximizing amount of investment in the industry.
    5. If all commodities had positive income elasticities, there would be no merit in the present distinction between substitution and income effects.
    6. The elasticity of demand for X with respect to the price of Y never equals the elasticity of demand of Y with respect to the price of X.
    7. The short-run price elasticity of the supply of beef can be negative.
    8. The assumptions of competition, constant returns to scale, and equilibrium are inconsistent.
    9. A competitive firm will increase its output as a result of a fall in the price of one of its inputs.
    10. The own-price elasticity of demand for a commodity is no smaller, in absolute value, than the marginal propensity to consume that commodity.
    11. “The price paid for water is no indication of its true value in use because the water makes the production of additional wealth possible. Thus a farmer may pay his irrigation district $8.00 for water per acre of land, but the value of the crops grown might be in the neighborhood of $100 per acre.”
    12. “A central planning authority may or may not decide to weight equally the welfare of the future generation and the welfare of the present generation. This is essentially an ethical question. But if equal weights are to be applied, the appropriate rate of discount (interest) to use in comparing the costs and benefits from alternative public investments is a zero rate.”
    13. In equilibrium, a competitive firm has all the business (sales) it wants. Hence advertising is incompatible with either competition or equilibrium.
    14. The fact that a consumer, in equilibrium, is not consuming all of the possible commodities, implies that he gets increasing marginal utilities from the commodities that he does consume.
    15. A tax on American citizens who go abroad will reduce tourist expenditures and hence improve the U.S. balance of payments only if the demand for foreign trips is elastic.
  1. “Exploration for natural gas or oil is a form of investment. As such, like all investments, it depends on the expected level of future output (demand). Thus, a rise in the governmentally fixed (regulated) price of natural gas will decrease consumption and hence curb exploration. Conversely, lowering the price of gas will stimulate both consumption and exploration.” Appraise.
  2. Assume the following simple world, in which you are asked to determine the optimum rate of automobile accidents.
    1. The only type of accident which occurs is that a car may run into a house. The damage is then always $200.
    2. The probability of an accident will be greater,
      1. …the faster automobiles are driven
      2. …the closer houses are set to the highway.

Assume explicitly any additional information you need to define the socially optimum accident rate. What mechanism, if any, could you design to achieve it?

  1. The competitive private enterprise form of economic organization is regarded by some economists as a sort of ideal which it would be desirable to approximate in practice.
    1. On a purely theoretical level, use the tools of economic analysis to explain to a skeptic precisely in what way(s) and why the competitive private enterprise form is optimal.
State whatever assumptions and define whatever terms you require, and state explicitly the criteria of excellence that you are using.
    2. Are there any conditions under which the competitive organization form may fail to produce the results promised above?
    3. What other important economic problems of a modern state, if any, may still be unsolved despite the fact that perfect competition has been achieved? Explain in each case why the problem is important and why perfect competition does not solve it, or explain why there are no unsolved problems.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches. Box 129. Folder “Preliminary Examinations, 1957-1965”.

Categories
Business Harvard

Harvard. Visiting Committee for Instruction in Political Economy Report. 1875

Here we see a very early attempt to establish a beachhead for business education, or at least some business education for undergraduates. A liberal arts education in college was long recognised as a prep-school for the traditional professions (save one) of  law, medicine, or the theology in 1875, and here we see the business camel sticking its nose into the political economy tent. Merchants and manufacturers of the world unite!

___________________________

For more about the visiting committee:

Edward Atkinson
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 42, No. 29 (Aug., 1907), pp. 761-769.

Alexander H. Rice

William C. Endicott

James Munson Barnard
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 35 (Jul., 1906), pp. 837-841 (5 pages)

Joseph S. Ropes [see below]

___________________________

JOSEPH S. ROPES

As one reviews even a moderately long business career, it is a pathetic thing to see how men who have filled the largest places in the business life of their time, or who have been conspicuous in the philanthropic or the religious movements of their generation, after a few years of retirement, pass away and leave so few memorials behind them.

Forty years ago the house of William Ropes & Co. had reached the leading position in our American trade with Russia. A generation before that time, the senior William Ropes had established a house in St. Petersburg. with other branches in London and New York, while here in Boston, no great commercial establishment was more honored or better known. Their ships sailed many seas, and large enterprises both at home and abroad were carried forward with such high honor and integrity of soul on the part of this noble group of men, that it became an example and an inspiration to the younger generation of merchants who were about them.

Mr. Joseph S. Ropes whose life here in Boston is but a memory to his friends, was one of the leading members of this great firm. His death was announced in your paper on Saturday. He was educated in Russia. His training and accomplishments were of the highest order. He had a singularly acute mind and in the great financial movements of his time he was a recognized authority. During his residence and business life in Russia he had mastered nearly all of the languages of Northern Europe, and I have often seen the eagerness with which he would talk in his Boston office with stranded sailors from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Russia, with the same facility with which he would use his own mother tongue. He was always tender, considerate and generous with the unfortunate and with strangers landed here from foreign ports.

I remember also when Prince Alexis of the royal house of Russia visited Boston with the group of noblemen and officers of the Russian navy many years ago. Mr. Joseph Ropes was sought for as the only man in Boston who knew the Russian tongue. He surprised and delighted his visitors by his rare accomplishments and knowledge of their language and literature, and it was said that he was the only man, not a native, they had ever met in any land who spoke and thought in Russian as if it were his mother tongue.

There was another side of his character besides that of the merchant and man of letters. He was of gentle and heroic mould. Those who knew him will recognize this as true. How few men stricken with sudden blindness have met that sad fate as he met this dreadful going out of the light of day. With his brilliant, tireless, mental activity, with his insatiable thirst for knowledge, his passion for books, giving up every active Interest in life and forced to sit with folded hands in darkened room for months, facing the years as he did afterwards in dependence upon others — his sublime patience and heroism of soul through all this was something to be remembered by those who knew him.

The source and centre of it all was his religious faith. It was a well-spring within him. Sorrow, loss, broken companionships, old age, failing strength, never could quench the undying flame of his spiritual life. The morning dawned for him at last, with the heavenly vision, as he entered through the gates into the city.

W.H.R.

Source: Boston Evening Transcript (May 19, 1903), p. 9.

Funeral of Joseph S. Ropes

              Funeral services for Hon. Joseph S. Ropes were held yesterday afternoon at the Immanuel Congregational Church, Roxbury. Rev. Charles H. Beale, D. D., pastor of the church, officiated. Among the mourners were the deacons and members of the church, business men, members of the Board of Trade and men who sat in the State Legislature with him. Burial was in Forest Hills Cemetery.

Source: Boston Evening Transcript (May 20, 1903), p. 8.

Joseph S. Ropes.

Joseph S. Ropes, for many years a resident of Norwich, died Saturday morning at the home of his niece, Miss Huntington, in Norwich Town, aged 84 years. He was born in Boston, Mass., and early in his boyhood went to St. Petersburg, Russia, with his father, the founder of the American-Russian firm of William Ropes & Co., who imported from Russia cargoes of hemp, cordage, iron, etc. While in Russia Mr. Ropes entered the University of St. Petersburg, where after a full course of studies he graduated with honors. He then went into business with his father. After the death of his father and brother, William Ropes, he became the head of the firm, making his home in Boston. He was gradually obliged through loss of eyesight to withdraw from business cares and up to the time of his death spent his time in Christian work and missionary enterprises.

Source: Hartford Courant, March 16, 1903.

___________________________

Copy of a letter in the Atkinson Collection in the Massachusetts Historical Society. Volume VI, p. 418.

Boston, July 21, 1875

Honorable Richard H. Dana, Jr., Chairman

Sir:

The committee appointed to visit Harvard University for the purpose of observing the instruction given and the progress of the students in the department of political science have attended the duty assigned to them and report with pleasure that the instruction given by Professor Dunbar is thorough and excellent;— that the election of the study of political economy and the attendance of the students indicate a hearty interest in this course and a degree of application and intelligence which promises much usefulness both to the graduates and to the public when the former shall come to the application of their lessons to the practical affairs of life.

Your committee respectfully submit the following reasons for enlarging the scope of the instruction given in the department of political science — the country is now suffering depression and loss, not more from the direct consequences than from the disturbed relations of economic and fiscal interests. Had more attention been paid to the simplest principles of economic science in the schools, colleges, and universities it is not to be doubted that many of the disasters and losses that have marked the last few years might have been avoided.

The costly and ineffective system of slave labor has disappeared from the southern states: — rarely has there been greater progress in the applied sciences than in the last few years — improvements and invention in the tools of production and the apparatus of distribution have caused an immense increase in production to become possible, relatively to the population: — but the methods of distributing this abundance which the advance in mechanical and agricultural science has brought forth have been restricted by fiscal causes and bad methods of administration: — evils which it falls within the province of political science to remove.

The instruction given by Professor Dunbar is admirable but more work might be done to meet the case. Your committee consists of men who are or have been engaged in business pursuits and as merchants they may suggest whether the function of the university should not be to train young men to become good merchants as well as able professional men, and whether the means for obtaining such an education as a merchant might find most useful, have been as carefully provided for as they have been in other branches. They fully admit that a thoroughly trained man need not have been technically taught in the undergraduate department, yet that it would be well if those whom choice or necessity may direct toward active business life could elect studies during the latter part of their college course that would fit them more directly for their future occupation.

To this end it would seem to your committee that more opportunity might be offered to undergraduates to obtain instruction in the principles and history of international and commercial law and in commercial and physical geography as to the last named studies it may be urged that they are important in themselves and their relation to political and commercial history and to political science.

What are called “business colleges” attract a great many young men and are believed to be pecuniarily, very profitable in many instances to those who control them. May not the university offer to do thoroughly what is elsewhere done superficially and thus abate even the shadow of foundation for the charge sometimes made, that the four years of college life are apt to unfit young men for business pursuits. Your committee urge that a broad and liberal course of study could be mapped out, no more subject to the charge of being merely utilitarian than the course which a young man would elect who intended to become a lawyer, physician or clergyman and which would enable men to become better merchants and manufacturers and to begin the necessary work of their lives more fully prepared than it is now possible for them to be.

Respectfully submitted,

Committee:
Edward Atkinson
Alex Rice [Alexander H. Rice]
Jos. S. Ropes
Wm. Endicott, Jr.
Jas. M. Barnard
by E.A.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics: Correspondence and papers 1930-1961 and some earlier. (UAV 349.11) Box 25, Folder “Visiting Committee.”

Image Source: The Harvard Graduates’Magazine, Vol. VIII, No. 32 (June, 1900), Frontspiece. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Annual Economics Newsletter. 1 June 1960

This three page departmental newsletter for Harvard economics from the end of the academic year 1959-60 is found in Edward H. Chamberlin papers curated at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University. Among other things we learn from this newsletter is that a year’s course “Mathematics for Economists” was able to satisfy the foreign language requirement, or expressed differently, the punishment for receiving a grade less than B in the first semester of the math course was being required to pass a rigorous foreign language examination. 

Of course, finding this I wonder where I can find the first four issues of the Harvard Economics Newsletter.

___________________________

ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER
Fifth Annual Issue, June 1, 1960

UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTION:

The Department has been engaged in a study of its undergraduate curriculum over the past year and has now adopted a substantial series of changes in concentration requirements and, more particularly, in the undergraduate course offerings. The basic principles underlying the revisions were set out in a report of the Committee on Undergraduate Instruction under the chairmanship of Professor John Dunlop. These principles, briefly, were that the undergraduate program is “part of a liberal education” and, except in very special cases, is “not designed as professional training in Economics”; that the undergraduate program should be “clearly differentiated” from the graduate program; that the undergraduate should have as much flexibility as possible in choosing courses of interest to him; that close attention should be given to the teaching of Economics courses and to the balance of analytic and institutional material in each.

These principles clearly indicate a concern on the part of the Department that the undergraduate program may tend to become subordinate to the graduate program unless specific attention is paid to the particular interests and objectives of the younger student. The revisions, therefore, are in the direction of making a greater number of courses (particularly half-courses) open to undergraduates; breaking the traditional parallelism between graduate and undergraduate courses; and emphasizing historical, institutional and policy questions which will be of interest not only to the Economics concentrator but to able concentrators in other fields. To make certain that this greater freedom of choice does not lead to a lack of coherence, a certain “progression” has been introduced in the course offering and Honors candidates are required to take at least one “advanced” course in the area of their choice.

The sum total of these changes gives us a field of concentration which we believe will better serve the purposes of a liberal arts college. So far as undergraduate reaction is concerned, it will not be until the changes have gone into effect next year that we will be able to judge the response effectively. It is of interest, however, that the Crimson, not an altogether silent critic in the past, has called the new program a “model” which other departments might wisely study.

MATHEMATICS- LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT:

Realizing that mathematical competence is growing more important in most branches of economic work than linguistic ability, the Department has revised the language requirement in the following manner:

A full course entitled “Mathematics for Economists” has been established. All graduate students are now required to take and pass the first half of this course or pass an equivalent mathematics examination. Those who pass with at least a B may take the second half of the course, and no language will be required.

Those students who desire fluency in a foreign language or who receive a grade less than B in the first half of the mathematics course must complete the mathematics-language requirement by passing a rigorous language examination.

THE ECONOMICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION:

Professor Seymour E. Harris has been on leave this year on a Ford Fellowship, to complete the study of the Economics of Higher Education. He has visited more than 100 colleges and universities, and has submitted the following report for inclusion in this year’s Newsletter:

There were three resultant manuscripts:

  1. More Resources for Education (John Dewey Lecture), Harpers, 1960
  2. Economics and Educational Value. Edited volume based on seminar in 1958-59 for College Administrators. (Assisted by Richard Cooper and Reginald Green). Harvard University Press, 1960.
  3. Economics of Higher Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.

A questionnaire sent to about 200 economists revealed attitudes towards higher education.  A considerable sentiment for:

    1. Higher tuition if accompanied by improved financing methods. But fear expressed of resultant excessive gains of enrollment for public institutions, increased recourse to colleges near home, a tendency to favor high income groups and endanger the position of many vulnerable private institutions.
    2. General agreement that much greater recourse to loans is practical. But some economists expressed dissatisfaction with the idea that young men and women should be encouraged to borrow. Furthermore, they are unaccustomed to seeking large credits.
    3. Economists generally envisaged the possibility of substantial economies — better use of plant, reduced number of courses, etc. But it was hoped that small discussion groups would not be eliminated.
PERSONNEL:

Professor Simon KUZNETS, now at Johns Hopkins, and Professor Hendrik HOUTHAKKER, now at Stanford, will join our staff next year.

Professor Otto ECKSTEIN has recently been promoted to Associate Professor of Economics. This fall he was in Washington, where he was Technical Director for the Douglas Committee investigating prices, wages, productivity, etc. Now he is in Europe working for the O.E.E.C. Professor GALBRAITH has been on leave in Switzerland for the spring term, working on a new book on corporation organization. Professor KAYSEN been working for Doxiadis Associates in Athens this year, making a study of Greek economy.

Professor James McKIE from Vanderbilt and Professor Henri THEIL from the Econometric Institute in the Netherlands have been visiting members of our staff this year.

Professor DUNLOP is President of the Industrial Relations Research Association for 1960. He has also been appointed to the President’s Committee investigating non-operating unions on the railroads.

Professor MASON has edited a book, Corporation and Modern Society. Professor DUESENBERRY has been working on his Capital Markets Project, supported by a grant from the Merrill Foundation to the Business School. Professor GERSCHENKRON’s Economic History Workshop, under a grant from the Ford Foundation, began operation in the fall of 1959.

Professor LEONTIEF gave three public lectures as Hitchcock Professor at the University of California in November 1959. Now he is in Argentina at the invitation of the University of Buenos Aires, where he is giving some lectures. He has been sent by ICA and will be there about two weeks. On the way back he will be stopping in Rio de Janeiro to give a lecture at the invitation of the Getulio Vergas Foundation.

Professor DORFMAN will be on leave next year, when he will be at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California.

The Department was saddened by the deaths of Professor SLICHTER in September 1959 and of Mrs. John H. WILLIAMS and Professor BLACK in April 1960.

Source: Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.

Image Source: “Overhead of empty Harvard Sq.” (1961) Cambridge Historical Commission, Cambridge Photo Morgue Collection. Digital Commonwealth, Massachusetts Collections Online.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Public Finance

Harvard. Examinations in Public Finance, especially Taxation. Bullock, 1908-1909

In addition to his instructional responsibility for the history of economic thought, Charles Jesse Bullock was the faculty member with expertise in the applied economics field of taxation. 

Fun fact: Charles Jesse Bullock edited Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Volume 10 in the series The Harvard Classics, a.k.a., “Five-foot Shelf of Books” (New York: P. F. Collier and Sons, Co., 1909).

________________________

Bullock’s earlier public finance exams
at Harvard

1901-02. Economics 7a and 7b. Financial administration; taxation [undergraduate]

1903-04. Economics 16.  Financial history of the United States

1904-05. Economics 7a. Introduction to public finance [undergraduate]

1904-05. Economics 7b. Theory and methods of taxation [undergraduate]

1904-05. Economics 16. Financial history of the United States.

1905-06 Economics 7.  Public finance [undergraduate]

1905-06 Economics 16. Public finance [advanced]

1906-07 Economics 16. Public finance and taxation

1907-08 Economics 16. Public finance and taxation

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

From 1906: Selected Readings in Public Finance edited by Charles Jesse Bullock (Boston: Inn & Company).

From 1910: Short bibliography on public finance “for serious minded students” by Bullock

________________________

Course Enrollment
1908-09

Economics 16. Professor Bullock. —Public Finance (advanced course).

Total 11: 7 Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Junior, 2 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1908-1909, p. 68.

________________________

Course Announcement
1908-09

[Economics] 16. Public Finance (Advanced Course). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professor Bullock.

This course is designed for graduate students and for undergraduates who are especially interested in public finance. It cannot be elected by students who have taken Economics 7, except by express consent of the instructor.

The course is devoted to the examination of the financial institutions of the principal modern countries, in the light of both theory and history. One or more reports calling for independent investigation will ordinarily be required. Special emphasis will be placed upon questions of American finance.

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. V, No. 19 (1 June 1908). History and Political Science Comprising the Departments of History and Government, and Economics, 1908-09, pp. 55-56.

________________________

ECONOMICS 16
THE THEORY AND METHODS
OF TAXATION

Mid-year Examination, 1908-09
  1. Discuss briefly the writings of Carafa, Bodin, Petty, and the Cameralists.
  2. Discuss briefly the views of Adam Smith concerning public revenues.
  3. Discuss the following: “A government, unlike an individual or a private corporation, regulates its receipts by its expenditures.”
  4. Discuss the financial significance of the post-office, state railroads, and municipal industries.
  5. What can be gained by a careful study of public expenditures?
  6. What is the theoretical outcome of the discussion of the normal source of taxation? Has the discussion any practical value?
  7. What does Adam Smith say about the incidence of taxes on wages, profits, and rent?
  8. State and criticize three methods of classifying public revenues?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Mid-year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 8, Bound Volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1908-09.

________________________

ECONOMICS 16
THE THEORY AND METHODS
OF TAXATION

Year-end Examination, 1908-09 
  1. What are the arguments for and against a federal inheritance tax?
  2. Describe three different methods of taxing railroads, and state the advantages or disadvantages of each method.
  3. What methods of taxing mortgages are employed in the United States? What do you think of each method?
  4. Write a brief account of national and local taxation in France.
  5. Compare English national and local taxation with French.
  6. Discuss the financial situation of the German Empire.
  7. What constitutional difficulties do the American States encounter in taxing corporations?
  8. Discuss the subject of the national debts of Great Britain, France, the German Empire, and the United States at the present time.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 8, Bound vol. Examination Papers 1908-09; Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics,…,Music in Harvard College (June, 1909), p. 46.

Categories
Faculty Regulations Harvard Regulations

Harvard. Changes in A.M. and Ph.D. economics degree requirements, 1956

The explicit rules of the game of paper chase to an advanced degree in economics at Harvard have evolved over the years. This post adds to our collection of the rules and regulations, interpretations and exceptions that defined the procedural world faced by the earlier cohorts of economics graduate students at Harvard. 

_________________

Department of Economics

August 1, 1956

CHANGES IN DEGREE REQUIREMENTS

MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE

These changes are to take effect for students taking their General Oral Examinations after February 1, 1957.

  1. The requirements for the M.A. shall be identical with those for the Ph.D., with the following exceptions:
    1. No thesis or special oral examination shall be required.
    2. The language requirement shall remain as it was: a fluent reading knowledge, to be tested by a rigorous two-hour written examination, of advanced economic texts in one of the following languages: French, German, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, a Scandinavian language, or Russian.

The above [sic, below] involves the following major changes in the M.A. requirements:

  1. Two years’ residence (no exceptions); one of these may be taken elsewhere, as for the Ph.D.
  2. Five fields are now to be presented, including economic theory, economic history, and statistics.
  3. The requirement regarding the fifth field of study is usually fulfilled by the passing of the equivalent of a full-year graduate course offered in the Department of Economics at Harvard and completed with the grade of B plus or higher. Seminars offered by the Graduate School of Public Administration are not acceptable for such “write-off” purposes. If the requirement for the write-off is not met prior to the General Oral Examination, the candidate will be examined in all five fields in the Generals. One half-course must have been completed in the write-off field with a grade of B plus or higher before the General Examination.
  4. Candidates for the Master’s degree may be excused from final examinations in courses on the same basis as candidates for the Ph.D.
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE.

General Oral Examination:

  1. If the requirements for the write-off field have not been met prior to the General Oral Examination, all five fields must be included in the General Oral Examination.

Thesis:

  1. The thesis should be written in one of the fields taken in the General Oral Examination. The candidate will obtain written consent for his proposed topic from the faculty member who has agreed to supervise his thesis and submit it to the Chairman within six months after passing the General Oral Examination. The student must make a report of progress on his thesis to the Department once a year until the thesis is submitted finally for approval.
  2. Beginning in the year 1957-58, theses will be due in the Department Office in final bound form on December 1st for a degree at Midyear and on March 1st for a degree at Commencement.

Special Oral Examination:

  1. The Special Oral Examination will consist of an extensive examination in the student’s special field as well as in a defense of his thesis. It will normally last one hour to one-and-one-half hours, not less than one-half hour to be devoted to intensive examination in the special field without primary reference to the thesis. This ruling is to take effect for Specials taken after September 1, 1957.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 and some earlier (UAV 349.11). Box 13, General Exams to Haberler. “Graduate Degree Requirements”.

Image Source: Clipped and borrowed from the blog Disorder of Things.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard History of Economics

Harvard. Exams for the history of economics up to 1848. Bullock, 1908-1909

Xenophon

“Economic Theory and its History” was the designation of the only mandatory subject for the economics Ph.D. general examination at Harvard in the early 20th century [there were still another five elective subjects to be examined in!] so it is not surprising that this full year course taught by Charles J. Bullock actually went all the way back to Aristotle and Xenophon. 

__________________________

Earlier versions of the course
by year and instructor

1899-1900. The History and Literature of Economics to the close of the Eighteenth Century. [William James Ashley]

1901-02. History and Literature of Economics, to the opening of the Nineteenth Century. [Charles Whitney Mixter]

1903-04. History and Literature of Economics to the opening of the Nineteenth Century [Charles Jesse Bullock]

1904-05. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. [Charles Jesse Bullock]

1905-06. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. [Charles Jesse Bullock]

1906-07. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848 [Charles Jesse Bullock]

1907-08. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848 [Charles Jesse Bullock]

__________________________

Course Enrollment
1908-09

Economics 15. Professor Bullock. — History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848.

Total 6: 6 Graduates.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1908-1909, p. 67.

__________________________

Course Announcement
1908-09

[Economics] 15. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri, at 11. Professor Bullock.

The purpose of this course is to trace the development of economic thought from classical antiquity to the middle of the nineteenth century. Emphasis is placed upon the relation of economics to philosophical and political theories, as well as to political and industrial conditions.

A considerable amount of reading of prominent writers will be assigned, and opportunity given for the preparation of theses. Much of the instruction is necessarily given by means of lectures.

No undergraduates will be admitted to the course who are not candidates for honors in economics.

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. V, No. 19 (1 June 1908). History and Political Science Comprising the Departments of History and Government, and Economics, 1908-09, p. 50.

__________________________

ECONOMICS 15
THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF ECONOMICS

Mid-Year Examination, 1908-09
  1. By what processes did the western world’s stock of economic ideas grow during the period you have studied?
  2. Compare the economic opinions of Xenophon with those of Aristotle.
  3. What did the Roman Law derive from previous economic thought and what did it contribute to subsequent thought?
  4. What do you think of Ingram’s account of economic thought during the Middle Ages?
  5. Where would you look for materials relating to the economic ideas of Europe from 500 A.D. to 1100 A.D.?
  6. What traces of the influence of Aristotle do you find in the economic doctrines of the Schoolmen?
  7. Describe the progress of economic thought in Italy from 1300 A.D. to 1500 A.D.
  8. What opinions concerning commercial policy do you find in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Mid-year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 8, Bound Volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1908-09.

__________________________

ECONOMICS 15
HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF ECONOMICS.
Year-end Examination, 1908-09
  1. Write an essay of about 1,000 words upon the progress of economic thought in England from 1500 to 1770.
  2. What were the elements that contributed to Smith’s system of economic thought?
  3. Compare briefly the development of economic thought in France from 1500 to 1770 with the development of English thought during the same period.
  4. What is the attitude of Schmoller and Oncken toward the mercantilists?
  5. What significance have the Physiocrats for the history of economic thought?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 8, Bound vol. Examination Papers 1908-09; Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics,…,Music in Harvard College (June, 1909), p. 46.

Image Source: Xenophon. From the statue of Xenophon by Hugo Haerdtl that is located on the southern entry ramp to the Austrian Parliament (Dr.-Karl-Renner-Ring 3, im 1. Wiener Gemeindebezirk Innere Stadt).

Categories
Exam Questions Fields Money and Banking UCLA

UCLA. PhD Money Qualifying Examinations. Klein, Thompson, Clower, Darby. 1973

While material for the Harvard economics department has and will dominate the flow of content at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror, I will try to post items from other colleges and economics, if for no other reason than to get a change of scenery. So in this post we head out to UCLA to see what Ph.D. candidates who selected Money as a subject for a comprehensive examination were asked. The exam is transcribed from a personal copy of Robert Clower found in this papers. So from UCLA to Duke to you via Berlin.

Note the examination committee for May 1973 has been identified, one might presume that most if not all members also were involved in the October 1973 examination transcribed below.

Previously posted:

May 1971 Field Exam 

______________________________

Meet the members of the Ph.D. Comprehensive Field Exam for Money
(UCLA, Spring, 1973)

Chairman, Benjamin Klein (b. 1943. Ph.D. University of Chicago)

Earl Thompson (b. 1938; d. 2010. Ph.D. Harvard University, 1961)

Michael Darby (b. 1945. Ph.D. University of Chicago, 1970)

Robert W. Clower (b. 1926; d. 2011.  D.Litt. Oxford University 1978)

For much, much more:  The Essential UCLA School of Economics by David R. Henderson and Steven Globerman.

______________________________

Memo on Comprehensive Field Exams
in the UCLA Economics Department

April 5, 1973

TO: Economics Department Faculty
FROM: The Graduate Committee and the Acting Chairman
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Field Examinations

Some faculty members have indicated to members of the Graduate Committee uncertainty about their roles and responsibilities in the examination process. The following notes may serve to lessen those uncertainties.

Each of the eleven areas designated as “fields” by the Department has a committee charged with the responsibility for composing the examination and measuring the accomplishments of our students. While the duties involved with conducting these examinations are onerous, the exams have played a central part in the graduate curriculum and are, therefore, worthy of considerable effort.

Typically, the person named chairman of the field solicits questions for the examination from all the other members of the committee. In some cases, his solicitation may go beyond the committee to other department members as well. Usually, he then composes the examination and, before submitting it to the graduate secretary to be typed, circulates a draft copy among the committee members to seek their consensus about balance and format. In particular, it is not intended that the chairman have unilateral authority with respect to the exam’s content.

After the examination has been administered to the students, the results are evaluated. All committees, to our knowledge, have at least two members read every answer. In fields in which the number of students is small, all members read all the answers.

Finally, in order to grade the examination, most committees schedule a meeting at which some consensus about grades is forged. At such meetings, a member who has strong feelings about the qualities (or lack thereof) of any given question or examination may convince the other members. For most committees this procedure has proven more useful than that of simply handing the chairman a score sheet before any dialogue about the results has occurred.

Clearly, modes of behavior with respect to the conduct of the examinations will vary among the field committees. However, to the extent that committees can standardize their actions along the lines indicated above, student and faculty uncertainty about the examinations will diminish, with an accordingly greater emphasis on more substantive matters.

______________________________

Comprehensive Field Examinations for the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees — May 1973

Field Committees:

Economic Theory. Hirshleifer (chairman), Thompson, Clower, Demetz, Leijonhufvud

Urban and Regional Economics. Hirsch (chairman), Ellickson, Chen

Public Finance. Somers (chairman), Chen, Lindsay, Vandermeulen

Government and Industry (industrial organization). Demetz (chairman), Peltzman, Hilton, Klein

Mathematical Economics. Thompson (chairman), Britto, Clower

Econometrics. Dhrymes (chairman), Ellickson, McCall

Money. Klein (chairman), Thompson, Clower, Darby

International Economics. Baird (chairman), Chu, Rugg

Economic Development. Herrick (chairman), Britto, Wolf

Labor Economics. Herrick (chairman), Lindsay, Hilton

Economic Institutions (economic history). Murphy (chairman), Shetler, Leijonhufvud

______________________________

Ph.D. Money Qualifying Examination
October 15, 1973

Four Hours

Answer six of the following seven questions. Be as specific and rigorous as possible.

There is plenty of writing time to answer all of the questions satisfactorily so try to spend a sufficient amount of time thinking before beginning to write. Irrelevant material presented, however correct, will be penalized.

1. In his 1942 article on “Say’s Law: A Restatement and Criticism,” O. Lange defines “Walras’ Law” by the identity

\sum_{i=1}^{i=N} p_{i}X_{i}\equiv 0,

where Xi denotes the sum of all individual excess demands for the ith conmodity (“collective excess demand”), and Pi denotes the price (expressed in units of the Nth commodity) of the ith commodity. In the same article, Lange defines “Say’s Law” by the identity

\sum_{i=1}^{i=N-1} p_{i}X_{i}\equiv 0,

where pi and Xi are defined precisely as before. Calling the Nth commodity “money,” Lange then asserts that if collective excess demands in an economic system A simultaneously satisfy both Walras’ Law and Say’s Law, then:

    1. Money prices are indeterminate;
    2. Individuals will never desire to change their money balances;
    3. Money is merely a worthless medium of exchange and standard of value in economy A.
    4. The economic system A is “equivalent to a barter economy.”

Critically evaluate each of the assertions a) through d).

2. a) The rapid rise in short-term interest rates during the first half of 1973 produced what is commonly called commercial bank “disintermediation” and thereby differential movements in the rates of growth of M1 compared to M2.

Clearly describe this process and how it affects the two definitions of the money supply. In such circumstances, is the rate of growth of M1 or of M2 a better indicator of monetary policy? Can you suggest a superior monetary aggregate to use as an indicator?

b) During the past year the rate of growth of money has deviated at times substantially from the rate of growth of the base or high-powered money (i.e., there has been a change in the money multiplier) due to large changes by the Treasury in the amount of demand deposits they hold at commercial banks. This led one observer to ask whether it was the Treasury or the Federal Reserve who was making monetary policy.

Clearly describe how changes in government demand deposits affect the money supply. How can the Federal Reserve offset such changes? If the Treasury decided to become a “monetary authority” and tried to control the money supply in this way, how would they fare in competition with the Fed if the two authorities adopted different money supply goals?

3. An Englishman holidaying on a small Mediterranean island paid all his expenses with checks on his English bank. The inhabitants were so impressed by his gentlemanly bearing that instead of cashing his checks, they used them thereafter as money. Who paid for the Englishman’s holiday?

Answer this question in terms of (a) fixed exchange rates and (b) floating exchange rates. Explain how different macroeconomic views of the world affect the answers.

4. There has been much discussion about the exogeneity or endogeneity of the money supply. Explain the different meanings of these terms for policy analysis and for statistical estimation and how these differences have been a source of confusion.

5. Discuss the following proposition: The rate of unemployment is affected primarily by deviations of the actual rate of change of money or government spending from their expected rates of change, and not by the rate of change or level of money or government spending.

Does this proposition have any implications about the relative and absolute possibilities of the persistent use of fiscal or monetary policy to achieve a low rate of unemployment?

Cite any empirical evidence with which you are familiar for or against the proposition (e.g., consider the Andersen & Jordan weights on the effects of changes in government spending on changes in nominal income).

6. The Federal Reserve recently adopted a rule change where required reserves instead of being calculated on the basis of current deposits is now based on commercial bank deposits two weeks earlier (which are obviously given at the time of the calculation).

This rule change has produced a situation where the Fed can no longer affect, in any given week, the total reserves of the banking system and where the major short-run effective policy tool of the Fed is how much it “forces” commercial banks to borrow from them each week — a very crude instrument by which to control the money supply.

Do you agree or disagree? Explain carefully.

Source: Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Robert W. Clower Papers, Box 4, Folder “Monetary Economics, PhD exams, Reading list, exams UCLA 1971-1988”.

Image Sources: Benjamin Klein, Earl Thompson, Robert Clower, Michael Darby.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Haberler pushes hiring Caves rather than Chenery or Arrow in 1961

 

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has already posted two artifacts revealing Gottfried Haberler’s unfiltered opinions of other economists that he put into writing.

re: John Kenneth Galbraith vs. Paul Samuelson
re: Samuel Bowles

In my reading of the memo transcribed below I get the sense that Haberler was not shy of overstating his case for the  appointment of Richard Caves by diminishing Arrow’s virtues: “I cannot help feeling that some of his [Arrow’s] work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low.”

Personal note: I once paid my Yale mentor William Fellner a courtesy call when he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. in the 1970s. Fellner was a lunch-buddy of Gottfried Haberler and he invited me to join the two of them for lunch at the Mayflower Hotel. I confess (with a combination of understanding for myself and shame) that I hadn’t a clue who the frail old man wolfing down his lunch across the table from me was and he displayed no interest in conversation with me either. And now here I sit, posting a 63 year old Haberler memo for the historical record.

____________________

All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway

Kenneth Arrow (1951 Ph.D. Columbia, Harvard appointment 1968)

Richard Caves (1958 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1962)

Hollis Chenery (1950 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1965)

____________________

Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues

To the Senior Members of the Department:

I am going to send the attached letter to the President unless anybody strongly objects. For the members of the Department I should like to add that I somewhat resent the surprise tactic used in bringing up the name of Arrow in yesterday’s discussion. Let me confess that this was not immediately clear to me — which on reflection causes me to deplore it all the more. I have reason to believe that others too were taken by surprise.

December 13, 1961

____________________

Haberler’s Protest in Full

CONFIDENTIAL.

MEMO TO: The President, the Senior members of the Department of Economics, the Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration

FROM: Gottfried Haberler

In my opinion, the Department of Economics is making a serious mistake in filling up the Department too much with mathematical and econometric economists through the proposal to appoint Arrow and Chenery. May I say by way of introduction that, although I am not myself a mathematical economist, I have a high appreciation of the mathematical and econometric method and have consistently shown that by my votes in the Department.

I do believe, however, that at the present time the Department is well supplied with talent in this field. Five members of the permanent staff belong to that category — Dorfman, Houthakker, Leontief, Meyer, Schelling. True, all of them have developed strong interests in policy problems and have worked on applied problems. None of them is a “pure” theorist in the sense that he works exclusively in the theoretic-mathematical-econometric field, but all of them (with the exception of Schelling) have been appointed for their theoretical, mathematical, econometric skills.

In addition to the permanent members, there are always non-permanent members in that category, at present especially Clopper Almon [Obituary].

No two of these five men are quite alike and Arrow is different from all of them. As far as I know, Arrow has not yet developed an active interest in policy questions. I do not criticise him for that — it may well be an asset. All I want to say is that we are well supplied in his general field of competence. He certainly is a most competent man and he, rightly, has a high reputation in the profession. But I cannot help feeling that some of his work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low. On earlier occasions when he was discussed in the Department, Professor Leontief expressed precisely the same doubts and reservations. Now he thinks that a large department, such as ours, should have men of that type even if — as he still readily concedes — the permanent value of his ideas is problematic. My point is that we are well supplied with this sort of talent and that we are tilting the balance of the Department too strongly in one particular direction.

The fact that we propose to the School of Public Administration the appointment of Chenery fortifies in my opinion the above criticism.

Chenery too is a mathematical-econometric economist of high quality and great energy. His special field is input-output analysis in its application to less developed countries. He is not, of course, a “pure” theorist. On the contrary, application of the theoretical-statistical tools is his strength, especially of input-output analysis. He has also developed administrative talents. At this time, he holds an important position in Washington which makes him look especially attractive to Littauer, I am not in a position to evaluate his suitability for his government assignment. But I should like to say this: I feel strongly that input-output is of no use for the less developed countries, because their basic statistics are woefully inadequate. This does not mean that Chenery will be a poor administrator. It is possible that for him, in his present position, input-output will be a mere ritual. I assume, however, that Littauer does not appoint him for his administrative capabilities, but rather for his scholarly talents, and these latter belong to the same general field — mathematical-econometric analysis — as Arrow’s and the five members of the Department whom I mentioned.

I feel all the more strongly that the Department is making a grave mistake, because we are passing up a rare opportunity to appoint another man who fits into our Department better than either of the two men mentioned and who has other talents which we urgently need, namely, Richard Caves.

The Department has unanimously voted to recommend the appointment of Caves if Arrow is not available. I therefore need not argue his high competence and standing in this profession. Let me only say this: Caves has shown that he not only understands and appreciates the modern mathematical, statistical and econometric methods of analysis, but also — which is a different thing — that he knows how to use them. He has shown himself at the same time to be a master of traditional economic theory and of modern quantitative analysis, a very rare combination indeed. In addition to that he has become a very effective and stimulating undergraduate teacher, which neither one of the other two men is. We are often criticised for neglecting undergraduate teaching. We have tried to remedy this situation, but the difficulty has always been to find a man who measures up to our standards of scholarship and is at the same time an effective undergraduate teacher. Here we have the very rare opportunity, the opportunity of a lifetime, to appoint a man who is both at the same time — an accomplished scholar who is thoroughly familiar with the history of his science and wields modern quantitative methods of analysis effectively, and is also an inspiring undergraduate teacher. It would be inexcusable to let that opportunity pass.

It should be added that Caves is younger than the other two and is being considered by two leading universities for a permanent position. If we do not get him now we will in all probability have lost him forever.

I should also like to say that I disagree with the view that Chenery is better suited for Littauer than Caves. True, being older he has more administrative experience. But this should not be decisive, in my opinion, except that from a superficial public relations standpoint it may look appropriate to appoint someone to Littauer who has held a high position in Washington. Both men are intensely interested in policy problems, but both will always feel that they are primarily economists and neither will want to lecture only on policy problems or only to Littauer students.

December 13, 1961

Source: Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.

Image: Radcliffe Archives. Portrait of Gottfried Haberler. (1965).

Categories
Fields Harvard

Harvard. Report on Long-range Plans for the Department of Economics. 1948

The following transcribed report of a special committee regarding the future of the Harvard economics department looking forward from 1948 is fascinating. Eight senior professors would be retiring over the coming decade and there was a serious discussion of the economists needed to replace them. For my money the most interesting comparison is the one made between Arthur Smithies and Paul Samuelson. I’ll let you or your AI of choice fish that out of the report. But there is much more to be found.

_____________________________

The Provost is not amused
[No letterhead, unsigned.
Apparently a copy.]

December 22, 1947

Dear Mr. Burbank:

I am not at all happy with the recommendation sent me by the Department of Economics and the School of Public Administration for the appointment at professorial rank of a man to serve jointly in the Department and in the School. As you realize, the five votes taken by the group reveal a confused picture in which no clear preference is indicated. Nor have I been successful in clarifying the situation by requesting from each member of the group a letter addressed to me in which he explained fully his vote. Hence I believe it necessary to suggest a different procedure from that which has been followed.

One source of the difficulty, it occurs to me, is that the recommendation for the joint appointment has not been studied sufficiently in relation to the other vacancies which are to be filled within the next year or two. As you know, the Department has, in addition to the joint professorship, a vacancy in the rank of full professorship created by the resignation of Professor Crum, and one in the rank of associate professorship. It also has due it in 1950-51 a second vacancy as associate professor. Hence it appears that within a short span, the Department has four major appointments to make. It goes without saying that those appointments will influence in great measure the future of economics at Harvard for many years to come. The importance of making wise selections cannot be lost sight of.

It seems to me that we must consider all these appointments as a related problem. Consequently I shall take no action on the recommendation for the joint appointment until the Department has thought through its entire slate. No evidence has been given me yet which suggests that the Department has worked out a consistent plan or program into which all these appointments can be fitted and which meets, within the resources available, the demands which the Faculty as a whole may properly make upon the Department of Economics.

I have no desire to lecture the Department as to its obligations, but I do have certain responsibilities to discharge as Dean of the Faculty. Hence I venture to suggest that there are certain questions which may reasonably and properly be directed to the Department for an answer. Among those questions are the following:

  1. What is your concept of teaching and research within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?
  2. What fields will you cover, within the resources at your command, in carrying out the answer to the first question?
  3. Are you properly discharging your obligations to your sister departments of the Faculty and to the programs which the Faculty has legislated as common ventures?
  4. Do your specific recommendations harmonize with a general plan and program?

I understand fully that these are no easy questions to answer and that the difficulty of finding an answer is a prime factor in creating the present state of confusion. But I suspect that more preliminary efforts to answer the questions might have reduced the degree of confusion. Certainly so long as the basic issues are not clarified, the discussion of individuals to be appointed breaks down into fragmentary views.

I am also distressed by the fact that many of the professors in the Department have informed me that they do not consider themselves either willing or competent to serve as Chairman of the Department when your term expires in June. One conclusion which might be drawn from this situation is that the Department as now constituted needs some recruitment from men competent and willing to think of economics in general, and of the relation of economics to the faculty at large and to the world outside the university.

I must also report a sense of uneasiness among members of the Faculty in other Departments, that the Department of Economics is showing a tendency not to give due weight in the filling of its vacancies to common programs. If there is cause for this apprehension, I should be quite dismayed. At a time when the Faculty as a whole gives indication of the need in teaching and research for ever greater cooperation between disciplines of learning, it would be regrettable if the Department of Economics adhered to narrow and vertical procedures. To make the point quite specific, I might inquire what the Department of Economics plans to do in regard to Economic History and to the Area Program in Russian.

I also wonder whether in your immediate desire to fill the vacancies with men now available, you have given proper consideration to the range of younger men coming to maturity in your field. I have, for example, observed two young economists now in the Society of Fellows who seem to me to have ultimate promise of achievement greater than that of at least some of the men now available. There must be many other such men in the University and elsewhere. It would seen wise in any general approach to the problem to give assurance that proper consideration had been made in our appointment schedule for the generation of economists now coming to maturity.

These are some of the matters I have in mind, both general and particular, which incline me to the decision that we should follow an approach in handling these appointments different from the one followed to date. I fear that the approach followed so far is leading into an impasse from which the only escape will be the making of something less than the wisest appointments. Hence I suggest a change of procedure and ask first that the Department present me, in advance of any specific recommendation, with a statement which deals with the questions raised earlier in this letter. Recommendations may accompany this document, but they will not be accepted without it and unless they are shown to have meaning in relation to it.

Finally, the time has come, I believe, when I must personally associate myself with the development of this program. I am therefore arranging a dinner and evening meeting in the rooms of the Society of Fellows on January 21 at 6:30 p.m. to which I shall invite each member of the Executive Committee (all Professors and Associate Professors) of the Department. I shall preside at this meeting, and we shall begin then discussion of the issues outlined in this letter. Needless to say that because of the urgency of the matter, I shall expect a full attendance of the Executive Committee at the dinner.

I am sending a copy of this letter to each Professor and Associate Professor of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[Unsigned by Paul H. Buck]
Provost

Professor H. H. Burbank
Littauer Center

_____________________________

C O N F I D E N T I A L

REPORT ON LONG-RANGE PLANS
FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
(REVISED EDITION)

February 25, 1948
  1. The Task of the Committee

In his letter of December 22, 1947, to the Chairman of the Department of Economics [Professor Harold H. Burbank], the Provost [Professor Paul H. Buck] raised a series of questions concerning the long-run plans for the growth and development of the Department. Any future appointments clearly ought to be related to a comprehensive study of the needs and objectives of the Department.

The questions posed by the Provost were as follows:

    1. What is your concept of teaching and research within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?
    2. What fields will you cover, within the resources at your command, in carrying out the answer to the first question?
    3. Are you properly discharging your obligations to sister departments of the Faculty and to the programs which the Faculty has legislated as common ventures?
    4. Do your specific recommendations harmonize with a general plan and program?

Following an evening meeting on January 21, 1948, with the Executive Committee of the Department, the Provost appointed a committee of five to consider the above questions and to prepare a report on long-run plans for the Department. The Committee was also directed to recommend appointments for existing vacancies in the light of such a comprehensive survey of long-range problems. Four appointments are under consideration at this time: (1) a full professor replacement for Professor Crum, (2) a full professor to be appointed jointly in the Department and in the Littauer School of Public Administration, (3) an associate professor available July 1, 1948, and (4) an associate professor normally not available until July 1, 1951, but who might be appointed at an earlier date.

  1. The Prospective Situation in the Department

The growth of the Department in recent years is indicated in the following tabulation of the number of permanent positions and the number of undergraduate and graduate students for selected years since 1925.

Year

 Permanent Positions Undergraduate Concentrators

Graduate Students*

1925-26

10

 324

75

1930-31

14

 397

82

1935-36

13

 376

47

1940-41

 16 321

102

1947-48

 17 726

264

* Prior to 1940, graduate students with Corporation appointments were not required to register in the Graduate School. The graduate figures for 1940-41 and 1947-48 include Joint Degree and Littauer School candidates who take most of their work in Economics.
Radcliffe students are included in the figures only for 1947-48.

The Department of Economics may reasonably anticipate the retirement of one-half of its present permanent members by June 30, 1958. On the normal assumption that retirement takes place at age sixty-six, eight of the sixteen present permanent members may be expected to become emeritus during the next ten years. The members of the Department who are, and are not, expected to retire before 1958 are indicated in the following lists. (The dates of birth are given after each name.)

Expected Retirement by 1958

 Active Status Expected, Fall 1958
A.P. Usher January 13, 1883 E. Frickey

August 20, 1893

J.A. Schumpeter

 February 8, 1883 S.E. Harris September 8, 1897
J.D. Black June 6, 1883 O.H. Taylor

December 11, 1897

A.E. Monroe

 August 2, 1885 E.S. Mason February 22, 1899
J.H. Williams June 21, 1887 E.H. Chamberlin

May 18, 1899

H.H. Burbank

 July 3, 1887 G. Haberler July 20, 1900
A.H. Hansen August 23, 1887 W.W. Leontief

August 5, 1905

S.H. Slichter

 January 8, 1892 J.T. Dunlop

July 5, 1914

The Department can look forward, under the existing rules of the University, to a total of six new permanent appointments, including the four now under consideration during this ten-year period. The Department can also expect the appointment of an economist to the Lamont University Professorship upon the retirement of Professor Slichter. Accordingly, the Department can expect to retain a total of fifteen permanent appointments in the academic year 1958-59 in comparison with the seventeen permanent members during the current academic year (the above list plus Professor Crum). (The number of permanent members of the staff may at any given time be larger than retirement dates would indicate by reason of extension of normal term of service.)

These expected changes in the personnel of the Department over the next ten-year period indicate clearly the decisive nature of the appointments now under deliberation. Four of the six expected appointments are under study. The distinction and reputation of the Department for many years to come is at stake. It is imperative that every effort be made to appraise the needs and opportunities of the Department during the next decade and to canvass with insight all possible candidates.

  1. The Place of the Department in the Faculty

The first question posed by the Provost in his letter of December 22, 1947, was: “What is your concept of teaching and research within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?” The Committee makes the following points in a re-examination of the role of the Department.

(a) The Faculty of Arts and Sciences has embarked on programs of General Education and Area Studies [e.g., Russian Studies]. The Department of Economics has a substantial and distinctive contribution to make to each of these experiments: the development of a common core of a liberal education and the integration of different disciplines around the problems of a significant geographical area.

 (b) The past twenty years have witnessed an unprecedented expansion in the need for economists in a variety of positions outside the academic world — government service, business concerns, research organizations, labor and farm groups, consulting practice and economic reporting. The Department of Economics needs to develop a more flexible graduate program to meet this more diversified demand in cooperation with other Departments in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and with various Graduate Schools in the University. The recognition of these broader objectives will supplement rather than detract from the training of economists for academic posts.

(c) The balance between graduate and undergraduate instruction in Economics is always a delicate adjustment. Indeed, the Provost has recently indicated that the strength and prestige of Harvard College lies in the fact that we are truly a “University College.” The Committee has analyzed the relative proportion of the time of its permanent members devoted to graduate and undergraduate course instruction for selected years since 1925. The permanent staff of the Department gave more courses for undergraduates in 1947-48 than in 1925-26. The proportion of all course time devoted to undergraduate instruction, however, has been reduced in this same period from a half to little more than a third. In other words, the increased permanent manpower of the Department over this period (permanent positions increased from ten to seventeen) has been devoted largely to graduate instruction.

The following table compares the number of courses “taught” or “supervised” by permanent members of the Department for undergraduates with the offering of courses for graduate students for selected dates. Comparative figures are also presented for the History and Government Departments.

Courses of Instruction by Permanent Staff
Economics History

Government
Dates Undergrad. Grad. Undergrad. Grad. Undergrad. Grad.

1925-26

8 ½

 8 ½ 14 12 6 ½

8

1930-31

 9 11 ¾ 14 22 ¾ 5

9 ½

1935-36

 8 ¾ 12 15 ¼ 31 5 ¼

10 ¼
1940-41 9 ¾ 19 ½ 14 13 ½ 7 ¼

19 ¾

1947-48

 12 ½ 22 15 10 ½ 9

9

These figures would appear to indicate that graduate course instruction has expanded in Economics relatively to undergraduate course instruction and also relative to the experience of graduate instruction in other departments. It should be noted, however, that the large increase in graduate courses after 1935/36 was associated with the establishment of the Graduate School of Public Administration which affected both the Department of Economics and the Department of Government.

These data on course offering need to be interpreted in terms of graduate enrollment and undergraduate concentration. The following table presents this information. The figures indicate the incidence of the postwar expansion in University enrolment upon the burden of instruction in Economics and allied departments.

Undergraduate Concentrators and Graduate Students

Economics History Government
Dates Undergrad. Grad. Undergrad. Grad. Undergrad.

Grad.

1925-26

 324 75 190 — 113 45
1930-31 397 82 254 138 130

56

1935-36

 376 47 283 104 292 38
1940-41 321 102 272 146 314

76

1947-48

 726 264 321 207 763

129

The Committee believes that undergraduate instruction in Economics in the past two years has suffered materially by the suspension of the tutorial system. The assistant professor rank in which there is normally considerable contact with undergraduates has not been fully manned in recent years. The Committee believes that undergraduate instruction needs to receive more attention in the Department, not so much by more courses given by permanent members but by rebuilding a strong group of younger teachers in the assistant professor and annual instructor rank.

Assuming the number of the permanent staff at present contemplated to be fixed, the size of the graduate student body in Economics must be reduced from its present size of more than 260 if members of the Department are to fulfill their total obligations to the University and if a more diversified graduate student body is to receive adequate instruction and supervision. The Committee suggests a figure of 200 graduate students — twice the pre-war level — as a normal standard for the period under review. The rate of admission planned for the Fall term, 1948, will eventually yield a student body close to this figure. It is impossible at this time to foresee whether the numbers of qualified graduate students seeking economic instruction at Harvard will substantially exceed 200 after the special circumstances accounting for the present large numbers have been eliminated. If, as may well happen, the demand on the part of first-rate men and women for graduate instruction in economics exceeds the capacity of the staff as at present planned, it may indicate a need for revision of plans of instruction in economics.

(d) There is imperative need for more systematic development of research plans in Economics and for financial arrangements whereby permanent members may be relieved of all duties for periods of a term to pursue research on a full-time basis. Research grants should be used in part to secure substitute instruction. Several research projects which provide a practicable model for the expansion of research have recently been undertaken by members of the Department. Individual members of the Department should be encouraged to organize specific research projects and solicit support, in cooperation with the University administration. These projects should make provision for full-time leave for a term whenever possible. Such projects, moreover, may well become a training center for the most advanced students.

(e) The Department of Economics should expect a continuation of the distinguished tradition of participation by many of its members in wider forms of service to the community — government service, consultation to business and industry, private arbitration, private research organizations, etc. A danger exists, however, that these activities may consume too large a proportion of the time and energy of members of the staff. A devotion to productive scholarship should be an indispensable requirement of every appointee.

In making appointments the Department must be concerned to choose men with the energy and capacity for developing these outside interests and contacts. The Department has not only an obligation to the world of scholarship but also a unique responsibility for leadership at the many points where Economics has a contribution to make to the world of affairs.

  1. The Urgent Needs of the Department

The second question posed by the Provost in his letter of December 22, 1947, asked: “What fields will you cover, within the resources at your command, in carrying out the answer to the first question?” When the objectives for the Department outlined in the preceding section are considered in conjunction with the present personnel and the retirement pattern outlined in Section 2 above, the following needs of the Department appear to be the most urgent. (The listing of these requirements at this point does not imply any particular hierarchy of urgency.)

(a) Economic History. This field has been a required part of the graduate program in Economics for many years. Moreover, for over half a century instruction in this area has been located in the Economics Department. The retirement of Professor Usher requires that provision be made for this field in any comprehensive plan for the Department.

(b) Agriculture and Marketing. Professor Black has developed work in two fields: (1) The Economics of Agriculture and Land Use Planning, and (2) Marketing and Distribution. Ideally two men would be required to carry on this work.

(1) Agriculture. The Committee is of the opinion that work in the Economics of Agriculture and Land Use Planning is indispensable. Research and training in this field have constituted a major contribution of the Department. Moreover, the agricultural field is of particular concern in the School of Public Administration.

(2) Marketing. The Committee reluctantly concludes that, under present prospects and despite the importance of work in marketing and distribution, it is unlikely that one of the few appointments available can be allocated in this field. It may be that the field of Business Organization can be reorganized to permit the inclusion of some portion of the work in the present field of Marketing and Distribution.

(c) General Education and the Area Program. It is imperative that the Department take an active part in the formulation and development of these new programs. The availability of half-time appointments from the General Education and Area budgets would permit the Department of Economics to make two appointments (of half-time each) for one budget vacancy. That is, the appointment of two men, a half time of one in an Area and of the other in General Education, might fill one of the vacancies in the Economics Department.

(d) Business Organization. The resignation of Professor Crum and the administrative responsibilities of Professor Mason make an appointment in this area urgent. Moreover, the field constitutes one of the largest areas of undergraduate and graduate concentration.

(e) Public Policy. The systematic development of the field of the Economic Aspects of Public Policy is essential to the growth of the Graduate School of Public Administration. One of the appointments available at this time has been explicitly earmarked for this purpose.

(f) Public Finance. The retirement of Professor Burbank in the period indicates the necessity for providing for work in this area. The field is indispensable both to the Economics Department and the Graduate School of Public Administration.

(g) Statistics. The burden of instruction in the field of Statistics is heavier than one man should be asked to assume. In addition to undergraduate and graduate courses, this required field involves participation in virtually all general examinations. Ideally instruction should be provided in the field of national income and mathematical statistics. If an additional appointment is not devoted exclusively to this field, consideration should be given to the recruitment of men able to develop such statistical instruction as a part of their program.

(h) Department Chairman. The Department is required to give serious weight in making appointments to qualities which make for a successful Chairman. The Department is so large as to place very heavy administrative responsibilities on its Chairman. The Department should have in its ranks a number of persons qualified to perform the duties of Chairman so that the burden on one individual over the years is not unreasonable.

The Committee believes that the Department should examine its internal operations to determine whether an administrative reorganization might not facilitate the effectiveness of the work of the Department. A systematic survey could be made of such duties as: counselling graduate students, placement, recruitment of superior students, and the supervision of Economics A and the junior teaching staff. Careful study should be given to the possibility of delegating more responsibility to standing committees of the Department.

While the Committee has emphasized, and it believes properly, certain specific needs of the Department, the overriding need, which should take precedence in all appointments, is for able men. If a first-rate man cannot be found in a specific field, it is better either to neglect the field or to divert the attention of existing personnel to this field than to fill the vacancy with second-rate material.

The Committee believes that the answer to the Provost’s third question, “Are you properly discharging your obligations to sister departments of the Faculty and to the programs which the Faculty has legislated as common ventures?”, must, at present, be “no.” It considers, however, that the addition of the personnel suggested below will, together with some reallocation of the time of present officers, enable the Department to meet these obligations.

A consideration of the Provost’s fourth question, “Do your specific recommendations harmonize with a general plan and program?” leads directly to a discussion of the proposed appointments.

  1. Recommendations

(a) The Committee recommends that one appointment at the associate professorship level be utilized in the following manner: that Alexander Gerschenkron be invited on the understanding that the Department assume the responsibility for half his salary, the Russian area assuming responsibility for the other half; that John Sawyer, now a Junior Fellow, be appointed to an assistant professorship at the end of 1948-49, on the understanding that the responsibility for half his salary be assumed either by General Education or the Department of History.

Gerschenkron is one of the two best economists in the country now working on Russian problems, the other being Abram Bergson of Columbia University. Gerschenkron has the advantage of being an economic historian. Consequently, his appointment would enable the Department to take care not only of instruction and research in Russian economics but also to replace Professor Usher’s work in European economic history on his retirement.

Sawyer is an historian of an intellectual ability fully equal to that of our own Junior Fellows, Tobin and Kaysen. He has evinced an interest in cultivating the field of American economic history and also of working in General Education. Since Sawyer’s prospects in the History Department are extremely good, it would be necessary to assure him, on appointment as an assistant professor, that a clear road to advancement exists in the Department, if he shows the competence the Department expects of him.

These two appointments, which would fill one vacancy, would go far towards meeting the Department’s obligations toward the Russian area and toward General Education as well as taking care of economic history.

(b) The Committee feels that the vacancy left by the resignation of Professor Crum must be filled and that the best candidate available is Sidney Alexander, now an assistant professor. Although Alexander’s publication to date does not justify promotion, he has an impressive series of contributions due for publication during the next year which will make him an eminently qualified candidate for promotion by the end of the academic year 1948-49. The Committee therefore believes that one of the vacancies at the associate professorship level should be reserved for the advancement of Professor Alexander.

(c) In many ways the most serious and difficult problem confronting the Committee concerns the replacement of the work now carried on by Professor Black. The research and training program in agricultural economics and land use is an asset of great worth both to the Department of Economics and to the Graduate School of Public Administration.

The Committee understands that before the date set for Professor Black’s retirement the Administration will request him to continue his services to the University for a number of years. It therefore believes that some four to five years are available in which to select a man fully capable of carrying on Professor Black’s work. The Committee believes that there are a number of able young men in the field of agricultural economics who might be secured at the assistant professorship level. The Committee therefore recommends that one or more of these candidates be brought to Harvard and that the next two or three years be utilized to survey the field, including such men as are brought here at lower than permanent rank, to assure the selection of the best possible man.

(d) If one position is filled by Gerschenkron and Sawyer, and another is reserved for Alexander, there remain two positions at the professorial level. These positions might be treated in any one of the following ways:

(1) Both positions could be filled at once;

(2) One position could be filled now and the other held vacant for Professor Black’s successor;

(3)  One position could be filled, the other held vacant pending the appearance of a suitable candidate not necessarily in the field of agricultural economics. In this case it must be assumed that the vacancy caused by Professor Black’s retirement would be filled from the appointment accruing to the Department in 1954, which appointment might be advanced in time. It should also be recognized that this appointment might have to be at the professorial level which would involve a departure from present University policy.

In considering the possibility of filling both vacancies now, the Committee was heavily influenced by the desirability of maintaining balance in the Department not only as among various fields of interest but as among types of mind and of methodological approaches to economic problems. In this connection the Committee considered carefully the qualifications of both Smithies and Samuelson. While of the opinion that each of these men might individually be considered intellectually superior to the rest of the field, the Committee feels strongly that the addition of both would give a particular stamp to the Department that should, if possible, be avoided. Both of these men are, in a sense, system builders, concerned with the logical and mathematical interrelations of the elements of their systems. Neither has done much empirical work. Smithies has shown recently a concern for, and an interest in, institutional developments and public policy. Moreover, he has had extensive experience in government service. The Committee believes that while each of these men is pre-eminent in his type of work the two together do not make a satisfactory combination.

The problem then narrows down to the question of Samuelson or Smithies and someone else. The Committee considers that the interests and type of mind represented either by Richard Bissel or Colin Clark would effectively supplement the Smithies-Samuelson characteristics. No effective way of communicating with Clark suggested itself to the Committee, and there is certain evidence to support the view that he would not be available. It appears that Bissel may not be available at this time. If his views change in the near future, the Committee considers him its first choice.

Of other possibilities the Committee discussed at length the qualifications of Galbraith, Yntema, David Wright, Albert Hart, Donald Wallace, and others. For various reasons, too lengthy here to enumerate, none of these candidates seemed first-rate possibilities.

The Committee therefore recommends that one of the professorial positions be held vacant for the time being pending the appearance of a satisfactory candidate. As to the relative merits of Smithies and Samuelson, the Committee, after deliberating at length, favors Smithies. While recognizing that Samuelson has in his field of activity a better record than anyone near his age in any field, the Committee was heavily influenced by the probability that Smithies’ contribution to the needs of the Department would be substantially greater. He appears to be an ideal man to develop the work in the School of Public Administration on Economic Analysis and Public Policy; he appears to be an eminently satisfactory man to take over the work in Public Finance on Professor Burbank’s retirement; he is clearly a man who would make an able Departmental Chairman. In addition he is competent to develop work in advanced statistics should the Department consider this desirable. For these reasons, and others, the Committee recommends the appointment of Smithies.

Paul H. Buck, Chairman
John T. Dunlop
Wassily Leontief
Edward S. Mason
John H. Williams

Source: Duke University, Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers. Box 17, Folder “Economics Department Faculty, 1944-47.”

Image Source:  Harvard Seal detail from the cover of the Harvard Law School Yearbook 1949.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Socialism

Harvard. Socialism, Communism, etc. Course Description and Final Exam. Carver, 1908-1909

“Plans of social amelioration” were considered important enough to include in the economics curriculum at Harvard from early on. In the hands of the conservative professor Thomas Nixon Carver the doctrines of socialism, communism, and Georgeism were introduced to Harvard students in order for them to see the errors of critics of free-enterprise market economies, a.k.a. capitalism.

__________________________

Previously posted

Pre-Carver:
Carver’s courses

Post-Carver:

________________________

Course Enrollment
1908-09

Economics 14b 2hf. Professor Carver. — Methods of Social Reform. Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax, etc.

Total 44: 7 Graduates, 12 Seniors, 14 Juniors, 7 Sophomore, 1 Freshman, 3 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1908-1909, p. 67.

________________________

Course Announcement
1908-09

Economics 14b 2hf. Methods of Social Reform. — Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax. Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., at 1.30. Professor Carver.

A study of those plans of social amelioration which involve either a reorganization of society, or a considerable extension of the functions of the state. The course begins with a critical examination of the theories of the leading socialistic writers, with & view to getting & clear understanding of the reasoning which lies back of socialistic movements, and of the economic conditions which tend to make this reasoning acceptable. A similar study will be made of the Single Tax Movement, of State Socialism and the public ownership of monopolistic enterprises, and of Christian Socialism, so called.
This course is open only to those who have passed satisfactorily in Course 14a. [The Distribution of Wealth]

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. V, No. 19
(1 June 1908). History and Political Science Comprising the Departments of History and Government, and Economics, 1908-09, pp. 49-50.

________________________

ECONOMICS 14b
Year-end Examination, 1908-09

  1. How would you distinguish Socialism from Communism, from Anarchism, and from the single tax?
  2. Upon what grounds do the Marxian Socialists base their belief that Socialism is inevitable?
  3. Compare the socialistic theory of commercial crises with that of Henry George.
  4. Compare the views of Karl Marx and of Henry George upon the source of interest, or the income of the capitalist.
  5. Discuss the question: Is interest earned?
  6. Discuss the question: Is rent earned?
  7. Which of the communistic experiments in the United States seems to you most interesting? Why?
  8. Outline, briefly, Tolstoi’s theory of “passive resistance.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 8, Bound vol. Examination Papers 1908-09; Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics,…,Music in Harvard College (June, 1909), p. 45.

Image Source: Andy Piascik, “Remembering the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike,” September 8, 2018. From The Africanist Press website.