Author: Irwin Collier

Categories
Agricultural Economics Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Exam for Economics of Agriculture. Carver, 1908-1909

 

In 1911 Harvard economics professor Thomas Nixon Carver published a textbook Principles of Rural Economics  that undoubtedly encompassed the content of his course on agricutural economics first taught in 1903-04. Carver’s book is prefaced with an eight page bibliography.

The eight question final exam for this semester course from 1908-09 is found below.

________________________

Earlier material

ca. 1904 Problem set
1903-04 Final exam
1905-06 Final exam

________________________

Course Enrollment
1908-09

Economics 23 2hf. Professor Carver. — Economics of Agriculture, with special reference to American conditions.

Total 25: 2 Graduates, 10 Seniors, 7 Juniors, 4 Sophomores, 2 Others.

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

________________________

Course Description
1908-09

[Economics]23 2hf. Economics of Agriculture, with special reference to American conditions. Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., at 2.30. Professor Carver.

A study of the relation of agriculture to the whole industrial system, the relative importance of rural and urban economics, the conditions of rural life in different parts of the United States, the forms of land tenure and methods of rent payment, the comparative merits of large and small holdings, the status and wages of farm labor, the influence of farm machinery, farmers’ organizations, the marketing and distribution of farm products, agricultural credit, the policy of the government toward agriculture, and the probable future of American agriculture.

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. 56.

________________________

ECONOMICS 23
Year-end Examination, 1908-09

  1. Into what periods would you divide the agricultural history of the United States, and what are the leading characteristics of each period?
  2. What are the chief reasons for the fact that the urban population of the United States is growing more rapidly than the rural population?
  3. Does the law of diminishing returns as applied to agriculture give rise to national problems different from those to which it gives rise in manufacturing? Explain.
  4. Discuss the question: Is further immigration desirable in the interests of American agriculture? State clearly the point of view from which you approach the question.
  5. What agricultural improvements do you associate with the following names: Townsend, Bakewell, Robert Colling, Benjamin Tompkins, Jethro Wood.
  6. What are the chief difficulties in the way of the organization of farmers and farming interests?
  7. What, in your opinion, are the most important things now being done for agriculture by the Federal Government of the United States?
  8. State briefly the chief advantages of large-scale farming; also of small-scale farming.

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. 51.

Image Source: “Picking cranberries.” Card. [ca. 1850–2001]. Digital Commonwealth, https://ark.digitalcommonwealth.org/ark:/50959/fx71c322q  (accessed June 02, 2025).

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Theory

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. April 1962

These posts are unlikely to threaten the popularity of Wordle, but letting graduate prelim exams in economics of yore test one’s wits or perhaps amuse by their presumption is possibly a better use of time for anyone from wannabe economist to crusty old emerita/us in the field.

So with little ado, Economics in the Rear-view Mirror adds Harvard’s April 1962 graduate exam in economic theory to its collection of artifacts. 

_____________________________

Other Harvard Written Exams
in Economic Theory

April 11, 1961
November 13, 1962
April 8, 1963

_____________________________

PLEASE HAND IN THE EXAMINATION TEXT WITH YOUR BLUEBOOK
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
WRITE LEGIBLY

Written Examination
in Economic Theory
April 10, 1962

All students must answer Part I; choose four questions from Part II.

Part I (one hour)

State whether each of FOUR of the following statements is true or false, justifying your answer in each case:

  1. The principle that a firm is maximizing its profits when marginal cost equals marginal revenue does not apply to oligopolistic firms.
  2. If a firm’s average cost curve in always decreasing, that firm will lose money if it sets its price equal to its marginal cost.
  3. If the price of a commodity rises, the demand for that commodity may rise too and the quantity offered for sale may fall.
  4. If production of the purely competitive firm is subject to constant returns to scale, a firm will not be minimizing cost unless it is producing in the range where every factor is subject to non-increasing returns.
  5. If a monopolist sells in two separated markets with different demand curves, in order to maximize his profits he must charge a lower price in the market where the elasticity of demand is lower in absolute value.

Part II (three hours)

  1. Keynes stated that from a policy viewpoint everything that can be done by money wage cuts can be done more effectively through monetary policy.
    1. Is this statement compatible with the theoretical framework of the General Theory?
    2. If a Haberler-Pigou-Patinkin real balances effect was of significant quantitative importance, would this change your conclusions about the two policies?
  2. Discuss the relative merits of financing a new superhighway by tolls or by gasoline taxes.
  3. “The theory of the competitive market system’s pricing of all products, allocation of resources, and distribution of income through payments for the factors of production, seemed to many nineteenth-century economists the main part of all economic theory, because it seemed to best demonstrate the desirability of the liberal, competitive regime.”
    Discuss the implications and validity of the statement, and support your points by considering as cases any two (your own choices) of the “many” theorists presumably referred to.
  4. Using a two commodity model, show that, with independence of utilities and an assumption of diminishing marginal utility for each good, there can be no “inferior” good.
  5. In different contexts the Stockholm school, exemplified by Ohlin, and post-war economists like Harrod have proposed theories of the dynamic instability of economies. Sketch these two types of theory with particular emphasis on the differences between them.
  6. Would there be time preference or waiting in a static state? A “marginal productivity” of capital? Liquidity preference? Interest? Discuss the issues in each case. Be sure your own answers are consistent with each other.
  7. The possibility of “excess capacity” under monopolistic competition has been vigorously defended and categorically denied. State and defend your own views, with some discussion of both sides of the question.

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

Source: Harvard University. From the cover of the Class Album 1946.

Categories
Chicago Economists M.I.T.

Chicago. Caricature of Stanley Fischer by Roger Vaughan, 1973

Yesterday (May 31, 2025) I learned that another of my professors, Stanley Fischer, passed away. Many cohorts of the graduate program in economics at M.I.T. learned their macroeconomics as well as advanced monetary theory from him. My personal debt to Stan is that I finally “got” an understanding and intuition of macroeconomics from his courses. He was a phenomenal lecturer and we can all look forward to the coming testimonies from the legions of thesis advisees. With this post the fine line drawing of the young Stanley Fischer seen above enters the internet record for the first time.

The 1973 caricature of Stanley Fischer was drawn by the University of Chicago graduate student in economics Roger Vaughan and published in his series Great Moments in Economics. Roger Vaughan’s monumental work “The School of Chicago” can be viewed in an earlier post. Biographical information about the artist can be found at that link as well.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches. Box 129, Folder “Posters, ca 1960s-1970s”.

 

Categories
Economists Pennsylvania Teaching

Pennsylvania. Sketch of origins of economics instruction. Plummer, 1925

Henry Vethake, ca. 1855

This 1925 memo was written in response to an inquiry by Edwin R. A. Seligman regarding the historical chronology of economics instruction at the University of Pennsylvania. It wandered into Joseph Dorfman’s papers where one finds a subset of Seligman’s papers. 

_________________________

Sampler of University of Pennsylvania
Documents

Circular of Information relating to the Wharton School of Finance and Economy, 1893

Circular of Information relating to the Wharton School of Finance and Economy, 1894-95

Catalogue of the University of Pennsylvania at HathiTrust
(Full-views 1848/49 through 1928/29).

Emory Richard Johnson, The Wharton School: Its First Fifty Years, 1881-1931.

Chapter 8  of Edgar Potts Cheyney’s History of the University of Pennsylvania 1740-1940

_________________________

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA

Wharton School of
Finance and Commerce

October 29th, 1925.

Professor Edwin R. Seligman
Columbia University
New York, N. Y.

My dear Professor Seligman:

About two weeks ago you wrote to Professor [Emory Richard] Johnson asking about the early teaching of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania and I informed you that I would look into the matter and let you have anything I could. Dr. W. C. [Wilbur Clayton] Plummer, an instructor in Economics, who has considerable ability as an historian, looked into the situation for me. Just how much of what he has prepared will be of use to you I am not sure, but I am enclosing you the copy of his material exactly in the form in which he submitted it to me.

If I can be of further help, will you kindly let me know!

With personal regards.
Very cordially,
[signed] Ernest M. Patterson

EMP/MH

THE EARLY TEACHING OF ECONOMICS
AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

The catalogues of the University of Pennsylvania beginning with the one for the year 1824 are preserved in the office of the Secretary of the University, and the descriptions of courses in these catalogues clearly indicate that the subject of Economics was not taught between the years 1824 and 1855. However, beginning with the scholastic year, 1855-56, lectures on the subject of Political Economy were given by Dr. Henry Vethake, Provost of the University and Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy. In addition to the lectures on Political Economy, Dr. Vethake gave Instruction in “Intellectual Philosophy, Ethics, the Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion, Logic, the Elements of Natural, International and Constitutional Law, and History in connection with Chronology and Political Geography. (1)

(1) University Catalogue, 1855-56, page 13.

All students in the Senior Class of the Department of Arts were required to attend the lectures on Political Economy and to take examinations in the subject. The public was admitted to these lectures upon presentation of tickets which were procured from the Professor in charge of the course. (2)

(2) Pamphlet, Report of the Committee appointed on the 2nd of January, 1855, proposing certain additions and alterations in the existing Laws for the Government of the Collegiate Department, page 3.

Former Provost Edgar Fahs Smith believes that none of the catalogues prior to 1824 is extant. In the absence of this reliable source, we cannot speak definitely of the period prior to 1824, except to say that if the subject of Political Economy or National Economy had ever been introduced into the curriculum during the period prior to 1824 it was also dropped from the curriculum during this same early period.

In 1749, Benjamin Franklin, in his proposals for a “compleat education of youth,” published when he was organizing the Academy which later developed into the University, proposed a course which resembles very much a modern course in Economic History. He thought that information on the History of Commerce, on the Invention of Arts, on the Rise of Manufactures, on the Progress of Trade, and the Change of Its Seats, with the Reasons, Causes, etc., should be given. (3) It may be said that he was proposing the teaching of History and not Economics but we believe it proper to mention this suggestion of the illustrious founder for it certainly refers to a great deal of subject matter which was later to be treated in Political Economy and the present Economics.

(3) Montgomery, T. H., a History of the University of Pennsylvania from Its Foundation to 1770, page 500.

An advertisement in the Pennsylvania Gazette of December 11, 1750 [sic, not found in that issue, but see below], shows that the course of study included “Merchants’ Accounts.” We also mention this fact at the risk of introducing irrelevant material into this paper. However, used in its broadest sense, the Economics of the present time includes Accounting, and we felt justified in making reference to the course in “Merchants’ Accounts,” given in the University in 1750.

The Pennsylvania Gazette (Friday, 18 December 1750), p. 3.

As stated above, the first course in Political Economy, as far as we have been able to determine, was given during the year 1855-56 by the Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy. In 1868 the course was given by the Professor of English. In 1869, no course in Political Economy was given, but a course in Social Science was substituted for the course in Political Economy. The new course in Social Science undoubtedly included Political Economy as Carey was used as a text [see below]. In 1875, the course was changed again and given under the title “Social Science and National Economy.” The teacher at this time was Rev. Robert Ellis Thompson, who was appointed Assistant Professor of Social Science in 1874. The course was given in the Towne Scientific School as well as in the Department of Arts.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Carey, Henry Charles.
Principles of Political Economy.

Part the First: of the Laws of the Production and Distribution of Wealth. Philadelphia:1837.

Part the Second: of the Causes which Retard Increase in the Production of Wealth, and Improvement in the Physical and Moral Condition of Man. Philadelphia: 1837.

Part the Third and Part the Fourth: Of the Causes which Retard Increase in the Numbers of Mankind; Of the causes which Retard Improvement in the Political Condition of Man. Philadelphia: 1840.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The year 1881 was an outstanding year in the history of the University as far as the teaching of Economics is concerned. In that year the Wharton School of Finance and Economy, as it was then called, was founded. There was no Department of Political Economy but the course of study given under the Department of Social Science indicates the great emphasis placed upon the teaching of Economics in all its phases.

In the Senior year, the Economic studies were carried still further and the course of study included:

Lectures on Living Issues (Land, Labor, Monetary Questions in their popular aspects, Socialism and Communism, Free Trade and Protection, Charity Organization, Popular and Industrial Education);
Mulford’s Nation was studied, and
Original Research in the Theory and History of Economical Questions was made under direction of the Professor. (4)

(4) University Catalogue, 1881-82.

In the same year that the Wharton School was founded the University catalogue announced that “the University possesses what is believed to be the largest and most complete library of works on economic science that is to be found in any educational institution of the world. The foundation was laid by the great collection of the late Stephen Colwell, comprising between seven and eight thousand volumes, and including nearly every important book in this science in the English, French and Italian languages, besides many in German. This has been supplemented (1) by the gift from Mr. McCalmont of London, of a collection of some three thousand English pamphlets, covering the period from the close of the seventeenth century till our own time, and bound in chronological order; (2) by the bequest of the library of the late Henry C. Carey, including many works and pamphlets which appeared since Mr. Colwell’s death, and especially rich in statistical literature, European Governmental reports, and the like.” (5)

(5) University Catalogue, 1881-82, page 39.

The first Professorship of Political Economy in the University was established in 1888 and was held by Simon Nelson Patten. (6) Previous to the establishing of this professorship and the appointment of Professor Patten, Edmund Janes James, who had been appointed Professor of Finance and Administration in 1883 was one of the principal teachers of the various Economic subjects.

(6) Catalogue of Matriculates of the College, 1749-1893, prepared by a Committee of the Society of the Alumni, page XXIV.

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection. Box 52 (Seligman, E.R.A.), Folder “E.R.A. Seligman, Correspondence”.

Image Source: University of Pennsylvania, PennLibraries. University Archives & Records Center website. “Henry Vethake, 1790-1866”.

Categories
Columbia Regulations Teaching

Columbia. List of suggestions for improving graduate education in economics. 1939

This post provides a 1939 students’ eye view of the graduate program in economics at the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science. Milton Friedman’s course on neo-classical economic theory gets very favorable mention and statistical methods are completely overlooked (the German proverb “The farmer only eats what the farmer knows“ probably captures the sentiment).

________________________

All four students became professors

WYLLIS BANDLER: b. July 3, 1916 in White Plains, N.Y.; d. December 22, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida.
B.A. (1937), M.A.(1938) in economics from Columbia. Ph.D. (1962) in mathematics from the University of Zurich. Professor of Computer Science at Florida State University, 1984-1995.

DICKSON RECK: b. April 13, 1904 in Rockford, Illinois; d. April 10, 1955 in Berkeley, California.
B.A. (1927) University of Illinois, Ph.D. (1951) in economics from Columbia University. Associate Professor of Business Administration, University of California (Berkeley), 1954-55.

VAN DUSEN KENNEDY: b. October 4 in Darjeeling, India; d. May 28 2015 in Santa Cruz, California.
B.A. (1935) Swarthmore College. Ph.D. (1945) in economics from Columbia University. Assistant Professor to Professor of industrial relations at the University of California (Berkeley), 1947-1977.

FRANK COOK PIERSON: b. November 4, 1911 in Denver, Colorado; d. November 30, 1995 in Haverford Township, Pennsylvania.
B.A. (1934) Swarthmore College. Ph.D. (1942) in economics from Columbia University. On the Swarthmore College faculty from 1940 to 1979.

________________________

Cover letter to Dean McCrea
from the students

Columbia University
May 9, 1939

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

Dear Dean [Roswell Cheney] McCrea:

As we agreed at luncheon with you and Professor [Frederick Cecil] 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 BANDLER
DICKSON RECK
VAN 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 courses, 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 [Wesley Clair] Mitchell in his former course, and in the extremely useful Lecture Notes made from it.

Student feeling la 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. [Joseph] Dorfman. There is some feeling that the materiel might be expanded to cover modern Institutionalists and their work and problems more intensively.

3) Economic History. Dr. [Louis Morton] Hacker’s treatment of American Economic History is very popular, as is Professor  [Arthur Robert] Burns’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 [Archibald Herbert] 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 [Leo] 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 day 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 ([James Waterhouse] Angell, [James Cummings] Bonbright, [Arthur David] Gayer, [John Ewing] Orchard, [Arthur Whittier] Macmahon, [Robert Staughton] 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 [Adolf Augustus, Jr.] Berle, [Mordecai] Ezekiel, [Lauchlin] Currie, [Rexford Guy] Tugwell, [Lewis?] Mumford, [Schuyler Crawford?] Wallace, etc. etc.

Experience with the more importation of outside lecturers, as is an instance in the Public Law Department, seems to show that a course so built lacks continuity and depth in grappling with such problems 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 [sic, “intra-university” is almost certainly meant here] 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 [Carter] 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 economic status. See also under (7) above and “Catalogue” below.

9) Method and Techniques of Research. This includes a thousand little troublesome maters 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 do we prepare a bibliography? And many others.

The suggestions here fell 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 seen 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 le felt that side 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 [Footnote: One of the questions on this year’s questionnaire will be directed to this problem.] 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.

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 [Paul Frederick] Brissenden, [Archibald Herbert] Stockder, perhaps Morgen, 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 Libraries Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 1, Folder “Committee on Instruction”.

Image Source: Alma Mater, Columbia University. Columbia College Today, Winter 2017-18.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Microeconomics

Chicago. Preliminary Graduate Examination in Economic Theory. Winter Quarter, 1961

Detail of Friedman and Stigler in Vaughan's "The School of Chicago 1972"

Two things perhaps worth noting for this post. (1) The winter 1961 examination is for Economic Theory. The title of the prelim exam only morphs to Price Theory in the 1962-63 academic year, coinciding with the publication of Milton Friedman’s text “Price Theory: A Provisional Text”; (2) this exam has one, and only one, equation:

q = 100 – p.

Sputnik was lauched less than four years before these questions were written. While economic theory had not yet attained the status of “rocket-science” in 1961, let’s not fool ourselves, this is an exam designed to make or break character!

____________________

Chicago Price Theory
Preliminary/Core Exams
Previously Posted

Summer 1949
Summer 1951
Summer 1952
Winter 1955
Summer 1955
Winter 1957
Winter 1958
Summer 1960
Winter 1963
Winter 1964
Winter 1965
Winter 1969
Summer 1975

____________________

CORE EXAMINATION
ECONOMIC THEORY
Winter 1961

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. (1 hour) Answer each question “true” or “false” and explain your answer very briefly.
    1. It is a tautology that the average costs of all firms are equal in equilibrium in a competitive industry.
    2. A cartel which allows its members to buy and sell output quotas will have a larger net profit for all firms combined than one which does not.
    3. Since all firms in a competitive industry have the same marginal costs, it is meaningless to speak of more and less efficient firms.
    4. A fall in the price of houses will increase the sales of doorbells; a fall in the price of doorbells will not increase the sales of houses; therefore Slutsky’s equation is wrong.
    5. The average size of farm has risen in recent decades in the United States and Canada. This shows that the farm enterprise is typically subject to increasing returns to scale.
    6. A specialized machine has a life of 5 years. Total returns to it in periods of less than 5 years are quasi-rents.
    7. Assume that the world demand elasticity for tin is -2, and that Bolivia produces 1/3 of the world’s tin. Therefore, the elasticity of demand for Bolivia tin is at most -6. 0.
    8. If factors of production are used in absolutely fixed proportion in the production of a particular product, the demand for each of the factors by the producers of the product will be completely inelastic with respect to price.
    9. A supply curve is a curve displaying the quantities which will be supplied at all possible prices. It follows that there is no supply curve under monopoly.
    10. If a firm is operating in the region of falling marginal costs, it must be making losses because marginal cost is then less than average cost.
  1. (40 minutes)
    1. The long run demand function for a commodity is
      q = 100 – p. The price has been $30 for several years; it now drops to $20. Half the consumers react to the new price immediately; the other half (due to habit, etc.) do not adapt until a year later. Calculate the elasticity of demand at a price of $20 (1) the first year, and (2) the second year after the price reduction.
    2. A consumer assures you that his indifference curves intersect each other. You have an unlimited number of observations on his purchases at various incomes and prices. What tests can you make of the alleged intersections?

III. (40 minutes)

    1. It has often been suggested that the demand for a durable good could be increased if “something were done about the large number of used items on the market” The practical suggestions usually are (1) a government regulation forbidding the use of items older than some specified age, e.g. declaring all pre-1950 cars as “unsafe” and withholding license plates from them or (2) “the manufacturers should buy up the used items and destroy them or export them at a loss. [sic, closing quotation marks missing in original] Discuss the consequences of these two types of policies on (a) the demand for new durable equipment and (b) the profitability to the industry of the two policies.

IV. (40 minutes)

    1. “The first impact of this policy (tight money) is the higher interest rate. Plainly the impact of this will be very different on a firm that has control over its prices and hence can pass along this higher cost as compared with the firm whose prices are given and which, accordingly, must bear the cost itself. The point need not be labored.
      “The U.S. Steel Corporation justified its price increase of 2 weeks ago by the contention that its cost had risen. In doing so it not only conceded its ability to pass higher costs, including higher interest charges, to the consumer but based its policy on the need to do so. But no such opportunity is open to the farmer or to the smaller businessman. They cannot raise their prices, for they are market-determined. They shoulder themselves the costs of this policy.”
      Analyze and evaluate this statement. Disregard the peculiar problems of monetary policy. Treat it as a question about the differential impact of a change in any factor price on a competitive firm or industry as against the impact on a monopolistic firm. Does a change in factor cost “hurt” less in one case than in the other? What do you understand by “passing the cost on to the consumer” and how does the distinction between a monopoly and a competitive industry affect this? Assume the same cost curves and the same shifts in both cases.

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

Image Source: Roger Vaughan’s classic drawing “The School of Chicago 1972”.

Categories
Columbia Exam Questions Germany

Columbia. German language exam to satisfy the economics foreign language requirement. Kullmer, 1966

An economics graduate student hoping to pass the German language exam at Columbia in 1966 was required to translate the following one page selected from an article published in German in 1965. Or perhaps the student was expected to read the article and then answer questions posed by the examiner to test the reading comprehension?

Lore Kullmer (née Poschmann, b. 1919; d. 2011) translated Richard Musgrave’s The Theory of Public Finance into German. Shortly thereafter (1967) she was called to an economics professorship at the University of Regensburg.

Columbia. Allowing math to substitute for second foreign language, 1950

___________________________

GERMAN LANGUAGE EXAM
February 1966

DIE PRAKTISCHE BEDEUTUNG DER
STEUERPROGRESSION FÜR DIE GRÖSSE DER
AUFKOMMENSELASTIZITÄT EINER STEUER

Bemerkungen zu Ausführungen R. A. Musgraves
in seiner „Theory of Public Finance“
von
LORE KULLMER*

Kompensatorische Effekte zur Beseitigung von Störungen des wirtschaftlichen Gleichgewichts im privaten Sektor lassen sich u.a. durch die Anwendung des finanzpolitischen Instrumentariums, d.h. konkret durch Änderung des Steuer- und Ausgabenparameter, erzielen. Allerdings erfordert der Zeitbedarf einer mittels diskretionärer Maßnahmen durchgeführten Stabilisierungspolitik ein genügend langsames Fortschreiten der autonomen Änderungen der zu beeinflussenden Faktoren, wenn die Maßnahmen im gewünschten Sinne wirken sollen. Es sind Situationen denkbar in denen eine wirksame Stabilisierungspolitik mit diskretionären Maßnahmen nicht möglich erscheint und jeder Versuch dazu die Abweichungen von Gleichgewichtseinkommen nur ungenügend verringert oder u.U. sogar verstärkt. Hinzu kommt, dass in bestimmten Fällen die Variation finanzpolitischer Maßnahmen überhaupt nicht (oder nicht im notwendigen Umfang) vorgenommen werden kann und/oder sich aus politisch/psychologischen Gründen die häufige Änderung von Steuer- und Ausgabenparametern verbietet.

Die Erkenntnis dieser Zusammenhänge hat die bei entsprechender Ausgestaltung der Instrumente des Finanzsystems in gewissen Umfang vorhandene automatische und unverzüglich wirkende Reagibilität auf Schwankungen des Volkseinkommens im Sinne einer Milderung dieser Schwankungen in den Mittelpunkt des Interesses gerückt und den Ausbau dieses Instrumentariums attraktiv erscheinen lassen.

Der Umfang dieser als built-in flexibility der Budgetgrößen bezeichneten Reagibilität (d.h. die Größe der Anpassung des Aufkommens bestimmter Steuern und der Adaptierung bestimmter Ausgabenverpflichtungen der öffentlichen Hand) kann — von statistischen Daten ausgehend — als Verhältnis der Schwankungen des Finanzsystems zu den Schwankungen des Volkseinkommens gemessen werden.

[Original Source: Public Finance Vol. 20(1965), 1/2, pp. 137-149]

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

Categories
Exam Questions Money and Banking UCLA

UCLA. PhD Qualifying Exam, Money. May 1974

This post adds a third Ph.D. qualifying exam for the field of monetary economics at UCLA found in the papers of Robert W. Clower at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University. 

In other news, the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary was between its first (May 9) and second (July 24) days of hearings regarding the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

_____________________________

UCLA Qualifying Exams, Money
Previously posted

May 1971
May 1973

_____________________________

Spring Quarter 1974
May 24, 1974

Ph.D. Qualifying Examination
MONEY

Four Hours

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer all of the following eight 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. State whether each of the following statements Is true, false, or uncertain and then briefly explain your answer. Your grade depends entirely upon your explanation.
    1. In countries which undergo frequent, large changes in the rate of monetary growth, changes in the rate of monetary growth have little impact on real income compared to the effect those changes would have had had monetary growth been more stable.
    2. No great error is introduced into the analysis of aggregate demand by assuming that the real income elasticity of the demand for money is unity for short-term fluctuations.
    3. Lags in the adjustment of the rate of inflation to changes in the rate of growth of the money supply imply a cyclical adjustment of the rate of inflation.
    4. If governments do not intervene, floating exchange rates imply a zero balance of payments deficit on the liquidity basis.
    5. A lag in adjustment of the rate at which banks pay interest on demand deposits implies a larger short-run than long-run effect on aggregate demand from equal changes in government spending and borrowing.
    6. If all wage contracts had escalator clauses (i.e., were tied to the price level), inflation would be self-perpetuating.
  2. According to a well-known principles textbook: “The general price level usually rises when GNP is high relative to the physical productive capacity of the economy; similarly, prices generally decline when GNP is low relative to capacity, as during the 1930’s.” In fact, wholesale prices in the U.S. declined almost 50% between 1869 and 1890 although output was generally high relative to capacity during most of this period; and wholesale prices rose nearly 50% between 1932 and 1938 although unemployment during these years ranged between 17% and 25% of the labor force.
    Suppose a diligent student in a class you are teaching confronts you with the quotation and the facts above, How would you answer?
  3. An economist recently wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal complaining that much discussion of how to control Inflation has been based on a neo-quantity theory which emphasizes the “quantity of money” while ignoring the “quality of credit.” Central banks (he noted) have been established to regulate commercial bank assets, but current discussion and policy concentrates on the liability side of the commercial bank balance sheet and entirely ignores the asset side. He maintained that if, for example, commercial banks were forced to limit their lending activity to short-term, self-liquidating business loans, inflation would quickly be controlled. What do you think of this argument? Explain in detail.
  4. “Only real magnitudes appear as arguments in individual utility functions; accordingly, the rate of inflation of money prices (a strictly nominal phenomenon) is of no welfare significance for individuals or for society at large.” Discuss critically.
  5. A recent Wall Street Journal article noted the rapid rise both in the level of short-term interest rates and in the rate of growth of money that has occurred over the past few months. The reporter explained this phenomenon by asserting that individuals in the money market took the increase in the rate of growth of money as an indication that the Fed would later have to tighten up and therefore bid up interest rates in anticipation of this. Carefully evaluate this explanation and, if you disagree with it, present an alternative explanation.
  1. The recent rise in short-term interest rates has led to much talk about financial disintermediation.
    1. Describe this process of “disintermediation.”
    2. What is the effect of “disintermediation” on the rate of growth of money?
    3. What are the socially harmful effects of such “disintermediation?”
    4. What changes in financial institutional arrangements would you suggest to prevent such “disintermediation” from occurring?
  2. The Panamanian monetary unity is the same as that of the United States, and the circulating medium consists of U.S. coins and paper dollars. The Panamanian government cannot issue currency (it does mint coins, but this can be neglected from this problem), nor does Panama have a central bank. What monetary and fiscal tools would be available to the Panamanian Minister of Economics? What contracyclical policies are possible under what conditions?
  3. There has been much discussion recently of the effects of international conditions on domestic inflation. Discuss the effects of each of the following foreign factors on the U.S. inflation rate, making explicit any assumptions you are using in your analysis.
    1. a world-wide boom
    2. a Russian wheat failure
    3. an Arab oil boycott

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

Image Source: UCLA Daily Bruin at archive.org.

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. Annual report on the department of economics. Dunlop, 1961-1962

John T. Dunlop

An overview of the annual comings and goings of a department are typically chronicled in a report prepared by the department chair. Such low circulation documents are sometimes targeted to a specific readership, e.g. a visiting committee, a dean, the alumni, but the report transcribed in this post for the Harvard economics department in 1961-62 does not appear to have had a particular audience in mind.

___________________________

About  Chairman John T. Dunlop
(Harvard Album, 1960)

Sallying forth from an office in the farther reaches of Littauer to Washington, D.C., JOHN THOMAS DUNLOP, Professor of Economics and faculty member in the Graduate School of Public Administration, is certainly one of the university’s most travelled professors. Dunlop, a labor expert, teaches an undergraduate course on unionism and public policy applying to labor relations and problems; in the grad school he conducts two seminars, in one of which he had worked closely with the late Professor Slichter. But in addition to his teaching, Professor Dunlop is one of the country’s leading strike arbitrators, and he figures that he travels in the vicinity of 150,000 miles a year on this outside work. The occasion for a weekly trip to the nation’s capital is his post as the impartial chairman of a joint committee in the construction industry, comprising representatives of the eighteen major unions and contracting firms. In this position Professor Dunlop must mediate disputes between the union and management. He is also a permanent umpire for the women’s garment industry and in the past has served in similar capacities for the brass companies of Connecticut and the bituminous coal producers. The dispute in 1955 involving the complexities of the ratio of required conductors to the length of a freight train called him back to the role of mediator, following a long term with the Atomic Energy Labor panel. At present he edits the Wertheim series on the histories of various big corporations and unions, and he also administers a Ford Foundation grant to study the functionings of labor and management in the underdeveloped countries of Asia.

Professor Dunlop was born in the Forty-Niner gold region and graduated from the University of California in 1935. He has been with Harvard since 1938, when he joined the faculty as an instructor. He gets back to California at least once a year, and the last time he returned he did so by travelling eastward via Indonesia. Professor Dunlop lives in Belmont, and, when not compiling mileage, he devotes his time to his wife and three children, and concentrates on his tennis game.

Source: The Harvard Album, 1960, p. 29.

___________________________

Previously posted departmental reports

Department Reports to the Dean (1932-41)
Department Reports to the Dean (1942-1946)
Department Reports to the Dean (1947-1950)
Department Report to the Dean (1955-56)
Department Newsletter (June 1960)

___________________________

June 26, 1962

Report
Department of Economics, 1961-1962

1. Staff

Professor Gerschenkron was Taussig Research Professor for the year, and Professor Albert J. Meyer, lecturer in the Department, was also on leave. Professor Galbraith and Kaysen continued on leave in government appointments. During the spring term Professor Harris was on sabbatical leave; Professor Bergson held a Ford Faculty Research Fellowship, and Professor Leontief was Visiting Professor at the College du France, Paris. Assistant Professors Gill and Vanek were also on leave throughout the year.

As a consequence of the number of senior members on leave, the Department included this year a relatively large number of visiting professors and lecturers. Professor Jesse Markham of Princeton University taught the courses in industrial organization; Dr. Frank Spooner was in charge of economic history; Professor William H. Nicholls of Vanderbilt instructed in agriculture and economic development. Professor Jacob Viner was Taussig Research Professor, and while he taught no courses, we were delighted to have him with us for the year. Professor Schmookler of Minnesota was associated with the science and public policy seminar of the Littauer School, and was a visiting lecturer in the Department. In addition, Professor Domar of M.I.T. taught a course in the Soviet economy in the spring term. Mr. Langley gave courses ordinarily taught by Professor A.J. Meyer, and Professor Caleb Smith of Brown University continued to teach the accounting course.

2. New Appointments

       The Executive Committee unanimously recommended the appointment of Professor Richard Caves as a permanent addition to the Department. Following the established procedures, the governing boards on May 14, 1962 voted his appointment as Professor of Economics effective July 1, 1962. Professor Caves completed his Ph.D. degree in the Department in 1958 and has been on the staff at the University of California (Berkeley) since 1957. He has been vice-chairman of the Berkeley Department. The appointment of Professor Caves will materially strengthen the Harvard Department, particularly in the fields of international trade and industrial organization. Moreover, he is regarded as an excellent undergraduate teacher.

       The Department unanimously recommended and the President and governing boards approved the appointment of four new assistant professors starting July 1, 1962: Clopper Almon, Jr., Elliot Berg, Phoebus Dhrymes, and Thomas Wilson. It is planned that these assistant professors in the Department will devote part time to research and be paid in part from research budgets. Such arrangements, combined with the higher salary scales starting July 1, 1962, should facilitate the recruitment of first rate assistant professors; it has often been difficult in the past to fill this rank in this Department.

       In approving these four appointments on March 5, 1962, President Pusey stated:

“It is my understanding that these four new Assistant Professors will devote part of their five-year tenure to special research projects and that an appropriate fraction of their salaries during these periods will be charged against the project budgets. I approve in principle the idea of experimenting in this way with charging portions of the salaries of assistant professors to grants or contracts, provided these grants or contracts are of sufficient duration to avoid the danger of funds running out when there are still large salary commitments in excess of our normal academic salary budget. Thus I feel that we should move with caution in this direction, treating the above appointments as experimental, and waiting for the results to become apparent before venturing further along this road.”

3. Chair in Modern China Studies and Economics

       The primary responsibility for filling this chair has now been placed in the Department of Economics. After a series of conferences with the East Asia Research Center of Harvard University, President Pusey approved the arrangements under which the Department will seek a permanent appointment competent in Economics and with a command of the Chinese language. In the meanwhile, the Department is to be responsible for providing some instruction on term appointments in the field and is to have the use of the income of the endowment for such instruction and to develop promising scholars in this field.

       Professor Kuznets is to be Chairman of the Committee of the Department to seek appropriate appointments. It is expected that Mr. Dwight Perkins, a graduate student in the Department, will provide a half course of instruction on the Economy of China in the spring term, 1963.

4. Undergraduate Program

       The enrollment in the undergraduate courses in the Department has grown in the last several years. The aggregate enrollment in undergraduate courses was 926 in the fall of 1959 and 1375 in the fall of 1961; the aggregate enrollment was 1080 in the spring term of 1960 and 1281 in the spring of 1962. These figures include the enrollment in Economics 1 which averaged 540 in 1959 and 628 in 1962. It is thought that these increases in part reflect the reorganization of the undergraduate program placed into effect in the fall of 1960 following several years of work on the part of the committee on undergraduate instruction. The division of full year courses into half year courses, the arrangement of courses into four groups according to prerequisites and level of difficulty, the lectures in Economics 1 and the addition to the curriculum of a few new courses is thought to have stimulated enrollment.

       Despite the increases in enrollment in undergraduate courses, the Department faces a serious continuing problem to maintain and to increase the number of concentrators in the field. The percentage of all concentrators who elect the field of Economics has declined from 7.7 percent in 1956-57 to 6.0 percent in 1960-61. The low concentration in Economics at Radcliffe is of particular concern to the Department, and conferences seeking to increase interest among the students have been held with President Bunting and other members of the Radcliffe staff.

       In order to improve the quality of our instruction, Economics 98 (junior tutorial) is to be reorganized. The adoption of the Gill plan by the Faculty materially increased the number of students in Economics 98 from 40 or 50 to more than 80. The instruction in economic theory by lectures has proven to be inappropriate with the larger group. Next year, 1962-63, it is planned to divide the group into three or four seminars, each of approximately 20 students; each seminar is to be under the direction of a senior member of the Department or an assistant professor. In addition, tutorial groups of four or five students will meet with individual tutors. Professor Caves has been given overall responsibility for this important part of the undergraduate program.

5. Graduate Instruction

       There was a total of 48 first year graduate students in the Department this year including 5 women and 3 enrolled through Littauer. There were 88 continuing graduate students including 6 women, 6 from Littauer, and 2 in joint degrees, for a total of 136 graduate students; in addition, the Department had 10 special students and 10 special auditors. A total of 21 Ph.D. degrees were awarded to students in the Department of Economics.

       The competition for places in the graduate schools for work in the Department of Economics has grown more severe in recent years. From the more than 260 applications for admission to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences received in the spring of 1962, there will only be about 45 new graduate students in the fall of 1962. Almost half of these students will be from outside the United States and Canada. For the fall of 1962 we have been able to obtain the admission of 8 out of the first 10 on our list, a considerably higher fraction than in recent years.

       The Department faces strong conflicting pressures in making decisions on the number of new graduate students to be admitted. On the one hand, the Department is anxious to provide individual instruction particularly after the first year of graduate study for the highest quality students. A greater enrollment would also complicate materially the teaching of the required graduate courses in economic history, statistics and theory, and after a point would require further manpower so that two senior members of the Department might give parallel courses or sections. On the other hand, the Department is anxious to make its contribution to the increased demands for economists particularly for developing countries. Moreover the quality of a number of the students rejected for admission (perhaps as many as 15 to 20) appears to be very good. In the selection of students from abroad it is particularly difficult to know whether one has made the best selections. When students are admitted whose records turn out to be poor, there are often many complications for both the student and the University. The Department has spent considerable energy in reviewing the records of students admitted during the past decade; a careful statistical study was made under the direction of Professor Houthakker. The Department is continuing to seek to improve admission procedures.

         Financial resources available to the Department for its own use for scholarships and fellowships is a serious problem since the money made available by the generous gift of Mr. Roger Kyes has now been exhausted.

6. Organization of the Department

The Department now performs much of its routine business through committees. The two major committees are on Undergraduate Instruction under Professor Eckstein and on Graduate Instruction under Professor Dorfman.

7. Research

         A very large amount of research activity is carried out by members of the Department of Economics. In addition to individual research by senior members, an increasing number of research projects which employ a number of graduate students and junior staff are being conducted under the direction of senior members. These research projects often provide opportunities for training of graduate students in research methods and afford topics and financing for Ph.D. dissertations.

         Among these research projects with financial support are the following:

Professor Leontief Harvard Economic Research Project which has recently been refinanced for a period of years.
Professor Mason The relations of government and business in economic development.
Professor Mason and Dr. Papanek Overseas operations and training
(Center for International Affairs)
Professor Kuznets Economic growth
Professor Eckstein Economics of public expenditures
Professor Houthakker Forecasting consumers’ expenditures
Professor Harris Education and Public Policy
Professor Schelling Defense studies and Experimental Study of Bargaining
Professor Dunlop Labor-Management History and Economics of Medical Care
Professor Duesenberry Capital Markets
Professor Meyer Business Decisions
Professor Bergson Soviet Economics
Professor Gerschenkron Economic History Workshop

8. Public and Professional Activities

         A number of members of the Department were engaged in a wide variety of professional activities and public service during the year. A few instances may be of interest; no attempt is made for a complete listing.

         The president of the American Economic Association comes from this Department two years in a row. Professor Mason is president for 1962, and Professor Haberler is president-elect.

         Professor Leontief was chairman of the International Conference on Input-Output Techniques held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 1961 and sponsored by the Harvard Economic Research Project in association with the U.S.[sic] Secretariat. He was also a member of the Commission of Experts for the United Nations which reported on the Social and Economic Consequences of Disarmament.

         Professor Dorfman served as a member of the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee team on Waterlogging and Salinity in West Pakistan. He is also a member of the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics.

         Professor Harris is serving as Economic Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury and is a member of the Public Advisory Board of the Area Redevelopment Program.

         Professor John R. Meyer served as a consultant in connection with the President’s message on Transportation Policy.

         Professor Kuznets is Chairman of the Committee on the Economy of China of the Social Science Research Council.

         Professor Bergson is a member of this same Committee and chairman of the Joint Committee of Slavic Studies of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies. His study, The Real National Income of Soviet Russia Since 1928, was published in 1961 by the Harvard University Press.

         Professor Mason is Chairman, Advisory Committee, A.I.D.

         Professors Duesenberry, Eckstein and Smithies have been consultants to the Council of Economic Advisors. Professor Duesenberry was on the staff of the Commission on Money and Credit and was chairman of the Joint Economic Committee’s Inventory Study Committee.

         Professor Schelling has been a consultant to the Department of Defense and to the Scientific Advisory Board of the Air Force. His study Strategy of Arms Control (with Morton J. Halperin), was published by the Twentieth Century Fund in 1961.

         Professor Houthakker has worked on revenue forecasting problems for the Department of the Treasury.

         Professor Dunlop was a member of the Presidential Railroad Commission (1960-1962), and is a member of the President’s Missile Sites Labor Commission. He was Chairman of the International Conference on Labor Productivity under the auspices of the International Economic Association held August-September 1961.

9. Visiting Committee

         A series of meetings this year with the Chairman of the Visiting Committee, and others of its members, have improved the relations between the Visiting Committee and the Department of Economics. I believe these new attitudes are reflected in the annual report of the Committee. There is a genuine desire on the part of both the Department and the Committee for a constructive relationship.

___________________
John T. Dunlop
Chairman

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

Image Source: The Harvard Class Album 1960, p. 29.

Categories
Economists Wisconsin

Wisconsin. Meet Assistant Professor of Economics, Allyn Abbot Young. 1907

Back when graduating classes were significantly smaller, college and university yearbooks often presented members of the faculty. The University of Wisconsin-Madison libraries have digitized its “The Badger” yearbooks from 1885 through 2014. The portrait of Allyn Abbot Young above and the text below come from the 1907 yearbook.

_________________________

Allyn Abbot Young, Ph.D.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.

ALLYN ABBOT YOUNG was born Sept. 19, 1876 at Canton, Ohio. His early education was secured in the public and private schools of Sioux Falls, S.D. In 1894 he received the degree of Ph.B. from Hiram College in Ohio. For four years Professor Young was engaged in business and journalism; then in 1898 he took up graduate work at the University of Wisconsin, where he was instructor in Economics for the year 1901-1902. In 1902 he took the degree of Ph.D. from the same institution. For the next two years he was at the head of the department of Economics in Western Reserve University, at Cleveland Ohio. In 1904 he was made assistant professor of finance at Dartmouth College, and in 1905 was appointed assistant professor of Economics at the Universitv of Wisconsin.

The publications of Professor Young have been mainly along the line of statistics, including a discussion of age statistics published by the Federal Census of 1900.

Source: University of Wisconsin. The Badger 1907 (Vol. XXI), p. 64.