Category: Chicago

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Simons urges the recruitment of Milton Friedman, 1945

Simons

 

 

The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki was less than two weeks history and the declaration of the surrender of Imperial Japan only five days old. Nothing says “back to business as usual” at the university better than active lobbying on behalf of one’s preferred candidate for an upcoming vacancy, as we see in the following memo for the 33 year old Milton Friedman written by Henry C. Simons to the Chicago economics department chair, Simeon E. Leland. The copy of this memo comes from the President’s Office at the University of Chicago. Simons’ grand strategy was to seamlessly replace the triad Lange-Knight-Mints with his own dream team of Friedman-Stigler-Hart. He feared that outsiders to the department might be tempted to appoint some convex combination of New Dealer Rexford Tugwell and trust-bustin’ George W. Stocking Sr., economists of the institutional persuasion who were swimming on the edges of the mainstream of the time.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror also has transcribed excerpts from an earlier 77 page (!) memorandum (10 April, 1945) to President Robert M. Hutchins from Simeon E. Leland entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics–A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

____________________________

 

Henry C. Simons Urges his Department Chair to Recruit Milton Friedman

August 20, 1945

To: Simeon E. Leland           Economics

From: Henry C. Simons        Economics

 

If Lange is leaving, we should go after Milton Friedman immediately.

It is a hard choice between Friedman and Stigler. We should tell the administration that we want them both (they would work together excellently, each improving what the other did), Friedman to replace Lange, Stigler to replace Knight and to be with us well ahead of Knight’s retirement. We might also say that we want Hart to replace Mints at Mints’s retirement, and also to be with us in advance, but are happy to have him financed by C.E.D. [Committee for Economic Development] for the present.

Yntema evidently is thinking of getting Friedman shortly. We should exploit this possibility. Milton has now a great yen for a University post and would probably turn down an offer from C.E.D., even at much financial sacrifice, if a good academic post were the alternative (as it might be, at Minnesota or elsewhere). He is rather footloose—not anxious to go back either to the Treasury or to the National Bureau. We should grab him now, offering temporary joint appointment with C.E.D. and full-time, permanent appointment when he is through with C.E.D.

Friedman is young, flexible, and available potentially for a wide variety of assignments. He is a first-rate economic theorist, economic statistician, and mathematical economist, and is intensely interested over the whole range of economic policy. He has been outstanding in every organization where he has worked—here with Henry Schultz, at the National Bureau, at the Treasury, and now recently in the Army project at Columbia. Moreover, he is one of those rare cases of able young men who have enjoyed large experience and responsibility in Washington without being at all disqualified thereby for academic work.

The obvious long-term arrangement is a joint appointment with the Cowles Commission. Marschak would, I’m sure, like to have him; and Milton would like to settle into a major project of empirical research, e.g., on enterprise size and productional efficiency. Bartky may be expected strongly to support the appointment, for its strengthening of the University in statistics. The School of Business could well use Milton, to give its few advanced courses in statistics, if Yntema continues to price himself out of the University. Moreover, Milton probably would be delighted to work partly in the Law School, and be extremely useful there. In the Department, he would be available for statistics, mathematical economics, pure economic theory, taxation, and almost any field where we might need additional courses.

If University officers want outside testimony, they could get it from Randolph Paul or Roy Blough (as regards the Treasury), from Arthur F. Burns (National Bureau), from Abraham Wald, Allen Wallis, and Barky (as regards war research), and from Bunn at Wisconsin (as regards possible usefulness to the Law School)—not to mention George Stigler, Harold Groves, Wesley Mitchell, Simon Kuznets, Erwin Griswold, et al.

Perhaps the best thing about Milton, apart from his technical abilities, is his capacity for working as part of a team. He is the gregarious kind of intellectual, anxious to try out all his ideas on his colleagues and to have them reciprocate. He would doubtless be worth his whole salary, if he neither taught nor published, simply for his contribution to other people’s work and to the Department group as a whole. But he is also intensely interested in teaching, and far too industrious not to publish extensively. Our problem would be not that of finding ways to use him but that of keeping him from trying too many tasks and, especially, of leaving him enough time for his own research.

It would, I think, be good policy and good tactics to submit a major program of appointments, including [Frank W.] Fetter, Friedman, Stigler, Hart, and an economic historian (Innis or Hamilton), in the hope of getting them all within a few years, some on joint appointments with, notably, the Cowles Commission, the Law School, the School of Business (?) and, temporarily, the C.E.D. Research Staff. Such a program would serve to protect us against administration pressure for less good appointments (e.g.,  Stocking [George Ward Stocking, Sr., Ph.D. Columbia, 1925]), and from Hutchins’s alleged complaint that, while he wanted to consider major appointments in economics, the Department simply would not make recommendations. We should, in any case, err on the side of asking for more appointments than we can immediately get. Otherwise, available funds may go largely elsewhere—e.g., into Tugwell-like, lame-duck appointments, and into Industrial Relations, Agricultural Economics, and other ancillary enterprises, at the expense of the central field of economics.

There is, I trust, substantial agreement within the Department, on the men mentioned above. This fact, if fact it is, should be made unmistakably clear to the administration.

Incidentally, if we are going to explore possibilities of an appointment in American economic history (and I’m probably alone in opposing), we should do so only in co-operation with the History Department and with (from the outset) joint plans for joint appointments.

 

HCS-w

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., 1943-45”.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07613, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economics Programs Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Stanford Texas Undergraduate Vanderbilt Wisconsin Yale

Size distribution of graduate and undergraduate programs in economics. U.S., 1963-65

 

 

These are the last two statistical tables from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of leading economics departments in the U.S. intended to provide orientation for departmental chairpersons in salary negotiations. Today’s posting gives the numbers of undergraduate and graduate majors reported by 29 departments. 

Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors across departments. Two previous postings have the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the anticipated range of salary offers for new Ph.D.’s for 1966-67. Those first five reports from The Cartel provide distributions of median or average incomes or ranges of salary offers by ranks across departments. Table 6c from the summary report that gives the salary distributions by rank for 335 professors, 143 associate professors and 185 assistant professors from all 27 departments.

Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

____________________

 

TABLE 7c
Graduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions:

 

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66
(Estimate)
300 and over 2 2

1

200-299

 0 0 2
150-199 3 4

5

100-149

 6 5 6
80-99 4 4

3

60-79

 5 7 5
40-59 6 4

4

20-39

 2 1 0
1-19 1 1

1
Number of departments reporting:

29

 28

27
Total number of students:

2,963

 3,057

3,118

____________________

 

TABLE 8C
Undergraduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions

 

1963-64 1964-65
300 and over 4

4

250-299

 1 1
200-249 3

2

150-199

 4 6
100-149 8

5

80-99

 1 1
60-79 2

1

40-59

 2 3
20-39 1

1

1-19

 1

1
Number of departments reporting:

27

25
Total number of students:

4,550

4,312

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: quick meme website.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Economics Professors’ Salaries by Rank (6), 1965-66

 

 

This is the sixth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. In the previous five tables The Cartel reports median or average incomes or ranges of salary offers by ranks across departments. In this posting we have Table 6c from the summary report that gives the salary distributions by rank for 335 professors, 143 associate professors and 185 assistant professors from all 27 departments.

Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors across departments. Two previous postings have the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the anticipated range of salary offers for new Ph.D.’s for 1966-67.

Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

 

____________________

TABLE 6c

Salaries of Economists (9-10 month, academic year, 1965-66) in 27 of the 29 Departments of Economics (The Cartel):
N = Number of Persons

MID POINT OF RANGE PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS
26,750/and over 2
26,500 0
26,000 2
25,500 1
25,000 8
24,500 0
24,000 4
23,500 2
23,000 7
22,500 2
22,000 12
21,500 7
21,000 10
20,500 5
2,0000 22
19,500 10
19,000 13
18,500 11
18,000 24
17,500 8
17,000 19
16,500 23
16,000 27
15,500 20 1 0
15,000 21 2 1
14,500 14 2 0
14,000 22 10 0
13,500 10 12 0
13,000 10 13 1
12,500 7 18 2
12,000 6 20 1
11,500 3 21 7
11,000 3 13 9
10,500 0 18 18
10,000 0 9 35
9,750 1 9
9,500 2 28
9,250 1 11
9,000 0 24
8,750 0 8
8,500 0 13
8,250 2
8,000 15
7,750 1
N=335 N=143 N=185

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source:  “Me and my partner” by C. J. Taylor on cover of Punch, December 25, 1889. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

 

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Expected New PhD Starting Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (5), 1966/67

 

 

This is the fifth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Table 5c give figures for the anticipated range of salaries for “freshly completed PhD’s” for the coming academic year (1966-67) across the departments reporting. Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors. The previous posting has the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

The copy of this table in the Johns Hopkins University archives has a useful handwritten addition. It is noted that the median lower bound of the range is $9,250 and the median higher bound of the range is $10,000. Thus one might say a measure of the range of the anticipated, as of December 1965), 9-10 month salary offers for “freshly completed PhDs” for 1966-67 was ($9,250 — $10,000), though such a range was not necessarily anticipated by any one of the 27 departments responding to that question.

Compared to Table 4c, this table tells us that the range of offers for “freshly completed PhDs” was anticipated to move up $250 about a 2.67% nominal increase from 1965-66 to 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

 

____________________

TABLE 5c
Departments Expect to Have to Offer to Get
“Freshly Completed PhD’s for Next Year, 1966-67

 

MID-POINT OF RANGE

 FROM TO
13,000 0

0

12,500

 0 0
12,000 0

1

11,500

 0 0
11,000 0

6

10,500

 0 7
10,000 5

6

9,750

 0 0
9,500 8

4

9,250

 1 0
9,000 8

2

8,750

 1 0
8,500 1

1

8,250

 0 0
8,000 3

0

N=

 27

27

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source:  Caption under the drawing: “No class of labor feels the grip of grinding monopoly more than our underpaid, overworked ball-players.”  “The base-ball Laocoon” by L. M. Glackens. Cover of Punch, May 14, 1913. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

New PhD Starting Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (4), 1964/5-1965/66

 

 

This is the fourth table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Table 4c give figures for the distribution of salaries for “freshly completed PhD’s” across the departments reporting. Previous postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors. The next posting has the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

______________________

TABLE 4c
Entering Salaries of “Freshly Completed PhD’s” of New Staff Members
in the Fall of 1965-66 1964-65

 

MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM
MID-POINT OF RANGE 1965-66 1964-65 1965-66 1964-65 1965-66

1964-65

Over 10,999

 0 0 0 0 1 0
10,500 0 0 0 0 2

1

10,000

 2 0 4 3 7 0
9,750 2 0 4 0 1

0

9,500

 4 1 2 0 2 4
9,250 1 2 3 3 1

3

9,000

 3 6 0 5 3 6
8,750 1 1 3 5 0

1

8,500

 4 5 3 5 2 5
8,250 1 1 0 2 0

1

8,000

 2 3 1 0 1 0
7,750 0 0 0 0 0

1

7,500

 0 1 1 2 0 1
7,250 1 1 0 0 0

0

N=

 21 21 21 25 20 23
Median $9,000 $8,500 $9,250 $8,750 $9,750

$9,000

Mean

 $8,952 $8,583 $9,190 $8,820 $9,600

$8,913

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

 

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Assistant Professors’ Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (3), 1964/5-1965/66

 

 

This is the third table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Tables 3c give figures for the distribution of assistant professor salaries across the departments reporting. Last posting gave the distribution for full-professors and the distribution for associate professors. The next posting has the distribution for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Also there is a table of the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

____________________

TABLE 3c
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(1)
Median Salaries
All Assistant Professors

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66 1964-65
Over 11,249 0

1

11,000

 0 0
10,500 3

0

10,000

 7 1
9,750 2

0

9,500

 6 6
9,250 3

2

9,000

 4 5
8,750 1

6

8,500

 1 2
8,250 1

3

8,000

 1 2
7,750 0

0

7,500

 0 0
7,250 0

1

N=

 29 29
Median $9,500

$8,900

Mean

 $9,402

$8,936

 

 

TABLE 3c
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(2)
Average Salaries
“Superior Assistance Professors”
(Top 1/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66 1964-65
Over 11,249 4

1

11,000

 3 2
10,500 8

5

10,000

 7 3
9,750 2

2
9,500 3 4
9,250 0

3

9,000

 1 3
8,750 1

3

8,500

 0 0
8,250 0

2

8,000

 0 0
7,750 0

0

7,500

 0 0
7,250 0

1

N=

  

29

  

29
Median $10,250

$9,500

Mean

 $10,333

$9,575

 

 

TABLE 3c
ASSISTANT PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(3)
Average Salaries
“Average Assistant Professors”
(Lower 2/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66 1964-65
Over 10,749 0

1

10,500

 1 0
10,000 5

0

9,750

 2 0
9,500 4

3
9,250 7 1
9,000 2

8

8,750

 4 3
8,500 1

5

8,250

 2 3
8,000 1

1

7,750

 0 2
7,500 0

1

7,250

 0 1
N= 29

29

Median

 $9,300 $8,800
Mean $9,251

$9,063

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: Brussells conference, cartel magnate (detail). Postcard from 1902. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Associate Professors’ Salaries in U.S. Economics Departments (2), 1964/5-1965/66

 

This is the second table from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of 9-10 month salaries paid in U.S. economics departments. Tables 2c give figures for the distribution of associate professor salaries across the departments reporting. Last posting gave the distribution for full-professors. Future postings include the actual salary distributions for assistant professors and freshly completed PhD’s 1964/65 and 1965/66. Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

Also there is a table of the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

____________________

TABLE 2c
ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(1)
Median Salaries
All Associate Professors

MID-POINT
OF RANGE		 1965-66 1964-65
Over 13,749 3 0
13,500 2 0
13,000 2 1
12,500 6 3
12,000 5 2
11,500 4 3
11,000 3 11
10,500 2 4
10,000 0 0
9,750 0 1
9,500 0 2
N= 27 27
Median $12,000 $11,000
Mean $12,173 $11,093

 

 

TABLE 2c
ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(2)
Average Salaries
“Superior Associate Professors”
(Top 1/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE		 1965-66 1964-65
Over 16,249 0 1
16,000 1 0
15,500 1 0
15,000 2 0
14,500 2 0
14,000 5 2
13,500 6 4
13,000 4 6
12,500 3 3
12,000 0 4
11,500 1 3
 [sic, cell empty] 1 2
 [sic, cell empty] 0 1
N= 26 26
Median $13,000 $12,186
Mean $13,082 $12,159

 

 

TABLE 2c
ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(3)
Average Salaries
“Average Assoc Professors”
(Lower 2/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE		 1965-66 1964-65
14,500 0 0
14,000 1 0
13,500 0 0
13,000 4 1
12,500 4 1
12,000 2 2
11,500 3 2
11,000 7 8
10,500 3 4
10,000 2 4
9,750 0 1
9,500 0 2
9,250 0 0
9,000 0 0
8,750 0 1
8,500 0 0
N= 26 26
Median $11,265 $10,775
Mean $11,640 $10,760

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: “The monopolists’ may-pole” by F. Opper.  Centerfold of Puck, vol. 17, no. 425 (April 29, 1885). Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Economists Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Salaries Stanford Texas Vanderbilt Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Professors’ salaries in U.S. economics departments (1), 1964/5-1965/66

 

 

From my March 2017 expedition to the Johns Hopkins University archives’ collection of material from the Department of Political Economy, I came across one of those documents that help to provide an empirical baseline for the history of the market for economics professors. It is worth savouring the sets of tables one by one. In all, this so-called “cartel” summary with information collected from 29 departments in October 1965 consists of eight sets of tables.

On the last page of this summary for full-professor salaries can be found the name of the presumable compiler of the tables: Francis M. Boddy, Graduate School, University of Minnesota. It is dated December 21, 1965.

Two documents later in the same folder I found the list of 30 members of the Chairmen’s Group, dated December 13, 1965. With 29 responses to the salary questionnaire from which the “cartel” data have been assembled, it leaves only to guess which department did not report back to the “cartel”. I do believe that the ironic self-designation of cartel is not entirely contrary to functional fact here.

The salary distributions across the participating departments for associate professors, assistant professors, and for the starting salaries for newly minted Ph.D. hires have been posted in the meantime. Also there is a table of the anticipated (as of December 1965) range of salaries to hire freshly completed PhD’s for the coming academic year, 1966-67.

Using the BLS web CPI Inflation calculator, one can inflate nominal levels (say for December 1965, the date of the report) to April 2017 using a factor of 7.69.

___________________________________

About Francis M. Boddy

Boddy, Francis M, 1115 Bus. Admin., West Bank, Dept. of Econs., U. of Minn., Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone: Office (612)373-3583;Home (612)926-1063. Fields: 020, 610. Birth Yr: 1906. Degrees: B.B.A., U. of Minn., 1930; M.A., U. of Minn., 1936; Ph.D., U. of Minn., 1939. Prin. Cur. Position: Prof. Emer. Of Econs., U. of Minn. At Twin Cities. 1975-. Concurrent/Past Positions: Acting Exec. Secy., Bd. Of Investment, State of Minn., 1978-79; Assoc. Dean of Grad. Sch. U. of Minn., 1961-73.

Source: “Biographical Listing of Members.” The American Economic Review 71, no. 6 (1981): p. 67.

___________________________________

Research Hint:
Boddy’s data go back to 1957/58

“I have, over the past six years, conducted an informal survey of some 30 of the leading departments of economics in the country, defined largely as being those departments which have been major producers of Ph.D.’s in economics.”

Source:  Boddy, Francis M. “The Demand for Economists.” The American Economic Review 52, no. 2 (1962): 503-08.

 

Also of interest from about the same time is the AER Supplement:

Tolles, N. Arnold, and Emanuel Melichar. “Studies of the Structure of Economists’ Salaries and Income” The American Economic Review 58, no. 5 (1968):

___________________________________

MEMBERS OF THE CHAIRMEN’S GROUP, 1965-66
December 13, 1965

  1. Professor Gerard Debreu
    University of California
    Berkeley, California 94720
  2. Dean R. M. Cyert
    Carnegie Institute of Technology
    Pittsburgh 13, Pennsylvania
  3. Professor Arnold C. Harberger
    University of Chicago
    1126 East 59th Street
    Chicago 37, Illinois
  4. Professor Carl McGuire
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, Colorado
  5. Professor William Vickrey
    Columbia University
    New York 27, New York
  6. Professor Douglas F. Dowd
    Acting Chairman
    Cornell University
    Ithaca, New York
    (Professor Frank H. Golay, the Chairman, is on leave in 1965-66.)
  7. Professor Robert S. Smith
    Duke University
    Durham, North Carolina
  8. Professor John Dunlop
    Harvard University
    Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
  9. Professor John F. Due
    University of Illinois
    Urbana, Illinois 61803
  10. Professor George Wilson
    Indiana University
    Bloomington, Indiana 47405
  11. Professor Karl A. Fox
    Iowa State University
    Ames, Iowa 50010
  12. Professor Carl F. Christ
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland
  13. Professor Robert F. Lanzilotti
    Michigan State University
    East Lansing, Michigan
  14. Professor Warren L. Smith
    University of Michigan
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
  15. Professor E. Cary Brown
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Cambridge 39, Massachusetts
  16. Professor Emanuel Stein
    New York University
    New York 3, New York
  17. Professor John Turnbull
    University of Minnesota
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
  18. Professor Ralph W. Pfouts
    university of North Carolina
    Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  19. Professor Robert Eisner
    Northwestern University
    Evanston, Illinois
  20. Professor Paul G. Craig
    Ohio State University
    Columbus, Ohio
  21. Professor Irving B. Kravis
    University of Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia 4, Pennsylvania
  22. Professor Richard A. Lester
    Princeton University
    Princeton, New Jersey
  23. Dean Emanuel T. Weiler
    Purdue University
    Lafayette, Indiana
  24. Professor Lionel McKenzie
    University of Rochester
    Rochester 20, New York
  25. Professor Edward S. Shaw
    Stanford University
    Stanford, California
  26. Professor Carey Thompson
    University of Texas
    Austin, Texas
  27. Professor James W. McKie
    Vanderbilt University
    Nashville, Tennessee
  28. Professor Alexandre Kafka
    Acting Chairman
    University of Virginia
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    (Professor Warren Nutter, the Chairman, is on leave in 1965-66.)
  29. Professor David B. Johnson
    University of Wisconsin
    Madison, Wisconsin
  30. Professor Raymond Powell
    Yale University
    New Haven, Connecticut

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

 

___________________________________

 

CARTEL
SUMMARY of the October-1965 Questionnaire to Departments of Economics in the United States

SUMMARY of the salary (1965-66 and 1964-65 academic years, 9-10 month basis) and other data of 29 (out of 29) Departments of Economics. N = Number of Departments reporting.

 

TABLE 1c
PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(1)
Median Salaries
All Professors

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66

1964-65

Over 20,249

 2 1
20,000 4

0

19,500

 0 1
19,000 3

1

18,500

 2 3
18,000 2

1

17,500

 3 1
17,000 2

4

16,500

 2 4
16,000 1

4

15,500

 2 0
15,000 2

1

14,500

 0 2
14,000 3

1

13,500

 0 1
13,000 1

4

N=

 29 29
Median $17,500

$16,500

Mean

 $17,377

$16,319

 

 

TABLE 1c
PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(2)

Average Salaries
“Superior Professors”
(Top 1/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66

1964-65

Over 23,749

 3 1
23,500 2

0

23,000

 0 0
22,500 3

0

22,000

 1 2
21,500 4

3

21,000

 1 2
20,500 4

2

20,000

 0 3
19,500 2

2

19,000

 2 4
18,500 1

0

18,000

 3 1
17,500 1

2

17,000

 0 0
16,500 2

1

16,000

 0 4
15,500 0

1

15,000

 0 0
14,500 0

1

14,000

 0 0
N= 29

29

Median

 $20,600 $19,500
Mean $20,677

$19,093

 

 

TABLE 1c
PROFESSORS 1965-66, 1964-65

(3)

Average Salaries
“Average Professors”
(Lower 2/3)

MID-POINT
OF RANGE

 1965-66

1964-65

Over 18,749

 4 2
18,500 0

1

18,000

 3 1
17,500 1

1

17,000

 3 1
16,500 3

2

16,000

 5 8
15,500 1

4

15,000

 2 1
14,500 1

1

14,000

 2 0
13,500

2

2

13,000

 1 4
12,500 1

0

12,000

 0 1
11,500 0

0

N=

 29 29
Median $16,100

$15,390

Mean

 $16,192

$15,119

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image: From left to right: Monopolies, Uncle Sam, Trusts.

Taylor, Charles Jay, Artist. In the hands of his philanthropic friends / C.J. Taylor. , 1897. N.Y.: Published in Puck, March 10, 1897. . Retrieved from the Library of Congress, . (Accessed May 12, 2017). https://www.loc.gov/item/2012647652/

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. J.L. Laughlin Reminisces About Coming to Chicago, 1892

 

 

Another copy of the following brief memoir by the first head of the University of Chicago’s department of political economy is found in the Goodspeed papers at the University of Chicago Archives. The copy transcribed in this post comes from a copy in J. Laurence Laughlin’s papers at the Library of Congress. As persuasive a university president as Chicago’s Harper clearly was, it is pretty clear from below that the generous financial package offered to Laughlin was a necessary part of getting to yes.

___________________________

RECOLLECTIONS OF THE FOUNDING OF THE UNIVERSITY.
J. Laurence Laughlin.

I had left business in Philadelphia and accepted the professorship at Cornell University vacated by E. Benjamin Andrews who had just been elected President of Brown University. I went to Cornell in the Fall of 1890 and remained there during two academic years. In the Fall of 1891 President Harper made a visit to Cornell University, and I first met him at a little reception given at the house of Professor Hale. Later I had a walk with him about the campus, in which we discussed universities and men. Of course, there never entered my head at that time the idea of leaving Cornell. On this occasion I remember President Harper asked me what I thought of Edmond J. James. I happened to be able to sum up my judgment concisely in a number of adjectives which covered the whole case, and I recall President Harper’s interested surprise at the concise characterization.

Later, I think it was in the first week of December, 1891, the Baptist Social Union, of New York City, had a debate on “Silver”, in which Ex-secretary Fairchild and Horace White were on one side, and Senator Stewart, and Representative Newlands, of Nevada, were on the other side. A few days before the meeting I had a telegram saying Ex-secretary Fairchild was ill, and asking me to take his place in the debate. I agreed to do so, and very distinctly recall the occasion which was held at Delmonico’s. The debate evidently stirred up Senator Stewart. I did not know at the time that president Harper was seated at one of the tables below. At the end of the affair President Harper joined me and suggested a long walk before we should feel like retiring. To walk off the effects of my coffee, I agreed. We walked for several hours, bringing up, in the basement restaurant, I think, of the Murray Hill Hotel. While we were disposing of a little supper there the President proposed to me that I should come to Chicago in charge of the Department of Political Economy. It was, of course, a great surprise to me, but I agreed to take it under careful consideration.

A little later I found out that Professor Hale, at Cornell, had also been invited. Then I was urged by the President to come to Chicago and look the situation over. At that time no great endowment had been made for the University, and it might be supposed, as was said by Benjamin Ives Wheeler, that there would be “hard sledding ahead”. Or, as it was expressed by another, “We must have great faith, for it would be like hitching our fortunes to a star”. I recall the interest of Henry W. Sage, who expressed his admiration of Harper as “a man of great faith”, and later when he came to see me in Chicago he wanted to meet the President for that reason. In December, at some time before the Holidays, I came to Chicago, visiting the President at the Grand Pacific Hotel. I believe I also called upon him at the then offices of the University in the Chamber of Commerce building. I was placed in the charge of Frank Frost Abbott to be shown the site of the University. By an unfortunate fate he took me out on the Cottage Grove street cars when a partly melted snow on the ground, blackened by coal soot, gave an impression of Chicago more disagreeable than could now be imagined. Mentally I vowed that a team of wild horses could not drag me to live in such a city. When we reached the grounds the scene was, if possible, still more desolate. Cobb Hall and the Divinity dormitories were then built only to the top of the basement, and this was filled nearly to the brim with green, stagnant , swampy water. It was too swampy to pass eastward across the middle of the present campus. There was no drainage system then, and wide stretches of water extended in pools over the surface here and there. The present site of Haskell was a small pond. Another pond spread out in front of what is now Walker. The only way of getting eastward was to go into the Midway and jump from hummock to hummock. Abbbott had been instructed by the President to show me the progress on the building of the Fair; but the desolate external appearance of the University campus removed all interest in the Fair. I asked to be told the height of the level of this land above the surface of Lake Michigan. Abbott then conducted me to the house of Judge Shorey, who told me the land was eight feet above the level of the lake, and in general removed my depression.

President Harper made strenuous efforts to induce me to accept the appointment before I left Chicago. He brought every possible pressure to bear. I had, by the way, meanwhile lunched with him and Dr. Eri B. Hulburt. Finally I left Chicago without having made up my mind. Some differences arose in regard to what the salary of the head professor should be. After I returned to Ithaca, in consultation with Professor Hale, we felt that we would do a service to the professorial body by trying to put the salaries on a higher basis that had before existed. it was in this way that the salary was fixed at $7,000. I believe that this was not arrived at until we met Messrs. Ryerson and Hutchinson in New York City on their way to Europe. On condition that the salary should be $7,000 both Professor Hale and myself accepted.

In this connection I was consulted regarding Professor von Holst coming from Europe. It happened that I then knew very well Mr. and Mrs. Henry Villard. Mr. Villard was at that time at the height of his railway career. A short time before he had brought over a number of scholars and distinguished men from Europe at the driving the last spike on the Northern Pacific Railroad. Professor von Holst was one of this invited body. I soon discovered that Professor von Holst was getting Mr. Villard’s opinion as to the wisdom of accepting the Chicago position. Then Mr. Villard came to me to know what advice should be given to Professor von Holst. We then canvassed the situation, discussing all the advantages and disadvantages. I think some of these interviews went on before I had signified my own acceptance. One of the things which affected my decision was the policy of President Harper in trying to call the strongest men he could find, whether in Europe or America. This policy undoubtedly affected the acceptance by von Holst, as it did that of many others, no doubt. I was thereby thrown into terms of intimacy with Professor von Holst which continued with increasing ties of affection and friendship until his departure for Europe and his death.

During the following Winter some serious difficulties arose. The graduate bulletin had been put out and some of the proposed plans struck us as possibly undesirable from the point of view of the best development of the University. Of course, opinions must differ. Professor Hale and I might have been right or wrong. At any rate, some differences arose between us and President Harper. He then came to Ithaca at once, and we had long and serious conferences about the fundamental organization of the University. I can remember distinctly when sitting in Professor Hale’s house with him and President Harper, I said, “We have been deciding here very large questions of University policy. It is not right that these far-reaching conclusions should be arrived at on the judgment of two or three professors in consultation with the President. These matters ought to go properly to a body composed of the heads of all the departments of the University, and their opinions should be decisive in forming the University organization with which we should begin work.” I remember clearly how the President, sitting at the end of a sofa, looked up at me and in a flash said, “That’s right! It should be the Senate”. And the Senate was born then and there.

That evening, while sitting in my library until rather late, we found that our differences had been composed. At first they had seemed to us so serious that we had wished to withdraw our acceptances. I mention this because it brought out a special characteristic of the President. It was his open-mindedness. After the most thorough and frank discussion, he was willingly to make adjustment with others. Moreover, difficulties of that sort never left and scars.

In all the days after that, in Ithaca and after I came to Chicago in June, 1892, his enthusiasm and confidence in the future of the University was infectious. His dominating thought in those early days, often expressed to me, was, “Now we must all stand together.”

 

Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. Papers of J. Laurence Laughlin. Box 7, Folder “Recollections of the Founding of the University”.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03687, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Fields Regulations

Chicago. L. C. Marshall Memos Regarding Doctoral Field Committees and Advising, 1926-27

 

 

The following set of memoranda from the head of the department of economics at the University of Chicago provides us with an academic administrator’s perspective of the organization of a doctoral program and the departmental structure by fields. We see to which fields different economics professors were associated (consigned?), none of which we couldn’t guess, but memoranda like these help to nail these things down for sure. It is dull reading, and perhaps next time I make it to the University of Chicago archives, I’ll be able to find some of the actual written responses by field which should provide us more content. Still I find it interesting to see just how underwhelming was the prompt response to the chair’s request to his colleagues to meet with each other and write something up as seen in his three part reminder/nudge/nag memorandum dated about a half-year after his first requests! 

 

__________________________________

Memo #1. Formalizing Academic Advising

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Memorandum to: P. H. Douglas, H. A. Millis, Jacob Viner C. W. Wright

from L. C. Marshall

October 13, 1926

I am inclined to think it would be a good plan if we arranged for a somewhat decentralized system of advice for our students who are preparing for the doctorate. I refer particularly to their four fields.

When a man has decided that he wishes to use fields a, b, c, d (let us say) for the doctorate, would it not be a good plan for someone in each field to take him in hand and talk the whole situation over with him? What formal previous training has he had? What informal? What practical experience? What courses in Economics here would be useful to him? What courses in other Departments would be useful? What informal reading might wisely be covered, etc., etc.

If such a scheme were carried out there ought to be some sort of formal written record of the comments and recommendations of the group advisor, so that there could be no future misunderstanding and so that a temporary absence of the advisor would not cause any embarrassment.

It would be easy to provide a memorandum pad that would provide an original for the candidate, a duplicate for the registering representative and a triplicate for the group advisor.

Won’t you give me suggestions of the kind of thing that ought to appear on a pad of this kind?

__________________________________

Memo #2. Coordinating Fields within Common Economics & Business Doctoral Program

 

November 22, 1926

Memorandum to all persons mentioned herein:

The problem attacked in this memorandum is that of carrying through effectively the legislation which has established the single Ph.D. degree for work in our group.

The particular aspect of that problem which is taken up below is the matter of securing competent advice and counsel (not compulsion) in the fields in which candidates present themselves for written examinations.

Will the person whose name in underscored in each group undertake (within the next week, if reasonably possible) the responsibility of calling a meeting of the members of his group with the idea of

(a) listing the resources (mainly courses) available in our own offerings
(b) listing the resources (mainly courses) available in other divisions of the University
(c) listing fruitful lines of practical endeavor or outside experience
(d) and in particular, developing any other fruitful lines of counsel and suggestion for candidates in the field.

And will each leader of these group discussions please put the outcome in writing and send it to the undersigned? It is possible that (d) above will yield results that will cause all of us to get together for further discussion.

FIELDS FOR THE SINGLE DEGREE

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Business Administration

(a) Viner, Douglas, Cox, Nerlove, Kyrk [in pencil: “Edie, Schultz, Knight”]
(b) McKinsey, Meech, Stone, Barnes

  1. Statistics and Accounting: Theory and Application of Quantitative Method

(a) Cox, Schultz, Nerlove
(b) Rorem, McKinsey, Daines

  1. Economic History and Historical Method

Wright, Sorrell, Viner, Palyi

  1. The Financial System and Financial Administration

Mints, Cox, Meech, Palyi

  1. Labor and Personnel Administration

Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. The Market and the Administration Marketing

Duddy, Palmer, Barnes, Dinsmore

  1. Risk and its Administration

Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints

  1. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration

Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas

  1. Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production

Mitchell, Marshall, Schultz, Sorrell

  1. Government Finance

Viner, Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity

Spencer, Wright, Millis, Christ, Pomeroy

  1. Population and the Standard of Living

Kyrk, Douglas, Viner

  1. Field proposed by the candidate

L. C. Marshall

 

__________________________________

Memo #3. Advanced General Survey Courses by Field

November 30, 1926

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall to All Persons Mentioned Herein:

 

The problem attacked in this memorandum is that of carrying through effectively our arrangements with respect to our advanced general survey courses—courses that in the past we have sometimes referred to as “Introduction to the Graduate Study of X,” although we are not now following this terminology.

The following background facts will need to be kept in mind:

  1. We are to have introductory point of view courses designed to give an organic view of the Economic Order. These courses are numbered 102, 103, 104.
  2. Our next range of courses is designed primarily to deal with method. This range includes: 1. Economic History; 2. Statistics; 3. Accounting; 4. Intermediate Theory.
  3. The foregoing seven courses are the only courses for which we assume responsibility as far as the ordinary [pencil: “Arts & Literature] undergraduate is concerned. It may well be that from time to time some member of the staff will be interested in giving for undergraduates a course on some live problem of the day, but this is an exceptional matter and not a matter of our standard arrangement.
  4. Our best undergraduates may move on to the type of courses referred to above in the first paragraph, such as courses 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. In general the prerequisites for admission to these courses (as far as undergraduates are concerned) would be a certain number of majors in our work plus 27 majors with an average of B. Under the regulations which the Graduate Faculty has laid down, students who have less than 27 majors could not be admitted to these courses except with the consent of the group and Dean Laing.

It is highly essential that our work in these advanced survey courses such as 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. shall:

  1. Really assume the method courses mentioned above: really be conducted at a level which assumes that the student possesses certain techniques
  2. Really assume an adequate background of subject-matter content.

Will the person whose name is underscored in each group undertake (as promptly as reasonably may be) the responsibility of conducting conferences designed

  1. To lead to explicit definite arrangements looking toward the actual utilization of the earlier method courses in these advanced survey courses.
  2. To prepare a bibliography that can be mimeographed and placed in each student’s hands who enters one of these advanced survey courses. This bibliography is not to be a bibliography of the course (that is a separate matter) but a bibliography of what is assumed by way of preparation for the course. Whether a somewhat different bibliography should be made for the Economics course and the Business course in a given field is left for each group to discuss. Personally I hope that it will be a single bibliography for the two. Mr. Palyi suggests the desirability of a bibliographical article (worthy of pulication) for each field. This seems to me an admirable suggestion—one difficult to resist.

Will each leader of the group referred to below please put the outcome of your discussion in writing and send to the undersigned? It is to be hoped that you will find other matters to report upon in addition to the foregoing.

GROUPS

  1. The Financial System and Financial Administration

Meech, Mints, Cox, Palyi

  1. Labor and Personnel Administration

Douglas, Millis, Stone, Kornhauser

  1. The Market and the Administration Marketing

Palmer, Duddy, Barnes, Dinsmore

  1. Risk and its Administration

Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints

  1. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration

Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas

  1. Government Finance

Viner, Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. Population and the Standard of Living

Kyrk, Douglas, Viner

  1. Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production

Mitchell, Daines, McKinsey

The following fields are not included in this memorandum either because of specific course prerequisites or because of obvious difficulties in the case:

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Administration
  2. Statistics and Accounting
  3. Economic History and Historical Method
  4. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity

__________________________________

Memo #4. Written Field Examinations

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
THE WORK IN ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

Memorandum to:
Members of the Instructing Staff from L. C. Marshall, January 27, 1927

This communication is directed toward carrying one step farther the work of the various groups which are preparing for the effective administration of the single doctorate.

You will remember that in each functional field an analysis has been made of our resources. This looks in the direction of more competent advice to students concentrating in the various fields. You will also remember that in each functional field certain steps have been taken looking toward the more effective operation of the courses that in the past we have sometimes referred to as “Introduction to the Graduate Study of X.”

The primary purpose of this present memorandum is to suggest to each functional group that it now examine carefully the matter of the written examination in that field; giving attention to the character of the standards which should be insisted upon, the number and type and grouping of questions which should be asked, and any other significant issues. After each group has examined the issues and difficulties in its particular field it may prove necessary to have a general meeting of all groups to determine general policies in these matters. It seems unnecessary to hold a general meeting in advance of the special meeting since we can assume our existing standards and practices as at least a point of departure for the group discussions.

Will the person whose name is underscored undertake as promptly as reasonably may be the responsibility of conducting group conferences on this matter of written examinations for the doctorate.

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Administration (Here is the only really difficult problem in the whole matter. This field is to be required of all candidates and the outstanding problem is how to formulate an examination that will properly cover the case. Probably there will be little or no difficulty in the case of economic theory for students who are primarily interested in Business Administration for they would certainly have covered 301, 302, 309 and they would almost certainly have covered a theoretical course in some special field, e.g., Wages, in the field of Labor. The case is different in the matter of the Business Administration requirement for persons who are primarily interested in orthodox Economics, since Business Administration courses are confessedly not as well organized as courses in Economic Theory. The difficulty may, however, be exaggerated in our minds. Under our new groupings most candidates will automatically have come into contact with an administrative course in one or more functional fields. Probably a little practical wisdom in arranging requirements for a brief transition period will leave us with few problems in this matter after the transition is over.)
    Douglas, Viner, Millis, Cox, Nerlove, Spencer, McKinsey, Meech, Stone
  2. Statistics and Accounting; theory and application of quantitative method. (Our general standard has been general knowledge of both fields and detailed knowledge of one in case this field of work is offered.)
    Daines, Wright, Cox, Schultz, Nerlove, Rorem, McKinsey
  3. Economic History and Historical Method (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Wright, Sorrell, Viner, Palyi
  4. The Financial System and Financial Administration.
    Cox, Mints, Meech, Palyi, Wright
  5. Labor and Personnel Administration.
    Stone, Millis, Douglas, Kornhauser
  6. The Market and Market Administration
    Barnes, Duddy, Palmer, Dinsmore
  7. Risk and its Administration
    Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
  8. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration. (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas
  9. Resources, Technology and Administration of Production. . (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Mitchell, Daines, Schultz, Sorrell
  10. Government Finance. . (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Millis, Viner, Douglas, Stone
  11. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity. (Although no great change is taking place in this field, the problem is sufficiently difficult to justify a conference.)
    Pomeroy, Spencer, Wright, Millis, Christ
  12. Population and the Standard of Living. (In Mr. Field’s absence let us omit discussion of the written examination.)

__________________________________

Memo #5. Please Respond to Memos #2-#4

May 25, 1927

Follow up Memorandum to persons mentioned herein from L. C. Marshall

On November 22, 1926, a memorandum was sent to certain groups of committees dealing with the problem of securing competent advice and counsel in the fields in which candidates present themselves for written examinations. The committees were asked to list the resources available in the University in each field; to list fruitful lines of practical endeavor or outside experience; and to indicate other fruitful lines of counsel and suggestion for candidates.

It was hoped that data would become available in time to make the circular for 1927-28 more attractive and in time to prepare mimeographed sheets for the use of students this year.

Below is a statement of the committees, with their chairmen. The asterisk indicates that the committee has reported. Will those who have not yet reported please do so as soon as possible.

Theory, Viner
Administration, McKinsey*
Statistics, Cox*
Accounting, Rorem*
Econ. Hist. etc. Wright
Finance etc. Mints
Labor etc. Millis*
Market etc. Duddy*
Risk etc. Nerlove*
Transportation etc. Sorrell
Resources etc. Mitchell*
Govt. Finance, Viner
Social Direction etc. Spencer*
Population etc. Kyrk

* * * * * *

On November 30, 1926, a memorandum was sent to certain groups of committees dealing with the problem of carrying through effectively our arrangements with respect to our advanced general survey courses. Each committee was asked to indicate what definite things can be done in the way of making certain that the preparatory method courses will eventually be utilized; what can be done in the way of mimeographed bibliography indicating what is assumed by way of preparation for each advance survey course; what other things can be done.

It was hope that the data would be available in time to enable us to take quite a long step forward in this matter in connection with the 1927-28 advanced survey courses.

Below is a statement of the committees with their chairmen. The asterisk indicates that the committee has reported. Will those who have not yet reported please do so as soon as possible.

Finance etc. Meech*
Labor etc. Douglas
Market etc. Palmer*
Risk etc. Nerlove*
Transportation etc. Sorrell
Govt. Finance, Viner
Population etc. Kyrk
Resources etc. Mitchell

* * * * * *

On Feb. 3, 1927 a memorandum [Probably the memorandum was that dated January 27, 1927] was sent to certain groups of committees dealing with the problem of the character of the written examination in each functional field.

It was hoped that we could start the year 1927-28 with a clearer view of what should be our positions with respect to these examinations.

Below is a statement of the committees with their chairmen. The asterisk indicates that the committee has reported. Will those who have not yet reported please do so as soon as possible?

Economic Theory and Principles of Business Administration, Douglas
Statistics and Accounting: Theory and Application of Quantitative Method, Daines
Economic History and Historical Method, Wright
The Financial System and Financial Administration, Cox
Labor and Personnel Administration, Stone
The Market and the Administration Marketing, Barns*
Risk and its Administration, Nerlove
Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration, Sorrell
Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production, Mitchell
Government Finance, Millis
Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity, Pomeroy*

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 22, Folder 6.