Categories
Chicago Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Intermediate International Monetary Economics. Lloyd A. Metzler, 1949

 

 

The Departmental course requirements for an M.A. in economics at the University of Chicago in 1949: “Normally fifteen courses (or their equivalent) in economics, eight of which ordinarily will be at the 300 level.” The courses numbered in the 200’s were called “Intermediate Courses” and those in the 300’s were “Survey and problem courses in special fields…The main purpose…is to prepare students for research.” The 400’s courses were for “Research, reading, and seminars”.

The final examination questions for the summer quarters of 1947 and 1948 for this course have been posted as well.

_______________________________

[Course Description]

[Economics] 270. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS. The nature of international payments and receipts; foreign trade and the banking system. The gold standard in the interwar period. The breakdown of the gold standard and the period of fluctuating exchange rates. Exchange controls, clearing agreements and payments agreements. The second world war and the foreign exchange markets. The position of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the present world economy. Prereq: Econ 209, 230 [Intermediate Economic Theory, Introduction to Money and Banking, respectively], or equiv. Aut: MWF 8:30; Metzler.

 

Source: University of Chicago. Announcements, Volume XLIX, Number 9: The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1949-1950, July 1, 1949, p. 24.

__________________________________

Economics 270
Major Topics and Selected Reading
Autumn Quarter 1949

I. Foreign Exchange Markets and Equilibrium of the Balance of Payments

Enke and Salera, Chapters 4, 6.
Southard, Chapters 2, 3.
International Monetary Fund, pp. 1-24.
U. S. Department of Commerce, The United States in the World Economy, pp. 1-25, 137-200.
U. S. Department of Commerce, International Transactions of the U. S. During the War.

II. The Pre-War Gold and Gold-Exchange Standards

Enke and Salera, Chapters 8, 9, 12, 28.
League of Nations, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4.
U. S. Department of Commerce, The United States in the World Economy, Chapters 2-4.

 

III. The Breakdown of the Gold Standard: Fluctuating Exchange Rates

League of Nations, Chapters 5,6
Enke and Salera, Chapter 30.

 

IV. The Development of Exchange Controls

Ellis, Chapters 1, 2, 4.
League of Nations, Chapter 7.
Triffin, “National Central Banking and the International Economy,” International Monetary Policies. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Rejoinder by Haberler.

 

V. The International Monetary Fund

Articles of agreement of the International Monetary Fund.
Third Annual Report of the International Monetary Fund.
Enke and Salera, Chapter 32.
Harris, The New Economics, Chapters 24, 25, 26, 27.
L. A. Metzler, “Exchange Rates ad the International Monetary Fund,” International Monetary Policies, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1947.
R. F. Mikesell, “The Role of the International Monetary Agreements in a World of Planned Economies,” Journal of Political Economy, December, 1947.
Camille Gutt, “Exchange Rates and the International Monetary Fund,” Chapter 10 of Foreign Economic Policy for the United States.

 

VI. The International Bank For Reconstruction and Development

Articles of agreement of the International Bank.
Enke and Salera, Chapter 33, 34.
Third Annual Report of the International Bank.

 

VII. Post-war Trade and the World Shortage of Dollars

Harris, editor, Foreign Economic Policy for the United States, Chapters 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25.
United Nations, A Survey of the Economic Situation and Prospects of Europe.
United Nations, Economic Survey of Europe in 1948.

 

Books Referred to in this Bibliography

Enke and Salera, International Economics, New York, 1947.
H. S. Ellis, Exchange Control in Central Europe, Cambridge, Mass., 1941.
League of Nations, International Currency Experience, 1944.
F. A. Southard, Foreign Exchange Practice and Policy, New York, 1941.
International Monetary Fund, Balance-of-Payments Yearbook, Wash., D.C., 1949.
U. S. Department of Commerce, The United States in the World Economy.
U. S. Department of Commerce, International Transactions of the U. S. During the War.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, International Monetary Policies,
Wash., D.C., 1947.
S. E. Harris, editor, The New Economics, New York, 1947.
S. E. Harris, editor, Foreign Economic Policy for the United States, Cambridge, Mass., 1948.
United Nations, A Survey of the Economic Situation and Prospects of Europe.
United Nations, Economic Survey of Europe in 1948.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder: “Econ. 270 International Econ. (Chicago)”.

 

Source Image: “From family album, taken while Lloyd Metzler was a student at Harvard.”
“Lloyd A. Metzler” by Margiemetz – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.

Categories
Chicago Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Theory and Measurement of Demand. Henry Schultz, 1934

The undated reading list and bibliography for Henry Schultz’s advanced course “Theory and Measurement of Demand” transcribed below, included in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution Archives, are almost certainly from the Autumn quarter, 1934. This was the academic year that Friedman worked as Henry Schultz’s research assistant at the University of Chicago and audited the course.

______________________________

Friedman audited the Schultz course, Theory and Measurement of Demand

According to the draft of his Civil Service application Milton Friedman worked as personal assistant to Henry Schultz October 1934-August 1935 at a yearly salary of $1600. In his list of courses on a separate page, Friedman writes that he “visited”, i.e. did not take for credit, a course in the Theory of Demand given by Henry Schultz during the academic year 1934-35.

 

Source: Milton Friedman Papers, Hoover Institution Archives, Box 5, Folder 4 (Employment records, Civil Service Commission).

______________________________

Friedman describes his work for Schultz

From a carbon-copy, presumably an attachment to the same Civil Service application in Box 5, Folder 4, Friedman writes:

“I lived in Chicago, Ill. from September, 1934 to August, 1935 while employed by the University of Chicago.

My educational training and experience gained while working with Professor Schultz this past year are most relevant to the position for which I am applying. I have aided Prof. Schultz on the theoretical questions underlying his forthcoming book on “The Theory and Measurement of Demand”, a subject intimately connected with consumption. In this connection I have had to survey the literature on demand and consumption. In addition to the theoretical work I have been in charge of related statistical studies and was largely responsible for the planning and direction of a statistical study of the demand for meats in the United States, on which study three statistical assistants were employed. In the course of the study I wrote several memoranda analyzing and interpreting the data and results. The results of the analysis are being published by Prof. Schultz in…[next page missing].”

Source: Milton Friedman Papers, Hoover Institution Archives, Box 5, Folder 11(Student years).

______________________________

[Course Description] 

  1. The Theory and Measurement of Demand.—A course covering such topics as the pure theory of demand; demand and utility in the theory of exchange; static and dynamic demand functions; different notions of elasticity of demand; various methods of deriving demand functions from family budget data and from time series of consumption and prices; etc. Prerequisite: Economics 301, a reading knowledge of French, and consent of the instructor. C.—2Cs., Autumn, 9:00, SCHULTZ.

 

Source: University of Chicago. Announcements: The College and The Divisons for the Sessions of 1934-35, pp. 286-7.

______________________________

REFERENCES FOR ECONOMICS 405

Theory and Measurement of Demand
by
Henry Schultz
University of Chicago

____

I. General Equilibrium

Bowley, A. L. Mathematical Groundwork of Economics
Divisia, Francois Économique Rationelle
Evans, G. C. Mathematical Introduction to Economics
Fisher, Irving Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Price,–in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences (9-10) pp. 1-125.
Marshall, Alfred Principles of Economics
Pareto, Vilfredo +Manuel d’Économie Politique (especially Chap. III and Mathematical Appendix, pp. 539-594.)

+Cours d’Économie Politique (especially first 73 pages)

+Économie Mathématique, in Encyclopédie des sciences Mathématique, Tome I, Vol. 4, Fascicule 4, pp. 591-640.

Pietri-Tonelli, Alfonso Traité d’Économie Politique
Walras, Leon +Éléments d’Économie Politique
Zawadzki, Wl. Les Mathématiques Appliquées à l’Économie Politique

 

 

II. Utility Theory

A. Philosophical and Historical Background

Bentham, Jeremy Principles of Morals and Legislation
Edgeworth, F. Y. Mathematical Psychics
Halevy, Elie La Formation du Radicalisme Philosophique (French or English edition)
Jevons, W. Stanley Theory of Political Economy
Mitchell, Wesley C. “Bentham and the Felicific Calculus”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXXIII, No. 2, June, 1918.
Stephen, Leslie The Utilitarians

 

B. Analytical and Statistical

Allen, R. G. D. “The Foundations of a Mathematical Theory of Exchange”, Economica, May, 1932.

+”The Nature of Indifference Curves”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, Feb., 1934, pp. 110-121.

+”A Comparison between Different Definitions of Complementary and Competitive Goods”, Economtrica, Vol. II, No. 2, April, 1934, pp. 168-176.

Allen, R.G.D., and Hicks, J.R. “A reconsideration of the Theory of Value”, Economica, Part I, Feb., 1934, pp. 52-76. Part II, May, 1934, pp. 196-219.
Evans, G. C. “The Role of Hypothesis in Economic Theory”, Science, Vol. 75, No. 1943, March 25, 1932, pp. 321-324.
Johnson, W.E. “The Pure Theory of Utility Curves”, Economic Journal, Vol. XXIII, No. 92, Dec., 1913, pp. 483-513.
Lange, Oscar “The Determinateness of the Utility Function”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 218-226.
Schultz, Henry Review of Evans’ Mathematical Introduction in Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. XXVI, No. 176, Dec., 1931, pp. 484-91.

+”Interrelations of Demand”, Journal of Political Economy, XLI, 1933, pp. 468-512.

Thurstone, L. L. “The Indifference Function”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. II, No. 2, May, 1931, pp. 139-67.
Zotoff, A. W. “Notes on the Mathematical Theory of Production”, Economic Journal, Vol. XXXIII, 1923, pp. 115-121.

 

C. Applications

Allen, R. G. D. “On the Marginal Utility of Money and Its Applications”, Economica, May, 1933.
Fisher, Irving “A Statistical Method for Measuring ‘Marginal Utility’ and Testing the Justice of a Progressive Income Tax”, in Economic Essays Contributed in Honor of John Bates Clark.
Frisch, Ragnar “Sur un Problème d’Économie Pure”, Norsk Matamatisk Forenings Skriften, 1926, Series 1, No. 16.

New Methods of Measuring Marginal Utility

Schultz, Henry “Frisch on the Measurement of Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, XLI, Feb., 1933, pp. 95-117.

+ Of special importance

 

________________________________

 

[Handwritten: Milton Friedman]

 

REFERENCES FOR ECONOMICS 405
Bibliography on Demand

__

Henry Schultz
University of Chicago

____

Derivation of Demand Curves
I. From Price [and] Quantity Data

A. The Moore Method

Moore, H.L. Economic Cycles: Their Law and Cause. New York, 1914.

Forecasting Yield and Price of Cotton. New York, 1917.

“Empirical Laws of Demand and Supply and the Flexibility of Prices”, PSQ, XXXIV, 1919.

“Elasticity of Demand and Flexibility of Prices”, JASA, XVIII, 1922.

“A Moving Equilibrium of Demand and Supply”, QJE, XXXIX, 1925.

“Partial Elasticity of Demand”, QJE, XL, 1926.

“A Theory of Economic Oscillations”, QJE, XLI, 1926.

Synthetic Economics, New York, 1929.

Schultz, Henry Statistical Laws of Demand and Supply, with Special Application to Sugar. Chicago, 1928.

Meaning of Statistical Demand Curves. English original of Der Sinn der Statistischen Nachfragekurven, Veroeffentlichungen der Frankfurter Gesellschaft fuer Konjunkturforschung, Heft 10. Bonn, 1930.

“The Shifting Demand for Selected Agricultural Commodities, 1875-1929”, Journal of Farm Economics, XIV, 1932, 201-27.

“A Comparison of Elasticities of Demand Obtained by Different Methods”, Econometrica, I, 1933, 274-308.

“Interrelations of Demand”, JPE, XLI, 1933, 468-512.

Lenoir, Marcel Études sur la Formation et le Mouvement des Prix. Paris, 1913.
Ezekiel, Mordecai “Statistical Analysis of the Laws of Price”, QJE, 1928.

“A Statistical Examination of Lamb Prices”, JPE, April, 1927.

 

B. The Leontief Method

Leontief, Wassily “Ein Versuch zur Statistischen Analyse von Angebot und Nachfrage”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Band XXX, Heft 1, 1929, pp. 1-53.
Schultz, Henry Meaning of Statistical Demand Curves, Appendix II, 99-118.
Frisch, Ragnar “Pitfalls in the Statistical Construction of Demand and Supply Curves”, Veroeffentlichungen der Frankfurter Gesellschaft fuer Konjunkturforschung, Neue Folge, Heft 5, Leipzig, 1933.
Leontief, Wassily “Pitfalls in the Construction of Demand and Supply Curves: A Reply”, QJE, XLVIII, 1934, 352-63.
Frisch, Ragnar “More Pitfalls in Demand and Supply Analysis: A Reply”, QJE, XLVIII, 1934, 749-55.
Leontief, Wassily “More Pitfalls in Demand and Supply Analysis: A Final Word”, QJE, XLVIII, 1934, 755-59.
Marschak, J. “More Pitfalls in Demand and Supply Analysis: Some Comments”, QJE, XLVIII, 1934, 759-67.

 

C. The (second) Pigou Method

Pigou, A.C. “The Statistical Derivation of Demand Curves”, EJ, XL, 1930, 344-400; reprinted in A.C. Pigou and D.H. Robertson, Economic Essays and Addresses. London, 1931.
Ferger, Wirth F. “Pigou’s Method of Deriving Demand Curves”, EJ, XLII, 1932, 17-26.
Cassels, J.M. “A Critical Consideration of Professor Pigou’s Method for Deriving Demand Curves”, EJ, XLIII, 1933, 574-87.
Allen, R.G.D. “A Critical Examination of Professor Pigou’s Method of Deriving Demand Elasticity”, Econometrica, II, July, 1934, 249-58.

 

D. Miscellaneous

Working, Holbrook “The Statistical Determination of Demand Curves”, QJE, XXXIX, 1925.
Working, E.J. “What do Statistical Demand Curves Show?” QJE, XLI, 1927, 212-35.
Gilboy, Elizabeth W. “Demand Curves in Theory and Practice”, QJE, XLV, 1930.

“The Leontief and Schultz Methods of Deriving ‘Demand’ Curves”, QJE, XLV, 1931, 218-61.
“Studies in Demand: Milk and Butter”, QJE, XLVII, 1932, 671-97.

Ferger, Wirth F. “The Static and Dynamic in Statistical Demand Curves”, QJE, XLVII, 1932, 36-62.

 

II. From Family Budget Data

A. The (first) Pigou Method

Pigou, A.C. “A Method of Determining Numerical Values of Elasticity of Demand”, EJ, XX, 1910, 636-40.

 

B. The Frisch Method

Frisch, Ragnar “Sur un Problème d’Économie Pure”, Norsk Matamatisk Forenings Skriften, 1926, Series 1, No. 16.

New Methods of Measuring Marginal Utility

Schultz, Henry “Frisch on the Measurement of Utility”, JPE, XLI, 1933, 95-117.

 

C. The Marschak Method

Marschak, Jakob Elastizitaet der Nachfrage, Beitraege zur Oekonomischen Theorie, 2, Tuebingen, 1931.
Frisch, Ragnar “Discussion of Marschak’s Method”, Revue d’Économie Politique, XLVI, 1932, 14-28.

 

D. The Roy Method

Roy, René La demande dans ses rapports avec la Répartition des Revenue”, Metron, VIII, 1930, 101-53.

“Les Lois de la Demande”, Revue d’Économie Politique, 1931, 1190-1218.

 

E. Miscellaneous

Gilboy, Elizabeth W. “Demand Curves by Personal Estimate”, QJE, 1932.
Waugh, Albert E. “Elasticity of Demand from Budget Studies”, QJE, 1932.
Bean, L. H. “The Farmer’s Response to Price”, Journal of Farm Economics, 1929.

“Measuring the Effect of Supplies on Prices of Farm Products”, Journal of Farm Economics, April, 1933.

 

N.B.

The references, with but one exception, are confined to works in English or French. For additional references see Schultz, Henry: “A Comparison…”, Econometrica, I, 1933, 274-308.

The abbreviations refer to the following periodicals:

EJ Economic Journal
JASA Journal of the American Statistical Association
JPE Journal of Political Economy
PSQ Political Science Quarterly
QJE Quarterly Journal of Economics

 

Source: The above transcription is based on the copy  in Milton Friedman Papers, Hoover Institution Archives, Box 5, Folder 12 (Student years). Another copy can be found in the George Stigler Papers, University of Chicago Archives, Addenda, Box 33, Folder “1935 University of Chicago Class Notes”. The copy in the Stigler notes is almost identical to the Friedman copy (with some hand-corrected titles and additions for apparent unintended omissions). Stigler’s notes to the course along with class hand-outs are found in the same folder.

Image Source: The only photo of Henry Schultz that I have ever come across is the one found to accompany Harold Hotelling’s paper and Paul Douglas’ paper in Econometrica (1939) honoring Schultz who died November 26, 1938 in a tragic automobile accident that also took the lives of his wife and two daughters.

Categories
Chicago Economists Harvard

Chicago. J. Laurence Laughlin, brief biographical sketch, 1899

LAUGHLIN, James Laurence, 1850-

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions

Chicago. Economic Theory Exams, A.M. and Ph.D. Summer 1949

The economic theory examination committee at the University of Chicago in the Summer Quarter of 1949  for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees was made up of F. H. Knight (chair), O. H. Brownlee, M. Friedman, and  L. A. Metzler.  49 students took Part I of the exam (33 were Ph.D. students, 16 were A.M. students, equally divided between economics majors and minors). Part II of the examination was taken by 14 Ph.D. students (no A.M. students).  It does not appear that Knight participated in the grading of Part II however.

Two minor notes: Students were assigned numbers, presumably to assure anonymity with respect to their examiners, but the “unlucky” number 13 was not assigned to anyone. The “grade sheet” for the exams is labelled the “Report on Written Examination” which is similar to the use of the word “report” by the registrar’s office on official University of Chicago transcripts (for this usage, see the Patinkin transcripts).

__________________________________________

ECONOMIC THEORY, Part I
[August 2, 1949]

Written examination for the Ph.D. and A. M. Degrees, Summer Quarter, 1949

Ph.D. candidates: Time: 3½ hours. Answer all questions

A.M. Major candidates: Time: 3 hours. Answer question #2 and two others.

A.M. Minor candidates: Time: 2 hours. Answer question #2 and one other.

 

  1. (a) Discuss and evaluate alternative theories of “Profits” as a distributive share.
    (b) It is frequently said that in a private enterprise economy the producers’ motive is to maximize “profits”. Discuss the meaning of “profits” in this connection in relation to your answer to (a).
  1. Write briefly on the meaning of the capital concept and its importance in interpreting economic growth or change. Relate your discussion to the case of a Crusoe economy and state whether (and if so how) the principles are different for the competitive pecuniary social order.
  1. With reference to federal legislation assuring to every resident in the U.S.A. medical care by the physician and hospital of his choice, free and with no special taxation: Appraise the proposal as to effects upon general welfare, assuming that the alternative is the sale of medical insurance, not subsidized, but with the same distribution of personal income effected by cash “relief”.
  1. Briefly discuss the familiar diagram of a family of short-run cost curves for a firm, with an “envelope” as a long-run curve. State the main “cases” for price-equilibrium under monopoly and under “perfect competition.” Explain why the point of tangency with both curves descending may be such an equilibrium-supply, and particularly why it locates the minimum cost for the corresponding output.
  1. Briefly outline or list the main features of the Ricardian theories of value and of distribution and contrast each point with a “sound” modern view.”

__________________________________________

ECONOMIC THEORY, Part II
[August 4, 1949]

Written examination for the Ph.D. Degree, Summer Quarter, 1949.

Time: 2½ hours.

  1. Assume an economic system in which real expenditure upon goods and services (real consumption, investment, government expense) is a function of real income and the interest-rate; show that the set of values which satisfy the conditions for equilibrium in the commodity market (make real savings and investment equal) need not contain the “full-employment” income level; i.e., that level of real income which would be produced when the quantity of labor supplied equals the quantity demanded, both the labor supply and labor demand being functions of the real wage.
    Evaluate the assumptions of this system on terms of their realism, citing the relevant evidence; and indicate modifications which would result in the inclusion of the “full employment” level of income as one of the values satisfying the condition for equilibrium in the commodity market.
  1. Under the so-called “security-reserve proposal” member banks would be required to keep a supplementary reserve against deposits over and above the reserves they are now required to keep in the form of a deposit with a Federal Reserve Bank. This supplementary reserve could be in the form of government securities.a. What is the main purpose, or purposes, of this proposal?
    b. What effect would it have on the ability of the banks to expand credit, and how?
    c. In the light of present economic conditions, what can you say about the urgency of such a “reform”?
  1. It is a common view today that an equal reduction of both taxes and governmental expenditure would contribute to an increase of the national income or counteract a tendency to depression. State your position and discuss carefully.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 76, Folder 10 “University of Chicago Econ. 300B”.

Categories
Bibliography Chicago Socialism

Chicago. Skelton bibliography from “Socialism: A Critical Analysis”, 1911

The following bibliography comes from the revised version of the University of Chicago Ph.D. dissertation of the Canadian, Oscar D. Skelton (1878-1941), that was awarded the Hart, Schaffner and Marx prize in 1908. The prize committee was composed of  J. Laurence Laughlin of the University of Chicago (chair), J.B. Clark of Columbia University, Henry C. Adams of the University of Michigan, Horace White of New York City and Carroll D. Wright of Clark College. Skelton attended courses taught by Thorstein Veblen whose work on Marxian economics is (unsurprisingly) cited in this bibliography. 

Following  his graduate studies in economics at Chicago, Oscar D. Skelton was a professor of political science and economics at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario from 1909-25. He then moved on to have a distinguished career as a public servant, serving as undersecretary of state for external affairs.

Image Source: Library and Archives Canada C-002089, copy at Wikimedia Commons.

_____________________________

Source:  Oscar D. Skelton. Socialism: A Critical Analysis, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911, pp. 313-322.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Of the making of books on socialism there is no end. The list of references given below is suggested as including the most important and most easily accessible works on the various phases of the movement. The pamphlets and periodicals issued by the party organizations in the different countries are indispensable for an intimate acquaintance with contemporary developments.

In Germany special reference may be made to the weekly organ of the orthodox wing, Die Neue Zeit (Stuttgart), the fortnightly reformist publication, Socialistische Monatshefte (Berlin), and among the seventy-odd socialist dailies of Germany, Vorwärts (Berlin); consult also the extensive catalogue of books and pamphlets issued by Buchhandlung Vorwarts, Berlin, S. W. 68, Lindenstr. 69. The Reichsverband gegen die Sozialdemokratie and the political parties opposed to socialism, publish many campaign documents.

For France, attention should be given the reformist monthly, La revue socialiste, and the syndicalist monthly, Le mouvement socialiste; the weekly organ of Guesdism, Le Socialisme, and the party official publication, Le Socialiste; the anarcho-syndicalist La guerre sociale, and the daily, L’Humanité, edited by Jaurès; pamphlets may be procured from the Librairie du Parti Socialiste, 16 rue de la Corderie, 16, Paris.

In Great Britain the most important publications are the Socialist Review, the monthly, and the Labor Leader, the weekly, organs of the I. L. P.; the S. D. P. weekly, Justice, and Blatchford’s Clarion; the Christian Socialist weekly, The Commonwealth, and the Fabian News; both the I. L. P.and the S. D. P., maintain publishing departments, in Manchester and London respectively. The Anti-socialist Union of Great Britain, 38, Victoria St., London, S. W., publishes a monthly, Liberty, and numerous pamphlets.

For the United States, use may be made of the International Socialist Review, monthly, Chicago; the weekly Appeal to Reason, Girard, Kansas, and Social-Democratic Herald, Milwaukee; the Chicago Daily Socialist and the New York Call (daily). Charles Kerr and Company, Chicago, the Wilshire Book Company, New York, and the Socialist Party Headquarters, Chicago, are the chief American publishers of socialist books and pamphlets.

For references to the literature on the countless social topics bearing indirectly on socialism, the general reader will find most help in Bliss, New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, New York, 1908, and in the carefully annotated bibliography, Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Harvard University, Cambridge, 1910.

 

 

Chapter I. General Works

 

1. Non-partisan expositions; Kirkup and Sombart are especially sympathetic and comprehensive in their treatment:

Ely, Socialism and Social Reform. New York, 1894.

Kirkup, A History of Socialism, 4th edition. London, 1908.

Rae, Contemporary Socialism, 3d edition. London, 1901.

Schäffle, The Quintessence of Socialism. London, 1889.

Sombart, Socialism and the Social Movement. New York, 1909.

Stoddart, The New Socialism. London, 1909.

 

2. Exposition and argument from socialist point of view:

Blatchford, Merrie England. London, 1895.

________, Britain for the British. London, 1902.

Cohen, Socialism for Students. New York, 1910.

Fabian Essays. London, 1890.

Fabian Tracts, 1-136. London, 1907.

Ferri, Socialism and Positive Science. London, 1905.

Hillquit, Socialism in Theory and Practice. New York, 1909.

Kelly, Twentieth Century Socialism. New York, 1910.

Macdonald, Socialism. London, 1907.

________, Socialism and Society. London, 1907.

Morris and Bax, Socialism: its growth and outcome. London, 1897.

Spargo. Socialism. New York, 1906.

________, The Socialists: who they are and what they stand for. Chicago, 1906.

Tugan-Baranowsky, Modern Socialism in its historical development. London, 1910.

Wells, New Worlds for Old. New York, 1908.

 

3. Exposition and criticism from anti-socialist point of view:

Cathrein-Gettlemann, Socialism. New York, 1904.

Elgee and Raine, The Case against Socialism. London, 1908.

Flint, Socialism. London, 1894.

Graham, Socialism New and Old. London, 1907.

Guyot, Socialistic Fallacies. New York, 1910.

Leroy-Beaulieu, Collectivism. New York, 1908.

Le Rossignol, Orthodox Socialism: a Criticism. New York, 1907.

Mackay, Plea for Liberty. London, 1892.

Mallock, A Critical Examination of Socialism. London, 1908.

 

 

Chapter II. The Socialist Indictment

Brooks, The Social Unrest. New York, 1905.

Call, The Concentration of Wealth. Boston, 1907.

Chiozza-Money, Riches and Poverty, 7th edition. London, 1908.

Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. London, 1892.

Ghent, Mass and Class. New York, 1904.

Göhre, Three Months in a Workshop. London.

Hobson, The Social Problem. London, 1901.

Hunter, Poverty. New York, 1907.

Ladoff, American Pauperism. Chicago.

Meyer, Great American Fortunes. Chicago, 1910.

Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis. New York, 1908.

Reeve, The Cost of Competition. New York, 1906.

Veblen, Theory of Business Enterprise. New York, 1904.

 

Chapter III. The Socialist Indictment Considered

Bosanquet, Aspects of the Social Problem. London, 1898.

________, Civilization of Christendom. London, 1893.

Gilman, Socialism and the American Spirit. London, 1893.

Ireson, The People’s Progress. London, 1909.

Laughlin, Socialism a Philosophy of Failure. Scribner’s Magazine, xlv.

________, Large Fortunes. Atlantic Monthly, xcvi.

Leroy-Beaulieu, The Modern State. London, 1891.

La Répartition de la Richesse. Paris, 1888.

Mallock, Labour and the Popular Welfare. London, 1893.

________, Classes and Masses. London, 1896.

________, Aristocracy and Evolution. London, 1901.

Strachey, Problems and Perils of Socialism. London, 1908.

Sumner, What Social Classes owe to each other. New York, 1884.

 

 

Chapter IV. Utopian Socialism

Utopian sources:

More, Utopia. Ed. Arber, London, 1869.

Morley, ed., Ideal Commonwealths. London, 1885

Campanella, City of the Sun;
Bacon, The New Atlantis;
Harrington, Oceana.

Mably, De la Législation. Paris. 1776.

Morelly, Code de la Nature. Paris, 1755.

Godwin, Enquiry concerning Political Justice. London, 1793.

________, On Property. (Book VIII of preceding work.) London, 1890.

Babeuf, La Doctrine des Égaux. Edited by Thomas. Paris, 1906.

Owen, New View of Society. London, 1816.

________, New Moral World. London, 1834-41.

Fourier, Théorie de Unité universelle. 2d edition. Paris, 1838.

________, Le Nouveau Monde industriel et societaire. 3d edition. Paris, 1848.

________, Selections from Fourier. Edited by Gide. London, 1901.

Considérant, Destinée sociale. Paris, 1836-38.

Saint-Simon, OEuvres de Saint-Simon et d’Enfantin. Paris, 1865-78.

Bazard, Exposition de la doctrine de Saint-Simon. Paris, 1830-31.

Pecqueur, Des améliorations materielles dans leurs rapports avec la liberté. Paris, 1839.

Vidal, De la répartition des richesses et de la justice distributive. Paris, 1846.

Weitling, Garantien der Harmonie und Freiheit. Jubilee edition. Berlin, 1908.

Blanc, L’Organisation du travail. Paris, 1839.

Proudhon, What is Property? Boston, 1876.

Commentaries:

Barker, Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. London, 1906.

Bax, Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists. London, 1903.

Booth, Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism. London, 1871.

Bourgin, Proudhon. Paris, 1901.

Buonarotti, History of Babeuf’s Conspiracy for Equality. London, 1836.

Diehl, Proudhon: seine Lehre und sein Leben. 1888-90.

Ely, French and German Socialism. New York, 1893.

Fournière, Les théories socialistes au xixe siecle: de Babeuf à Proudhon. Paris, 1904.

Guthrie, Socialism before the French Revolution. New York, 1907.

Janet, Les Origines du socialisme contemporain. Paris, 1883.

________, Saint-Simon, et le Saint-Simonisme. Paris, 1878.

Kautsky, Die Vorlaufer des neueren Sozialismus. 2d edition. Stuttgart, 1909.

________, Thomas More und seine Utopie. Stuttgart, 1907.

Lichtenberger, Le Socialisme au xviiie siècle. Paris, 1895.

________, Le socialisme utopique. Paris, 1898.

Menger, The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour. London, 1899.

Michel, L’Idee de l’État. Paris, 1896.

Peixotto, The French Revolution and Modern French Socialism. New York, 1901.

Podmore, Robert Owen. London, 1906.

Pöhlmann, Geschichte des antiken Kommunismus und Sozialismus. Munich, 1893.

Stein, Der Sozialismus und Kommunismus des heutigen Frankreichs, Leipzig, 1848.

Sudre, Histoire du Communisme. Paris, 1850.

Tchernoff, Louis Blanc. Paris, 1904.

Warschauer, Die Entwickelungsgeschichte des Sozialismus. Berlin, 1909.

Reybaud, Études sur les Réformateurs contemporains ou socialistes modernes. 7th edition. Paris, 1864.

 

Utopian experiments:

Hillquit, History of Socialism in the United States. 4th edition. New York, 1906. Hinds, American Communities. Chicago, 1908.

Nordhoff, Communistic Societies in the United States. New York, 1875.

Noyes, American Socialisms. Philadelphia, 1870.

Shaw, Icaria: a Chapter in the history of Communism. New York, 1881.

Chapters V, VI, VII. The Marxian Analysis

Sources:

Marx, Capital, vols. 1-3. Chicago, 1906-09.

________, Capital, vol. 1. Humboldt edition (cited in text). New York.

________, Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy. New York, 1904.

________, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Chicago, 1907.

________, Poverty of Philosophy. London, 1900.

________, Revolution and Counter-Revolution. Chicago, 1907.

________, Theorien über die Mehrwert. Stuttgart, 1904.

________, Wage-Labour and Capital. London, 1907.

Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto. London, 1906.

Engels, Feuerbach: Origins of the Socialist Philosophy. London, 1906.

________, Landmarks of Scientific Socialism (Anti-Duhring). London, 1907.

________, Origin of the Family. London, 1907.

________, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. London, 1892.

Lassalle, Reden und Schriften, ed. Bernstein. Berlin, 1893.

________, Open Letter. New York, 1901.

________, Workingman’s Programme. New York, 1899.

Mehring, Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle. Stuttgart, 1902.

 

Socialist Commentaries:

Adler, Marx als Denker. Berlin, 1909.

Adler and Hilferding, Marx-Studien. Vienna, 1904.

Andler, Le Manifeste Communiste, introduction et commentaire, Paris, 1901.

Aveling, The Student’s Marx. 4th edition. London, 1902.

Boudin, Theoretical System of Karl Marx. Chicago, 1907.

Deville, Principes socialistes. Paris, 1896.

Hyndman, Economics of Socialism. London, 1909.

Kautsky, Das Erfurter Programm. 8th edition. Stuttgart, 1907.

________, Karl Marx’ Oekonomische Lehren. 12th edition. Stuttgart, 1908.

________, Die historische Leistung von Karl Marx. Berlin, 1908.

Spargo, Karl Marx: His Life and Work. New York, 1909.

Untermann, Marxian Economics. Chicago, 1907.

 

Criticism by non-socialists:

Adler, Die Grundlagen der Karl Marxschen Kritik der bestehenden Volkswirtschaft. Tübingen, 1897.

Biermann, Die Weltanschauung des Marxismus. Leipzig, 1908.

Hammacher, Das philosophisch-ökonomische System des Marxismus. Leipzig, 1909.

Masaryk, Die philosophischen und sociologischen Grundlagen des Marxismus. Vienna, 1899.

Simkhovitch, Marxism versus Socialism. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 23-25, 1908-10.

Slonimski, Versuch einer Kritik der Karl Marxschen ökonomischen Theorieen. Berlin, 1899.

Veblen, The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and his Followers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, xx, 575, and xxi, 299.

 

Criticism by revisionist socialists:

Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism. London, 1909.

________, Zur Geschichte und Theorie des Socialismus. Berlin, 1901.

________, Der Revisionismus in der Sozialdemokratie. Amsterdam.

Oppenheimer, Das Grundgesetz der Marxschen Gesellschaftslehre. Berlin, 1903.

Tuqan-Baranowskt, Theoretische Grundlagen des Marxismus. Leipzig, 1905.

Weisengrün, Der Marxismus und das Wesen der sozialen Frage. Leipzig, 1900.

Cf. especially the files of Socialistische Monatshefte.

 

In addition to the above general discussions of Marxism, the following special references are helpful:

On the materialistic conception of history:

Barth, Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Sociologie. Leipzig, 1897.

Bax, Essays in Socialism, New and Old. London, 1907.

Commons, Class Conflict in America. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 13.

Kautsky, Ethics and the Materialistic Conception of History. Chicago, 1907.

Labriola, Essays on the Materialistic Conception of History. Chicago, 1904.

Lafargue, Le déterminisme économique de Karl Marx. Paris, 1909.

Loria, Economic Foundations of Society. London, 1907.

Stammler, Wirtschaft und Recht nach der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung. Leipzig, 1896.

Woltman, Der historische Materialismus. Düsseldorf, 1900.

Flint, Philosophy of History in Europe. Edinburgh, 1874.

Of these Kautsky, Labriola, Lafargue, and Loria defend the Marxian position.

 

On value and surplus value:

Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of his System. London, 1898.

Fischer, Die Marxsche Werttheorie. Berlin, 1889.

Lexis, The Concluding Volume of Marx’s Capital, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 10, 1895.

Schmidt, Der dritte Band des Kapital. Sozialpol. Zentralblatt, iv, no. 22.

Sombart, Zur Kritik des ökonomischen Systems von Karl Marx. Archiv für Soziale Gesetzgebung, u. s. w., vii, 1894.

von Bortkiewicz, Wertrechnung und Preisrechnung im Marxschen System. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, xxiii-xxv.

Cf. especially the files of Die Neue Zeit, and bibliography by Sombart in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft, etc., xx, 413.

 

On the law of capitalist development:

Beveridge, Unemployment: a Problem of Industry. London, 1909.

Bourguin, Les systèmes socialistes et l’évolution économique. Paris, 1907.

David, Sozialismus und Landwirtschaft: 1. Die Betriebsfrage. Berlin, 1903.

Kautsky, Die Agrarfrage. Stuttgart, 1899.

________, Bernstein und das sozialdemokratische Programm. Stuttgart, 1899.

Kampffmeyer, Zur Kritik der Marxschen Entwickelungslehre. Sozialistische Monatshefte, 1898.

Simons, The American Farmer. 2d edition. Chicago, 1906.

von Struve, Die Theorie der sozialen Entwickelung bei Karl Marx. Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung, etc., xiv, 1899.

Wolf, Sozialismus und kapitalistische Wirtschaftsordnung. Stuttgart, 1892.

 

 

Chapter VIII. The Modern Socialist Ideal

Atlanticus, Ein Blick in den Zukunftsstaat. 1898.

Bebel, Woman under Socialism. New York, 1904.

Bellamy, Looking Backward. Boston, 1888.

Gronlund, The Coöperative Commonwealth. London, 1896.

Jaurès, Organisation socialiste. Revue socialiste, 1895-96.

Kautsky, The Social Revolution. Chicago, 1908.

Macdonald, Socialism and Government. London, 1909.

Menger, Neue Staatslehre. 3d edition. Jena, 1906.

Morris, News from Nowhere. London, 1896.

Renard, Régime socialiste. Revue socialiste. 1897-98.

________, Le Socialisme à l’oeuvre. Paris, 1907.

Vandervelde, Collectivism and Industrial Revolution. Chicago, 1901.

________, Essais socialistes. Paris, 1906.

Wells, A Modern Utopia. London, 1905.

________, Socialism and the Family. London, 1907.

Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism. Boston, 1910.

 

Criticisms of socialist proposals:

Gonner, The Socialist State: its nature, aims and conditions. London, 1895.

Guyot, The Tyranny of Socialism. London, 1895.

Hirsch, Democracy versus Socialism. London, 1901.

Mackay, editor, A Plea for Liberty. London, 1892.

Naquet, Collectivism and Socialism. London, 1891.

Richter, Pictures of the Socialist Future. London, 1894.

Schäffle, The Impossibility of Social Democracy. London, 1892.

 

 

Chapter IX. The Modern Socialist Movement

General:

Ensor, Modern Socialism. 3d edition. New York, 1910.

Bardoux, etc. Le Socialisme à l’étranger. Paris, 1909.

Hunter, Socialists at Work. New York, 1908.

Plechanoff, Anarchism and Socialism. London, 1906.

 

Socialism and Christianity:

Bliss, New Encyclopedia of Social Reform. New York, 1908.

Campbell, Christianity and the Social Order. London, 1907.

Clifford, Socialism and the Teaching of Christ, Fabian tract no. 78, with bibliography. London, 1906.

Forsyth, Socialism, the Church and the Poor. London, 1908.

Goldstein, Socialism; the nation of fatherless children. Boston, 1903.

Hartman, Socialism versus Christianity. New York, 1909.

Kaufmann, Christian Socialism. London, 1888.

Mathews, The Social Teachings of Jesus. New York, 1905.

Ming, The Characteristics and the Religion of Modern Socialism. New York, 1908.

Nitti, Catholic Socialism. New York, 1908.

Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question. New York, 1904.

Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis. New York, 1908.

Stang, Socialism and Christianity. New York, 1905.

Westcott, Social Aspects of Christianity. London, 1887.

Woodworth, Christian Socialism in England. New York, 1908.

 

The International:

Guillaume, L’Internationale: documents et souvenirs. Paris, 1905.

Jaeckh, The International. London, 1905.

Lissagaray, History of the Commune of 1871. London, 1886.

 

Germany:

Bebel, Die Sozialdemokratie im Deutschen Reichstag, 1871-1893. Berlin, 1909.

Bernstein, Ferdinand Lassalle. London, 1893.

Brunhuber, Die heutige Sozialdemokratie. Jena, 1906.

Dawson, Bismarck and State Socialism. London, 1890.

________, German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle. London, 1891.

Kamppfmeyer, Changes in the Theory and Tactics of the German Social Democracy. Chicago, 1908.

________, Die Sozialdemokratie im Lichte der Kulturentwickelung. Berlin, 1907.

Kautsky, The Road to Power. Chicago, 1908.

Mehring, Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, 4th ed. Stuttgart, 1909. Milhaud, La démocratie socialiste allemande. Paris, 1903.

Parvus, Der Klassenkampf des Proletariats. Berlin, 1908-10.

Rosa Luxembourg, Sozialreform oder Sozialrevolution, 2d. ed. Leipzig, 1908.

Schippel, Sozialdemokratisches Reichstags-handbuch. Berlin, 1902.

Sisyphusarbeit oder positive Erfolge; Generalkommission der Gewerkschaften Deutschlands. Berlin, 1910.

Handbuch fiir nicht sozialdemokratische Wähler. Reichsverband gegen die Sozialdemokratie. Berlin, 1907.

 

France:

Bourdeau, L’évolution du socialisme. Paris, 1901.

Bibliothèque du Mouvement Socialiste:

Lagardelle, etc., Syndicalisme et Socialisme;
Pouget, La Confédération Generale du Travail;
Sorel, La Décomposition du Marxisme;
Griffuelhes, L’Action Syndicaliste;
Berth, Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme, etc. Paris, 1908.

Goulut, Le Socialisme au Pouvoir. Paris, 1910.

Jaurès, Studies in Socialism. New York, 1906.

Kritsky, L’évolution du syndicalisme en France. Paris, 1908.

Mermeix, Le Syndicalisme contre le socialisme. Paris, 1907.

Milhaud, La Tactique socialiste. Paris, 1905.

Millerand, Le socialisme réformiste français. Paris, 1903.

Zévaès, Le socialisme en France depuis 1871. Paris, 1908.

 

United Kingdom:

Arnold-Forster, English Socialism of To-day. London, 1908.

Barker, British Socialism. London, 1908.

Noel, The Labor Party. London, 1906.

Villiers, The Socialist Movement in England. London, 1908,

Webb, Socialism in England. 2d edition. London, 1893.

 

United States:

Hillquit, History of Socialism in the United States. 4th edition. New York, 1906.

Simons, Class Struggles in America. Chicago, 1909.

Sombart, Warum gibt es im den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? Tübingen, 1906.

Thompson, Constructive Programme of Socialism. Milwaukee, 1908.

 

For each country the reports of the annual or biennial congresses, which may be procured from the party publishers mentioned above, are essential; the international movement is surveyed in the reports made to the International Congresses by the national party secretaries, and in the Congress debates, both published by the Secrétariat socialiste international, rue Heyvaert, 63, Brussels.

 

Categories
Chicago Curriculum Economists Transcript

Chicago. Don Patinkin’s undergraduate and graduate coursework 1940s

A few years before there was an Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) to provide a research grant that allowed me to begin my archival project, I happened to visit my sister’s family living in Cary, North Carolina. I had somehow stumbled across a reference to the Patinkin papers archived at the Economists’ Papers Project at Duke University and figured it would might be worth a “look-see” and so I took a day trip to Duke with no specific plan. I probably saw Patinkin’s personally annotated undergraduate and graduate transcripts and then (mistakenly) presumed that many archives would have such a complete documentation of the actual coursework taken by individual economists. What I did not appreciate was that the university records with respect to student transcripts except for early in the 20th century and before are not easily accessible for research because of privacy concerns. This means the historian needs to stumble upon copies of transcripts in random collections as was the case here. Thank you serendipity.

From Patinkin’s annotated transcripts at the University of Chicago (he added the names of course instructors as well as identified other courses that he presumably audited), we can see just how many different economists were involved in the economics education of one Don Patinkin. His student notes for most of these economics courses are also to be found in his papers and deserve to be transcribed.

On a minor note: As a pupil, I never thought twice about why a “Report Card” happened to be called a “Report Card”. From this University of Chicago transcript we can see that report is used as short-hand for “reported grade”. The instructor is clearly seen to report to the university registrar’s office.

_____________________________________________

The University of Chicago
Office of the Registrar
UNDERGRADUATE RECORD
Social Sciences

[Copy of transcript dated Jan 25, 1979]

 

Name: Don Patinkin
Home Address: 1426 S. Hamlin Ave., Chicago
Matriculation No.: 202316
Date of Birth: 1-8-22
Place: Chicago

 Entered: October 7, 1941
Attendance at other institutions: Central Y.M.C.A. Coll., Chicago, 1939-41

_____________________________________________

Entrance Units: From Marshall H.S., Chicago, 1939

English 3 ½
Latin
French 4
German
Spanish
History 2
Economics
Sociology
Civics ½
Drawing ½
Journalism 1½
Algebra 1½
Pl. Geom. 1
Sol. Geom. ½
Trigonometry
Gen. Biol. 1
Physics
Chemistry
Botany
Zoölogy
Gen Science 1½
Physiol. ½
TOTAL 18

_____________________________________________

REQUIRED WORK

Econ. (L.W.M. & J.D.R.) 10.28.41
ECON. 209, 210, 2[illegible], 220 or 222, 230, 2 from 240, 260

DIVISIONAL FIELD FIVE 201 COURSES TO BE CHOSEN FROM
ANTH, ECON, EDUC., GEOG., HIST., POL.SCI., PSYCH., SOC.

Elect
1½ C’s by adv. stg. + 4½ at Divis’l Level
Econ. 311, 301, 360, Stat. 330, Bus. 323

_____________________________________________

Advanced Standing Oct. 30 1941
Central Y.M.C.A. College

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Zool. 101
Biol. Sci. Surv. (1)

HUMANITIES

Eng. 101, 103, Adv. Writing (1/2)
Philos.- Introd. (1), 203,
Hist of Philos. (1)
Hist of Europ. Civil. (1)
Apprec. Art & Music (1)

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

Math. 101, 102, 103, 218, 219, 220
Phy. Sci. Surv. (1).

SOCIAL SCIENCES

Econ.-Elem. (1 ½)
Soc. Sci. Surv. (1)

OTHER FIELDS

Bus.-Bus. Law (1/2)

Total: 19 ½ courses

_____________________________________________

[University of Chicago] Course Report
AUTUMN QR. 1941
ECON. 211 INTROD. TO STATISTICS inc.
A
P.SCI.   201 INTR. TO POLITICAL SCI. inc.
B
PSYCH. 201 INTROD. PSYCHOLOGY
Exam by Home Study 1-12-42
[illegible]
A
WINTER QR. 1942
ECON.   209-INTERMED.ECON.THEORY
[Simons]
B
ECON. 240. LABOR PROBLEMS
[Douglas]
A
ECON. 311-STATISTICS/CORRELATION
[Lewis]
B
SPRING QR. 1942
BUS. 323-PROB’Y,SAMPL’G & CURVE-FITTING
[illegible, “Yntema” according to course catalogue for 1942]
A
ECON. 210-INTROD.TO ACCOUNTING
[Rovetta]
A
ECON. 260-ELEM.OF GOV’T FINANCE
[Simons]
B

EXAMINATION FOR THE BACHLOR’S DEGREE.

DIVISIONAL FIELD 8-24&25-42
ANTH. 201, EDUC. 201, POL.SCI.201, PSYCH. 201, SOC. 201

B

Honor Scholar in the Division
(Economics)

Autumn Qr. 1942
ECON. 301-PRICE & DISTRIBUTION THEORY
[Knight]
B
ECON. 360-GOVERNMENT FINANCE
[Leland]
A
STAT. 330-THEORY OF PROBABILITY
[Bartky]
C
PHYS.EDUC. (non-credit) ½ c. B

WINTER QR. 1943
Full Quarter’s Residence

ECON 230-INTR. TO MONEY & BANKING
[Mints]
R
ECON 331-BANKING TH. & MONETARY POL.
[Mints]
R
ECON. 220-ECON.HIST. OF U.S.
[Wright]

Pro-Forma

R
EXAMINATION FOR THE BACHELOR’S DEGREE.
DEPARTMENTAL FIELD 3-4,5-43
Economics
A
Elected to Phi Beta Kappa
Degree of A. B. Conferred MAR 26 1943
TRANSF. TO DIVISION (GRADUATE) JAN 3 1944

_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

The University of Chicago
Office of the Registrar
Social Sciences
Graduate

[Copy of transcript dated Jan 25, 1979]

Name: Don Patinkin
Home Address: 1426 S. Hamlin Ave., Chicago
Matriculation No.: 202316
Date of Birth: 1-8-22
Place: Chicago

Entered: Undergraduate 10-7-41
Trans. to Divis. Grad. 1-3-44

 

A.B. (U. of Chicago) 3-26-43
A.M. (U. of Chicago) DEC 21 1945
Ph.D. (U. of Chicago) AUG 29 1947

CANDIDATE FOR DEGREE OF A.M. IN Economics

REC. BY S.E. Leland DATE 10-5-45
APPROVED BY THE FACULTY  10.5.45

CANDIDACY FOR DEGREE OF Ph.D. IN Economics

REC. BY T.W. Schultz DATE 5-24-46
APPROVED BY THE FACULTY 5-24-46

 

[University of Chicago] Course Report
WINTER QR. 1944
ECON.     370-INTERN’L TRADE & FIN.
[Viner]
B
MATH.   231-SOLID ANALYTIC GEOM.
[Albert]
A
MATH.   248-INFIN.SER.&DEF.INTEGRALS A
O.L.-O.T. 352-TARGUM OF THE PROPHETS A
SPRING QR. 1944
ECON. 222-INTRO. EUROP.EC.HIST., 1540-1940
[Nef]

B
inc

ECON. 367-PUBLIC DEBTS
[Leland]
B
ECON. 371-INTERN’L ECON. POLICIES
[Viner]* Allowed an extension of time, until end of Aut. Q. 1944, in which to complete Econ. 371. (Dean Russell) 7-8-44

A
inc*

SUMMER QR. 1944
ECON.   307-IMPERFECT COMPETITION
[Lange]
A
ECON.   330-MONEY
[Mints]
A
MATH.   228-INTR. TO ALGEBRAIC THEORIES
[Albert]
A
MATH. 247-DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS A
MATH.   306-MODERN HIGHER ALGEBRA
[Albert]
A
AUTUMN QR. 1944
ECON.   402-MATH’L ECONOMICS
[Lange]
A
MATH.   310-FUNCT. OF COMPLEX VARIABLE B
POL.SCI.   340-PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
[Leonard White]
A
WINTER QR. 1945
ECON.   302-HIST. OF ECON.THOUGHT
[Knight]
A
ECON.   314-APP’NS OF STATISTICS TO ECON.
[Marschak]
A
ECON. 316-PROBS. IN MATH’L ECON.
[Marschak]
A
MATH.   311-TH.OF FUN(‘NS OF REAL VARIABLES B
SPRING QR. 1945
[311 Lange]
[312 Hurwicz]
ECON.   303-MOD.TENDENCIES IN ECON.
[Lange]
A
ECON. ½ c. 315-ECONOMETRICS OF BUS.FLUCT’NS
[Marschak]
A
ECON. ½ c.317-MATH’L COLLOQUIUM FOR ECON’TS A
ECON.   361-ECON. OF FISCAL POLICY
[Simons]

inc
A

[305 Economics & Social Institutions Knight & Perry]
SUMMER QR. 1945
ECON.   309-SPEC.PROBS.IN ECON.THEORY
[Lange]
inc
ECON.   332-BUSINESS CYCLE THEORY
[Lange]

inc
A

ECON.   357-AGRIC. IN THE POLIT.ECONOMY inc. no ex.
French Examination Passed NOV 5 1945
PASSED ON BASIS OF 1943 STANDARD
AUTUMN QR. 1945
GER.   101-ELEMENTARY GERMAN A
MATH.   373-TOPOLOGY
[Hestenes]
B
POL.SCI.   361-INTERNATIONAL LAW
[Morgenthau]
A
Final Examination Passed for A.M. in Economics—Summer & Autumn 1945 (Simeon E. Leland)
Degree of A.M. conferred DEC 21 1945
Without Thesis
[WINTER QR. 1946]
[Econ. 255 Introd. to Agricultural Economics
Johnson]
[Pol. Sci 327 Social and Political Philosophy
Perry & Knight]
[Econ 358   Agricultural Markets and Prices
Nicholls]
SPRING QR. 1946
ECON.   304-ECON.TH’Y & SOC.POLICY
[Knight-Perry]
R
ECON.   351-MONOP’Y ELEM., PRICES, PUB.POL’Y
[Nicholls]
R
ECON. 355-AGRIC’L PROD’N & DEMAND
[Schultz]
R
[Soc. 324 Hist. of Soc. Theory
Wirth]

Final Examination Passed
For Ph.D. in Economics—July 29, 1947
(J. Marschak)

Degree of Ph.D. Conferred
Aug 29 1947
Thesis: On the Consistency of Economic Models:
A Theory of Involuntary Unemployment

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubinstein Library. Don Patinkin Papers. University of Chicago School of Economics Raw Materials. Box 1. Folder “Essays on & in Chicago Tradition from binder of same name, folder 1 of 2”.

Image Source:  Marshall High School Yearbook, 1939 (Chicago).

 

 

Categories
Chicago Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Economics 300A. Core Theory. Gary Becker, 1956

The first required course in economic theory in a graduate program is intended (to mix metaphors) to get students on the same page and up to speed with core theory. I have posted earlier Chicago material for Jacob Viner, Milton Friedman [ (1946), (1947) and (1948)], and Lloyd Metzler. While this posting moves us well into the 1950s  and out my historian’s comfort zone (i.e. into my own lifetime), for younger followers of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror 1956 probably seems ancient enough to be included here. Besides which, it is never in bad taste to extend a time series by adding an additional observation. It is interesting to note that Alfred Marshall has survived at least this long on the Chicago required reading list for economic theory.

_______________

Economics 300A
Autumn 1956
Reading Assignments by G. Becker

 

NOTES:

1) A knowledge of the material in George Stigler, A Theory of Price or in Kenneth Boulding, Economic Analysis, is a prerequisite.
2) Readings marked with an asterisk (*) are recommended, not required.

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Friedman, M., Lecture Notes, pp. 1-16.
Knight, F. H., The Economic Organization, pp. 1-37.
Friedman, Milton, “The New Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics.
*Hayek, F. A., “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, September 1945, reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order.
*Keynes, J. N., The Scope and Method of Political Economy, pp. 1-83.

 

II. DEMAND ANALYSIS

Marshall, A., Principles of Economics, Book III, chs. 2-4; Book V, chs. 1-2.
Friedman, M., Notes, pp. 16-68.
Friedman, M., “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” Journal of Political Economy, December 1949, reprinted in Essays in Positive Economics.
Hicks, J. R., Value and Capital, Part I.
*Hicks, J. R., A Revision of Demand Theory.
*Slutsky, E., “On the Theory of the Budget of the Consumer,” Readings in Price Theory.
Knight, F. H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, ch. 3.
Schultz, H., The Meaning of Statistical Demand Curves, pp. 1-10.
Working, E. J., “What do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show?”, reprinted in Readings in Price Theory.
Wold, H., Demand Analysis, ch. 1.
*Stigler, G.J., “The Early History of Empirical Studies of Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, April 1954.
Friedman, M., Notes, pp. 69-75.
*Friedman, M., Notes, pp. 69-75.
*Friedman, M., and Savage, L. J., “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” reprinted in Readings in Price Theory.
Friedman, M., “The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility,” Journal of Political Economy, December 1952, pp. 463-474.
*Alchian, A., “The Meaning of Utility Measurement,” American Economic Review, March 1953, pp. 28-50.
Friedman, M., “Choice, Chance, and the Personal Distribution of Income,” Journal of Political Economy, August 1953, pp. 277-290.

 

III. SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS

Friedman, M., Notes, pp. 75-132.
Marshall, A., Book V, chs. 3, 4, 5, 12, Appendix H.
*Viner, J., “Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” reprinted in Readings in Price Theory.
*Robinson, J., Economics of Overhead Costs, ch. 9.
Robinson, J., “Rising Supply Price,” in Readings in Price Theory.
Apel, H., “Marginal Cost Constancy and Its Implications,” American Economic Review, December 1948, pp. 870-885.
*Coase, R. H., “The Nature of the Firm,” in Readings in Price Theory.
Chamberlin, E., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, chs. 3, 4, 5.
Stigler, G. J., “Monopolistic Competition in Retrospect,” in Five Lectures on Economic Problems.
*Triffin, R., Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, esp. Part II.
Harberger, A. C., “Monopoly and Resource Allocation,” Proceedings of the American Economic Review (May 1954).
Stigler, G. J., “Competition in the United States,” in Five Lectures on Economic Problems.
Stigler, G. J., “The Statistics of Monopoly and Merger,” Journal of Political Economy, February 1956.
Stigler, G. J., “The Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve and Rigid Prices,” in Readings in Price Theory.
*Robinson, E.A.G., Monopoly.
*Robinson, E.A.G., The Structure of Competitive Industry.
*Plant, A., “The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions,” Economica, February 1934.

 

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

Image Source: Photo credited to Joe Sterbenc/Becker Friedman Institute published on-line with the story “University mourns Gary Becker,” The Chicago Maroon May 6, 2014.

 

Categories
Chicago Courses Suggested Reading Syllabus

Amherst. Honors Section of Introductory Economics. Paul H. Douglas, 1925

Paul H. Douglas left the University of Chicago to take a job at Amherst in the mid-1920s because his wife Dorothy was unable to get a job at the University of Chicago due to nepotism rules of that time and she found a job for herself at Smith College in Massachusetts. There he began his collaboration with the mathematician Charles Wiggins Cobb that resulted in the statistical fitting of the specification of the production function now named after them. See Cobb and Douglas,  “A Theory of Production”, AER 1920.

 I found the following carbon copy of the report Douglas wrote about his pedagogic experiment with an honors section of introductory economics at Amherst during the second semester of the 1924-25 academic year in the papers of the head of the economics department at the University of Chicago in 1925. Besides the reading list of supplemental reading for his honors section, Douglas includes “teaching evaluations” written by the students.

 _______________________________________

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

September 26, 1925

 

Professor L. C. Marshall
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Marshall:

I am enclosing a report of the Honors Section which I conducted in Economics I last year, which you may find of interest, even at this late date.

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Douglas

PHD:EPR

 

_______________________________________

Amherst, Mass.
June 18, 1925

 

Report to the President and the Instruction Committee of Amherst College on the Special Honors Section given in Economics I during the year 1924-1925.

I. Composition of Group

With the consent of the President and the Dean, the Special Honors Section was set up in Economics I immediately after New Years 1925. The first men invited to join were Messrs. W. B. Carter, Jr. [William Harrison Carter, Jr. (Class of 1926) from Woodhaven, N.Y.], Sperry Butler [Sperry Butler (Class of 1926) from Hubbard Woods, Illinois], O. R. Pilat [Oliver Ramsey Pilat (Class of 1926) from New York, N.Y.], M. O. Damon [Mason Orne Damon (Class of 1926) from Ft. Dodge, Iowa], W. J. Kyle [William Joseph Kyle, Jr. (Class of 1926) from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania], and E. S. Nole [sic. Everett Stearns Noble (Class of 1926) from Coconut Grove, Florida]; these men were all on the Dean’s List. A few weeks later Douglas Tomkins [Douglas Tomkins (Class of 1926) from Brooklyn, N.Y.] was added with the approval of the Dean. These men were excused from attending the regular class exercises and met one evening a week in the Economic Seminar room with the instructor. These sessions ranged from two to three and one-half hours in length.

 

II. Work Covered

The group read the text used by the ordinary section in the course, namely, Taussig’s Principles of Economics, 2 volumes, but the chief reading was done in additional assignments amounting on the whole to approximately one book a week. These other readings were in the main the cream of the literature on the economic topics considered. The list of supplementary reading covered was as follows:

First week Bagehot, “Lombard Street;” Kemmerer, “The A B C of the Federal Reserve System.”
Second Week Selected chapters from Mitchell, “Business Cycles.”
Third Week Fisher, “Stabilizing the Dollar;” Keynes, “A Tract on Monetary Reform.”
Fourth Week One of the following: Withers, “Money Changing;” Clare, “A B C of Foreign Exchange;” Cross, “Domestic and Foreign Exchange: Theory and Practice.”
Fifth Week Viner, “Dumping;” and discussion of text of McNary-Haugen Bill
[JPE 1922, part I, JPE 1922, part II]
Sixth Week Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations,” Book IV, Chapter 2.
Seventh Week Taussig, “Some Aspects of the Tariff Problem” Chapter I or II, and “Tariff, Free Trade, and Reciprocity.”
Eighth Week Wolfe, “[Savers’] Surplus and the Interest Rate,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 1920; Selected Chapters from Clark, “Distribution of Wealth.”
Ninth Week Hobson, “Economics of Unemployment.”
Tenth Week Ricardo. “Principles of Political Economy,” Chapter 2.
Selected Chapters from Henry George, “Progress and Poverty.”
Eleventh Week Adam Smith on Differences in Wages, Book I, Chapter 10, part 1.
Twelfth Week The Basic Rate of Wages; Selected chapters from Clark, “Distribution of Wealth.”
Thirteenth Week Population—Malthus, “Essay on Principle of Population. Comparative chapters from the 1st and 2nd editions. [first edition, sixth edition]
Also one of the following: Carr-Saunders, “The Population Problem,” or J. R. Smith, “The World’s Food Resources.”
Fourteenth Week Profits—Either Hardy, “Risk and Risk Bearing,” or Knight, “Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.”
Fifteenth Week Mitchell, King and Knauth; “Incomes in the United States.” [Vol. I Summary] [Vol. II Detailed Report]
Sixteenth Week (1) Webb, “Industrial Democracy.” Chapter on “Higgling on the Market;” and (2) Fitch, “Causes of Industrial Unrest;” or Hoxie “Trade Unionism in the United States.”
Seventeenth Week Douglas, “Wages and the Family.”
Eighteenth Week Ripley, “Railway Problems, “ 1st volume; or Acworth, “Elements of Railway Economics.”
Nineteenth Week Either Haney, “Business Organization and Combination,” or Jones, “The Trust Problem.”
Twentieth Week Selected Chapters from Seligman, “Essays in Taxation.”

The members of the group seemed to read virtually all the assignments and to canvas the field thoroughly.

 

III. Personal Appraisal of Work

Personally I was very much pleased with the results of the work. The group seemed to me to cover several times as much ground as the men in the three ordinary sections of the class; and the work was much more thoroughly treated than it would have been had they been compelled to move in the lock-step of the ordinary sections. As a by-product of the work one of the men, Mr. Butler, worked out an algebraic statement of the Ricardian Theory of Distribution; to my knowledge, this has never before been done in the literature of Economics. In conjunction with Mr. Carter, he also worked out a graph of various elasticities of demand representing them on both an absolute and logarithmic scale. The group as a whole did brilliant work on the final examination which was fare more severe than that given to the rest of the class. Four men secured a grade of ninety-five or better, even with the stringent marking that I applied. Two of the men received low nineties, one of these men having been handicapped by illness. The seventh member, who was the weakest person in the group passed the final with only a grade of 78.

 

IV. Appraisal by Members of the Class

I asked the various members of the class to give me their criticisms of the work done and I am attaching those written statements.

 

Question One: Have you enjoyed meeting with the group more than you did as a member of an ordinary section? Do you think you have gained a greater knowledge of economics as a result?

“Meeting in the smaller section has been far more enjoyable than the regular class, and I believe that I have gained a greater knowledge of economics as a result. I believe that being able to talk freely with the instructor and members of a small group such as ours gives a student a chance not only to clarify himself on doubtful points, but to get the opinion of others on topics in which he is especially interested. This is impossible in the large classes, where discussion has to be conducted for the benefit of the whole section.
“Moreover, the longer classes must necessarily be retarded, by their very size, and by the fact that the class as a whole can go no faster (that is, cover no more ground) than the least capable or least industrious members. I think this is often a cause for lack of interest among the men who are able to do advanced work.”

“I have not only enjoyed meeting with the group more than the regular classes, but feel that I have derived greater benefit thereby.”

“I am very glad to have an opportunity to express myself on the matter of the honors section in Economics 1. I feel that it has been the most instructive and interesting course that I have taken at Amherst. In the first place, the group has been small enough so that each of us could have the difficulties which he encountered, explained and discussed by the remainder of the group. Then too, the group was not only small, but uniform, so that it was unnecessary for some members to be held back by other slower members, as is the case in the ordinary section. Undoubtedly we have covered more ground, and covered it more thoroughly, than we could have in the regular class.”

“My time in the honor section has been more thoroughly utilized and consequently more enjoyable than in the regular class. I feel certain that I have learned more economics, as a result.”

“The answer is emphatically yes—both in knowledge and enjoyment the honors section has far surpassed the ordinary class meeting-to this I attribute the attitude of the instructor which I think in any such course must be decisive.”

“I feel sure that as a result of the meetings with the group I have gained a much clearer and more comprehensive knowledge of Economics. This was the result partly of the discussions on the various topics and partly of a heightened interest in the course. A true interest in the subject was aroused which is impossible in the regular class meetings.”

“That I have enjoyed meeting with the group more than with the ordinary section is beyond question. Being an ardent advocate of the honors system I am delighted to find it as agreeable and valuable in practice as in theory. Before this morning (the time of the examination) I was a bit doubtful whether I actually knew more economics than if I had stayed in the regular section. While there were parts of the examination which were very complicated, I didn’t once feel that I was completely at a loss although I am aware of mistakes I may have made. As to the factual knowledge of the course I believe that probably exact definitions and the details of various parts may at this moment be better known by those in the regular division, although I would wager I have a better grasp of the fundamentals, and a clearer idea of the relation of the various factors than most of the regular members. Moreover I believe they will stick whereas the definitions and details will quickly fade from the memories of those who did not have the opportunity to tie up these principles by their application to present day conditions as we did. Therefore I feel that I know more real economics than I would have otherwise.”

 

Question Two: What is the relative amount of work which you have done in the honors section as compared with that which you did before you entered it?

“It was necessary to do more work in the honor section, for the reasons which are stated in the answer to question one. Also, there is considerable of the element of pride involved; I found that if I didn’t know a thing that others members of the section did, I was, ashamed of myself. Then, too, the honor section, with its freedom of discussion, is conducive to thinking, which is, after all, rather rare among Amherst students. More men in regular classes drop the subject as soon as they have left the class room. I believe that a little thought is particularly valuable in economics, for after the principles are grasped, a little consideration permits them to be developed and applied. I consider this “studying” of a sort more valuable than the perusal of textbooks, though the latter is essential to the former.”

“I have done considerably more reading after having been placed in the group division.”

“I have certainly done more work than I did in the regular section. Since we have not been forced to follow a fixed plan or outline of work, many interesting topics have come up which would have passed by otherwise. In general I have done the work assigned to the regular class plus reading in at least one other book. Since all the members of the group have been able to cover more work than is give, or could be given, in the ordinary section, we have been able to talk over more different books and points of view, than we could have in the regular section where the discussion, to benefit the class as a whole, must necessarily be limited by the reading capacity of the slower members. As the work has been more interesting, the extra time required has been no hardship, but has seemed to be especially remunerative.”

“I have spent from one to two additional hours a week for this section.”

“In actual time I have not done much more; but the type of work has been of a decidedly different character. Instead of rather automatic memorizing has come a feeling that this thing must be thought out independently. This sounds platitudinous, but it is true.”

“The amount of work I did in preparation for the group meetings was considerably greater than that done for the regular class meetings at the beginning of the year.”

“I have generally spent all of Monday afternoon and frequently other hours on the seminar work. This is somewhat in excess of the time needed for the regular class work.”

Question Three: As the work was given out, did it seem excessive or could more have been done conveniently?

“I could have conveniently done more work than was assigned though the hour of the section was not the best possible for me.”

“The work as assigned did not seem excessive.”

“The work did not seem excessive. Except that my schedule was unusually heavy this year, I could readily have done more.”

“The assignments seem well-proportioned. I do not think more would be advisable, however.”

“The work as assigned did at times seem excessive—at least to do thoroughly–, but this was seldom the case.”

“In general the work was not excessive usually being of an elastic nature above a certain minimum. I do not think that under our present system of college education in which every man who is at all able is expected to enter a host of student activities, I could have conveniently put in more time on the work. There were occasions when I did more and others when I did less than the average above mentioned, as the pressure of work in activities varied.”

 

Question Four: Would you favor the continuance of an honors section and if so what suggestions would you have for the improvement of the work?

“I am strongly in favor of a continuance of this system. It enables men who can and will do work that is more advanced to free themselves from the handicaps mentioned in the answer to question one. It certainly deserves a further trial, at least.”

“I am very strongly in favor of the continuance of such honor sections. We were able to pass over hurriedly some of the more elemental and obvious material, and as a result had more time for the discussion of the complex and deeper questions. A greater interest in the material discussed was aroused, with me at least, because of the removal of the drive and compulsion of the ordinary class-room.”

“I should favor strongly the continuance of an honors section, altho I realize it means much extra work for some member of the Faculty. It seems to me that such a group should not have more that eight members and that these members should not be picked before the middle of the first term. I can offer no suggestions for the improvement of the work. But I believe that this plan has not only benefitted the members of the honors section, but all the members of the ordinary section.”

“I am heartily in favor of an honors section.
“Perhaps the work might be improved by further splitting of the topics studied, allowing each student to specialize on one phase. I feel a general lack, in all my courses, of definite and exact knowledge. I think that possibly more thorough study is a limited field supplemented by well-informed discussion from several points of view would help to clarify my all too vague impressions.”

“Yes!! By all means. Caution: No more than approximately those present now should be admitted in any such section.
“The men must be genuinely interested—not those looking for escape from work—for this reason the selection of the group might well be made on the basis of the first term’s work as at present.
“I like the idea of one man leading the section each week—with a paper preferably which takes a definite stand. This ought to encourage discussion, and occasionally, controversy.”

“Yes, I would favor the continuance of such sections in Economics and other subjects also. I feel that I have derived more enjoyment and more value out of the meetings with the group than I have in any other course I have taken in college.”

“I would most certainly favor the continuance of an honors section in this,–and the introduction of the plan in other courses where the material admitted of treatment of this type. I think each group should be chosen by the professor from his regular group on the combined basis of marks, interest and ability. There are other courses in Amherst where the drag of the work due to the time necessary to explain and re-explain various fundamental phases of the work is even more noticeable than in the regular sections of the economics class. Could those who were fortunate enough to be able to go ahead without this repetition, be placed in a special section similar to our honors group, I feel sure they at least would find their college work vastly more inspiring and helpful.

“There is one suggestion I should like to make which I think might add somewhat to the value of such work. It is that any such group should carry on some definite piece of constructive investigation along the line of the course which appears most interesting to them. Each might contribute a paper or all work together under the direction of the professor on such a research. I believe it would serve to centralize much of the other work done. This might be done by the devotion of an occasional meeting to gathering together such special work at various stages in its progress. Otherwise I see very little which could be desired more than we have had this year.”

_______________________________________

From the Amherst College Catalog 1924/1925

Economics 1. Principles of economics. The present industrial system with special reference to American conditions. A study of the development of the main features of present industrial society, value and distribution and a number of modern social problems.

Elective for Juniors.

  1. Mon., Tu., Wed., 2.00, Chapel 5.
  2. Mon., Tu., 8.35, Thu., 9.30, Chapel 4.
  3. Wed., Sat., 9.30, Fri., 3.00, Chapel 5.

Professor Douglas and Mr. Taylor. [George Rogers Taylor, Ph.D., Instructor in Economics and Political Science]

_______________________________________

 

Sources:

The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 6, Folder 7.
Amherst College Catalog 1924/25, p. 33, 81, 147ff.

 

Image Source: Amherst College. Olio 1926, p. 36.

Categories
Chicago Curriculum Fields

Chicago. Advanced General Survey Courses in Economics. Memo, 1926

The memo of this posting was written by the head of the Chicago department of economics, Leon Carroll Marshall. I have chosen this to begin a category “Fields”. The groups named below were tasked with preparing bibliographies, not for use in the survey courses, but to make explicit the level of preparation expected of students in those courses. Cox and Mints by the following summer apparently established “Money and banking” as a field distinct from business finance (a memo in the same folder dated August 9, 1927).  It is also interesting to note that Marshall seems to have thought it important to pair economics and business in as many fields as he could.

______________________

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 [Arts and 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 a 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 advance 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 publication) 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 of 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.

 

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

Image Source: Leon Carroll Marshall. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-04114, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Curriculum

Chicago. Memo on survey of views of recent Ph.D.’s. 1930

From the 81 Chicago economics Ph.D.’s as of Summer Quarter 1930 there were 40 responses to a survey conducted by the Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees. The chairman of the department Harry A. Millis wrote a memo summarizing (perhaps “spinning”) the results for his colleagues that he dutifully forwarded to the President of the University of Chicago. He chose to ignore responses of those who received their Ph.D.’s before 1920. Perhaps those responses were indeed irrelevant for the task at hand, but this historian of economics would have appreciated hearing what the earlier Ph.D.’s had to say too. 

____________________________________

The University of Chicago
Department of Economics

December 11, 1930

 

President R. M. Hutchins
Faculty Exchange

Dear Mr. Hutchins:

 

Possibly you will be enough interested to read the enclosed memorandum I have sent to the members of the staff in Economics. In it I tried to bring together the significant things obtained from the questionnaires turned in by the forty persons who had taken the doctorate in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

H. A. Millis

HAM-W
Encl.

____________________________________

December 1, 1930

Memorandum to:     Staff in Economics
From:                         H. A. Millis

The Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees has transmitted to the Chairman of the several departments questionnaires filled out and returned by persons who have taken the doctorate in their respective fields. As you know, the object of the questionnaire was to secure reactions to and opinions on a number of matters involved in the existing program of graduate work and training. Each chairman has been requested to study his bundle of questionnaires and to present to his department such matters as seem to call for consideration.

Of the 81 persons taking the doctorate in Economics previous to last summer quarter, 40 returned questionnaires partially or completely filled out. Fifteen of the forty had taken the doctorate before Professor Laughlin retired so that for the most part they were writing of program and procedures passed into history. The remaining twenty-five had taken the doctorate within the last ten years (in 1920 or a subsequent year). Special attention has been given to the questionnaires returned by these twenty-five; on most point the other questionnaires have no value. Indeed, the questionnaires returned raise few questions and, taken as a whole, they do not contain a great deal that is valuable.

The Department is to be congratulated on the fact that all of the returns from those taking the doctorate in 1920 or more recently were more or less complimentary and appreciative of the training received. Not one could be said to be adversely critical in general. Yet, if special attention is given to questionnaires carefully filled out (a large number were not filled out at the points here involved), there are several suggestions worthy of consideration, most of them involving implicit criticism.

As would be expected, the absence of mature, full-arrived men in certain lines was regretted ([Clifford A. Curtis (1926), Garfield V. Cox (1929)]). The questionnaires make it quite clear that most of the gain, as seen by our doctors, is derived from contact with and instruction from outstanding men. While the value of carefully worked out, logically developed formal courses is commented on by a number as having been of value to them ([Emily Clark Brown (1927), Mercer G. Evans (1929)], Howard Barton Myers (1929), among others), it becomes clear that there is considerable feeling that there should be more emphasis on seminars and discussion groups ([Emily Clark Brown (1927), Herman J. Stratton (1929), Mercer G. Evans (1929), George R. Taylor (1929), John Bennet Canning (1929), Lysle Winston Cooper (1925)]). More opportunity is wanted to talk things over and out. A number congratulated themselves because they had obtained broad training in economic and allied fields, but a larger number now feel that their training was too narrow (Emily Clark Brown (1927), Colston E. Warne (1925)], Harold A. Logan (1925), Lysle Winston Cooper (1925), among others). Nor is this feeling that the training was too narrow due entirely or even generally to the variety of subjects now to be taught; a number are of the opinion that a broader foundation is needed for research and teaching in a specialized field. A few criticize our requirements and feel that it would be better to permit the students to follow their own bents ([James R. Jackson (1927), Harold A. Innis (1920), Harold A. Logan (1925)] — in the days of seven or eight written examinations). A number feel that they should have received more attention and supervision in their research ([George R. Taylor (1929), Shirley Coon (1926), Garfield V. Cox (1929), Leverett Samuel Lyon (1921)]). One ([Morris Copeland (1921)]) says that he should have been required to engage in factual research (don’t say anything about leading the horse to the trough!). It is evident that a number would like to have had a much greater opportunity to visit and discuss matters with the members of the staff.

Questions:

Should we not do more than we have done to get a considerable amount of the other social sciences into the programs of our students?

Would some change in our system of examinations be helpful in that connection?

Would it be wise to require a minor outside the department, this to be built up of work closely tying in with the student’s concentration and research?

(No doubt just such questions will be considered in the Division of the Social Sciences. Mr. Woodward will call a meeting of the Division in the near future.)

The Committee has been interested in the experience and training our doctors have had which would fit them for teaching. One group of questions submitted related to teaching experience, another to formal training in education.

Taking the twenty-five who took the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently and who filled out questionnaires, only seven had not taught in high school or college before entering upon graduate work here. Four of sixteen for whom the record is entirely clear, had taught 1 year, 6 had taught 2 years, 4 had taught 4 years, the other 2, 5 and 15 years respectively. Eleven taught while at the University. In so far as can be ascertained, all but two had taught in high school or college before they were placed by us in teaching positions. Only one of the twenty-five ([Alvah E. Staley (1928)] who has not entered the teaching profession) had had no teaching experience at the time he took the doctorate. The experience of two had been limited to 1 year, of three to 2 years, of two to 3 years, while the experience of the others had extended over from 4 to 15 years.

The questionnaire contained two questions as to formal courses in education. These were answered by thirty-four of the forty, but not answered by the other six. Twenty-one of the thirty-four had had no formal courses in education either as undergraduate or as graduate students. These divided themselves about evenly between the younger group, taking the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently, and the older. The remaining thirteen, all but one of whom had taken the doctorate in 1920 or subsequently, had had one or more formal courses in education. Inasmuch as no statement of reaction to such courses was called for, only six who had had two or more formal courses went out of their way to say anything concerning the value of us training. It may be significant that all six made disparaging remarks.

Miss K. [presumably Hazel Kyrk (1920)] had two courses at Chicago. One of these was in educational psychology which “was a snap course and an utter waste of time.” Special methods of teaching in High School “was much better.” She added that “education courses as a rule I believe are like the first.” Miss B. [presumably Emily Clark Brown (1927)]had three courses as an undergraduate, but none as a graduate student, “fortunately”, she added. She writes, “I would consider it a great waste of time. In my field, mastery of the subject, plus ability to work with people, is necessary for either teaching or research. I do not think that training in education would help enough to justify taking time from the study of the subject. Since experience in research and in teaching each contributes to success in the other, I would consider it unfortunate for a student to prepare specifically for the one or the other, and for that purpose to reduce the time available for securing the broadest possible mastery of the main and the allied fields.” Dr. K. had one course in educational psychology “but learned nothing.” Dr. T. writes, “I was graduated from the three-year course at he ____State Normal School at ______ before entering the University of Chicago. So far as I can now see the large amount of educational psychology, practice teaching, etc., which I had there was a total loss.” Dr. S. had a few courses while an undergraduate and one while a graduate student. He writes, “of no particular value to me except for some subject matter and a little theory of curriculum.” Dr. C. had taken a few courses as an undergraduate, but none as a graduate student. He writes, “As far as I can gather, such courses are a waste of time- if in no other way than in the circumstance that there are so many subjects in the individual’s own field or fields that he ought to be learning about.”

Only two of the twenty-one who had had no formal training in education, said anything about its value. In reply to one question, Dr. E. entered, “None, and I am glad of it”—an opinion based upon hearsay and common prejudice. Dr. Staley, on the other hand, writing about the program of work taken by him, states, “Often as a graduate student I felt that since I expect to spend a considerable part of my time teaching economics it might be well to devote some thought to problems of teaching as well as to the subject matter. I mentioned this notion a few times to members of my department, but they (some—not all) tended to discourage me in it. The feeling seems to be that the School of Education has nothing worth while to offer in this line, that teaching is something you have to learn by absorption or by experience anyway, and that ‘a science’ of education is rather to be smiled at, at least in connection with university teaching. I still feel, though, that even a university teacher has to teach students and not simply to teach subject matter in the abstract, and that therefore graduate students preparing for college positions should spend perhaps a little less energy on subtleties of their subject matter and a little more on considering what parts of it should be present to undergraduates and how. The best training for research and the best training for teaching are probably not identical.”

Question:

Prospective teachers need to know the pedagogy of their subject and the place of their subject and of themselves in the college. Of course all know something of these matters for they have been college students and have taken college courses in economics. This, however, may not be adequate. Some of our people have secured experience, if not a bit of training, by teaching while here, but the number of such persons is being reduced and will become negligible with the fuller development of policies already adopted. Some courses in the technique and problems of teaching elementary economics and business are being given by Mr. Shields. what more, if anything, should we do to prepare more adequately our graduate students before they are placed in teaching positions? This is the principal question the Committee on Graduate Study and Graduate Degrees wishes to have answered in a constructive way.

An examination of the replies to the question, “In view of your experience, do you regard it as important that a student shall take a Master’s degree on the way to the doctorate,” shows that except where there had been experience in graduate teaching here or elsewhere, the replies were decidedly influenced by personal experience in the graduate course, those (19) who had taken the Master’s generally answering “Yes,” those (21) who had not, answering “No.” In detail (the counts being for those who did and those who did not take the A.M.), (a) two and one did not answer the question; (b) four and four answered “no,” unless the graduate course is interrupted and the master’s is needed to get a job; (c) two and twelve answered in an unqualified “no”; (d) ten and three answered “yes,” for one or more reasons; (e) one and one stated that it all depends upon a variety of factors entering into concrete cases.

Those who gave reasons for a “no” answer, said a “mere vexation” ([John Bennet Canning (1929)]), “unnecessary evil,” of no value, may cause people not to continue to the doctorate ([William J. Donald (1914)]), infers with education ([Harold A. Innis (1920)]), gives the faculty too much trouble. Those who gave reasons for a “yes” answer, said that it starts the student in research early, that it tests him out and shows whether he should be encouraged to continue, that it causes the student to consolidate what he has already done, that the experience and research training are valuable.

QUERY:

What is our policy with reference to the Master’s degree and what should our policy be?

 

____________________________________

[Carbon copy of Hutchin’s response]

December 13, 1930

My dear Mr. Millis:

Thank you for your letter of December 11 and the copy of the memorandum which you have sent to the members of the staff in Economics.

I am very much interested.

 

Very truly yours,

R. M. Hutchins

Mr. H.A. Millis,
Department of Economics
Faculty Exchange.

____________________________________

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President, Hutchins Administration. Records, Box 72. Folder: “Economics Dept, 1929-1931”.

Image Source: Undated picture of Harry A. Millis.  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-00875, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.