Category: Columbia

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Latin and Ancient Greek are too much of a good thing. Munroe Smith, 1891

 

A long time before economics graduate degree programs in the United States were to completely abolish requirements for demonstrating a basic competency in some language other than English [e.g. M.I.T. in 1969], there was a battle over the number of ancient languages expected. In this post we have a member of Columbia University’s Faculty of Political Science, Prof. Munroe Smith (legal historian), giving his opinion on the matter to President Low back in 1891.

I have included brief biographical material from an 1899 publication along with the Columbia University newspaper’s report of Smith’s funeral service in 1926.

Fun Fact:  Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay and Hewlett Packard and unsuccessful candidate for Governor of California in 2010, happens to be a great-grandaughter of Munroe Smith.

__________________

Letter from Legal Historian Munroe Smith to Columbia President Seth Low

Columbia College,
October 7, 1891

Dear Sir:

In reply to your circular letter of June 12, I have to say that I heartily endorse the plan proposed by the University Council—as far as it goes. I should prefer to see an election permitted in the entrance examinations also between Greek and some equivalent. But I accept the plan of the Council as meeting the immediate necessities of the situation at Columbia.

It is impossible longer to insist on both the ancient languages in our undergraduate curriculum. We have ourselves made it impossible. For the degree of Ph.D., two of our own University faculties already demand a reading knowledge of Latin, French and German. It does not seem possible for the student to acquire this knowledge in the School of Arts as long as he is held to Greek. At least, we constantly find graduate students who are obliged to give up the hope of attaining this degree, unless they are able and willing to go back into undergraduate courses and there make good their linguistic deficiencies. But this seems hardly fair to them.

I am opposed to the proposal to confine the A.B. degree to those who have studied Greek in college. It seems to me a reactionary suggestion. Whatever may have been the case a generation ago. A.B. does not now, in our most progressive and popular colleges, imply any knowledge of Greek. It does not even imply that the bearer has forgotten Greek. Even at Columbia we have broken with the older tradition as regards the higher degree of A.M. We have conferred the degree of A.M. upon men who not only have no Greek, but who have neither Greek nor Latin, or at least have not studied either language within the preceding five years. This I consider too great an innovation. I think we shall best combine healthy progress with sound conservatism by requiring for all academic (non-technical) degrees a good knowledge of one ancient language. But I do not think we can insist on two.

I am opposed to the suggestion that the degree of Ph.B. be conferred in all cases where Greek has not been studied in college, because in the common opinion this is an inferior degree. The distinction proposed casts a slur upon all other liberal studies and unduly exalts the older as opposed to the newer humanities.

Respectfully
[signed]
Munroe Smith

President Seth Low, LL.D.

 

Source: Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 339. Folder: “1.1.19; Smith, Munroe; 5/1891-11/1909”.

__________________

SMITH, Munroe. 1854-[1926]

Born in Brooklyn, N.Y. 1854 educated at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute. Amherst College (A.B. 1874), Columbia Law School, and Universities of Berlin, Leipzig and Göttingen (J.U.D 1880); Lecturer and Instructor at Columbia 1880-83; Adjunct Professor and Lecturer 1883-90; Professor 1890-; Managing Editor Political Science Quarterly 1887-92, 1898-99.

MUNROE SMITH, J.U.D., Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence at Columbia, was born in Brooklyn, New York, December 8, 1854, son of Dr. Horatio Southgate and Susan Dwight (Munroe) Smith. His ancestors were English and Scotch settlers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine. Having acquired his preparatory education in the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, he entered Amherst College in 1870 and was graduated in 1874. After a year in post-graduate work at Amherst with Professor John W. Burgess, he spent the next two years (1875-1877) at the Law School of Columbia, and continued his studies in Germany, at the Universities of Berlin, Leipzig and Göttingen, for the three years 1877-1880, taking the degree of Doctor of Civil Law at Göttingen in the latter year. On returning  from abroad he became Lecturer on Roman Law and Instructor in History at Columbia, and filled that position for three years. In 1883 he was made Adjunct Professor of History and Lecturer on Roman Law, and after officiating in that capacity for seven years, was in 1890 transferred to the Chair of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, which he now holds. Professor Smith while filling his Chair with thoroughness and ability, has devoted some measure of his time to literary work, and besides being Managing Editor of the Political Science Quarterly, for several years, has been a contributor to various journals, and to Lalor’s and Johnson’s Encyclopædias. He published in 1898: Bismarck and German Unity, An Historical Outline. He married April 17, 1890 Gertrude Huidekoper, and has one daughter, Gertrude Munroe Smith.

 

Source: Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2 (1899), pp. 399-400.

__________________

DOCTOR E. M. SMITH TO BE BURIED TODAY

Bryce Professor Emeritus Victim of Pneumonia—Funeral Services from St. Paul’s.

Dr. Edmund Monroe Smith [18]77 L, Bryce Professor Emeritus of European History, died at his home Tuesday, a victim of pneumonia. Professor Smith was a member of the Columbia Faculty since 1880. Funeral services will be held this afternoon at 2 P.M. from St. Paul’s Chapel. Dr. Smith was born in Brooklyn in 1854. He entered Amherst College in the Class of 1874, and after receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree he enrolled in Columbia in the Class of ’77 Law. After graduation from Law School, Doctor Smith went abroad and studied at the University of Göttingen, where he was awarded a J.U.D. He also received the honorary degrees of Doctor of Law from Columbia, in 1904 and Amherst in 1916, and Doctor of Jurisprudence from Louvain University in 1909.

Author of Many Books.

From 1891 to 1922, during his forty-five years of teaching at Columbia, Doctor Smith was Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence. He was also a lecturer on Roman Law at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Doctor Smith was the author of numerous books, among which are, “Bismark and German Unity”, “Out of Their Own Mouths” and “Militarism and Statecraft” which was published during the World War. He edited several publications, one of the most important of which is, “The Political Science Quarterly”.

Dr. Smith is survived by his wife, formerly Miss Gertrude Huidkoper of Philadelphia, and a daughter, Mrs. Cushing Goodhue of Boston. The honorary pallbearers this afternoon will be President Nicholas Murray Butler, Frederick Coudert, Brander Matthews, Judge John Bassett Moore of the Permanent Court at The Hague, George A. Plimpton, Franklin H. Giddings, Lyman Beecher Stowe, Charles D. Havens, Rev. Dr. Willam Adams Brown, George Northrop, Algernoon S. Frissell, Carlton J. Hayes, B. M. Anderson, Howard Lee McBain, Frederick Keppel, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone of the United States Supreme Court, and President John H. Goodnow, of John Hopkins University.

 

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. XLIX, No. 135 (April 15, 1926), p. 1.

Image Source: Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2 (1899), pp. 399-400.

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Harvard Johns Hopkins Wisconsin Yale

Graduate economics enrollments in the seven leading departments (U.S.), 1909

 

The following tabulation of enrolled graduate students in economics and sociology at Columbia University and its “six leading competitors” in 1909 is striking because of  1) the modest scale of the graduate enrollments and 2) the fact that economics and sociology are reported together (an indication of their continued academic proximity). 

Ouch:  Due diligence in avoiding posting a second copy of an archival artifact was wanting. Jan 30, 2016 was the first time I transcribed and posted this artifact.

_______________

Letter from E.R.A. Seligman to Chairman of the Trustees of Columbia University

No. 324 West 86 street,
New York, February 13, 1909

My dear Sir:

You may be interested in the enclosed statistics which have been compiled by me from answers to questions sent out to the various universities. It shows the relative position of Columbia compared to its six leading competitors, and it is a curious coincidence that the totals of Columbia on the one hand, and of the six universities together on the other, should be precisely the same.

Faithfully yours
[Stamp] Edwin R. A. Seligman

(Enclosure)

To Mr. George L. Rives,
New York City

*  * *  *  *  *

 

STUDENTS WITH DEGREES ENROLLED IN
GRADUATE COURSES, Dec. 1909

Economics

 Sociology

Total of Economics and Sociology
Harvard

27

 —

27
Yale

16

 12

28
Cornell

10

 4

14
Johns-Hopkins

12*

 —

12*
Chicago

12

 19

31
Wisconsin

22

 4

26
Total in the 6 universities

99

 39

138
 

Columbia

  

67

  

71

  

138

*including duplications.

 

Source:  Columbia University Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary. Columbia University Archives. Central Files, 1890-. Box 338. Folder “2/5; Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson; 7/1904-12/1910”.

Image Source:  The Library of Columbia University, New York. H.C. White Co., Publishers, 1909. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.

 

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus, Clement Lowell Harriss, 1940.

 

In this post we have a nice pair of bookends for the career of Columbia economics Ph.D. (1940) and later Columbia professor, C. Lowell Harriss:  a letter from 1946 recommending his appointment to an assistant professorship and a memorial webpage from the Columbia economics department.

________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Faculty of Political Science

November 26, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library

Dear Mr. President:

On recommendation of the College Committee appointed in accordance with your letter of October 3d and with the approval of the Committee on Instruction of Columbia College, the Department of Economics requests the promotion of C. Lowell Harriss from instructor to assistant professor, effective January 1, 1947.

The Department considers that this promotion would be a well earned recognition of ability and service. The reasons set forth in the enclosed letter from Professor Horace Taylor, chairman of the College Committee, in our judgment amply justify our request that this action be taken at an exceptional time.

Dr. Harriss’ salary as instructor is $3,300 for the year. We recommend that his salary as assistant professor should be at the rate of $3,600. Funds for the additional $2150 required on the 1946-47 budget are available in the unexpended salary of Carl T. Schmidt.

Respectfully yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive officer, Department of Economics

*  *  *  *  *  *

________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Faculty of Political Science

November 26, 1946

Professor Carter Goodrich
Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University

Dear Professor Goodrich:

The newly constituted Committee on Economics Instruction in Columbia College held its first meeting on October 28. I have reported separately the formal action taken at this meeting with regard to the nomination of a Departmental Representative.

Its most urgent matter of regular business in the view of the Committee is its unanimous recommendation that Dr. C. Lowell Harriss, instructor in Economics, be promoted to Assistant Professor of Economics. It is the opinion of the Committee that Dr. Harriss has reached a maturity and a competency in this field that cause him to be considerably underranked in his present position. The Committee not only recommends promotion for Dr. Harriss, but strongly urges that the promotion be made immediately and to take effect January 1, 1947. This recommendation is made both because it would provide immediate recognition to a man who, in the Committee’s judgment, thoroughly deserves it, and also because we believe that action of this kind would have distinct morale value, both for Dr. Harriss, and for other members of the College staff who feel as we do about Dr. Harriss as a teacher, a scholar, and a person.

Dr. Harriss is thirty-four years old. He joined this Department as an instructor in economics in 1938. He is a man of such broad intellectual background and training that he has been extraordinarily well qualified for work in the course in Contemporary Civilization, and has made substantial contributions to the planning and teaching of this difficult course. He also has contributed materially to the Departmental work in the College, and one of our plans for the next academic year is that Dr. Harriss will offer an undergraduate course in his speciality [sic], which is Public Finance. During the current year, he is giving a course in this field designed for University Undergraduates. If Dr. Harriss receives the promotion that is recommended, it is planned that he will be a member of the Faculty of Columbia College and also of the Faculty of the new School for General Studies. One of the reasons that we strongly believe that we should, in the interests of the University, increase the number of young men of professorial rank is that the College Faculty will be expected to provide members to the Faculty of the School for General Studies.

Dr. Harriss’s intellectual attainments are extraordinarily high. He received the B.S. degree at Harvard Summa Cum Laudein 1934, having majored in history. My impression is that the degree with highest distinction is awarded to a major student in a particular department only once in several years at Harvard or, at least, it averages out about this way. On graduating from Harvard, Dr. Harriss was awarded the highest scholarship (one for travel in Europe) that is given to a graduate of Harvard College. He then became a Council for Research in the Social Sciences Fellow in economics and pursued graduate studies at both Chicago and Columbia. He was awarded our Ph.D. in 1940. As a graduate student, he won the high opinion of his professors. His dissertation on “Gift Taxation in the United States” was written under the direction of Dr. Haig. This dissertation was of such excellence that it immediately established Dr. Harriss as an authority on this subject. This was pointedly demonstrated when he was made head of the Gift Tax Section in the Division of Research of the United States Treasury Department. He held this post from November 1941, until April, 1943. He then entered the Army and rather rapidly rose to the rank of Captain. His distinction as a student was continued in the fact that he was the first ranking man in his class in Officers Candidate School. During his service in the Army, he was in charge of important work connected with procurement for the Army Air Forces, and was stationed at Air Force Headquarters, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. For his work there, he received the Army Commendation Award. He returned to his work with us at the beginning of the Spring Term.

Last summer Dr. Harriss received a firm offer of an Associate Professorship at Syracuse University at a salary of $4,000. He also received inquiries which appear to anticipate firm offers from both Rice Institute and the University of Indiana. Both of these institutions talked with him in terms of an Associate Professorship at a salary of about $4,000. Dr. Harriss declined to consider the inquiries and turned down the offer made by Syracuse. I believe that I am not exaggerating when I say that there is not a young man in this country of greater competence or promise in the field of public finance than Dr. Harriss, and I believe that Professors Haig and Shoup rate him at about the same level.

During his time with us and the period that he was in the Army, Dr. Harriss has outgrown his academic rank. Our Committee believes that his appointment in the fashion we have recommended will be in the long-run interest of education and scholarship in Columbia College and in the University at large.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]
Horace Taylor

HT:mdl

Source:Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-, Box 406, Folder “Goodrich, Carter 1/4”.

________________

C. Lowell Harriss (1912-2009)
In Memoriam

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EDUCATOR, ECONOMIST AND ADVOCATE OF LAND TAX REFORM DIES

C. Lowell Harriss, an economist whose groundbreaking theories on land tax reform led to a widening of public spaces and improved quality of life in domestic and international urban and rural areas, died on December 14, 2009 at his home in Bronxville, N.Y. He was 97.

He died from natural causes.

An author of 16 books on economics and hundreds of articles, Professor Harriss was one of the last living economists to experience the Depression. He was known for his seminal work on taxation of land, property tax, finance reform, land values and planning land use.

He was a professor emeritus of economics at Columbia University, where he taught for 43 years, from 1938 to 1981. He also taught at Stanford University, UC-Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, The Wharton School, the New School for Social Research and Pace University. He earned Fulbright professorships from the Netherlands School of Economics (now Erasmus University), Cambridge University, and the University of Strasbourg, France.

His professional interests beyond education were extensive, including: Executive Director of The Academy of Political Science; President, National Tax Association-Tax Institute of America; Vice President, International Institute of Public Finance; Chairman, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, Inc.; Trustee, American Institute for Economic Research; Advisory Member, American Enterprise Institute; Academic Advisor, Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Advisor, Thomas Jefferson Research Center. He was a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and a board member of the American Institute of Economic Research in Cambridge, both institutions that serve as leading resources for policy makers and practitioners including the use, regulation and taxation of land.

He advised state, federal and foreign governments on tax policy including the U.S. Department of Treasury; the City of New York; New York State; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; the Federal District of Venezuela; the Ministry of Finance, Republic of China; the United Nations; and the Agency of International Development of the U.S. Department of State.

In addition to his academic and professional pursuits and achievements, Professor Harriss was well known for his great respect of the role that humor has in making daily life enjoyable and more civilized. He often said that “a smile costs nothing.” He was known for his frequent compilations of cartoons, which he distributed in his mailings to colleagues and friends. As he said, “they get people’s attention”.

Clement Lowell Harriss was born Aug. 2, 1912, in Fairbury, Nebraska. He attended Harvard College and graduated summa cum laude in 1934. Upon graduation, he received a Sheldon Fellowship which enabled him to travel for 13 months throughout Europe, the Balkans, Turkey and Northern Africa, before arriving in Berlin the day Hitler assumed the presidency. This experience was the beginning of a lifetime of travel that would take him around the world nine times and stimulate his academic and personal curiosity and inquiry.

Professor Harriss met and married Agnes Bennett Murphy in 1936. While pursuing graduate studies at the University of Chicago and Columbia University, he began his teaching career in 1938 at and received his Ph.D. in 1940 from Columbia University.

Professor Harriss served as an officer in the Army Air Corps from 1943 to 1946, working on aircraft and manpower procurement, later on the economic problems of the shift of fighting to the Pacific, and finally, on the problems of economic demobilization and the postwar aircraft industry.

He is the namesake of the C. Lowell Harriss Scholarship at Columbia College, the C. Lowell Harriss Chair of Economics at Columbia University, and the Professor C. Lowell Harriss Scholarship at the School of General Studies at Columbia University. In 1996 he accepted the Nobel Prize in Economics on behalf of long-time Columbia colleague William Vickrey, who had died shortly before the ceremony.

He is survived by his sister, Marion Engelhart, of Gross Pointe, Michigan, his four children, L. Gordon Harriss, of Bronxville, New York; Patricia Harriss, of Bronxville, New York, Martha Harriss, of New York, and Brian Harriss, of Greenwich, Connecticut, five grandchildren, and by his two daughters in law, Elizabeth Harriss, Bronxville, New York, and Lucinda Harriss, Greenwich, Connecticut. His wife died in 1992.

Source:  Columbia University. Department of Economics. Webpage: In Memoriam; C. Lowell Harriss (1912-2009).

 

________________

In Memoriam: from Columbia College Today

C. Lowell Harriss ’40 GSAS, professor emeritus of economics, died on December 14, 2009, at his home in Bronxville, N.Y. He was 97.

Born in Fairbury, Neb., on August 2, 1912, Harriss graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in 1934. Upon graduation, he received a Sheldon Fellowship, which enabled him to travel for 13 months throughout Europe, including Berlin and the Balkans, as well as Turkey and Northern Africa. This trip was the beginning of a lifetime of travel that would take him around the world nine times.

Harriss served as an officer in the Army Air Corps from 1943–46, working on aircraft and manpower procurement, on the economic problems of the shift of fighting to the Pacific, and finally on the problems of economic demobilization and the postwar aircraft industry. He began teaching at Columbia in 1938 while pursuing a Ph.D. in economics at GSAS and remained at Columbia until retiring from teaching in 1981.

University Trustee Mark E. Kingdon endowed, in 1998, the C. Lowell Harriss Professorship of Economics in honor of “my teacher, mentor and friend.”

“I took Professor Harriss’ public finance course in the late 1960s, when it was not cool to be a conservative, especially at Columbia,” said Kingdon. “I remember Professor Harriss warning us about the extraordinary power of the government: ‘Nothing can be as cruel as the government.’

“During the 1970 student strike, I learned later, a classmate was picketing a building that the professor wanted to enter. ‘You can’t go in,’ my friend declared. ‘Why not?’ Professor Harriss asked. ‘Because then you would be a scab.’ In response, Professor Harriss brushed by and entered the building while declaring, ‘A scab is part of the natural healing process.’

“Teachers in the department on both the left and right loved the man. He was soft-spoken, tolerant, smart, non-dogmatic but firm in his beliefs. His classroom style was brusque, informative and clear. He committed many random acts of kindness, such as writing a complimentary note about me to my father, and helped students with letters of recommendation to his many friends that led to jobs or entry into grad school.

“I watched him age gracefully almost to the very end, vigorous in mind, body and spirit, an inspiration to us all. I miss him very much.”

Harriss also taught at Stanford, UC Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, The Wharton School, the New School for Social Research and Pace. He earned Fulbright professorships from the Netherlands School of Economics (now Erasmus University), Cambridge and the University of Strasbourg, France.

One of the last living economists to have experienced the Depression, Harriss authored 16 books on economics and hundreds of articles. He was known for his seminal work on taxation of land, property tax, finance reform, land values and planning land use.

Harriss also had advised state, federal and foreign governments on tax policy including the Depart- ment of Treasury; the City of New York; New York State; the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico; the Federal District of Venezuela; the Ministry of Finance, Republic of China; the United Nations; and the Agency of International Development of the U.S. Department of State.

Harriss met and married Agnes Bennett Murphy in 1936. She predeceased him in 1992. Harriss is survived by his children, L. Gordon ’68, Patricia, Martha and Brian; five grandchildren; and sister, Marion Engelhart.

Source: In Memoriam. Columbia College Today, March/April 2010.

Image Source:  In Memoriam. Columbia College Today, March/April 2010.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Harvard Michigan Pennsylvania Salaries

Chicago. Instructional Staff Salaries by Rank, 1919

 

The following transcription of a draft copy of a report on the University of Chicago salary scale for instructional staff from ca. 1919 is interesting because it begins with a brief chronology of the salary scale from the founding of the University of Chicago to the time of the report. Since pay raises were being recommended, figures are given for other universities for comparison. The ratio between a Head professor to a beginning assistant professor was 3.5 to 1 during the early years of the University of Chicago. The compression was relatively minor by 1919, with the committee recommending a ratio of 3.33 to 1. For nearly  the first thirty years the top salary for a professor at the University of Chicago was $7000.

Handwritten additions to the draft are indicated by the use of italics in the transcription that follows.

________________

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SALARY SCALE

The Board of Trustees,
The University of Chicago,

Gentlemen:

The Committee appointed at the May meeting of the Board herewith submits the following report on the scale of salaries in the teaching staff of the University with recommendations for the modifications of the same.

At the time of the organization of the University in the autumn of 1891, the following scale of salaries was informally determined:

Head Professor, $4000, to $5000.
Professor, $3000.
Associate Professor, $2500.
Assistant Professor, for a four year term, $2000.
Instructor, for a three year term, $1200, $1400, $1600.
Associate, for a two year term, $1000, $1100.

            In the minutes of the Board there is no record of this definite scale, which the various actions recorded implied. At the November meeting, 1891, the salary of the Head Professors was fixed at $6000. At the December meeting, 1891, it was increased to $7000. This change in the salary of a Head Professor, was due to obvious circumstances connected with securing suitable men for the new institution. No change was made in the rest of the scale.

In 1894 and thereafter new Head Professors were appointed, but on the original scale of $4000 to $5000. It thus appears, although not specifically recorded in the minutes of the Board, that the $7000 salaries were merely adapted at the organization of the University as a temporary expedient.

In 1907 the salary question was again taken into consideration by the Board. It was plain that the salary of a Professor, $3000, was too low, and that a general reorganization was desirable. At the meeting of the Board in December, 1907, it was tentatively agreed, 1st: that for members of the permanent staff in each of the three grades a maximum and a minimum salary shall be fixed, and that for any individual within those grades the exact salary paid shall depend, not on the time of service, but on the discretion of the Board, and, 2nd: that for members of the Faculty appointed for a term of years, a maximum and a minimum salary shall be fixed, with advances depending on term of service.

At the meeting of the Board in January, 1908, the following salary scale was enacted:

Heads of Departments, maximum [sic] $4000, minimum [sic], $6000.
Professors not Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $4500.
Associate Professor, Minimum, $2500; Maximum, $3000.
Assistant Professor, four years, $2000; On reappointment, $2500.
Instructors, three years, $1200, $1400, $1600; On reappointment, $1800.
Associates, two years, $1000 to $1200.

*  * *  *  *  *

            At the meeting of the Board in January, 1911, it was voted that thereafter the administration of Departments should ordinarily be conducted by a chairman, to be appointed by the President, to serve three years, at the end of which term a new Chairman shall be appointed or the same one reappointed.

At the meeting in February, 1908, action was taken ratifying the action of the Trustees of the Baptist Theological Union, of the previous day. Scale of salaries in the Divinity School was enacted as follows:

Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3500; Maximum, $4500.
Professors not Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $4000.

            The remaining scale as in the Faculties of Arts, Literature, and Science.

It was also voted that salaries paid or ranks given to members of a Department shall be determined without reference to the method of departmental administration, and that whenever the interest of the University seems to make it desirable, more than one person in the same Department may be given the maximum rank and salary.

Considering conditions relative to the cost of living, it becomes desirable now in all institutions of learning so far as practicable to provide larger salaries. This matter is receiving similar consideration throughout the country. In the University of Michigan the State Legislature made an additional appropriation of $300,000.00 at its last session for the purpose of increasing salaries. The scale was altered for Professors from the former rate of minimum $2500 and maximum $4000, to a minimum of $3200 and a maximum usually of $5000. Several have been advanced to $5500, and a small number to $6000. The increase in the salaries of Professors has reached an average of approximately 25%. Associate Professors have been advanced from a scale of $2100 to $2400, to a scale of $2800 to $3100, the advance in individual cases being about twenty five percent.

Assistant Professors are advanced from a scale of $1500 to $2000, to a scale of $2200 to $2700, the increase being about 30%.

Instructors are advanced from a scale of $900 to $1600, to a scale of $1300 to $2100, an increase of about 30%.

In Yale University the salary of an Associate Professor isadvanced to $3500, being about 30% increase. The salary of Assistant Professors isadvanced to $2500 for three years and $3000 for two additional years, or about 20%. Instructors for four years have salaries ranging from $1250 to $2000, at an increase of 25%. In the Law School the maximum for Professors isadvanced from $7000 to $7500. The present scale for Professors is at a minimum of $4000 and a maximum of $6000. It is intended to increase that in the autumn at a probable rate of about 25% in individual cases. The new maximum is therefore not yet enacted.

In Harvard the present scale of Professors salaries has a minimum of $4000 and a maximum of $5500; Associate Professors at $3500—after five years service—$4000; Assistant Professors, for the first five years, $2500, for the second five years, $3000; Instructors ranging from $1000 to $1500. Harvard is engaged in a plan for raising an $11,000,000 endowment, the greater part of which is to be used for salaries.

Columbia University has not an exact scale. Professors’ salaries range from $4000 to $15,000. There are twenty receiving a salary of $6000, eight a salary of $6500 to $7000. Those whose salaries are above $7000 are mostly in professional schools. There are thirty with a salary of $5000. No immediate change in the salary scale is contemplated.

In the University of Pennsylvania the maximum for a full time professorship is $8000. As a matter of fact there are very few whose salaries are $6000, or more. It is intended to make an increase of 20% for all receiving $4000 or $6000, 10% for all receiving over $6000, and 20% for all receiving less than $4000. This increase is to come into effect in the autumn of 1919.

Under all the circumstances and with the funds available from the present income of the University the committee recommends the following:

PROPOSED NEW SCALE.

            In the Faculties of Arts, Literature and Sciences.

Professor, Minimum, $4000; Maximum, $7000.
Associate Professor, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $3600.
Assistant Professor, Minimum, $2100; Maximum, $2700.
Instructors, for three years, $1500, $1600, $1700. On reappointment to a maximum of $2000.
Associates, for two years, $1200, $1300.

            In the Faculty of the Divinity School.

Professor, Minimum, $4000; Maximum, $5000.
Other ranks as in Arts, Literature and Science.

            In the Faculty of the Law School.

Professor, Minimum of $6000, increased by $500 at the end of each three years of satisfactory service to a maximum of $8500. For Assistant and Associate Professors no change. These last appointments in the Law School are usually temporary and a considerable flexibility is desirable. It is recommended that for the Faculty of the Law School the new scale take effect fro the fiscal year 1920-1921. It will involve an addition of $5250 to the budget of that year over the present budget of 1919-1920.

Respectfully Submitted
[Signed] M. A. Ryerson
H. G. Grey
H. P. Judson

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations. Records. Box 76. Folder: 4, “Salaries, 1916-1920”.

 

Image Source: 1894 University of Chicago Convocation. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf3-00416, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Gender Wellesley

Chicago. Mary Barnett Gilson upon retirement, 1941

 

 

A late-starter for an academic career, Wellesley College alumna (1899) Mary Barnett Gilson attained her highest academic degree (A.M.) from Columbia at the tender age of about 49 years following a career in industrial relations.  She then spent ten years teaching economics at the University of Chicago before retiring as an assistant professor emeritus in 1942. In her exchange of letters with the president of the university, Robert M. Hutchins, that have been transcribed for this post, one reads of her frustration at not having had an opportunity to teach in her field of expertise, industrial relations, either in the business school or the Downtown College. She is also quite clear in her disappointment as not having been promoted to the rank of associate professor. She believed she had hit a gender glass-ceiling. It would be of interest to compare other non-Ph.D. faculty of the period at the University of Chicago and elsewhere who had been promoted to ranks of associate professor and higher. Still there can be little doubt that we have here an account of a woman who had encountered genuine discrimination.

Also of interest is to read “I’m very busy trying to enlighten the Mid-West and dispel some of the fog created by America First” written five days before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

She eventually moved to Chapel Hill, North Carolina where she spent the rest of her long life.

_______________

Mary Barnett Gilson, A.M. (1877-1969)
University of Chicago years

1931- 33 Instructor of Economics.
1933-34  Assistant in Economics
1934-41  Assistant Professor of Economics
1940-42 Assistant Professor of Economics in the College.
1942-     Assistant Professor Emeritus of Economics in the College.

[Apparently only taught during the second semester at Wellesley College 1942. Lecturer in Economics. Resignation and expired appointment June 1942, Wellseley College, as of June, 1942.]

_______________

Mary B. Gilson published a memoir in 1940
Papers at Wellesley College Archives

From a review of Mary Barnett Gilson, What’s Past Is Prologue. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940.

“Her ideas and feelings about industrial problems spring from varied experience as a branch librarian in a steel district, department-store salesgirl, vocational counselor, employment manager, research worker in labor problems, and university professor.”

Source:  William M. Leiserson. Review of What’s Past is Prologue by Mary Barnett Gilson in American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 47, No. 1 (July 1941), pp. 123-124.

*  * *  *  *

Mary B. Gilson Papers in Wellesley College Archives. Records of the Class of 1899, 1898-1954: a guide. 6C.1899.   Boxes 5-20, Oversize 2-4.

Apparently some of these items are on microfilm in the Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina. Mary Barnett Gilson Papers, 1909-1959. Does not appear to have any University of Chicago or Wellesley College related material.

_______________

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation
Fellowship: 1939

GILSON, MARY BARNETT

Appointed for the preparation of a book to be entitled “Industry, Management and Labor: A record of thirty years”; tenure, twelve months from October 1, 1939.

Born: September 10, 1877, at Uniontown, Pennsylvania. 

Education:  Wellesley College, B.A., 1899; Columbia University, M.A., 1926. London School of Economics, 1935–36.

Engaged in industrial work in the fields of labor relations, employment and management, and consultant and research worker in industrial relations, 1912—.

Assistant Professor of Economics, 1931—, University of Chicago.

Publications: Unemployment Benefits in the United States (with others), 1930; Unemployment Insurance in Great Britain, 1931; Unemployment Insurance, 1932. Articles in International Labour Review, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences.

 

Source:  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Website: Fellows/Mary Barnett Gilson.

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

The University of Chicago
Department of Economics

April 17, 1941

Dear President Hutchins,

Perhaps you have been notified that my resignation will take effect at the end of this quarter. I have deeply appreciated the atmosphere of freedom at the University of Chicago and your part in preserving it.

Cordially yours,

Mary B. Gilson

*  * *  *  *

Attached slip of paper with handwritten notes:

[Secretary?:] She doesn’t say so but I know she wants very badly to see you.

[Hutchins?:] How do you know?

[Secretary?:] She told me so. She wants to tell you what is wrong with this institution. I think you should give her an opportunity for a parting shot.

[Hutchins?:] Will do some time. no hurry about it.–RMH

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

Mary Barnett Gilson—1154 East 56thStreet—Chicago, Illinois

Nov. 24, ‘41

Dear Mr. Hutchins,

I am confident Ben Selekman would not object to my sending you his letter to me. Please destroy it when you have read it.

It is too bad that on a recent barn-storming trip of one night stands in Western Pennsylvania I left, somewhere en route, the two pamphlets Mr. Selekman sent me. You would enjoy the Atlantic Monthly reprint, I know you would! Will you have your secretary ask him for a copy or shall I?

If I had not promised that Pittsburgh men’s forum I would speak on “Strikes and Production” I can assure you I would not have chosen November 17th, 1941 A.M.[?] to speak on that subject. A lot of steel and coal and coke magnates from their Triangle offices were in my audience and when some of them as well as some labor leaders told me after my 45 minute broadcast and a subsequent 30 minute question period that I had been “fair” I breathed normally once more.

It seems queer to know I shall soon be “emeritus”. I wish I had had some opportunity to use my industrial experience more effectively here during the past ten years but either the Mid-West is no place for a woman in that field or [Carl F.] Huth and [William Homer] Spencer and Raleigh Stone et al don’t think it is! I’d like to have demonstrated I could retire from here as an emeritus associated instead of an emeritus assistant. I try to think titles don’t mean anything but people in academic circles seem to think they do!

Cordially yours,

Mary Gilson

*  * *  *  *

[handwritten note: “Please destroy”]

B. M. Selekman
24 Province Street
Boston, Mass.

November 3, 1941.

Miss Mary Gilson
Faculty Exchange #169
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Mary:

It is very kind of you to write me about the little screed in the Survey Graphic. I feel the whole thing very keenly and I am glad that you agree. I developed the same thought at somewhat greater length in the Atlantic Monthly. Apparently you missed it so I am sending you a copy as well as a reprint of another article in the Harvard Business Review which I think you will find interesting from the point of view of your own experience in labor relations.

Your piece in the current Survey Graphic touches also on the same theme that I tried to develop in the Business Review article.

Let me now tell you that I should have written you a long time ago how much I enjoyed your book. It just breathed your kindliness, human understanding and impatience with cant and stupidity.

We are both, naturally, disappointed in Hutchins. How can a person with his sensitiveness to the classic tradition fail to see the issue of humanism in the current world crisis as projected by the Nazis! I wish you could get him to read my Atlantic Monthly article, although one despairs of changing a point of view in a person as intelligent as he is. Sometimes I find the intelligent person the most closed mind. They live within a framework of thought which is so consistent to them that they do not see the complexities and subtleties in actual life about them.

I am happy to hear that you are out barnstorming in the interest of getting our mid-western neighbors to see the issues clearly in Hitler’s threat to us.

I am sorry to hear that you are to retire in another year. I should think that your first-hand-experience could have been put forth to students for a great many more years with profit to them.

It is good news, however, that you are thinking of settling in Boston or Wellesley. One is not quite so much in the hurly-burly of things as in New York. On the other hand one does get a better opportunity living in New England to think and reflect.

With affectionate greetings from both of us,

Ever yours,
[signed]
Ben

_______________

Carbon Copy of President Hutchin’s response to Gilson

November 27, 1941

Dear Miss Gilson:

Thank you for your kind note. As for Selekman, tell him that I am disappointed in him and that if he will read my speeches I will read his article.

I share your views on the anti-feminine leanings of this University and on the issue of academic rank. There is a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on University Policy now at work on a proposal to abolish academic rank in the University. If the suggestion ever gets out of the sub-committee it will be buried with a unanimous whoop in the Senate.

Come and see me some time.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT M. HUTCHINS

Miss Mary B. Gilson
Assistant Professor of Economics
The University of Chicago

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

[Handwritten note: “no ans.”]

Mary Barnett Gilson—1154 East 56thStreet—Chicago, Illinois

Dec. 2 [1941]

Dear Mr. Hutchins,

You see I always get promoted in print, and when I lecture I spend the first five minutes telling my audience that I am not “Professor” and that I haven’t even a doctorate. That’s the chief reason I’d be in favor of doing away with titles! Program chairmen just can’t bear the ignominy of bringing an assistant professor to their groups. So I always get a promotion, which lasts until I get on my feet.

I surely shall accept your invitation to drop in to see you some day. Thanks ever  so much. I’m very busy trying to enlighten the Mid-West and dispel some of the fog created by America First. I’m sure you are busy, too.

I am playing with the idea of going to Becea[?] for Christmas vacation. I have always wanted to see it and this seems a possible time.

Please give my kindest regards to your beloved father. It was a joy to have a chance to become acquainted with him the summer of 1940.

Cordially yours,

Mary Gilson

_______________

Handwritten letter by Mary B. Gilson to President Hutchins

WELLESLEY COLLEGE
Wellesley, Massachusetts
Department of Economics

Friday, February 27 [1942]

Dear Mr. Hutchins,

I was sorry indeed to come away from Chicago without saying good-bye to you. As my beloved old [Wellesley College] teacher Vida Scudder said the other day, “Even if we don’t see eye to eye on present solutions of present problems, we agree down deep on fundamental issues.” Well, whether you and I agree on fundamental and also on less fundamental issues or not, I have a lot of respect for you and I regret deeply not having had a chance to say good-bye.

President McAfee’s s.o.s. to come here and take over a group of seniors in a course in industrial relations came so precipitately that I had little time for anything but packing and storing my household goods and attending to all those chores that must be done when one moves from one town to another. It all had to be done in a week.

I am having a grand time with twenty-five of the finest girls I’ve met for a long time. We meet around a big round table, which is an answer to the prayer I sent up every little while during the past ten years when those gloomy, repelling rooms in Cobb put a long face on this school arm. I always wanted a whack at an industrial relations course “on the side” at the U. of C., in the School of Business or Downtown College) but Deans [William Homer] Spencer and [Carl F.] Huth evidently thought a woman didn’t and shouldn’t know about the mysterious field of business and industry.

Please throw away the enclosures after you have read them. They are between you and me and the gate-post.

As you said, the last time I saw you, “God bless you!”

Faithfully yours,

Mary B. Gilson

*  * *  *  * *  *

Attachment 1
Typed Letter from Mary Anderson to Mary Gilson

[Anderson, Mary. Woman at work: The autobiography of Mary Anderson as told to Mary N. Winslow. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1951. Obituary: Mary Anderson, Ex-U.S. aide, dies; Directed Women’s Bureau in Labor Department, New York Times, January 30, 1964.]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WOMEN’S BUREAU
Washington

January 30, 1942

Dear Mary,

I am very much interested in your letter and it seems to me that instead of going to Wellesley you ought to be staying at Chicago University and teaching in this new class. [Gilson added “*” in the margin with a handwritten note at the bottom of this letter]

I am going to Chicago next week to speak at the American Management Association conference at the Stevens Hotel and I have been asked by Mr. Mitchell to stop off at Chicago University and give a talk on Thursday morning the 5th. I shall do so because I want to know what they are doing, what they are teaching and what they are preparing the people for. He says they have 150 men and 50 women in the class. The training classes are now being opened up to women all over because they realize that they will have to use them and that means of course that they will have to have training for women supervisors as well as production workers. [Gilson added comment to this sentence in margin: “But Chicago is training women for white collar jobs.”]

I hope you will find your place in Wellesley more to your liking. I suppose you won’t be coming to Washington now, since the Wage and Hour Division is moving to New York. We in the Department of Labor regret that moving very much. Of course we may find it will strike us.

With much love to you,

[signed]
Mary

Miss Mary Gilson
1154 East 56thStreet
Chicago, Illinois

[Handwritten note: *I told her I had never, in the ten years at U. of C., been called into the Business School or Downtown College for any sort of a contribution I might have made toward training women for anything. I think Raleigh Stone may think I’m a “red” M.B.G.]

*  * *  *  * *  *

Attachment 2
Mary Anderson typed letter to Mary Gilson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WOMEN’S BUREAU
Washington

February 18, 1942

Dear Mary,

I was very glad to have your analysis of that class at Chicago University. There were 150 men and 50 women. The men were training mainly for supervisors in industry and the women were training for supervisors in offices. The attitude towards the women was the same as usual. [underlining by Gilson with marginal note “Usual white collar stuff for ladies!”] They asked me questions – if women ought to have the same wages as men, and would women get out of the factories after the men come back from the war. I told them that there was much more to it than just coming back from the war and getting the jobs back, that it was a question of converting the industries back to consumer goods and there was also the question of some of the industries that would not be working at all after the war as we would not need their material; then there is of course the cutting down on war material quite considerably, and then I said to the men, “Have you any idea how many of the men will come back from the war and how many of the men that come back will be able to take any jobs?” I said that was a very hard way of putting it but at the same time we were in a different war than we have been in and it is very difficult to tell what would happen, that after all if we are to win this war it will take men and women together, all of us, and that I think we would do well not to quibble over who is going to have the jobs after the war is over. [underlining by Gilson].

I didn’t see Mr. Mitchell, so I have no opinion of him. I thought the two women that were steering the class were very good, and earnest. One of the professors was giving a psychology lesson just before I spoke so I heard some of it, and it was a regular college psychology lesson. I don’t know what good it would do a class that will take positions in industry as supervisors. One of the women, however, (and I don’t remember their names) had a very bad attitude towards labor. She could not understand why labor wanted more money when the men that enlisted got only $21 a month. I told her that after all they got a great deal more than that, they got their clothes and their keep, which amounts to a great deal more; I didn’t think, however, they got enough fro what they were risking by any means, but that was no reason that the workers should not have a decent wage. They, too, were risking their all, and the employers in bidding on the contracts took the labor costs as well as the costs of material into consideration.

I had a grand time at the American Management Association and the training of women is now beginning. They were very much interested and they have written in for all kinds of information.

I think our work from now on will be that of seeing that women are not exploited and that labor standards are maintained.

With love to you,

[signed, “Mary”]
Mary Anderson, Director

Miss Mary Gilson
Claflin Hall
Wellesley College,
Wellesley, Mass.

_______________

Handwritten note by E.F. [Vice-President, Emery T. Filbey] attached to previous Gilson letter

Personally I would not pick either of the Marys for instruction in industrial relations unless I wanted to start a private war.

E.F.

[underneath: in a different handwriting “Nice long letter. How etc[?] we [??]  & so on.”

_______________

Carbon copy of typed letter from Hutchins to Gilson.

March 4, 1942

Dear Miss Gilson:

I could not hope for a more generous statement of good faith overlooking difference of opinion than that expressed in your letter of February 27. I cannot do better than return the sentiments with my regret that we had no opportunity to exchange them in person.

I hope that Wellesley will treat you as you would like, or in other words, that Wellesley will treat you as well as you deserve.

The enclosures you sent me lead me to believe that you and I do not disagree on fundamental issues. You and your friends are concerned about exploitation of our women and disintegration of our labor standards. I am concerned, as you are too, about exploitation of our citizens and disintegration of our democracy.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT M. HUTCHINS

Miss Mary B. Gilson
Department of Economics
Wellesley College
Wellesley, Massachusetts

 

Source:    University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 72, Folder “Economics Department, 1939-1943.”

Image Source:  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Website: Fellows/Mary Barnett Gilson.

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Economics Graduate Student’s Guide, 1957-58

 

The process of awarding a Ph.D. in economics is governed by rules, so every so often I add a program’s rule-book here. The following excerpt from the Graduate Student’s Guide even provides a bit of motivation and interpretation of the rules for economics graduate students at Columbia University in the mid 1950s.

Recently an exam for Gary Becker’s 1965 micro-theory course (already one of the most visited pages in the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror collection) revealed that either the rule for making no-allowance in exams for non-native English speakers  was suspended by 1965 or Gary Becker disregarded the rule, allowing non-native speakers extra time for their written examinations.

________________

Excerpt from Columbia University’s The Graduate Student’s Guide

ECONOMICS

EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Carl S. Shoup, 503 Fayerweather

Office hours:Monday and Wednesday, 10 to 10:30 and 11 to 12. Thursday, 2 to 4
Telephone Extension:2171

DEPARTMENT SECRETARY: Carolyn M. Stedman, 502 Fayerweather

Office hours:Monday through Friday, 9 to 5
Telephone Extension:849

DEPARTMENT BULLETIN BOARD: outside 502 Fayerweather

 

The following remarks supplement or amplify the description of degree requirements found in two places in the Graduate Faculties Bulletin: on pages 14-18 for the Faculty Requirements and on page 37 for the Departmental Requirements. Have these pages of theBulletin at hand when reading the statement below.

GENERAL

The Department takes the view that each graduate student having his particular intellectual interests and methods of satisfying them, flexibility in the departmental procedures intended to assist him is necessary. Hence, no system of departmental advisers has been set up. During his first registration, the student will find all members of the Department available, at hours posted on the bulletin board, for consultation on his course program. Any member of the Department may sign approval of the student’s program card. If a study of the course offerings in the Bulletindoes not give the entering student a clear enough idea of the particular member of the Department by whom he would prefer to be advised on his program, he may obtain suggestions on this score from the Academic Assistant or Professor Shoup.

In succeeding semesters the student’s developing interests and his growing acquaintance with the members of the Department should enable him to select some one or two faculty members as his chief adviser or advisers.

Although no specified courses are required for either degree, all students in the Department are advised to attend Economics 101-102, the basic course in economic theory, unless they enter the Department with an exceptional background in that subject.

 

THE MASTER’S DEGREE

Candidates are expected to study the requirements listed in the Graduate Faculties Bulletinand to plan their work in the light of both A. M. and Ph.D. requirements in case they should later decide to work toward the higher degree.

Not less than six months before he desires to receive the degree, the candidate must select his Essay subject, submit it to the appropriate member of the Department, and, after approval, list the subject with the Academic Assistant of the Department. The Essay need not be completed until after the candidate has satisfied the course requirements for the degree.

The selection of a subject of importance within the field of his interests must be made by the student, and the ability to make a proper choice will be regarded as an essential qualification for the degree.

The completed Essay must be submitted for approval not later than four weeks before the date on which copies are to be filed with the Essay and Dissertation Secretary. The candidate should not proceed beyond the preparation of his detailed program of investigation and the completion of a preliminary chapter or section without submitting his work to his supervisor. An Essay is judged by the manner of its presentation and style as well as by its contents and the employment of original material.

Another foreign language may be substituted for French or for German, with the approval of the Executive Officer, if it is particularly useful for the student’s projected research; but another Romance language may not be offered with French. Failure to pass one of the language examinations or the mathematics examination, as the case may be, before registering for more than 30 points, or failure to pass the other examination before registering for more than 45 points, will result in denial of permission to register until the deficiency is removed.

In 1957-1958 the examinations in languages and mathematics will be held on the following days: Thursday, September 19, 1957, from 10 to 12; Friday, January 17, 1958, from 2 to 4; Friday, May 2, 1958, from 2 to 4 (room numbers will be posted outside Room 502 Fayerweather). At least one week before the examination the student must notify the Academic Assistant of the Department of his intention to take it.

Two years of intensive language work in one of Columbia University’s Institutes, with a grade of B or better throughout, are accepted in lieu of passing the regular language examination. Language examinations taken at other universities are not accepted for this requirement.

Foreign students are asked to bear in mind that a command of the English language is assumed, and that English consequently cannot be accepted as a foreign language satisfying the requirement. Nor can allowance be made in any examination, oral or written, for unfamiliarity with English.

 

THE DOCTORATE

The student must satisfy the Department that he has gained a thorough knowledge of several fields of economics (and, at his option, one field outside economics), to the point where he can demonstrate command of the material in a comprehensive oral examination and can utilize his knowledge in the writing of a doctoral Dissertation. To this end, the Department does not require course examinations of the Ph.D. candidate, nor are particular courses required. Instead, the student must, in addition to meeting the language and proficiency requirements stated in the Bulletin, (a) compete a seminar paper in one of the research courses offered in the Department, and (b) prepare an outline of his dissertation topic.

In practice, the typical Ph.D. candidate does take examinations in a limited number of courses, both to test himself and to build a record on which recommendations for fellowships or employment can be based. Moreover, those doctoral candidates who wish to obtain an A.M. degree en route necessarily take examination in 21 points (seven courses). The student’s decision to earn this degree should be guided by his interests and aims, after consultation with the Executive Officer or other members of the Department. Although the Department approves of a limited amount of examination taking, it asks the doctoral candidate to keep in mind the possible disadvantages of devoting too much time to the preparation for such tests.

Before he registers for more than 45 points, and as soon as possible, the candidate should submit for the Executive Officer’s approval his tentative choice of the three subjects, from the list given in the Graduate Faculties Bulletin, to add to the three required subjects. To ascertain the requirements for obtaining the certifications of proficiency in two of the six subjects, the candidate should, during his first semester, consult those members of the staff in charge of the respective fields. Certification of proficiency is not given for economic theory or for any subject under No. 19 in the Bulletinlist. These subjects may be, and economic theory mustbe, offered only at the oral examination.

The prospective candidate may find it advisable to take Statistics 191-192 and either Economics 153-154 (Economic history of the United States), or Economics 155-156 (Economic history of Europe, 1740-1914), or Economics 151-152 (Economic history of Russia to 1917) during his first year of residence, if he wishes to obtain a certificate of proficiency in statistics, or in one of these three divisions of economic history. No more than one of the three divisions may be offered among the six subjects. The professors in charge of certifying in these divisions are: United States, Professor Goodrich; Europe, Professor Landes (in 1957-1958, Professor Hughes); Russia, Professor Florinsky.

The 6-point research-course requirement cannot be fulfilled by research courses taken in other universities or in other Departments. Students are advised to take a research course in the Department as soon as they have completed 30 points, if not before. The required paper may be written in either of the two semesters of the research course.

Some time before he plans to take the oral examination, the student should select the field in which he intends to write his Dissertation. This field should normally be one of the six chosen for proficiency and oral examination. With the assistance of a member of the Department interested in this field, the candidate should formulate a topic for his Dissertation. As soon as the topic has been approved by the staff member (henceforth the student’s sponsor), the candidate must report to the Academic Assistant the name of the sponsor and the subject of the proposed Dissertation. No change of sponsorship will be recognized unless the candidate notifies the Academic Assistant. Although the Executive Officer may authorize a joint sponsorship, the Dissertation is generally written under a single sponsor.

The candidate is expected to draft a three- or four-page memorandum outlining the proposed Dissertation, indicating also the chief sources to be used, and defending the feasibility of the project. No oral examination will be scheduled until the candidate has deposited with the Academic Assistant his project memorandum, bearing the approval of the sponsor.

Well before the time he expects to apply for the oral examination, the candidate should obtain advice on preparing for this examination from members of the Faculty in charge of the fields he is offering. The oral examination is not an examination on courses, but on subjects (fields).

The formal application for a date for the examination must be made to the Academic Assistant for approval by the Executive Officer. The application will not be received until the requirements discussed above have been met. No exceptions can be made to the rules governing the dates of scheduling the various departmental and faculty examinations.

The reference under No. 19 in the Graduate Faculties Bulletin (page 37) to “any other one subject…approved by the Executive Officer of the Department” may include a subject falling in one of the Departments under the Faculty of Political Science, or in philosophy, or psychology, or in some other discipline dealing with matters relevant to the student’s scholarly interests. A candidate proposing to offer a subject outside the Department of Economics must obtain the approval of the Executive Officer of that other Department in advance. In general, the Department encourages doctoral candidates to devote a part of their efforts to a subject outside the Department.

Candidates for the Ph.D. degree in other Departments who propose to offer a minor in economics at the oral examination must be examined on economic theory and any one other of the subjects listed under Nos. 1-19 in the Bulletin. Such candidates should consult the Executive Officer of the Department of Economics as early as possible.

Candidates in other departments offering a minor in economic history aat the oral examination will be required to show either (a) a knowledge of the economic history of two major regions, or (b) a knowledge of the economic history of one major region and of the field or fields of economics particularly relevant to the subject of the proposed Dissertation.

A few private studies are available in Butler Library for students who are writing their Dissertations in residence; application should be made to the Academic Assistant.

The doctoral candidate may find it advisable to start on a first draft of his Dissertation well before the oral examination, perhaps in one of the research courses. During the writing of his Dissertation, the candidate should not fail to keep in lose touch with his sponsor. Much time will be saved, more assistance will be obtained, and more of the intellectual stimulus that should develop from the writing of a Dissertation will be felt if the candidate remains on or close to the Columbia campus. The candidate is particularly warned against writing a Dissertation in absentia, out of touch with his sponsor, and usually in the unfounded expectation that what he considers his finished draft, suddenly deposited on the desk of the sponsor, will lead speedily to a defense examination and the award of a degree.

If the candidate leaves the campus and makes no progress on his Dissertation, he should in December of each year send an explanatory statement to his sponsor; or, alternatively, notify his sponsor that he has abandoned the project. If the candidate does not apply for an examination in defense of his Dissertation within five years from the time he passed his oral examinations, he will be regarded as having abandoned his Dissertation topic, unless he requests in writing an extension of time and receives written approval of such an extension from his sponsor and the Executive Officer.

The candidate will not be recommended by the Executive Officer for an examination in defense of the Dissertation until the candidate’s sponsor has notified the Academic Assistant that the Dissertation is in acceptable form for final typing.

 

GRADUATE ECONOMICS SOCIETY

Graduate students will enhance their efficiency in learning and their professional interests by frequent discussion among themselves. For this purpose, the Graduate Economics Society, which meets regularly in Fayerweather Lounge, will be found useful. The officers for 1957-1958 are as follows:

President:  Edwin Dean, 419 West 115thStreet, Apt. 52, New York 25.

Vice President: Paul Graeser, 517 Furnald Hall

Secretary-Treasurer: Louise Freeman, 45 East 80thStreet, New York 21.

Telephone: LEhigh 5-6375.

 

Source:  The Graduate Student’s Guide. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information. Series 57, Number 39 (September 28, 1957), pp. 114-119.

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

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Economists Harvard Illinois Johns Hopkins Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Stanford Toronto Wisconsin Yale

Economics Graduate Programs Ranked in 1925

 

Filed away in the archived records of the University of Chicago’s Office of the President is a copy of a report from January 1925 from Miami University (Ohio) that was based on a survey of college and university professors to obtain a rank ordering of graduate programs in different fields. The following ordering for economics graduate programs 1924-25 is based on two dozen responses. I have added institutional affiliations from the AEA membership list of the time and a few internet searches. The study was designed to have a rough balance between college and university professors and a broad geographic representation. What the study lacks in sophistication will amuse you in its presumption.

_____________________

This rating was prepared in the following way: The members of the Miami University faculty representing twenty fields of instruction were called together and a list of the universities which conceivably might be doing high grade work leading to a doctor’s degree in one or more subjects was prepared on their advice. Each professor was then requested to submit a list of from forty to sixty men who were teaching his subject in colleges and universities in this country, at least half of the names on the list to be those of professors in colleges rather than in universities. It was further agreed that the list should be fairly well distributed geographically over the United States. [p. 3]

 

ECONOMICS

Ratings submitted by: John H. Ashworth [Maine] , Lloyd V. Ballard [Beloit], Gilbert H. Barnes [Ohio Wesleyan], Clarence E. Bonnett [Tulane], John E. Brindley [Iowa State], E. J. Brown [Arizona], J. W. Crook [Amherst], Ira B. Cross [California], Edmund E. Day [Michigan], Herbert Feis [Cincinnati], Frank A. Fetter [Princeton], Eugene Gredier, Lewis H. Haney [N.Y.U.], Wilbur O. Hedrick [Michigan State], Floyd N. House [Chicago], Walter E. Lagerquist [Northwestern], W. E. Leonard, L. C. Marshall [Chicago], W. C. Mitchell [Columbia], C. T. Murchison [North Carolina], Tipton A. Snavely [Virginia], E. T. Towne [North Dakota], J. H. Underwood [Montana], M. S. Wildman [Stanford].

 

Combined Ratings:  (24)

1 2 3 4-5
Harvard 20 4 0 0
Columbia 11 9 2 1
Chicago 9 7 3 2
Wisconsin 8 7 4 2
Yale 3 3 9 3
Johns Hopkins 2 4 8 3
Michigan 0 6 4 5
Pennsylvania 0 3 6 8
Illinois 0 5 4 4
Cornell 0 2 7 5
Princeton 2 1 4 4
California 0 3 4 5
Minnesota 0 2 4 6
Northwestern 0 2 3 6
Stanford 0 1 4 6
Ohio State 0 1 2 8
Toronto 0 2 2 3

Staffs:

HARVARD: F.W. Taussig, E.F. Gay, T.N. Carver, W.Z. Ripley, C.J. Bullock, A.A. Young, W.M. Persons, A.P. Usher, A.S. Dewing, W.J. Cunningham, T.H. Sanders, W.M. Cole, A.E. Monroe, H.H. Burbank, A.H. Cole, J. H. Williams, W.L. Crum, R.S. Meriam.

COLUMBIA: R.E. Chaddock, F.H. Giddings, S.M. Lindsay, W.C. Mitchell, H.L. Moore, W. Fogburn, H.R. Seager, E.R.A. Seligman, V.G. Sinkhovitch, E.E. Agger, Emilie J. Hutchinson, A.A. Tenney, R.G. Tugwell, W.E. Weld.

CHICAGO: L.C. Marshall, C.W. Wright, J.A. Field, H.A. Millis, J.M. Clark, Jacob Viner, L. W. Mints, W.H. Spencer, N.W. Barnes, C.C. Colby, P.H. Douglas, J.O. McKinsey, E.A. Duddy, A.C. Hodge, L.C. Sorrell.

WISCONSIN: Commons, Elwell, Ely Garner, Gilman, Hibbard, Kiekhofer, Macklin, Scott, Kolb, McMurry, McNall, Gleaser, Jamison, Jerome, Miller, S. Perlman.

YALE: Olive Day, F.R. Fairchild, R.B. Westerfield, T.S. Adams, A.L. Bishop, W.M. Daniels, Irving Fisher, E.S. Furniss, A.H. Armbruster, N.S. Buck.

JOHNS HOPKINS: W.W. Willoughby, Goodnow, W.F. Willoughby, Thach, Latane.

MICHIGAN: Rodkey, Van Sickle, Peterson, Goodrich, Sharfman, Griffin, May, Taylor, Dickinson, Paton, Caverly, Wolaver.

PENNSYLVANIA: E.R. Johnson, E.S. Mead, S.S. Heubner, T. Conway, H.W. Hess, E.M. Patterson, G.G. Huebner, H.T. Collings, R. Riegel, C.K. Knight, W.P. Raine, F. Parker, R.T. Bye, W.C. Schluter, J.H. Willits, A.H. Williams, R.S. Morris, C.P. White, F.E. Williams, H.J. Loman, C.A. Kulp, S.H. Patterson, E.L. McKenna, W.W. Hewett, F.G. Tryon, H.S. Person, L.W. Hall.

ILLINOIS: Bogart, Robinson, Thompson, Weston, Litman, Watkins, Hunter, Wright, Norton.

CORNELL: W.F. Willcox, H.J. Davenport, D. English, H.L. Reed, S.H. Slichter, M.A. Copeland, S. Kendrick.

PRINCETON: F.A. Fetter, E.W. Kemmerer, G.B. McClellan, D.A. McCabe, F.H. Dixon, S.E. Howard, F.D. Graham.

CALIFORNIA: I.B. Cross, S. Daggett, H.R. Hatfield, J.B. Peixotte, C.C. Plehm, L.W. Stebbins, S. Blum, A.H. Mowbray, N.J. Silberling, C.C. Staehling, P.F. Cadman, F. Fluegel, B.N. Grimes, P.S. Taylor, Helen Jeter, E.T. Grether.

MINNESOTA: G.W. Dorwie, J.D. Black, R.G. Blakey, F.B. Garver, N.S.B. Gras, J.S. Young, A.H. Hansen, B.D. Mudgett, J.E. Cummings, E.A. Heilman, H.B Price, J.J. Reighard, J.W. Stehman, H. Working, C.L. Rotzell, W.R. Myers.

NORTHWESTERN: Deibler, Heilman, Secrist, Bailey, Pooley, Eliot, Ray Curtis, Bell, Hohman, Fagg.

STANFORD: M.S. Wildman, W.S. Beach, E. Jones, H.L. Lutz, A.C. Whitaker, J.G. Davis, A.E. Taylor, J.B. Canning.

OHIO STATE: M.B. Hammond, H.G. Hayes, A.B. Wolf, H.F. Waldradt, C.O. Ruggles, W.C. Weidler, J.A. Fisher, H.E. Hoagland, H.H. Maynard, C.A. Dice, M.E. Pike, J.A. Fitzgerald, F.E. Held, M.N. Nelson, R.C. Davis, C.W. Reeder, T.N. Beckman.

Compiled with the assistance of J.B. Dennison, associate professor of economics.

 

Source:  Raymond Mollyneaux Hughes, A Study of the Graduate Schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University (January 1925), pp. 14-15.  Copy from University of Chicago. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations. Records, Box 47, Folder #5 “Study of the Graduate Schools of America”, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago.

 

Image Source: Four prize winners in annual beauty show, Washington Bathing Beach, Washington, D.C. from the U. S. Library of Congress. Prints & Photographs. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b43364

 

Categories
Columbia Rochester

Columbia. Economics PhD Alumnus, Meyer Jacobstein, 1907

 

Today in our continuing historical series “Get to know an economics Ph.D.”, we meet Meyer Jacobstein (1880-1963), a Columbia University Ph.D. (1907) who, before serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives (1923-1929), taught economics at the University of North Dakota and the University of Rochester.

Jacobstein’s disssertation was published by the Columbia Faculty of Political Science in its house journal:

Meyer Jacobstein. The Tobacco Industry in the United States. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law (Vol. XXVI, No. 3), 1907.

In his introduction Jacobstein thanks E.R.A. Seligman, H. R. Seager and H.L. Moore for criticism and suggestions.

______________

From: Columbia University Catalogue of Officers and Graduates

Meyer Jacobstein, A.B., 05; A. M., 05; Ph. D, 07; Asst. Prof. Univ. N. Dak. (University, N. Dak.)

Source:  Catalogue of Officers and Graduates of Columbia University from the Foundation of King’s college in 1754.(XVI edition, 1916), p. 200.

______________

From: Biographical Director of the U.S. Congress

JACOBSTEIN, Meyer, a Representative from New York; born in New York City, January 25, 1880; moved with his parents to Rochester, N.Y., in 1882; attended the public schools and the University of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y.; was graduated from Columbia University, New York City, in 1904; pursued postgraduate courses at the same university in economics and political science; special agent in the Bureau of Corporations, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., in 1907; assistant professor of economics, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks 1909-1913; professor of economics in the University of Rochester 1913-1918; was a director in emergency employment management at the University of Rochester under the auspices of the War Industry Board 1916-1918; elected as a Democrat to the Sixty-eighth, Sixty-ninth, and Seventieth Congresses (March 4, 1923-March 3, 1929); was not a candidate for renomination in 1928; delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 1924 and 1932; declined the nomination of mayor of Rochester, N.Y., in 1925; engaged in banking in Rochester, N.Y., 1929-1936; in 1936 became chairman of the board of the Rochester Business Institute; member of the Brookings Institution staff 1939-1946; economic counsel in the legislative reference service of the Library of Congress from 1947 until his retirement May 31, 1952; resided in Rochester, N.Y., until his death there on April 18, 1963; interment in Mount Hope Cemetery.

Source: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.

______________

Obituary

Dr. Meyer Jacobstein, Noted Economist and Educator, Dies in Rochester
(Apr. 21, 1963)

Funeral services were held here for Dr. Meyer Jacobstein, former member of the U.S. Congress, college professor and publisher of the Rochester Journal-American, who died last Thursday at the age of 83.

Born in New York, Dr. Jacobstein spent most of his life in Rochester. He was elected in 1922 to Congress on the Democratic ticket, and was the second Democratic representative from the 38th Congressional District since the Civil War. He was reelected twice but chose not to run in 1928. He was assistant professor of economics in the University of North Dakota from 1909 until 1913. In 1913 he joined the faculty of the University of Rochester as professor of economics.

Dr. Jacobstein was publisher of The Journal American here, from 1924 until the newspaper suspended in 1937. He then became a research consultant for the Brookings Institute in Washington. In 1944, he was director of a Senate special committee on postwar economic policy and planning. He retired from public life in 1957, after completing a one-year study of Rochester employment at the request of Governor Averell Harriman. He is survived by his widow, Lena (Lipsky), two daughters and eight grandchildren.

Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 22, 1963.

______________

Image Source: Campaign button from U.S. Congress, History of the House website; Meyer Jacobstein in Wikipedia.

Categories
Columbia Exam Questions

Columbia. Microeconomic theory exam. Becker, 1965.

 

The following set of Gary Becker’s microeconomic theory examination questions (found in a folder in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Archives) does not have an institution identification. According to the copy of Gary Becker’s c.v. buried in the website at the Institute of Labor Economics (IZA) in Bonn, Germany, we can be reasonably confident that this course was taught while Becker was still a professor at Columbia University. 

__________________

Final Examination
G6213x
Prof. G. S. Becker
January, 1965

THREE HOURS—Persons whose native language is not English can have an additional 45 minutes.

  1. (40 points) Answer each of the following as true, false or uncertain and justify your answer in the space provided.
    1. Over time in the U.S. since 1929 output of the service industries rose at about the same rate as that of goods. Since the price of services rose at least as rapidly as that of goods, the income elasticity of demand for services would be greater than that for goods.
    2. A weighted average of all price elasticities must add up to one.
    3. Suppose the excise tax on bus travel was reduced and not on plane, train or other travel. This would reduce the use of buses if such travel was a sufficiently strong inferior good relative to other kinds of travel.
    4. The ability of firms of very different sizes to survive in an industry means that the long run marginal cost curve is horizontal over the range of firm sizes that survive.
    5. If an increase in the output of any firm lowered the marginal cost curves of other firms in the same industry (external economies) a competitive industry as a whole might show increasing returns; i.e., have a negatively inclined supply curve.
    6. Short run marginal costs can never be below long run marginal costs.
    7. Suppose that a competitive firm maximizes not income but its sales subject to the constraint that it does not make any losses. Then reduction in the demand for its product might not lead it to reduce output.
    8. Goods X and Y are either substitutes, complements, or independent if an increase in the amount of X either reduces, raises or leaves unchanged the marginal utility of Y.
    9. If the price of a good competitively produced was free to vary and yet did not change much between a seasonal low and a seasonal high in demand, this means that the industry’s long run marginal cost curve was very elastic.
    10. An ad valorem tax, with a tax rate proportional to producer’s price, on a competitive industry that yielded the same revenue at the initial output as a specific tax, fixed amount per unit, would reduce output less than the specific tax.

 

  1. (20 points) Treat charitable contributions as a commodity entering the utility functions or indifference curves systems of the contributor. Assume, as is largely true, that contributions can be deducted from income in arriving at taxable income. Assume a proportional tax rate equal to t.
    1. What would be the effect of an increase in the tax rate for any one person alone on his contributions? How does your analysis compare with the traditional analysis for commodities?
    2. Is he more likely to increase or decrease his contributions?
    3. Suppose now the tax rate increased for everyone. Would your answers to a. and b. be significantly different?

 

  1. (20 points) Suppose the traffic department would like to enforce parking regulations in an efficient way. Assume that each person has the choice of parking illegally or legally; the latter costs X dollars per “day” and the former, if one is caught, causes a fine equal to F dollars per time caught.
    1. Assume first that the sole aim of the traffic department is to discourage illegal parking at minimum cost. Assume also that all drivers simply try to maximize expected money income. How frequently should the traffic department inspect parking in order to achieve its aim?
    2. If all drivers maximized expected utility and had diminishing marginal utility of income, (but there is no utility or disutility from disobeying the law), how would this affect your answer? If they had increasing marginal utility of income?
    3. Suppose the traffic department received all the fines and desired just to maximize its expected income. How would your answer to 1. be affected?
    4. How does your answer to a. and c. depend on F, the size of the fine, and X, the cost of legal parking?

 

  1. (20 points) Suppose the earnings of military personnel were set below the price that would make the number of volunteers equal to the demand by the military, and that draft calls were sent out strictly at random to males aged 18-26 to bring the number entering up to demand

a.

1. How would the composition of drafted personnel compare with those that would enter if military earnings were raised sufficiently to make the number of volunteers equal to demand?

2. How would the total tax burden and its distribution among the population compare?

b. Assume now that drafted personnel could buy a substitute or substitute for someone else (as during the Civil War) instead of entering as a draftee. Assuming the capital market for substitutes works well, in equilibrium

1. How would the composition of men entering and the tax burden compare with that under a drafted and a fully voluntary system?

2. What determines the price that substitutes can get?

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives.  Milton Friedman Papers, Box 80, Folde.r “University of Chicago, Student doctoral thesis and papers”.

Image Source:  Gary S. Becker from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf7-00059, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Columbia Economic History Economists Germany Illinois Indiana Princeton

Halle (Germany). 1897 economics PhD alumnus and later Illinois professor, Ernest L. Bogart

 

Today’s post provides some biographical information about the American economic historian and long-time University of Illinois economics professor, Ernest L. Bogart. I might have begun my search beginning from the fact that Bogart was the 1931 President of the American Economic Association, but no, I stumbled across his name during an examination of the Columbia University Quarterly of March, 1899 where I read “Mr. E. L. Bogart, graduate student in 1897-98, has been appointed Professor of Political Economy at Indiana University”.  I could find no record of Bogart actually completing a degree at Columbia, so I slipped on my gum shoes and proceeded to do a background check. It wasn’t hard and again found an example of an economist who had lived a very successful academic life but has become dependent on the helping hand of a historian of economics to be dusted off, properly preserved, and displayed in a collection of artifacts. 

Ernest L. Bogart began his academic life as a Princeton man (A.B., 1890; A.M.,1896) and went on to the Johannes Conrad Seminar in Halle Germany to write a doctoral dissertation published as Die Finanzverhältnisse der Einzelstaaten der Nordamerikanischen Union [in Sammlung nationalökonomischer und statistischer Abhandlungen des staatswissenschaftlichen Seminars zu Halle a.d.S. herausgegeben von Johannes Conrad. Vol. 14. Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1897]. He passed through Columbia University for one year in what we would today call a post-doc, then on to appointments at Smith College (probably filling in for Henry L. Moore on leave), then University of Indiana, Oberlin College, back to Princeton, and then to the University of Illinois in 1909.

__________________

MEET THE FACULTY: ERNEST L. BOGART

After serving the University and his country—and even acting in an international capacity—for nearly a third of a century, Ernest L. Bogart, head of the department of economics from 1920 until the beginning of the current school year, and now professor of economics, emeritus, has retired, and, with Mrs. Bogart, is residing temporarily in New York City.

Mr. Bogart, whose notable, writings in the field of economics, are numerous and whose service to the nation has been wide and varied, assisted the Persian government in 1922-23. He was adviser on banking and currency to that Government and is credited with having aided materially in Persian monetary matters.

Born March 16, 1870 in Yonkers, N.Y., Mr. Bogart received his A.B. degree in 1890 and his A.M. degree in 1896, both from Princeton University. In 1897 he obtained his Ph.D. degree from the University of Halle, German.

Two years as an assistant professor of economic and social science at Indiana University were followed by five years service—1900-05—at Oberlin College. He then returned to his alma mater and for four years was assistant professor of economics. In 1909, he came to the University as professor of economics, a position he held until this year.

In addition to his service here, Mr. Bogart was professor of banking and finance, Georgetown School of Foreign Service, 1919-20, professor of economics, Claremont College, 1929-30 professor of economics during the summer sessions at Columbia University, University of California, University of Texas, and Southern California.

Mr. Bogart’s government service includes membership on the committee of public information, 1918, in charge of commodity studies bureau of research, War Trade Board, 1918, regional economist, foreign trade advisor, State Department, 1919-20, advisory committee, National Economic League since 1920, delegate of State Department to convention of foreign trade council, 1920, advisory committee, Stable Money Association since 1924, committee on monetary policy of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, 1933, government’s commission on unemployment, 1933, and economists’ national monetary commission since 1934.

The economist is a member of the National Park Association, Econometric Society (British), Foreign Policy Association, Persian-American Association, American Economic Association, Phi Beta Kappa, Beta Gamma Sigma, Delta Sigma Pi, and Phi Kappa Epsilon.

Source: From the Daily Illini, November 29, 1938, p. 3. Transcription also found at: University of Illinois. Conference on Iran’s Economy, December 11-13, 2008.

Image Source: Ernest L. Bogart, Historical faculty, department of economics, University of Illinois.