Category: Columbia

Categories
Columbia

Columbia. Founding Father of Faculty of Political Science. Burgess, Bio 1893

The economics department at Columbia University was the product of an evolution that began in a heavily historical, interdisciplinary pool. As rare as the entrepreneurial spirit would appear in today’s deans (hey, some of my best friends have been/are deans and, through force of circumstance, I have had a sort-of “deandom” thrust upon me), in the beginning it took a builder and not an administrator of faculties. Over at Chicago the role was played by J. Laurence Laughlin. At Columbia it was the scholar of legal history, John William Burgess. While one would be hard-pressed to identify any appreciable direct influence of Burgess on, say, the post-World-War-II economics faculty of Columbia and how graduate training in economics has been organized in the meantime, nonetheless the house Burgess built served as childhood home for generations of economists trained at Columbia during the first half of the twentieth century.

_______________________

JOHN WILLIAM BURGESS, LL. D.

PROFESSOR BURGESS was born at Cornersville, Giles County, Tenn., August 26, 1844. He was educated at Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn., and at Amherst College, Mass, whence he graduated in 1867. He then took up the study of law, and was admitted to the bar of Massachusetts in 1869. In the same year he was appointed professor of English literature and political economy in Knox College, Galesburg, Ill. Serving in that capacity for two years, in 1871 he went to Europe to further prosecute his studies. He studied history and public law at Göttingen, Leipsic, and Berlin. Returning to this country, he was, in 1873, appointed professor of history and political science in Amherst College. In 1876 he was called to the chair of political history and public law in Columbia College. In 1880 Prof. Burgess founded the School of Political Science in that college, and became its Dean, the position which he now holds.

In literature, Prof. Burgess’s best known work is his treatise on “Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law,” issued in 1891, which has already given him an international reputation. The part of the work treating of Constitutional Law is regarded as authoritative; for his treatment of political science, and especially his definition and exposition of sovereignty, the work has been subjected to not a little criticism; but it is a curious fact that his severest critics are those whose ideas on that subject are most confused and clouded. The book is one of the most able treatises on both subjects ever written, and has already taken a leading position among works of that character.

Prof. Burgess’ life work began with his return from Germany in 1873 and his entrance upon the duties of Professor of History at Amherst College in that year. The methods and results of German university instruction in history had made upon his mind a most profound impression. The contrast between the broad, genial and productive educational spirit which characterized the work of the leading professors of history and political science at Berlin and elsewhere, with whom he had become acquainted, and the meagre and comparatively fruitless attempts at historical study in the United States, was indeed striking. Although that point is not yet twenty years behind us, it would probably not be a misstatement to say that practically no instruction was given in history and political science in any educational institution in America other than a small amount of text-book work.

Perhaps Prof. Burgess has never achieved a greater success than with his first class. Text books were not thought of, but Prof. Burgess proceeded to lay before his class day after day the essential movements of the Middle Ages, out of which the modern European states and modern political institutions were developed. Instead of something to be memorized, history showed itself something to be understood, and institutions were made to appear, not as arbitrary creations, but as living growths, almost as inevitable results. No stronger testimony to the personal power of an instructor can well be given than was afforded by the fact that five or six members of this class actually spent a year in post-graduate study under Prof. Burgess at Amherst, although there was at hand for them neither books nor other material, absolutely nothing but one instructor.

Prof. Burges’ call to Columbia in 1876 gave him at once a larger field, and future possibilities of a greater promise than could be found at Amherst. The traditions of the study of political science were in some measure associated with the College. Prof. Lieber, who had been for many years connected with the College, was a man of wide repute as a publicist, and his works on politics are still of great value. Prof. Dwight had been in the habit of giving a certain amount of instruction on positive constitutional law of the United States and England. In the minds of the President and Trustees of Columbia College, the time had come for a broader course of instruction in historical and political sciences.

Prof. Burgess adopted in Columbia essentially the same methods of instruction which he had successfully pursued elsewhere. His work was in so far successful that he was able, through the liberality of the Trustees, to associate with himself one or two capable adjuncts, and during the four years following his accession there was developed, organized and brought into existence the School of Political Science. This had long been a favorite conception of Prof. Burgess, and its policy, curriculum, organization and administration had been the subject of constant thought and consultation with him for many years. In the establishment of this school, with Prof. Burgess as Dean, Columbia College set an example which has since been followed by a considerable number of American colleges.

A glance at the curriculum as originally set forth in 1880 shows that the various fields of public law and theoretical political science were the branches deemed most important. The development of the school from that time to this has followed on these lines with larger additions, perhaps, in the field of economics. Of history proper as a science there appears but a small trace and only very recently and in a small degree has the study of pure history found place in the school; but, on the other hand, a historical method or a mode of investigation of all political and economic subjects which, dealing with their history, shows the origin, growth and natural development of political and economic institutions, has been unvaryingly followed. At no time has the institution in any field of political economic science been allowed to degenerate into an airing of mere theories.

Prof. Burgess and the other men associated with him in the duties of instruction aim to teach the student, as they teach themselves, to get a clear grasp of the leading and formative events and forces at work in the state and in society, and while recognizing clearly the province of history and science, have found it feasible to give historical instruction only so far as history carries with it the account of those events and political forces which have essentially made up the institutions of to-day.

The School of Political Science has never catered to popularity or aimed for mere numbers. Independence in research, healthy methods of investigation, a clear conception of scientific principles as they have developed themselves historically, have always been the ideals aimed at.

Prof. Burgess has either been signally wise or fortunate in his choice of colleagues and has recognized the necessity of entire independence and personal responsibility in the methods and largely in the material of instruction followed by each individual. The natural development of the School of Political Science on these lines has thrown Prof. Burgess more and more into the field of public law and away from pure history, until his present line of work seems essentially to be a presentation to the school of the theory of the state as it has been historically developed and as specifically illustrated in the constitutional law and history of the United States and Europe.

Not less important than the work of creating the School of Political Science has been Prof. Burgess’ influence in the entire re-organization of Columbia College. Thoroughly impressed with the necessity of American universities and conversant with European in their various forms, and with a clear conception of the nature and functions of a university, Prof. Burgess’ counsels and views have been largely influential in shaping the form and organization of the entire institution as it exists to-day.

 

Source: Columbia Law Times. Vol. VI, No. 5 (February, 1893), pp. 123 -125.

Image Source: Columbia Law Times. Vol. VI, No. 5 (February, 1893), Frontispiece.

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. Henry L. Moore’s Memorial Minute, 1959. Salary issue, 1924.

 

 

We begin with an example of the honored academic tradition of a faculty minute entered into the record following the death of a present or former colleague. In the year that the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded to Angus Deaton, in part, for his work in applied consumption analysis, I post the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science memorial minute for Henry L. Moore.

I follow the Memorial Minute with a letter written by Moore to his chairman Edwin R. A. Seligman appealing for a pay raise on the grounds that his research performance had been undervalued relative to administrative work and teaching of a colleague.

________________________________

[Memorial Minute]

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

April 17, 1959

Henry L. Moore

Henry Ludwell Moore was born in southern Maryland in 1869, the seventh in direct male line of descent from a Henry Moore who settled in Virginia in 1635 and who later moved to Maryland. After obtaining a B.A. at Randolph Macon in 1892, he pursued his studies at the University of Vienna and later received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in 1896. After one year as instructor of economics at Johns Hopkins and five years at Smith College, he came to Columbia in 1902 as adjunct professor, continuing as Professor of Political Economy from 1906 to his premature retirement from professional activity for reasons of health in April, 1929. He died at the age of 88 on April 28, 1958.

Professor Moore was a pioneer in the application of statistical theory, founded on the calculus of probabilities, to the evaluation of economic relationships in a context of a mathematically developed economic theory. Under the influence of his colleague John Bates Clark, 22 years his senior, and of Karl Pearson, Moore developed a statistical verification and extension of Clark’s theory of distribution in his “Laws of Wages,” published in 1911. In his “Forecasting the Yield and the Price of Cotton,” published in 1917, the inherent brilliance of his use of multiple correlation techniques by which he was able to outpredict, in retrospect at least, the elaborate crop forecasting machinery set up by the Department of Agriculture is in no way diminished, though somewhat disguised by the fact that the advent of the boll weevil completely upset the older relationships and made his formulas useless for subsequent forecasting, though the techniques remained valid.

In addition to his interest in economics, Moore had a deep attachment to classical philosophy and an interest ranging over many other fields; one of his courses was entitled “Interrelations of Political Economy and Sociology.” His interest in astronomy is perhaps responsible for his ill-fated attempt to relate the eight year business cycle, which he considered to be well established, to a corresponding weather cycle, and thereby to the corresponding periodicity of the transits and near-transits of Venus. In this he demonstrated a willingness to look for hypotheses to test wherever the data seemed to lead him, regardless of how remote the connection may initially seem, a procedure which, however dangerous it may be for the individual, is salutary for the progress of a science that finds it easier to weed out error than to develop new truth.

Moore’s pioneering steps have been to a considerable extent eclipsed in the minds of the current generation of economists by the tracks of those who have used the methods he pioneered. Henry Schultz’ all too brief but important career was given its initial impetus under Moore’s tutelage. Among the many others whose work was strongly influenced by Moore are Holbrook Working, Hugh Killough, Bradford Smith, Edmund Daggit, Fred Waugh, Louis Bean, and Mordecai Ezekiel. Moore’s final work, “Synthetic Economics” provided a significant bridge between the now classic work of Walras and Pareto in the field of mathematical economics and the more recent formulations of Hotelling and Samuelson.

In the nearly 30 years that have elapsed since his retirement, most of those who knew him intimately have left the science; yet it is appropriate to recall once more the significant role he had in the advancement of quantitative economics before the onrush of his successors hides his work completely from view.

 

Source: Department of Economics Collection, Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Box 8, Faculty of Political Science Minutes 1913-1959; Folder, “Faculty of Political Science Minutes”.

________________________________

The following letter of Henry L. Moore reflects a severe salary structure problem within the Columbia economics department going into 1924-25. Professors Wesley C. Mitchell, Henry L. Moore and Vladimir G. Simkhovitch were all receiving $6,000 annual salaries whereas the second-highest paid professor, Henry R. Seager, was getting paid $7,500. Highest paid was the chairman, Edwin R. A. Seligman at $10,000. In his departmental budget request to Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler (November 23, 1923), Seligman reminded Butler of an “understanding that the salaries of a number of professors now receiving $6,000 will be advanced next year to $7,500, the minimum, as everyone must agree, compatible with the maintenance of the standing of living desirable for Columbia professors” and made the case for pay raises for Mitchell, Moore and Simkhovitch. The pay raises were ultimately granted, not for 1924-25, but for the following year.

Henry L. Moore’s lament should probably be read as expressing as his disappointed hope and/or that he might have been unaware of Seligman’s efforts in 1923 to get him the parity with Henry R. Seager that he was petitioning for.

________________________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Faculty of Political Science

September 20, 1924

My dear Professor Seligman:

We are about to begin the work of another year and I am anxious to do all in my power to contribute toward the solution, within the Department, of the personal problem before us. I ask leave, therefore, to present to you and, if you think it advisable, to other members of the Department, a statement of the relative amounts received in salary by Professor Seager and myself from the University:

 

Year Prof. Seager Prof. Moore
1902-3 3000 3000 I have had to rely on my memory for the changes in Prof. Seager’s salary. The figures relating to my own income are taken from my records.
1903-4 3500 3500
1904-5 3500 3500
1905-6 3500 3500
1906-7 3500 3500
1907-8 3500 3500
1908-9 4000 4000
1909-10 4500 2800 Here Professor Seager’s salary went up $500 and mine down $1200
1910-11 4500 2800
1911-12 6000 2800
1912-13 6000 2800
1913-14 6000 2800
1914-15 6000 2800
1915-16 6000 2800
1916-17 6000 2800
1917-18 6000 2800
1918-19 6000 4500
1919-20 6000 4000
1920-21 7500 6000
1921-22 7500 6000
1923-24 7500 6000
$117500 $82200

Several facts in this table need comment:

(1) Our salaries and rank were the same until the year 1909-10 when, at my request, in order that I might devote more time to research, I was relieved of much teaching and administrative work. I gladly paid for the increased leisure by suffering a reduction of my salary from $4000 to $2800. The same year Professor Seager’s salary was increased from $4000 to $4500. This annual difference of $1700 continued until 1911-12.

(2) In 1911-12 Professor Seager’s salary was increased to $6000; mine remained at $2800. The annual difference of $3200 continued until 1918-19 when, during the War, I was transferred to Barnard College at a salary of $4500. Professor Seager’s salary was $6000.

(3) The next year, 1919-20, I was transferred to Columbia, with a salary of $4000. Professor Seager’s remained at $6000.

(4) In 1920-21 Professor Seager’s salary was increased to $7500 and mine to $6000. The annual difference of $1500 has continued to the present time.

It would appear from these figures that if no account be taken of the reduction in our pay when we have been on leave of absence, Professor Seager’s aggregate salary has exceeded mine by more than thirty five thousand dollars.

*   *

A few years ago there was a Convocation of the Faculties of the University to consider methods of promoting research. You made a memorable speech in which you went directly to the heart of the matter in saying: “The only way to promote research is to find a man who can do it and then let him alone”. You were absolutely right. But how does it work in the particular case of our own Department? For twenty odd years Professor Seager and myself, who entered Columbia together with the same rank and same salary, have pursued different ends. he has preferred administration and teaching and has justly prospered in honors and income. I have accepted the necessary isolation and incurred the risks of the investigator who attacks new problems and devises new methods, but after nearly a quarter of a century of unremitting labor I have received from the University some thirty thousand dollars less than my honored colleague.

*   *

I am grateful to the University for giving me the opportunity for creative thought, and you will bear witness that I have never evinced any other sentiment than pleasure in the progress of a colleague. But isn’t there a principle at stake? Is it just to permit the financial discrimination between us to continue?

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
Henry L. Moore

Source: Columbia University. Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Seligman Collection Box 37 (aggregation of original Seligman boxes 100-102). Folder: “Box 100, Seligman, Columbia 1924-30”.

________________________________

For more about Henry Moore, see George J. Stigler, Henry L. Moore and Statistical Economics. Econometrica, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1962), pp. 1-21.

Image Source: Precedes the Stigler article.

Categories
Bibliography Columbia Courses

Columbia. Fiscal policy. Depression deficits and war finance. Shoup, 1941

Carl S. Shoup (New York Times obituary) taught a course at Columbia in the business school with the title “The balancing of government budgets” that was listed with economics department course offerings as “Economics b114”. One finds this course listed in the annual Bulletin of the Faculty of Political Science beginning in the Spring session of 1938 and then every year through 1943 with the exception of 1940.

In this posting you will find his selected bibliographies on deficit financing in periods of depression and the special problem of financing defense and war.

______________________________

[Course Description]

Economics b114—The balancing of governmental budgets. 3 points Spring Session. Professor Shoup.

Tu. and Th. at 9. 415 Business.

An analysis of the factors governing the choice between normal recurring revenue, such as taxes, and extraordinary revenue such as loans, devaluation profits, etc. Particular attention is paid to the relations of public finance to money and banking in these problems.

Source: Division of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science. Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-41. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 40th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 38.

______________________________

In this posting I have assembled three selected bibliographies two of which are undated and all three are without attribution to Shoup or any university identification. Two of the bibliographies are identified as belonging to a course “Economics b114”. These bibliographies are found in two folders (“Student years” and “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”) filed far apart (boxes 5 and 75, respectively) in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution.

Milton Friedman taught at Columbia up through 1939-40 followed by a year at University of Wisconsin in 1940-41. None of the courses that Friedman taught at Wisconsin for which I found material in the his papers had a prefix “b” before the course number and it seems pretty unlikely (one would really need to consult the course catalogues for the University of Wisconsin to be sure…I have not) that the course numbering between the Columbia business school and the Wisconsin economics department would coincide.

I have concluded that the part of the Shoup reading list dealing with defense and war related finance was filed by a Hoover archivist with Friedman’s course materials at Wisconsin (incorrectly) because the date on that selected bibliography coincided with Friedman’s Wisconsin years (and perhaps it was actually found with materials from his business cycle class, Economics 176, at Wisconsin).

________________________

 

Economics b114
Selected Bibliography on Deficit Financing in Periods of Depression

Chase, Stewart, Idle Money, Idle Men

Clark, J. M., Economics of Planning Public Works

Clark, J. M., “An Appraisal of the Workability of Compensatory Devices,” American Economic Review, March, 1939 Supplement (Proceedings), pp. 194-208

Clark, J. M., “Effects of Public Spending on Capital Formation”, in National Industrial Conference Board, Capital Formation and its Elements, 1939.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., Economic Consequences of Recent American Tax Policy, Supplement I to Social Research, 1938, 108 p.

Colm, G. and Lehmann, F., “Public Spending and Recovery in the United States,” Social Research, May, 1936, Vol. III, 129-66.

Dennison, H. S. and others, Toward Full Employment, 1938, 297 p.

Eccles, Marriner, Economic Balance and a Balanced Budget (Weissman, editor)

Galbraith, J. K., The Economic Effects of the Federal Public Works Expenditures, 1933-1938, 131 p. 1940.

Galbraith, J. K., “Fiscal Policy and the Employment-Investment Controversy”, Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Gayer, Arthur, “Fiscal Policies,” American Economic Review, March, 1938 Supplement (Proceedings), 90-112. (Reprints on reserve at Business Library).

Gayer, A. D. and Rostow, W. W., How Money Works, Public Affairs Pamphlets No. 45, 1940, 30 p.

Gill, C., Wasted Manpower: The Challenge of Unemployment, 1939, 312 p.

Graham, B. L., “Storage and Stability – A Plan for Monetizing the Commodity Surplus”, in Roberts, Geo., A Forum on Finance, 1940.

Haley, B. F., “The Federal Budget: Economic Consequences of Deficit Financing,” Am. Eco. Rev., Feb., 1941, 67-87.

Hansen, A. H., Full Recovery or Stagnation? 1938, pp. 267-329.

Hicks, U. K., “Balancing the Budget” (Ch. XVII) and “Taxation and the Trade Cycle” (Ch. XVIII), in The Finance of British Government, 1920-1936. (1938)

Jaszi, G., “The Budgetary Experience of Great Britain in the Great Depression,” in Public Policy: A Yearbook (Harvard), 1940.

Kahn, R. F., “The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment,” Economic Journal June, 1931.

Keynes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Keynes, J. M., The Means to Prosperity

Keynes, J. M., NY. Times, Editorial page, June 10, 1934 (p. 1 of editorial section) and July 7, 1934.

Lerner, A. P., “Some Swedish Stepping Stones in Economic Theory,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Nov., 1940, espec. p. 574-80.

Lutz, H. L., The Business Man’s Stake in Government Finance, Stanford Univ. 1939, espec. pp. 16-20, 23-44, 45-66.

Lutz, H. L., “The Failure of the Spending Policy,” N. Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Meyers, A. L., “Government Borrowing and Creation of National Income,” Chap. IV, in Modern Economic Problems. 1939.

Myers, M. G., Monetary Proposals for Social Reform, 1940, 191 p.

Myrdal, Gunnar, “Fiscal Policies in the Business Cycle,” A.E.R., 1939 Proceedings, 183-93.

Pigou, A. C., “Inflation, Deflation and Reflation,” Ch. IV in Economics in Practice, 1936.

Round Table on “The Workability of Compensatory Devices,” A.E.R. 1939 Proceedings, 224-29.

Samuelson, P. A., “Theory of Pump-Priming Reexamined,” Am. Eco. Rev., Sept., 1940, 492-506.

Seltzer, L. H., “Direct versus Fiscal and Institutional Factors,” Am. Eco. Rev. Feb., 1941, 99-107.

Slichter, Sumner, “Is America Finished?” N.Y. Sun, Jan. 6, 1940

Slichter, Sumner, “Profits and Prosperity,” Atlantic Monthly, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Deficits and Depression

Smith, D. T., “Is Deficit Spending Practical?” Harvard Bus. Rev., Autumn, 1939.

Smith, D. T., “An Analysis of Changes in Federal Finance, July 1930-1938 Rev. Econ. Statistics, Nov., 1938.

Smith, D. T., Review of Haley’s Paper, ibid., 88-98.

T.N.E.C., Hearings, Part 9: Hansen, Currie, etc.

Twentieth Century Fund, Debts and Recovery, 1938, 366 p.

U. S. Treasury, Borrower,” Fortune, January, 1939.

University of Chicago, Round Tables. “The Economics of Pump-Priming.” May 1, 1938, “Purchasing Power and Prosperity,” July 31, 1938.

Vanguard Press, An Economic Program for American Democracy.

Williams, John H., “Deficit Spending”, Am. Eco. Rev. Feb. 1941, 52-66.

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12 “Student years”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder also has material not from Friedman’s “student years”.]

______________________________

Economics b114
Bibliography of Recent Materials Dealing with the Financing of Defense and War
February 5, 1941

American Council of Public Affairs, Economic Mobilization

Bowen, I., and Worswick, G. D. N., “The Controls and War Finance,” Oxford Econ. Papers, Sept., 1940.

Brown, F. H., and others, War Finance in Canada, 1940.

Clarke, R. W. B., The Economic Effort of War, London, 1940.

Connely, E.F., “Financing our Preparedness Program,” Banker’s Mag., Aug., 1940.

*Durbin, E.F.M., How to Pay for the War, London, 1939.

Editorial Research Reports, Methods of Financing War, June 3, 1940.

George, E.B., “Prices and Profits in a Defense Economy,” Dun’s Review, Nov., 1940.

*Greer, Guy, “Arming and Paying for It,” Harpers, Nov., 1940.

Hardy, C.O., “War and Capital Formation,” in Capital Formation and Its Elements, National Industrial Conference Board, 1939, pp. 134-50.

*Hardy, C.O., “Wartime Control of Prices,” 1940.

*Hart, A.G., Economic Policy for Rearmament, U. of Chicago Public Policy Pamphlet No. 33.

Kazekevitch, V.D., “The War and American Finance,” Science and Society, Spring, 1940.

*Keynes, J.M., How to Pay for the War, New York, 1940.

Morgan, S., “Deficit Financing in Germany,” in Roberts (editor), Forum on Finance, New York, 1939, pp. 3-22.

*Moulton, Harold G., Fundamental Issues in National Defense, Brookings, Jan. 13, 1941.

National Industrial Conference Board, Consumption, Savings, and Defense Financing, and Fiscal Possibilities for National Defense, Supplements to Economic Record, 1940.

*New Republic symposium: How to Pay for Defense, July 29, 1940 (Groves, Keynes, Chase, Cooke, Soule).

Pigou, A. C., “War Finance and Inflation,” Economic Journal, Dec., 1940.

Radice, E.A., “Consumption, Savings, and War Finance,” Oxford Economic Papers, Sept., 1940.

Riches, E.J., “Deferred Pay: the Keynes Plan,” Inter. Labor Review, June, 1940.

Robbins, L., “How Britain Will Finance the War,” Foreign Affairs, April, 1940.

Staudinger, H., and Lehmann, F., “Germany’s Economic Mobilization for War,” National Industrial Conference Board Economic Record, July 24, 1940.

*U.S. Government, Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1942.

______________________________

The next page immediately follows the previous but it lacks a date and the formatting of the bibliography deviates from the previous two. Being alphabetically ordered and going from “Annals” to “Williams” with perhaps a quarter of empty page below, it is clearly a separate list. None of the titles are the same with the previous two lists, so I have presumed this is a likely update from the middle of the second session 1941.

______________________________

Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science: Billions for Defense, March, 1941, 1-215.

Bach, G.L., “Rearmament, Recovery and Monetary Policy”, American Economic Review, March, 1941, 27-41.

Eccles, M. S., “Economic Preparedness for Defense and Post Defense Problems, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Jan., 1941.

Gilbert, R. V., and others, “Exploring the Factors Involved in Reemployment of Labor and Capital”, Savings Bank Journal, Dec., 1940.

Hansen, A. H., “Defense Financing and Inflation Potentialities,” Review of Economic Statistics, Feb., 1941.

Hearings, Public Debt Act of 1941: Committee on Ways and Means, Jan. 29 and 30, 1941, 106pp: Subcommittee of Committee on Finance, Feb. 12, 1941 47p.

Musgrave, R. A., “Inflationary Dangers of the Public Debt and the Tax System”, Taxes, Feb., 1941

Paul, R. E., and others, “Exploring the Financing of National Defense and Its Economic Consequences,” Savings Bank Journal, Oct., 1940

Plumptre, A. F. W., “An Approach to War Finance,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Feb., 1941, 1-12.

Secretary of the Treasury, Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940.

Stewart, Maxwell, “How Shall We Pay for Defense?” Public Affairs Pamphlet, No. 52, 1941.

Williams, John H. “Economic and Monetary Aspects of the Defense Problem,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Feb. 1941

 

Source: Milton Friedman papers, Hoover Institution Archives. Box 75, Folder 2 “University of Wisconsin, Econ b114”. [Note above my reasons to believe this folder contains a reading list from the Shoup course at Columbia University.]

______________________________

Research Tip: Shoup Collection at Yokohama National University Library

“The Shoup Collection consists of 3,000 volumes of books, 100 titles of periodicals and enormous amount of documents held by an American economist Dr. Carl Sumner Shoup (1902-2000) who is known to have issued the report of Japanese tax system called “Shoup Mission.” In particular, the documents of his lecture notes, working memoranda and letters including those from Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for Allied Forces, and from Shigeru Yoshida, former Prime Minister, are precious inheritances that can only be found at this library.”

______________________________

Image Source: The Columbia Spectator Archive. March 8, 1967.

 

 

 

Categories
Bibliography Columbia Courses Economists

Columbia. Economic History Course taught by Simkhovitch. Attended by Friedman, 1933.

Of six graduate courses taken for credit at Columbia University by Milton Friedman, one was taught by the Professor of Economic History, Vladimir Gregorievitch Simkhovitch — Economics 119. According to Friedman’s own listing of his coursework in economics found in his papers at the Hoover Institution Archives, he took Simkhovitch’s economic history course during the winter semester of the academic year 1933-34.

Simkhovitch was a multifaceted character and Universalgelehrter which can be loosely translated as an academic “utility infielder”. Because of his relative (or even absolute) obscurity now in the history of economics, here a bit of biographical information to chew on.

V. G. Simkhovitch was born in Russia in 1874, received his doctorate from Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) in 1898, and emigrated to the U.S. after completing graduate work where he began a fellowship at Cornell. He was hired by Columbia University in 1904 to teach economic history. Besides his economic history courses, Simkhovitch also regularly lectured on the subjects of socialist economics and Marxism until retiring from Columbia in 1942. Of considerably more note than himself was his wife Mary Melina Kingsbury, whom he met in Berlin during their student years. They married in New York City in 1899 with Mary Simkhovitch going on to become a prominent housing reform and neighborhood activist. Greenwich House, still in existence, was a model settlement house that she founded. Husband and wife were prominent enough, mostly thanks to her, to have their 50th wedding anniversary reported in the New York Times (January 6, 1949). Objects from Vladimir Simkhovitch’s art collections were reported in his obituary (New York Times, December 10, 1959) to have been displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Pierrpont Morgan Library in New York as well as museums in Boston, Cleveland and Philadelphia. It is not difficult to find objects once owned by him in art auction house listings today.

__________________________

Eli Ginzberg’s recollections of Simkhovitch

In his brief memoir essay “Economics at Columbia: Recollections of the early 1930s” [The American Economist, vol. 34, No. 2, (Fall, 1990), 14-19], Simkhovitch does not come off well, certainly not personally.

“The hard core of the old department in addition to Seligman, Seager and Moore included Vladimir G. Simkhovitch who offered courses on socialism and economic history. Russian by birth and German by education, Simkhovitch, even with the perspective of time is not easy to characterize and even harder to evaluate. A collector of Chinese art and a grower of delphiniums in Perry, Maine, he was recognized as an expert in both fields. Most students, the bright as well as the dull, considered his lectures somewhat tedious distraction from serious work on contemporary economics; they had little interest in his exhaustion of the soil explanation for the decline of Rome or his Edward Bernstein-modified critique of Karl Marx. But a few of us recognized V.G.’s insightfulness and over looked his failings, defects which included a proneness for character defamation and vindictiveness as well as immature behavior toward female students.” p. 14.

“If the relations between the Graduate Economics Department and the School of Business were close and for the most part friendly, this was not the case with respect to the Graduate Economic Department’s attitude to the economists who taught in the undergraduate department headed by Rexford G. Tugwell. Tugwell fancied himself to be an expert in agricultural economics which may have brought him into conflict with Simkhovitch who devoted much of his time and energy to creating and maintaining feuds. The tension may have been nothing more than snobbery run riot. Tugwell did not teach any course in the Graduate Department of Economics. But I can personally attest to the fact that Tugwell was sensitive about collegial relations.” p. 17

Ahem…“immature behavior toward female students”!  Certainly not the first, nor regrettably the last…but definitely one of them.  It was good for Eli Ginzberg to have put that in the historical record. 

__________________________

[Course Description]

Economics 119—Economic history. 3 points Winter Session. Professor V. G. SIMKHOVITCH.
Tu., 2:10-3 in 401 Fayerweather and 4:10-5 in 302 Fayerweather.

A general survey of the chief phases of the economic development of classical antiquity, of the Middle Ages, and of modern times, as well as of historical approaches.

Source: History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for Winter and Spring Sessions, 1933-34. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 33rd Series, No. 26 (March 25, 1933)

__________________________

ECONOMIC HISTORY

V. Simkhovitch “Approaches to History”

I Political Science Quarterly, December 1929 S
II         [ditto]                             December, 1930 S
III       [ditto]                              September, 1932 R

Towards an Understanding of Jesus R
Rome’s Fall Reconsidered S
Hay and History S
Marxism v. Socialism Chapter on the Economic Interpretation of History

 

R         Roth Clausing The Roman Colonate 5-62

R         F. de Coulanges The Origin of Property in Land 1-73; 149-52

S          Buecher         Industrial Evolution 83-151

R         Edward Meyer Entwicklungsgeschichte des Altertums in Kleine Schriften Vol. 81-160

R         H. Bradley      Enclosures in England 11-45; 72; 85; 105-7

S         Seligman The Economic Interpretation of History 1-24; 146-186

R         Schoenberg “Zunftswesen im Mittelalter” Jahrbucher fur Nationaloekonomie und Statistik 1867

R         Renard           Guilds in the Middle Ages 1-26; 32-67; 73 -115

R         Brentano       History and Development of the Guilds

R         Cunningham Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Paragraphs 61, 72-7, 84, 103, 122, 128, 149-9

S          Ashley Introduction to English Economic Theory and History, Volume I pp. 1-113

R         Toynbee Industrial Revolution Chapters 7 and 8

R         Toutain          The Economic Life of the Ancient World Chapters 5-6

R  Read                      S   Study carefully

 

Source: Milton Friedman Papers. Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12, “Student years”.

__________________________

Image Source: Standing Royal Figure. Brooklyn Museum, Gift of Helena Simkhovitch in memory of her father, Vladimir G. Simkhovitch.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia Salaries

Columbia. 1931-50 graduate economics alumni survey 1950

Robert M. Haig was a public finance economist at Columbia University, the successor to Edwin R. A. Seligman as McVickar Professor of Political Economy. In Haig’s papers is the following memo from James Angell (the “Executive Officer”, i.e. chairperson, of the department of economics within Columbia’s faculty of political science) reporting the results of a 1950 survey of former graduate students in the department. Just under 1,200 questionnaires were sent out. The response rate was about one-third. Duration data for different stages of graduate study, occupations/salaries in 1950 by final completed stage of graduate study were tabulated.

A gender breakdown for occupation/salaries is also provided. It is interesting to note that the 1950 gender gap between men and women for people with economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) who were teaching was 7.2%.

In current prices, the average 1950 salaries of the economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) were: $59,000 (teaching); $88,500 (government); $94,000 (other economics related work); $108,000 (all non-economic-research related work).

Note: The urban CPI has increased by a factor of 9.9 since then: (CPI July 1950 24.1, July 2015 238.7).

_____________________________

June 20, 1951

To: The Members of the Department of Economics
From: James W. Angell
Subject: Occupations and Salaries of Our Former Graduate Students

Last summer, in order to improve our records on former graduate students in the Department, brief questionnaires were sent out to the 1,182 students who had received the M.A. degree, or passed the Ph.D. oral examination, or received the Ph.D. degree, in the twenty years 1931-1950. We were primarily concerned to obtain their present addresses and occupations, but we also asked for the dates when the several academic standings had been achieved, and for the latest (1950) salary.

We received only 377 replies, or 32 per cent of the number of questionnaires sent out. Of the total sent, 84 questionnaires, or 7 per cent, were returned because the Post Office could not locate the addresses.

It is probably that the replies received do not constitute a representative sample, especially with respect to salaries: in the main, the less successful students are presumably those who are less likely to reply to such inquiries. But a partial check of the names of those who did not reply shows that this was not always so. A number of the group who did not reply are known to be holding good positions.

An analysis of the replies has been made by our colleague, Frank W. Schiff chiefly with respect to (1) the time intervals between the dates of achievement of the several academic standings, (2) present (1950) occupation, and (3) present (1950) salary. Not all those who replied answered all the questions, and the several group totals are hence not always consistent. The various results are summarized in the following tables.

 

  1. Number of Replies, Grouped by Half-Decade When Highest Academic Standing Achieved by Student Was Attained: 1931-1950

 

Highest Standing Attained
Years

Total Replies

 M.A. Passed Orals

Ph.D.

1931-35

 39 18 4 17

1936-40

 60 26 11

23

1941-45

 68 26 12

30

1946-50

 210 126 48

36
1931-1950 377 196 75

106

 

Table 2 shows the arithmetic average of the number of years which were required to move from one level of academic standing to another. Because the number of observations is small, extreme values have considerable influence. It was felt that eliminating a few extreme values would hence give a more representative result; but the unadjusted totals are also shown, for comparison. The retarding effect of the war is conspicuous in most cases. Table 3 shows the distribution for each stage, over the period as a whole, of the numbers of years required; and the median values to the nearest whole year (these values in some cases differ markedly from the arithmetic averages shown in Table 2).

 

  1. Average (Arithmetic) Number of Years Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing: 1931-1950 (Extreme Values Omitted)

Years

 A.B. to M.A.  A.B. to Orals A.B. to Ph.D. M.A. to Orals M.A. to Ph.D.

Orals to Ph.D.

1931-35

 2.8 6.2 9.4 3.7 6.3 2.5

1936-40

 2.4 5.2 10.8 3.1 7.6 3.1
1941-45 2.3 4.7 9.8 2.9 7.1

3.7
1946-50 3.6 6.6 11.7 2.2 9.3

5.6

1931-1950a

  

3.0

 

 5.8 10.6 2.8 7.8

4.1
Number of observations before adjustment

324

 155 98 145 87

78
Number omitted

20

 6 3 9 2

3
1931-50: unadjusted averagesa

3.8

 6.4 11.2 3.5 8.4

4.5
 

aArithmentc averages for the whole period, not of the averages for the sub-periods.

 

  1. Distribution, by Numbers of Years, of Periods Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing, 1931-1950

Number of Years Elapsed

 A.B. to M.A. A.B. to Orals A.B. to Ph.D. M.A. to Orals M.A. to Ph.D.

Orals to Ph.D.

1-2

 179 31 0 78 3 28

3-4

 56 32 2 31 12 18

5-6

 36 28 11 12 19 15
7-8 19 26 19 13 18

8

9-10

 11 13 15 2 16 3
11-12 5 11 21 5 8

4

13-14

 6 7 13 3 3 1
15-16 7 2 7 0 5

0

17-19

 2 2 4 0 0 1
20-29 2 2 4 1 2

0
30-40 1 1 2 0 1

0
Totals

 

 324 155 98 145 87

78

Medians

 2 6 11 2 8

4

 

It is interesting to note that although the sum of the medians of the numbers of years elapsed between A.B. and M.A., plus M.A. to Orals, plus Orals to Ph.D. is only eight, the median for that relatively small number of students (less than one-third of the whole sample: Table 1.) who actually covered the whole course to the Ph.D. itself is 11 years. This is presumably due in largest part to the fact that relatively few students had the financial means to go straight through from A.B. to Ph.D. without interruption. Most of them had to take time out to earn more money.

Table 4, taken from a study by Professor Stigler, compares data for Harvard and Columbia.1 The Harvard students may or may not be brighter; but the substantially greater financial assistance given to students at Harvard must also help to account for the conspicuous differences in most years and fields.

 

  1. Average Number of Years Elapsed Between A.B. and Ph.D. at Columbia and Harvard, 1900-1940

1900

 1910 1930

1940
Natural Sciences

Columbia

 7.6 8.0 9.4 9.2
Harvard 6.8 8.3 6.2

6.1
Social Sciences

Columbia

 4.3 9.8 10.3 12.9
Harvard 4.8 4.5 10.5

8.7
Human-ities

Columbia

 4.7 9.3 13.9 14.3
Harvard [6.3] [9.2] [7.9]

[8.8]
All Fields

Columbia

 6.3 9.2 10.8 11.7
Harvard 6.2 8.4 8.0

7.8

1George J. Stigler, Employment and Compensation in Education (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1950), p. 37.

[Note to Table 4: I have added the figures for the row Humanities/Harvard from Stigler (1950). In the original memo this row was for some reason left blank.]

 

Table 5 shows the percentage distribution of students, by the highest academic standing achieved and by half-decades, according to their 1950 occupations. The category “Other Economic Work” includes those engaged in economic research and economic advisory work with business firms, banks and foundations, and those who are self-employed in such work. It excludes those who are in business management or operation. The absolute numbers in each group were given in Table 1, above.

 

  1. Occupations in 1950, Grouped by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950 (In Per Cents)

 

Occupation, and Highest Academic
Standing Attained		 Entire Period 1931-
50		 1931-
35		 1936-40 1941-
45

1946-50
M.A.
Teaching

29.1

 27.8 23.1 23.1

31.7
Govern-ment

24.5

 11.1 46.2 34.6

19.8
Other economic work

25.5

 33.3 11.5 34.6

25.4
All other

20.9

 27.8 19.2 7.7

23.1

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Passed Orals
Teaching

53.3

 0 36.4 50.0

62.5
Govern-ment

21.3

 50.0 27.2 50.0

10.4
Other economic work

22.7

 50.0 36.4 0

22.9
All other

2.7

 0 0 0

4.2

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Ph.D.
Teaching

59.4

 58.8 47.8 63.3

63.9
Govern-ment

17.9

 11.8 26.2 16.7

16.7
Other economic work

17.0

 17.6 21.7 20.0

11.1
All other

5.7

 11.8 4.3 0

8.3

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Totals
Teaching

42.4

 38.5 35.0 45.6

44.3
Govern-ment

22.0

 15.4 35.0 29.4

17.1
Other economic work

22.6

 28.2 20.0 22.1

22.4
All other

13.0

 17.9 10.0 2.9

16.2

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

 

Finally, Table 6 shows the average sizes and distribution of salaries, by occupation and by highest academic standing attained, on the same general basis as Table 5. But not all the replies received contained data on salaries, so that this sample is 12 per cent smaller than that used for Table 5 (331 replies instead of 377). The omissions are fairly uniform by major groups, however, and to avoid complicating the Table, the absolute numbers of relies in each group are not given. The few groups in which high average salaries were reported each contain, regrettably, only 1 to 4 cases; even the $10,300 group (Ph.D.’s, Other Economic Work, 1936-40) has only 5 members. It should also be emphasized that the data cover salaries only, not total earnings. Royalties, lecture fees and the like are not included. Thirty-one, or 9.4 per cent of the total, reported salaries of $10,000 or more.

All figures are arithmetic averages for the relevant groups. Thus the first column shows the averages for the entire period, 1931-1950, not the averages of the sub-period averages. Since the lowest-paid group (1946-50) is also much the largest (Table 1), the averages for the period 1931-50 as a whole are in one sense heavily biased downward. For example, for the period as a whole the average salary as computed by averaging the sub-period figures is $6,579, not $5,714.

 

  1. Average Salaries in 1950, Grouped by occupations and by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950
 

Highest Academic
Standing Attained

Entire Period 1931-50

 1931-
35		 1936-
40		 1941-
45

1946-
50
M.A.: aver-ages

$4,772

 $6,709 $6,830 $5,534

$3,988
Teaching

3,891

 5,294 5,525 3,980

3,503
Govern-ment

5,436

 8,113 6,867 5,881

4,110
Other economic work

5,123

 7,890 11,150 5,371

4,240
All other

4,660

 4,625 4,900 12,000

3,935
Passed Orals: aver-ages  

5,862

 

 11,375 7,055 6,738

4,709
Teaching

4,066

 — 5,438 4,737

3,783
Govern-ment

6,993

 7,250 6,450 8,340

5,760
Other economic work

7,887

 15,500 8,975 —

5,711
All other

16,000

 — — —

16,000
Ph.D.: aver-ages  

7,175

 8,593 7,719 6,691

6,622
Teaching

5,964

 7,700 6,009 6,077

5,017
Govern-ment

8,936

 8,350 8,900 9,360

8,808
Other economic work

9,494

 17,250 10,300 6,480

11,167
All other

10,900

 — — —

10,900
Totals: aver-ages  

5,714

 

 8,089 7,240 6,306 4,679
Teaching

4,806

 7,023 5,786 5,531

3,979
Govern-ment

6,523

 7,904 7,358 7,628

5,331
Other economic work

6,592

 10,495 9,973 5,833

5,031
All other

5,963

 6,166 4,900 12,000

5,747

 

Table 6 makes no differentiation between men and women. Of the 377 replies received, 73 (19 per cent) were from women. Of these women, 49 were regularly employed in 1950 and reported their salaries. Of the remaining 24, most were apparently married (though information on marital status was not requested), and either not working for a salary or only working part-time.

Table 7 therefore shows the break-down for average salaries as between the 282 reporting men and the 49 reporting women who were regularly employed in 1950. There is no category for “unemployed;” no respondent, with one possible exception, reported difficulty in finding employment.

It is striking that although the average salaries for women usually run well below those for men in comparable brackets, the difference for teachers in the various categories is relatively small.1 The table also does not indicate the wide dispersions for the several groups of women. In 1950 2 women Ph.D.’s were earning $10,000 or more.

1No significance should be attached to the fact that the average salary for all women in teaching slightly exceeds the salary shown for men. These figures are not comparable because a much higher percentage of women teachers who reported were in the Ph.D. category than of men teachers.

For the group as a whole, 28 men and 3 women were earning $10,000 or more in 1950.

 

  1. Average Salaries in 1950 (Table 6), Grouped by Sex: for Entire Period, 1931-1950
 

 

Men

 Women

All Graduates
 

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies

M.A.: aver-ages

134

 $4,843 30 $4,455 164

$4,772
Teaching 43 3,923 7 3,695 50 3,891
Govern-ment 34 5,758 12 4,524 46 5,436
Other economic work 37 5,129 8 5,125 45 5,123
All other 20 4,734 3 4,173 23 4,660

Passed Orals: aver-ages

 62 5,939 6 5,066 68

5,862
Teaching 37 4,066 — — 37 4,066
Govern-ment 10 7,480 4 5,775 14 6,993
Other economic work 13 8,538 2 3,650 15 7,887
All other 2 16,000 — — 2 16,000

Ph.D.: aver-ages

 86 7,368 13 5,892 99

7,175
Teaching 53 6,033 10 5,600 63 5,964
Govern-ment 18 8,936 — — 18 8,936
Other economic work 13 10,100 3 6,666 16 9,494
All other 2 10,900 — — 2 10,900

Totals: aver-ages

282

 5,854 49 4,912 331

5,714
Teaching 133 4,803 17 4,816 150 4,805
Govern-ment 62 6,959 16 4,837 78 6,523
Other economic work 63 6,858 13 6,300 76 6,592
All other 24 6,186 3 4,173 27 5,963

 

Source: Robert M. Haig Papers, Columbia University Archives. Box 107, Folder: “Haig Correspondence A, 1949-1952”.

Image Source:Unveiling Alma Mater by Roberto Ferrari (July 15, 2014).

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Harvard Michigan Pennsylvania Research Tip Salaries

Professors’ and Instructors’ Salaries, ca. 1907

Some 103 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada provided useable answers to a survey of higher educational institutions having annual instructional salary budgets of over $45,000 (note assistant professors at the time cost about $2,000 per year) conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Results were published in 1908 (the Preface is dated April 1908), so we can reasonably presume the information reported is either from budgetary data for the academic year 1907-08 or for the academic year 1906-07. The 101 page Bulletin even went on to present data for professorial incomes in Germany!

As the entire Carnegie Foundation Bulletin can be downloaded, this posting is more of a research tip/teaser. I present below an excerpt for the top ten universities (out of 103), ranked by their annual appropriations for the salaries of instructional staff.

Plucking two sentences in lieu of an executive summary, I offer the following quotes from the Bulletin:

“Good, plodding men, who attend diligently to their profession [law, medicine and engineering are meant here] but who are without unusual ability, often obtain in middle life an income considerably higher tthan a man of the greatest genius can receive in an American professor’s chair.” [p. 25]

“A German who possesses such ability that he may expect in due time to become a full professor and who prepares himself for university teaching must expect to study until the age of thirty with no financial return, to study and teach as a docent till nearly thirty-six with an annual remuneration of less than $200, and to teach from thirty-six to forty-one with an annual remuneration of from $600 to $2,000, by which time he may become a full professor and will continue to receive his salary until his death [my emphasis]…If he succeeds… he may hope for a much larger reward and be assured of security in old age.” [p. vii]

____________________________

Average Salaries for Ranks, Age at Start of Rank, Student-Instructor Ratios

Columbia Harvard Chicago Michigan Yale
Total annual income
(thousands of dollars)		 1.675 1.828 1.304 1.078 1.089
Annual Appropriation for Salaries of Instructing Staff
(thousands of dollars)		 1.145 .842 .699 .536 .525
Average Salary of Professor $4,289 4,413 $3,600 $2,763 $3,500
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Professor 37.5 39 … … 35
Average Salary of Associate Professor … $3,600 $2,800 $2,009 …
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Associate Professor … … … … …
Average Salary of Assistant Professor $2,201 $2,719 $2,200 $1,624 $2,000
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant Professor 32 33 … … 29
Average Salary of Instructor $1,800 $1,048 $1,450 $1,114 $1,400
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Instructor 29 28 … … 24
Average Salary of Assistant $500 $347 $666 … …
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant 24 26 … … 23
Total Number of Students in University 4,087 4,012 5,070 4,282 3,306
Total Instructing Staff in University 559 573 291 285 365
Ratio 7.3 7 17.4 15 9
Total Number of Students in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 2,545 2,836 3,902 2,899 2,620
Total Instructing Staff in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 253 322 211 198 236
Ratio 10 8.8 18.4 14.6 11.1

 

Average Salaries for Ranks, Age at Start of Rank, Student-Instructor Ratios

Cornell Illinois Wisconsin Pennsyl-vania UC Berkeley
Total annual income
(thousands of dollars)		 1.083 1.200 .999 .589 .844
Annual Appropriation for Salaries of Instructing Staff
(thousands of dollars)		 .511 .492 .490 .433 .408
Average Salary of Professor $3,135 $2,851 $2,772 $3,500 $3,300
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Professor … … 32.8 … …
Average Salary of Associate Professor … $2,168 $2,081 … $2,200
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Associate Professor … … 29.6 … …
Average Salary of Assistant Professor $1,715 $1,851 $1,636 $1,850 $1,620
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant Professor … … 28.6 … …
Average Salary of Instructor $924 $1,091 $1,065 $1,000 $1,100
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Instructor … … 27.5 … …
Average Salary of Assistant  … $660 $542 $650 $850
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant … … 24.5 … …
Total Number of Students in University 3,635 3,605 3,116 3,700 2,987
Total Instructing Staff in University 507 414 297 375 350
Ratio 7.1 8.7 10.4 9.8 8.5
Total Number of Students in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 2,917 2,281 2,558 2,618 2,451
Total Instructing Staff in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 283 190 231 166 218
Ratio 10.3 12 11 15.7 11.2

 

[From the table notes:]

“The grade of associate professor is only given when there is also the distinct grade of assistant professor in the same institution; otherwise the associate professor is classed throughout this discussion as an assistant professor.

Professors who are heads of departments received on an average $5,800 at the University of Chicago.

Figures for Cornell do not include the medical school.

 

Source: Table II in The Financial Status of the Professor in America and in Germany. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin Number Two. New York City, 1908, pp. 10-11.

Image Source: Website of the Carnegie Foundation.

P.S. A list of all Carnegie Foundation Publications.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Burgess on Political Sciences at Columbia College. 1882

A brief statement that well describes the System of instruction and research in the political sciences at Columbia by the founder of its School of Political Science at the dawn of formal graduate education in economics (as well as history and public law) in the United States. College through the Junior Year was regarded as equivalent to the Gymnasium training, i.e. pre-University, in the German system. The Senior year of undergraduate education marked the transition to University study. Cf.  the informational brochure for the academic year 1882-83.

_____________________

THE STUDY OF THE POLITICAL SCIENCES IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE.

[1882]
John W. Burgess

During the last half decade an awakening of interest in the study of the political sciences has manifested itself throughout the public at large, such as no previous generation since the beginning of our national existence has experienced. The conviction is now already deep and general that, unless a sounder political wisdom and a better political practice be attained, the republican system may become but a form, and republican institutions but a deception. It is then hardly a question any more as to whether we need a higher political education. The common consciousness of the nation is already beyond that point, and is now occupied with the invention of the means and methods of its realization. Of course, chief among these means should stand our institutions of superior learning — our colleges and universities. The nation has a right to expect of and demand from these that the youth whom they undertake to train and develop shall be furnished at least with the elements of the political sciences with their literature and with the methods of a sound political logic. Many of them have long endeavored to accomplish something of this, with varying success, while some of them have recently put forth more than ordinary efforts to meet and fulfill in a higher degree this great public duty. In response to a most kindly and appreciative request from the editor of the “International,” we have undertaken to describe briefly the system of investigation and instruction in this sphere which New York’s oldest institution of learning — Columbia College — has established and is now essaying to perfect.

This system consists of four distinct and well-defined parts, viz.: The Undergraduate Department of History and Political Science, The School of Political Science, The Academy of the Political Sciences, and The Library of the Political Sciences.

 

I. The Undergraduate Department.

The key-note of our whole system is its historical groundwork and its historical method. It is in and through history that the State has taken its origin and passed through the different phases of its development down to its present form and relations. Therefore it is in and through a sound and comprehensive study of history alone that the foundations can be laid for a true and valuable public law and political science. Theory and speculation in politics must be regulated by historic fact — must be generalized most largely from historic fact; otherwise, they are always in danger of degenerating into the “will-o’-the-wisps” of individual fancy. We begin, therefore, with the study of history, and devote the two years assigned to the department in the undergraduate course to laying the historical groundwork. Here we employ the gymnastic method and seek the accomplishment of the gymnastic purpose, viz., the daily drill by recitation, question and answer from text-books of German, French and English history and of elementary political economy, with the purpose of fixing and classifying in the memory of the student the elements of political geography, the chronology and outward frame of historic events, the biographies of historic characters, and definitions of political and economic terms. The completion of the junior year in the undergraduate curriculum marks the close of gymnastic study and preparation. The senior year in all our colleges of the first rank has become a real university year, both in the character and method of the instruction there given and employed. We therefore draw the line in our system between the Gymnasium and the University at the termination of the junior year, making the senior year of the College in these studies to correspond with the first year in the School of Political Science, and admitting to this School as candidates for its degrees all persons who have completed successfully the work of the first three years in any collegiate institution of the first rank in the United States, or an equivalent course in any foreign college, lyceum or gymnasium, or who can pass successfully examination upon all the studies of the undergraduate curriculum of this institution to the end of the junior year.

 

II. The School of Political Science.

This is the collective name which we give to the graduate or university courses in history, philosophy, economy, public law, jurisprudence, diplomacy and sociology. The time prescribed for the accomplishment of the work here assigned is three years, and the courses are so distributed over this period as to occupy the first year with the history of the development of the political institutions of continental Europe, the special constitutional history of England and of the United States, the history of the philosophic theories of the State, and the history of economic systems and theories; the second with the comparative constitutional law of the principal States of Europe and the United States and of the Commonwealths of the United States, and with the Roman law and the comparative jurisprudence of the modern codes derived therefrom; and the third with the comparative administrative law of the principal States of Europe and the United States and of the Commonwealths of the United States, the history of diplomacy, public international law, private international law, and economic, statistical and social science.

It will thus be seen that we begin again with the historical groundwork in the School of Political Science; but this time it is the history of institutions, the origin and development of the State through its several phases of political organization down to the modern constitutional form; that we then advance through history to the existing actual and legal relations of the State, and that we seek finally through comprehensive comparison to generalize the ultimate principles of our political philosophy, aiming thus to escape the dangers of a barren empiricism on the one side, and of a baseless speculation on the other. With the change from the Gymnasium to the University, the method of instruction changes as well as the subjects. The text-book, with its assigned lessons and daily drill upon the same, is discarded, as both cramping to the student and narrowing to the professor. We must get here nearer to sources and original material. We must go back of the treatises to the earliest documents, and learn to form from these our opinions, and to make from these our own hand-books. The professor must no longer act merely the part of the drill-master upon a given text, but of the investigator gathering and classifying original evidence upon his subjects, and generalizing therefrom his view and system; and the student must no longer be the mere gymnast, carrying his library under his arm, but he must begin to learn and apply the processes of original study, and to compare authorities upon the points treated or suggested. In a word, the university professor must instruct for the most part by lecture, imparting the results of his own labor and experience, and developing his own view and system, and the university student must verify the statements and fill up the outline by constant and comprehensive reading in a great library which shall contain the principal sources of information upon all the subjects of the different courses of study to which his attention is directed. Individuality of view, independence of judgment, and comprehensive, all-sided knowledge are the ends here sought both for instructor and instructed. Lastly, the degree conferred upon the successful completion of the work assigned in this School is the university degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examinations leading to the attainment of the same are two-fold. The first, at the close of the first year, does not differ in character from the usual college examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts. If successfully passed, the candidate is made a Bachelor of Philosophy. The second, at the close of the third year, is, on the other hand, a matter of far more serious import. It consists of three parts: First, a direct oral examination of each candidate upon any or all the courses pursued in the presence of the entire Faculty and by each member of the same; second, two collateral examinations, one upon the Latin language and the other upon either the German or French languages, as the candidate may elect; and, third, the examination of an original dissertation prepared by the candidate upon a subject either assigned to him by the Faculty of the School or selected by himself under their approval at least six months before the date of the examination. The candidate must furnish each member of the Faculty with a copy of his dissertation at least one month before the date of the examination, and, at the time fixed, must appear before the assembled Faculty of the School and defend his facts, his reasoning and his conclusions against the criticisms of each member of the same. If he be fairly successful through all of these ordeals, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be conferred upon him. If he attain a high grade of excellence in all, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy cum laude, and, if the highest be reached, then the degree of Doctor of Philosophy magna cum laude, the highest university distinction, will be accorded him.

 

III. The Academy of the Political Sciences.

This is a voluntary association composed of the President of the University, the Faculties of Law and Political Science, graduates of the School of Political Science and graduates of the School of Law, who have taken at least two years of the instruction in the School of Political Science or an equivalent course in some foreign university. It recruits itself annually from these same sources. Its purpose is the cultivation and development, in finest and most minute detail, of the different branches and topics of the political sciences. This organization is the central point of our whole system. Upon it depends for the most part the perpetuation and increasing usefulness of our work. Not being a transient body of students, who reach only a certain given point before they vanish from our control, but a permanent body of continually growing scholars, this association forms the productive, ever-advancing element in our system. Whatever we may be able to add to the existing stock of political knowledge will proceed from it. Each of its members assumes the obligation to produce at least one original work each year, and read the same before the association at its regular meetings, which production then becomes the property of the Academy, and may be published by it for the benefit of the public, provided a majority of the members deem it worthy of the same. From its labors the Library of the Political Sciences will receive its scientific classification by subjects, a journal of political science will be edited, and, above all, it will be the source of a true educational service, from which the Faculty of the Historical and Political Sciences may be recruited, thus providing for the continuity of our work in an ever-increasing degree of excellence, enabling us to perpetuate our own methods and traditions, to expand without limit our courses, and to diversify indefinitely our instruction without endangering its organic unity — in a word, to found a School of Political Thought in the truest and highest sense. This is the significance of the Academy — this is its office in our system.

 

IV. The Library of the Political Sciences.

A great library, scientifically classified and adequately served, is an indispensable part of a university. As well expect the architect merely with rule and pencil to rear a great structure as to demand of the scholar the production of literary monuments without this magazine of material. Neither will a collection merely of hand-books, textbooks, treatises and current literature suffice. These are necessary, indeed, as demonstrating how and how far authors have worked up original matter into logical form; the collection which stops there, however, may be a popular library indeed, or even a college library, but it is no university library. The prime purpose of the university library is, on the other hand, the assemblage and classification of original material in all branches of knowledge — such, for instance, in the domain of the political sciences, as the texts of constitutions, the statute books and ordinances of governments, the debates of legislative assemblies, the decisions of judicial bodies upon questions of public law, the papers of diplomatic intercourse, the texts of treaties, the reports of governmental commissions, statistical bureaus, chambers of commerce, boards of industry and agriculture and of the public health, the journals of international congresses, political conventions and academies and associations of political science, contemporary chronicles of historic facts, files of official gazettes, leading newspapers and magazines, etc., etc. It was this consideration which moved the trustees of this institution some four years since to authorize a special effort and a special appropriation of funds for the advancement of our Library of the Political Sciences. By their authority and with their aid exhaustive lists of original material in all the different branches of the political sciences were gathered from the leading publicists of the United States, England, France, Germany, Austria and Italy. A large portion of these works have already been placed within our Library, and we are steadily adding to the collection. It is with this material that we teach our students in the School of Political Science to acquaint themselves, and it is upon this material that the members of the Academy expend their labors, reducing it to scientific order and classification, and making it the basis of original work in the production of papers, monographs and treatises.

This, then, is the system of study in the political sciences at Columbia College which six years of reflection and experience have thus far matured; and, in giving this brief sketch of its main features to publication, those who have been most nearly concerned in its conception and development gladly avail themselves of the opportunity to make their most grateful acknowledgment for the support which they have felt from the sympathy of a generous and appreciative public.

 

Source: The International Review, Vol. XII, April 1882, pp. 346-351

Image Source: From the Columbia University, Department of History webpage: A Short History of the Department of History.

 

Categories
Columbia Courses Syllabus

Columbia. Money and Banking Reading List. Angell, 1933

This reading list for J. W. Angell’s courses on Money and Banking at Columbia University from 1933 was found in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution.

_____________________

READING LIST IN MONEY AND BANKING (Economics 127-128)
Revised: 1933

# Required reading.

## Required reading, to be prepared for class-room discussion. It will be found advisable, in the required reading, to follow the order of titles as here given.

1. FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES

# [✓] Mitchell, W. C., Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting: vol. I (1927), chap. 2, esp. pp. 116-154.

# [✓] Noyes, A. D., Forty Years of American Finance: 1865-1907 (1909).

# [✓] ————–, The War Period of American Finance: 1908-1925 (1926).

[one of (Goldenweiser, Kemmerer, Willis)]

#Goldenweiser, E. A., The Federal Reserve System in Operation (1925).

# Kemmerer, E. W., The A.B.C. of the Federal Reserve System (9 ed., 1932).

#Willis, H. P., The Federal Reserve System (1923).

__________

#Beckhart, B. H., The Discount Policy of the Federal Reserve System (1929), chaps. 1, 3, 4.

# Burgess, W. R., The Reserve Banks and the Money Market (1927).

#Reed, H. L., The Development of Federal Reserve Policy (1922).

#————-, Federal Reserve Policy, 1921-1930 (1930).

#Hardy, C. O., Credit Policy of the Federal Reserve System (1932).

# [✓] National Industrial Conference Board, The Banking Situation in the U. S. (1932).

# [✓] Magee, J. D. et al., The National Recovery Program (1933).

__________

Dewey, D. R., Financial History of the United Sttes (1930).

Dowrie, G. W., American Monetary and Banking Policies (1930).

Kilborne, R. D., Principles of Money and Banking (2 ed., 1929).

Moulton, H. G., Financial Organization of Society (3 ed., 1930).

Rodkey, R. G., The Banking Process (1929).

White, H., Money and Banking (5 ed., 1914).

__________

Anderson, B. M., The “Free Gold” of the Federal Reserve System (Chase Economic Bulletin, Sept 29, 1930).

Chamber of Commerce of the U. S., The Federal Reserve System (2 parts: 1929).

Dunbar, C. F., The Theory and History of Banking (5 ed., 1929); see section on the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Monthly Review (also see other cities).

Federal Reserve Bulletin.

Federal Reserve System: Committee on Bank Reserves, Member Bank Reserves (1931).

Harris, S. E., Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy (2 vols., 1932); has an excellent bibliography.

Spahr, W. The Federal Reserve System and the Control of Credit (1931).

Strong, B., Interpretations of Federal Reserve Policy (ed. W. R. Burgess, 1930).

Tippetts, C. S., State Banks and the Federal Reserve System (1929).

United States: House: Committee on Currency and Banking, Hearings on the Stabilization of the Price Level for Commodities in General (the Strong Bill) (69: 2 Congress, H. R. 7895, 2 vols., 1926; 70: 1 Congress, H. R. 11806, 1928).

————-: Senate: Committee on Banking and Currency, Hearings on the Operation of the National and Federal Reserve Banking Systems (71:3 Congress, S. Res. 71; in 7 parts, 1931).

Warburg, P. M., The Federal Reserve System (2 vols, 1930).

Willis, H. P., and Steiner, W. H., Federal Reserve Banking Practise (1926).

__________

American Acceptance Council, Facts and Figures Relating to the American Money Market (1931). Also see other publications of the Council.

Beckhart, B. H., ed., The New York Money Market (4 vols., 1931-32).

Bell, J. W., Recent Changes in the Character of Bank Liabilities and the Problem of Bank Reserves (Am. Econ. Rev., March, 1931, Suppl.)

Cartinhour, G. T., Branch, Group and Chain Banking (1931).

Curris, L., The Decline of the Commercial Loan (Quar. Jour. Econ., Aug., 1931).

Eliot, Clara, The Farmer’s Campaign for Credit (1927).

Furniss, E. W., Foreign Exchange (1922); section on New York money market.

Hoover, C. B., Brokers’ Loans and Bank Deposits (Jour. Pol. Econ., 1932).

Lawrence, J. S., Banking Consolidations in the U. S. (1930).

National Bureau of Economic Research, various volumes and current reports.

National Industrial Conference Board, Economic Reconstruction Legislation of 1933 (1933).

Owens, R. N., and Hardy, C. O., Interest Rates and Stock Speculation (1925); 2 ed., 1930).

Persons, C., Credit Expansion, 1920 to 1929, and Its Lessons (Quar. Jour. Econ., Nov., 1930).

Riefler, W. W., Money Rates and Money Markets in the U. S. (1930).

Rogers, J. H., America Weighs Her Gold (1931).

United States: House: Committee on Currency and Banking, Hearings on Branch, Chain and Group Banking (71:2 Congress, H. Res. 141; in 15 parts, 1931).

Young, Allyn A., An Analysis of Bank Statistics of the United States (Rev. Econ. Stat., 1928; reprinted separately).

__________

President’s Conference on Unemployment: Committee on Recent Economic Changes, Recent Economic Changes in the U. S. (2 vols., 1929).

 

2. FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION OF LEADING FOREIGN COUNTRIES
(Also see Part 5)

#Beckhart, B. H., The Discount Policy of the Federal Reserve System (1929), chaps. 1, 2.

__________

(Read at last two in this group)

#Andréadès, A., The Bank of England, (2 ed., 1924).

#Bagehot, W., Lombard Street (14 ed., 1915).

#Beckhart, B. H., The Banking System of Canada (1929).

#Brown, W. A., England and the New Gold Standard (1929).

#Conant, C. A., History of Modern Bnaks of Issue (6 ed., 1927).

#Dulles, E. L., The French Franc, 1914-1928 (1929).

#Flink, S., The German Reichsbank (1931).

#Riesser, J., The German Great Banks (Natl. Monetary Commission Reports; 1910).

#Rogers, J. H., The Procdss of Inflation in France, 1914-1927 (1929).

#Whale, P. B., Joint Stock Banking in Germany (1930).

#Willis, H. P., and Beckhart, B. H., eds., Foreign Banking Systems (1929).

__________

Arndt, E. H. D., Banking and Currency Developments in South Africa (1928).

Cassel, G., Money and Foreign Exchange After 1914 (1922).

———, Post-War Monetary Stabilization (1928).

Dulles, E. L., The Bank for International Settlements at Work (1932).

Edie, L. D., and Weaver, D., Velocity of Bank Deposits in England (Jour. Pol. Econ., Aug., 1930).

Federal Reserve Bulletin (articles and statistics on foreign monetary and banking conditions).

Furniss, E. S., Foeign Exchange (1922); section on the London money market.

Goschen, Viscount G. J., Foreign Exchange (1861; reprinted); sections on the London money market.

Gregory, T. E., The Return to Gold (1925).

Harris, S. E., Monetary Policies of the British Empire (1931).

Hawtrey, R. C., Monetary Reconstruction (1923).

Katzenellenbaum, S. S., Russian Currency and Banking, 1914-1924 (1925).

Kemmerer, E. W., Modern Currency Reforms (1916).

Kemmerer, E. W., and Vissering, G., Report on the Resumption of Gold Payments by the Union of South Africa (1925).

Keynes, J. M., Indian Currency and Finance (1913).

Lavington, F., The English Capital Market (1921).

Mason, D. M., Monetary Policy, 1914-1925 (1927).

Parker, W., The Paris Bourse and French Finance (1919).

Peake, E. G., An Academic Study of Some Money Market and Other Statistics, 1884-1914 (1923).

Spalding, W. F., Eastern Exchange, Currency and Finance (4 ed., 1924).

________________, The London Money Market (1922).

United Kingdom: Committee on Finance and Industry, Report (Cd. 3897; 1931) (The Macmillan Report).

Withers, H., The Meaning of Money (3 ed., 1924).

Young, J. P., Central American Currencies (1925).

 

3. THE GENERAL THEORY OF MONEY, BANKING AND PRICES

##Layton, Sir W. T., Introduction to the Study of Prices (1920).

#Mitchell, W. C., Business Cycles: The Problem and its Setting: vol. I (1927), chap. 2, esp. pp. 116-154.

##Fisher, Irving, The Purchasing Power of Money (1911).

##Keynes, J. M., Monetary Reform (1924), pp. 1-95.

##Angell, J. W., Theory of International Prices (1926), pp. 116-135, 178-186, 274-280, 308-312, 324-331.

##Gregory, T. E., The Gold Standard and its Future (1932), chaps. 1, 2.

#Steiner, W. H., Some Aspects of Banking Theory (1920).

__________

##Hawtrey, R. G., Currency and Credit (3 ed., 1927).

##Foster, W. T., and Catchings, W., Profits (1925).

##Mitchell, W. C., Business Cycles: The Problem and its Setting: vol. I (1927), Chap. 1.

##Keynes, J. M., Treaties on Money (2 vols., 1930).

##Robertson, D. H., Banking Policy and the Price Level (1926).

##Hayek, F., Prices and Production (1931).

#Hansen, A. H., and Tout, H., Annual Survey of Business Cycle Theory (Econometrica, April, 1933).

##Angell, J. W. Money, Prices and Production: Some Fundamental Concepts (Quar. Jour. Econ., November, 1933).

__________

#Phillips, C. A., Bank Credit (1921), chaps. 1-6.

__________

Anderson, B. M., The Value of Money (1917).

Auspitz, R., and Lieben, R., Recherches sur la théorie des prix (trans. Into French, 2 vols., 1914).

Cannan, E. A., Money (6 ed., 1929).

Dunbar, C. F., Theory and History of Banking (5ed., 1929).

Dunkman, W. E., Qualitative Credit Control (1933).

Edie, L. T., Money, Production and Prices (1929).

Fisher, Irving, Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices (1895; reprinted 1925).

Foster, W. T., and Catchings, W., Money (1929).

Greidanus, T., The Value of Money (1932).

Hahn, L. A., Geld und Kredit (3 ed., 1929).

Hawtrey, R. G., The Art of Central Banking (1932).

Kemmerer, E. W., Money and Credit Instruments in Relation to Prices (2 ed., 1909).

Knapp, G. F., The State Theory of Money (1905; translated 1924).

Laughlin, J. L., Principles of Money (1903).

————, Money, Credit and Prices (1931).

Leaf, W., Banking (1927).

Marshall, Alfred, Money, Credit and Commerce (1923).

———————, Official Papers (1926); esp. No. 2.

Mill, J. S., Principles of Political Economy (1848; ed. W. J. Ashley, 1920), Bk. III, chaps. 7-14, 19, 21, 22, 24.

Mises, L. von, Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel (2 ed., 1924).

Monroe, A. E., Monetary Theory before Adam Smith (1923).

Pollak Foundation, Prize Essays (1927) (criticisms of Foster and Catchings’ Profits).

Robertson, D. H., Money (1922).

Taussig, F. W., Principles of Economics (3 ed., 1923), Bk. III.

__________

Aftalion, A., L’Or et sa distribution mondiale (1932).

Angell, J. W. Monetary Prerequisites for Employment Stabilization (chapter in The Stabilization of Employment, edited by C. F. Roos, 1933).

Angell, J. W., and Ficek, K., The Expansion of Bank Credit (Jour. Pol. Econ., Feb. and April, 1933).

Bell, J. W., Recent Changes in the Character of Bank Liabilities and the Problem of Bank Reserves (Am. Econ. Rev., March, 1932. Supplement).

Blackett, Sir Basil P., Planned Money (1933).

Bradford, F. A., Some Aspects of the Stable Money Question (Quar. Jour. Econ., Aug., 1931).

Copeland, M. A., Money, Trade and Prices—A Test of Causal Primacy (Quar. Jour. Econ., Aug., 1929).

Currie, L., The Decline of the Commercial Loan (Quar. Jour. Econ., Aug., 1931).

Davenport, H. J., Velocities, Turnovers and Prices (Am. Econ. Rev., March, 1931).

Edie, L. T., Gold, Production and Prices (1928).

Einzig, P., International Gold Movements (1930).

Gardner, W. R., Central Gold Reserves, 1925-1931 (Am. Econ. Rev., March, 1932).

Hawtrey, R. G., The Gold Standard in Theory and Practise (1927).

—————–, Monetary Reconstruction (1923).

Hoover, C. B., Brokers’ Loans and Bank Deposits (Jour. Pol. Econ. 1932).

Kisch, C. H., and Elkins, W. A., Central Banks (1928).

Lawrence, J. S., Borrowed Reserves and Bank Expansion (Quar. Jour. Econ., Aug., 1928).

—————–, The Stabilization of Prices (1928).

League of Nations, The Course and Phases of the World Economic Depression (1931).

—————–, World Economic Survey (annual since 1932).

League of Nations: Gold Delegation, Reports, Documents, etc. (1930ff.)

Lounsbury, R. H., Velocity Concepts and Prices (Quar. Jour. Econ., 1931).

Mlynarski, F., Gold and Central Banks (1929).

Neiswanger, W. A., The Expansion of Bank Credit (Am. Econ. Rev., June, 1933).

Pigou, A. C., and Robertson, D. H., Economic Essays and Addresses (1931).

Rogers, J. H., The Effect of Stock Speculation on the New York Money Market (Quar. Jour. Econ. , May, 1926).

Royal Institute of International Affairs, The International Gold Problem (1931).

Shaw, W. A., The Theory and Principles of Central Banking (1930).

Snyder, C., New Measures of the Relations of Credit and Trade (Proceedings, Academy of Political Science, Jan., 1931).

Sprague, O. M. W., and Burgess, W. R., Money and Credit and Their Effect on Business (chapter in Recent Economic Changes in the U. S., vol. 2, 1931).

Stamp, Sir Josiah, Papers on Gold and the Price Level (1931).

Williams, J. H., The Crisis of the Gold Standard (Foreign Affairs, Jan. 1932).

—————–, The Monetary Doctrines of J. M. Keynes (Quar. Jour. Econ., Aug., 1931).

Willis, H. P., Central Banking (Encyclopedia of the Socieal Sciences: vol. 3, 1930).

 

4. BUSINESS CYCLES (in addition to titles given in Part 3)

Adams, A., Economics of Business Cycles (1925).

Aftalion, A., Les crises périodiques de surproduction (1913).

Clark, J. M., The Economics of Overhead Costs (1923).

Hansen, A. H., Business-Cycle Theory (1927).

Hawtrey, R. G., Good and Bad Trade (1913).

Hayek, F., Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (1933; a collection of earlier essays).

Hexter, M. B., Social Consequences of Business Cycles (1925).

Kuznets, S., Cyclical Fluctuations (1926).

————–, Equilibrium Economics and Business Cycle Theory (Quar. Jour. Econ., May, 1930).

————–, Monetary Business Cycle Theory in Germany (Jour. Pol. Econ., April, 1930=.

————–, Secular Movements in Production and Prices (1930).

Lavington, F., The English Capital Market (1921).

—————-, The Trade Cycle (1922).

Mills, F. C., The Behavior of Prices (1927).

————-, Economic Tendencies (1932).

Mitchell, W. C., Business Cycles (1913).

—————–, Business Cycles (Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 3, 1930).

—————–, Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting (vol. I, 1927).

Persons, W.M., Indices of General Business Conditions (Rev. Econ. Stat., 1919; reprinted separately).

Pigou, A. C., Industrial Fluctuations (2nd ed., 1929).

Robertson, D. H., A Study of Industrial Fluctuations (1915).

Snyder, C., Business Cycles and Business Measurements (1927).

Souter, R. W., Equilibrium Economics and Business Cycle Theory (Quar. Jour. Econ., Nov., 1930).

Thorp, W. L., and Mitchell, W. C., Business Annals (1926).

Wagemann, E., Economic Rhythms (translated 1929).

 

5. UNSTABLE AND DEPRECIATED CURRENCIES: SILVER
(ALSO SEE PART 2).

#Angell, J. W., Theory of International Prices (1926), chaps. 7, 17.

#Keynes, J. M., Monetary Reform (1924), chaps. 2, 3.

#Taussig, F. W., International Trade (1927), chaps. 26-30.

#Angell, J. W., Exchange Depreciation. Foreign Trade and National Welfare (Proceedings, Academy of Political Science, June, 1933).

__________

Angell, J. W., Monetary Theory and Monetary Policy (Quar. Jour. Econ., 1925).

Bordes, J., The Austrian Crown (1924).

Brown, W. A., England and the New Gold Standard (1929).

Cassel, G., Money and Foreign Exchange after 1914 (1922).

———–, Post-War Monetary Stabilization (1928).

Dulles, E.L., The French Franc, 1914-1928 (1929).

Fetter, F. W., Monetary Inflation in Chile (1931).

Graham, F. D., Exchange, Prices and Production in Hyper-Inflation: Germany, 1920-1923 (1930).

Hawtrey, R. G., Monetary Reconstruction (1923).

Hecksher, E. P. Swedish Monetary History, 1914-1925 (article in the Carnegie Endowment’s Economic and Social History of the World War, volume on Sweden, Norway, etc., 1930).

Keynes, J. M., Treatise on Money (2 vols. 1930);see index for relevant sections.

Nogaro, B., Modern Monetary Systems (translated 1927).

Rist, C., La déflation en pratique (1924).

Rogers, J. H., The Process of Inflation in France, 1914-1927 (1929).

United States: Senate: Commission of Gold and Silver Inquiry, Foreign Currency and Exchange Investigation (by J. P. Young; 2 vols., 1925).

—————————–, Tariff Commission, Depreciated Exchange and International Trade (2 ed., 1922).

Young, J. P., Central American Currencies (1925).

__________

#Elliston, H. B., The Silver Problem (Foreign Affairs, April, 1931).

Gregory, T. E., The Silver Situation (Manchester University, 1932).

Leong, Y. S., Silver (1933).

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 5, Folder 12 “Student years”.

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Ph.D. Memo On Oral Examinations. 1932-33

 

 

The Committee on Instruction of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science (consisting of the four departments of public law, history, economics and sociology) circulated the following memorandum regarding the oral subject examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One is struck at both the apparent informality and variation of practice in the matter at the time the memorandum was written (most likely sometime during the academic year 1932-33). Of 74 examinations in economics, 52 were passed unconditionally during the three years 1929-30 through 1931-32.

__________________________________________

From the Committee on Instruction to the Members of the Faculty of Political Science
Memorandum on the Procedure of Doctor’s Examinations

At a recent meeting the Committee on Instruction discussed certain questions which seem pertinent in respect of the procedure in and standards of oral subject examinations for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. The Committee has decided to submit to the members of the Faculty certain of these considerations in the hope that the several Departments will discuss in departmental meetings any matters which seem important.

The procedure of oral subject examinations apparently rests in large part on custom. When a candidate is proposed for examination by a Department notices are sent to all the members of the proposing Department who are members of the Faculty of Political Science and a notice goes also to each of the other three Departments. The proposing Department can be represented at the examination by a committee of its members; it may add to the committee Professors who are not on the Faculty of Political Science; and the three non-proposing Departments are expected to designate representatives. In some cases this representative is a junior officer under the Faculty.

These inquiries concerning the conventions of examinations are not intended to suggest that there should be any attempt to draw up detailed rules and regulations. It is not thought that any existing evils—if there are such—can be eliminated by a codification of practices and agreement that the code should be followed. With the procedure based on custom, however, it does seem to the Committee on Instruction worth while for the customs to be recanvassed by informal discussions. This would seem to be the more desirable because of the increase in the number of doctoral candidates and the increased number of professors who serve on examining committees. A few years ago every member of a Department attended every departmental examination. Now there is increasing turnover among examiners. Hence, as has been said, it is more important that pertinent questions be rediscussed In submitting these questions the Committee on Instruction does no more than suggest that they are worthy of consideration. The Committee now expresses no opinion of how the questions should be answered:

1) Should oral examinations be made formal? Manifestly the occasion is an important one for the candidate. Should members of the examining committee smoke during the examination? Should the candidate smoke? Should member of the examining committee bring books, papers or proofs with them and carry on their work save when they themselves are asking questions? Should the presiding officer at the examination attempt to check conversations à deux or à trois between members of the examining committee when they are not asking questions?

2) Is it desirable to have any general understanding concerning the time allotted for the major subject and for the minor subject (a) when both subjects are within the same department, and (b) when the minor subject is in a different Department? Presumably in the case of (a) the matter can be settled within the Department. In the case of (b) the allocation seems to vary greatly, from twenty-five minutes to an hour.

3) Is it desirable to have the time of the examination devoted to questioning by four or five professors or is it desirable to have the questioning by eight or even more professors? If the questioning must be conducted by the larger number is it desirable to allow at least one of them a full half or three quarters of an hour?

4) Should all the professors who have asked questions be present at the conclusion of the examination and participate in the discussion of the candidate’s fate? Is it desirable for a questioner, after finishing his questions, to leave the examination room telling the Chairman his opinion of the candidate on his subject?

5) How should the decision of the examining committee be reached? By majority vote?

6) Should encouragement be given the practice of questions by representatives of other departments? What weight should be attached to the opinions of these representatives? Should efforts be made to give candidates less extemporaneous examinations?

8) Is there any reason for a change in the form of the Dean’s blanks so that on the record of the examination there will appear a list of the professors present and the special subjects on which they examined?

9) In the discussions of whether a student is to be passed or failed references to previous students who have passed or failed rest on the recollections of professors who have been on both examining committees. Is it desirable that notations be made on the blanks giving some indication of the nature of the performance of candidates and would it be possible for the Dean’s office to cumulate these notations and to send over with each new blank a summary of recent performances in that department?

10) Should consideration be given to the question of whether, in the absence of an examining committee of a certain size (including representatives from other departments) the examination should be postponed?

Record of Oral Subjects Examinations for the PhD Degree
Faculty of Political Science

Passed

 Failed

Conditioned

1929-30
Public Law

6

 10

4
History

13

 12

6
Economics

21

 2

4
Sociology

7

 1

1

1930-31
Public Law

13

 6

3
History

20

 6
Economics

17

 3

5
Sociology

11

 2

1931-32
Public Law

12

 9

2
History

16

10
Economics

14

 5

3
Sociology

7

 7

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials. Box 10. Folder “Columbia University—General”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Harvard Wisconsin

Chicago Economics’ Subjective Self-Ranking in 1913

The Dean of the University of Chicago’s College of Commerce and Administration, L. C. Marshall, submitted a proposal October 30, 1913 to President Harry Pratt Judson of the University of Chicago that outlined immediate steps for a transition from temporary arrangements for the College of Commerce and Administration to a permanent policy to go into effect 1914-15. Part of Marshall’s proposal addressed the issue of “the preparation of a student constituency” which besides outreach to entering freshmen and advanced undergraduates included the item “attracting graduate students”. The appendix transcribed for this posting presents a subjective ranking of the factors involved in drawing economics graduate students to the University of Chicago.

The overall ranking was determined by adding the ranks for seven factors with two of those factors given a double-weight.

According to L. C. Marshall, the scholarly reputation of Chicago in economics in 1913 put it in fifth place behind Columbia, Harvard, Cornell and Wisconsin.

_____________________________

Appendix I

AN ESTIMATE OF THE RANKING OF SIX INSTITUTIONS IN ABILITY TO DRAW GRADUATE STUDENTS IN ECONOMICS

Notes:

  1. This is an attempt to estimate how the institutions are regarded by prospective graduate students and not an attempt to estimate real merit.
  2. The estimate is based on the ranking according to the seven main items which are likely to draw students: I. Geographical location; II. Reputation for discipline given; III. General reputation of social science departments; IV. Scholarly reputation of economics department; V. Reputation for placing men; VI. Opportunities for self-support; and VII. Influence of Teachers out.
  3. Two items are weighted, viz; VI. Opportunities for self-support, and VII. Influence of teachers out.

I.

II.

Geographical Location

Reputation for Discipline given
1  Chicago
2  Columbia
3  Harvard
4  Wisconsin
5  Cornell
6  Illinois		 1  Harvard
2  Chicago
3  Columbia
4  Wisconsin
5  Cornell
6  Illinois

III.

IV.

General Reputation of Social Science Departments

Scholarly Reputation of Economics Department
1  Columbia
2  Harvard
3  Wisconsin
4  Chicago
5  Cornell
6  Illinois		 1  Columbia
2  Harvard
3  Cornell
4  Wisconsin
5  Chicago
6  Illinois

V.

VI.

Reputation for Placing Men

Opportunities for Self-support
(weighted by 2)
1  Columbia
2  Harvard
3  Wisconsin
4  Chicago
5  Cornell
6  Illinois		 1  Harvard
2  Wisconsin
3  Columbia
4  Illinois
5  Chicago
6  Cornell

VII.

VIII.

Influence of Teachers out
(weighted by 2)

Final Ranking and Points
1  Harvard
2  Columbia
3  Wisconsin
4  Cornell
5  Chicago
6  Illinois		 1  Harvard              14
2  Columbia           18
3  Wisconsin          28
4  Chicago              36
5  Cornell               43
6  Illinois                50

Comments:

No. I is eminently satisfactory

No. II will see Chicago at the head of the list when III, IV, and VII have been remedied

No. III and IV require (a) on the administrative side, carrying through the plans of the College of Commerce and Administration; (b) the earning of scholarly reputation by the members of the department

No. V will care for itself. Chicago will be at the top of this list in five years if we remedy III, IV, VI, and VII.

No. VI is a very serious matter, and requires consideration too detailed to be attempted here

No. VII will not be overcome for ten years.

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 14, Folder 13

Image Source:  Picture of Dean Leon C. Marshall from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-04113, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.