Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Reform of the PhD dissertation printing requirement, 1936-1940

 

The following extracts from the minutes of Columbia’s Faculty of Political Science (an amalgam of the Departments of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science) provide milestones along the tortuous bureaucratic road taken to implement a fairly modest reform in the publication-of-the-dissertation requirement for the Ph.D. at Columbia University back in the 1930s. The reform initiated sometime in early 1936 only saw the light of day first with the printed Faculty announcement published at mid-year 1940.

See: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-1941 published in Columbia University Bulletin of Information, 40th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 14.

______________________

April 17, 1936

            Professor [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics] presented for consideration a Memorandum on the Printing Requirement for Ph.D. Dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science, signed by Professors [Robert Morrison] MacIver [Political Philosophy and Sociology], [Robert Livingston] Schuyler [History], [Robert Emmet] Chaddock [Statistics], [Carter] Goodrich [Economics], and [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics], a copy of which is attached to these minutes. He also presented, and moved the adoption of a resolution providing for a modification of the present printing requirement. After amendments, offered by Professors [Samuel McCune] Lindsay [Social Legislation] and [John Maurice] Clark [Economics], had been accepted, the resolution read as follows:

WHEREAS, the Faculty of Political Science believes that the University printing requirement for dissertations imposes a heavy financial burden on candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty; that the printing requirement as it actually works does  not impose equivalent burdens on the candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in certain other parts of the University; that the printing requirement operates as a severe property qualification impeding the access of otherwise competent students to receipt of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, and that the printing requirement on occasion impels first-class graduate students, who apart from financial considerations would prefer to do their work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Columbia, to go elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, in 1932 the Committee on Publications of this Faculty made a Report to the Faculty, and recommended a reconsideration of the printing requirement with a view to its relaxation; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction, after considering this Report, went on record as it that time favoring retention of the printing requirement, and in the absence of any definite proposal by the Faculty of Political Science did not recommend any change; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science now records itself as desiring a modification of the printing requirement with respect to dissertations offered under the Faculty of Political Science, so that the requirement may be met in any one of three ways, at the option of the candidate, subject to the approval of the committee examining the dissertation, as follows:

(1) By publication of the original approved dissertation in full through a recognized publisher, or otherwise in a form approved by the Dean of the Faculty; or,

(2) By publication of an article, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a professional journal, or otherwise acceptable to the examining Committee; or,

(3) By publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a series of abstracts of dissertations to be published at intervals as volumes in the Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law. The abstracts should ordinarily not exceed 15 pages in length. The candidate will defray his pro rata share of the cost of publication.

Under the second and third alternatives, the candidate shall submit five copies of the proposed article or abstract at least three weeks in advance of the final examination in defense of the dissertation itself. Under such alterative, the requirements for the deposit of copies of the approved printed document and for its distribution to the members of the Faculty are those stated in the Graduate Announcement. In addition, if the dissertation is printed in abridged or abstracted form provision shall be made for preserving at least two legible copies of the original dissertation.

RESOLVED, further, that the foregoing Resolution be transmitted to the University Council, with the request that the Council take action permitting the Faculty of Political Science to realize its desire as above stated.

RESOLVED, further, that the attention of the University Council be also invited to the appended Memorandum on the Printing Requirement, prepared informally by certain members of the Faculty.

After a general discussion, in which fourteen members of the Faculty participated, Professor [Lindsay] Rogers [Public Law] moved that the following resolution be substituted for the resolution under consideration:

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science transit the pending resolution and the accompanying Memorandum prepared by certain or its members, to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction and request that the Joint Committee inquire into the results of the publication requirement at Columbia University and the results of differing requirements at other universities and make the findings of such inquiry available to the Faculty of Political Science for the farther consideration of the publication requirement at the Faculty’s regular meeting in the autumn.

The Faculty being evenly divided, President [Nicholas Murray] Butler cast the deciding vote in favor of the resolution presented by Professor Rogers and it was adopted.

[…]

Appendix to Minutes

To the members of the faculty of Political Science:

We enclose herewith a memorandum on the printing requirement for Ph.D. dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science. It contains proposals which will be advanced formally at the meeting of the Faculty on April 17th next. By signing the memorandum we desire to indicate our belief that the questions raised and the proposals made deserve to be brought before the attention of the whole Faculty, but do not express our concurrence on all points.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. L. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
[April 17, 1936]

The question of prolonging or abolishing the present temporary arrangement, under which Ph.D. dissertations may be offered for examination in typescript, must be passed on by the Faculty of Political Science at its meeting on April 17th. This provides on appropriate occasion for examining the whole question of the printing requirement in the Faculty.

At the present time, the situation is broadly this. The Faculty will accept dissertations in typescript for the purposes of the defense examination, and if the defense is successful a certification is given the candidate, announcing that he has met all the requirements for the Ph.D. degree except that of actual publication of the dissertation.

The degree itself is not awarded, however, until the candidate has secured actual publication — “publication” having recently been defined to include in effect some, though not all, of the non-printing forms of reproduction, such as photostating, and provided that certain conditions are met.

Columbia University and the Catholic University of America are apparently the only two large institutions of higher learning which have retained in full the printing requirement, which was once wide-spread in this country. By enforcing the requirement, Columbia imposes on itself a prime facie impairment of its power to attract first-class graduate students who will become candidates for the Ph.D. degree, and who are free to choose between the several leading institutions. No University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. If retention of the printing requirement is to be justified, it must be shown to yield benefits which offset this disadvantage.

In addition, the requirement works unevenly as between different, sections of the University. In the Faculty of Political Science, as in that of Philosophy, the requirement is extremely burdensome in financial terms to the average Ph.D. candidate. For that large proportion of candidates whose means are limited, its fulfillment imposes genuine hardship. In the Faculty of Political Science the typical dissertation is essentially literary in character, runs to at least 250 to 300 printed pages in length, and even after allowance for royalties usually costs the candidate $600 to $800 to publish — often much more. The fact that perhaps a quarter of the dissertations are published in the Studies at a saving to the candidate of 20% of the price charged by the University Press, does not greatly alter the situation, nor does it operate to lighten the average financial burden very much. For many students, the sum involved is equivalent to their total living expenses for 6 to 8 months or more: the burden is real. In the Faculty of Pure Science and in the Medical School, on the other band, the typical dissertation is not more than 20 or 25 pages in length (often less than 10), and is published in one of the technical or professional journals at no cost at all to the candidate. Moreover, though this is not relevant for present purposes, the Pure Science dissertation is commonly a joint product of the candidate and the supervising Faculty member, and is published under both signatures.

In defense of the retention of the printing requirement by the faculty of Political Science, the most common contention is that its abolition would lead to a disastrous lowering of our standards for the Ph.D. degree. This contention, of course, cannot be tested directly except from future experience. It is significant, however, that apparently none of the other leading American universities which had abolished the printing requirement has restored it. Moreover, it seems highly improbable that the existence of the printing requirement and the maintenance of high standards are related to one another as cause is related to effect. It could not be contended seriously that merely enforcing a printing requirement would enable a faculty of inadequate scholarly competence to maintain high standards, nor that the existence of a printing requirement would ensure, in such circumstances, the production of distinguished dissertations. Equally it cannot be contended that the modification or withdrawal of the printing requirement will alone cause a faculty of high scholarly competence to deteriorate its standards, nor that modification or withdrawal will alone lead to the production of low-grade dissertations under such a faculty. Indeed, to assert that such results would ensue is to imply that the members of such a faulty maintain high standards only from fear of being “found out”, should they lower their standards, through the publication of discreditable Ph.D. dissertations.

            It is also contended that publication is an advantage to the candidate, in that it brings his name and work to the attention of other scholars and also helps him to get a better position. This is undoubtedly true to many cases. But the same or better general results can be obtained in a different way, to be suggested in a moment, which entails relatively little cost to the candidate. As things now stand, most candidates apparently feel that they would gladly forego the not always unequivocal advantages of this type of advertising, in order to void the expense and sacrifice now imposed upon them.

Finally, it is contended that the typescript dissertations found in the libraries of other Universities are in general less finished and sometimes less scholarly products then those which have undergone publication; and that they are less accessible to the generality of scholars. This last is of course true. The contention would have granter force as an argument in favor of retaining the publication requirement, however, if there were any way of shifting the bulk of the financial burden of publication to those other scholars who would allegedly be such large beneficiaries from the act of publication itself. It would also here greater force If any substantial number of other universities had indicated, by retaining the requirement, that they felt the cogency of these considerations. In actuality, and from their very nature, many and perhaps most Ph.D. dissertations in Political Science are not of sufficiently broad interest to merit publication as books. Some suggestions for publishing their essential contents, however, will be outlined presently. It is believed that adoption of these suggestions will give the authors and their work rather wider publicity than is now obtained, in the average case, and will do so without impairing the dissemination of scholarly knowledge.

The principal positive arguments against the retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science have already been indicated, directly or by implication. They are two in number. One turns on the financial costs and other burdens placed on the candidate. The great bulk of our students are not well-to-do. In the majority of cases, financing the publication of the dissertation exacts a genuine and often a disproportionately large sacrifice from the candidate or his family. It is not easy to see that the candidate of the University receives a return commensurate with this sacrifice. However, as the present system works out in practice it frequently means that the actual receipt of the Ph.D. degree itself is delayed by one or more years after the completion of the work, while the candidate is accumulating enough money to pay for publication. To the extent that this happens, as it seems to in what is not far from a majority of the cases, one of the alleged advantages of the publication requirement — that it helps the candidate secure a better position — may turn into a positive disadvantage, because of the delay involved. The present practice of examining on typescript has helped this situation somewhat, but apparently not as greatly as had been hoped; and of course, it still leaves the candidate with a serious financial burden to carry into future years, before he can obtain the actual Ph.D. degree. The fact that so large a proportion of our candidates now elect to be examined on typescript is surely not wholly unrelated to the matter of their financial ability or inability, at the time of the examination, to defray the cost of printing.

There is also some evidence that the existence of the printing requirement influences candidates to select topics for the Ph.D. dissertation with a view to the probable popularity of the topics, rather than with a view to their scholarly merit and interest alone, in order to lighten the burden of the printing costs.

The second argument against retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science turns on the best interests of the University itself. What we are really doing is to enforce a fairly severe property qualification for the Ph.D. degree, and one which is in effect inoperative in certain parts of the University. It is a property qualification imposed by only one other large University. There is much evidence to indicate that — as seems natural enough — this property qualification drives elsewhere many first-class students who would prefer, except for financial considerations, to come to Columbia for their Ph.D. work in the Political Science field. To repent what was said before, no University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. A property qualification is surely the wrong basis on which to select our Ph.D. candidates.

In connection with the earlier discussion of standards, it should also be pointed out that such a modification of the printing requirement as would eliminate its more serious disadvantages to the student would presumably contribute to the actual raising of the general standards of scholarship and performance prevailing, rather than to their deterioration. This would happen to the extent that the modification increased the number of high-calibre through impecunious students who come to us for their training.

Both the material evidence available and the logical argument against retention of the present form of publication requirement in the Faculty of Political Science are thus extremely strong. We therefore make two suggestions:

(1) At the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science on April 17th, action should be taken looking to the immediate modification of the printing requirement, in its present form, for Ph.D. dissertations under the Faculty. At the same time, however, in the interests of the Ph.D. candidates, of other scholars elsewhere, and of the University as a whole, it seems desirable to retain something of the advantages of the present requirement. Outright abolition of the requirement is therefore not proposed. It is suggested that it be modified as follows:

(2) Action should be taken by the Faculty to provide that, the printing requirement, subject to confirmation by the University Council, may be met in any one of three ways: namely either by,

(a) Publication of the complete dissertation under the present regulations; or, by,

(b) Publication of an article, presenting the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in one of the recognized professional journals; or by,

(c) Publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting briefly the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in a new annual or semi-annual volume of Abstracts to be published as a regular part of or supplement to the present Studies; the costs of publication and distribution of the volume to be paid by the candidates pro rata. The abstracts would not exceed perhaps 15 pages each, and the average cost to the individual candidate would probably be under $50. The numerical majority of the dissertations would presumably be handled through these new Abstracts.

In each of the three options, the present requirement for the deposit of 75 copies — whether of book, article or abstract — would be retained; and in the last two cases deposit of two copies of the original dissertation would also be required. Dissertations would be defended on typescript, unless the candidate himself preferred to defend on galleys.

These alternatives leave candidates who have the funds, or who can secure commercial publication without a subsidy, free to publish as heretofore. The alternatives take the present severe burden off those candidates who have not sufficient funds, however; and at the same time retain for them most of the advantages, from getting their names and work more widely known, which they obtain under the present arrangements. Indeed, it seems probable that the publicity they thus receive, and the accessibility of the main content of their work to other scholars, will be substantially greater under the proposed arrangements than under those now prevailing. The average sale of the present full-length dissertation hardly exceeds 250 to 300 copies; the circulation of the better-known professional journals runs to several thousand.

In order to make it easier to secure publication in full of most of the best dissertations, without placing an undue burden on the candidates, we also suggest that the present Studies be made substantially more selective in character than they now are, with a diminution in the number of volumes issued per year and with a higher average standard of quality required for acceptance. To illustrate, we suggest that not more than one or two full-length dissertations a year should be published in the Studies from each Department, apart from the proposed new volumes of Abstracts. We believe that the resulting increase in the average quality of the Studies, by increasing the average sales per volume would enable the Studies to carry a much larger proportion of the costs of publication then at present, perhaps 50% or more. We also believe that the improvement in quality and the decrease in number of issues per year would raise the general standing of the Studies to a basis of comparability with the similar series published by various other leading Universities. Probably the most nearly ideal arrangement would be one under which the publication of a dissertation in the studies would be in the nature of a prize award, entailing no cost at all to the successful candidate. Since financial limitations make this impossible at present, we suggest the arrangement just outlined.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. E. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 759-775.

December 11, 1936

For the information of the Faculty the following memorandum was presented, concerning the action of the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction on the subject of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. At its April, 1936, meeting the Faculty of Political Science adopted a resolution transmitting to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction a memorandum by certain members of the Faculty urging modification of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. On May 19, following, the Joint Committee appointed a sub-committee to study and report on the subject.

The sub-committee submitted its report, accompanied by a digest of information, to the Joint Committee at its meeting on November 9, and on November 16, 1936, the Joint Committee adopted the sub-committee report and its opinions as follows:

“For the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction:

Your sub-committee empowered to consider the question of the printing of doctoral dissertations, composed of the undersigned as chairman and of Professors Angell, Gray, Patterson, Pegram, and Rogers, has duly elicited the information as to the practice in this matter in the leading American universities as well as the pertinent sentiment of three hundred and twenty-one of our own recipients of the doctoral degree in the decade from 1924 to 1933 inclusive. A digest of the information as elicited is now available for the members of the Joint Committee.

After full consideration of this digest and of all other aspects of the question, your sub-committee would submit the following opinions:

  1. That the present requirement of printing should be maintained. Our vote on this recommendation stands four to two, Professors Angell and Patterson dissenting.
  2. That we regret the hardship which the printing of the dissertation now entails on certain of the recipients of the degree.
  3. That it is advisable to make due effort to relieve this hardship as much as possible by any reduction that may be feasible in the cost of printing, and in particular by the establishment, if possible, of a subsidy from University funds to aid in the cost of printing; and that the Joint Committee, or its chairman, should make due inquiry into this possibility.

The second and third opinions were unanimous.”

While opinion in the Joint Committee was not unanimous on point (1) of the adopted report, discussion on certain amendments that were offered and not carried led the Committee to agree as to the substance of two points of the rejected amendment. A sub-committee consisting of Professors Pegram, MacIver, Rogers, and Wright was appointed to rephrase these two points for communication to the Faculties, which they have done as follows:

“(a) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting date which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.

(b) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that the Dean has authority under the present regulations to accept dissertations printed in part or in whole by photo offset process or other manifolding process when there are special reasons, arising out of the nature of the dissertation (tabular and statistical matter, reproductions of texts, etc.), making such offset process appropriate.”

For the information of members of the Faculty of Political Science, it is to be noted that the problem of printing dissertations under the Faculty of Pure Science is rarely a serious one to students. Dissertations are short as compared to those in the other Faculties and are usually published in the professional Journals. In the Faculty of Philosophy the cost of printing dissertations is serious. That Faculty, at its November meeting, unanimously voted to place on record its opinion in favor of the three numbered paragraphs of the sub-committee report adopted by the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee will proceed further with inquiry into means of reducing the cost of printing dissertations and into the possibility of securing funds for aiding publication.

Respectfully submitted,
George B. Pegram,
Chairman
Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction

In connection with the proposal of the Joint Committee that an effort be made to establish a subsidy from University funds to aid graduate students in the printing of doctoral dissertations, the President pointed out some of the administrative problems involved in providing for the judicious and far allotment of such aid. He stated, however, that if a satisfactory administrative method could be devised, a revolving fund of $25,000 or $30,000 would go far toward lightening the financial burden which the present printing requirement imposes on certain candidates for the doctoral degree.

The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction presented a memorandum (a copy of which is appended to these Minutes) reminding the Faculty that at its meeting in April, 1986, it had neglected to provide for the dissertation examination on typescript beyond June 30, 1936, but that the privilege had been extended to candidates under the Faculty with the consent of the Dean’s office. After discussion of the memorandum Professor [Vladimir Gregorievitch] Simkhovitch [Economic History] moved that the motion concerning examination on typescript, which lapsed on June 30, 1938, be re-enacted and remain in effect for a term of one year. The motion was adopted, after Professor [Philip Caryl] Jessup’s [International Law] amendment substituting “until revoked by the Faculty” for the words “for a term of one year”, had been accepted. As re-enacted, the resolution then read:

“RESOLVED; that candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science, upon recommendation of the Department concerned, may be granted the privilege of examination on dissertations presented in typescript — five or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that the dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee require extensive revision shall be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision.”

Discussion of the resolution emphasized the fact that permission to be examined on typescript is granted only on recommendation by the department. It would appear, therefore, that a department may refuse to make any recommendation, require its candidates to stand examinations on galley proofs, or it may recommend in some cases and refuse to recommend in other cases.

[…]

Memorandum Concerning Dissertation Examination on Type-script

At the meeting of the faculty of Political Science on December 9, 1932, Professor Schuyler, as chairman of the Committee on Publications, raised the question of substituting for the then requirement that the examination must be on galley proof, a requirement that dissertations must be presented in typescript. After discussion the Faculty amended Professor Schuyler’s proposal. The resolution as passed provided that for the remainder of the academic year, 1932-33, candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science could be granted, upon the recommendation of the department concerned, the privilege of examination upon typescript four or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee required extensive revision should not be accepted subject to such revision, but should be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision. (Minutes, p. 699)

At its April meetings in 1933, 1934, and 1935 the Faculty continued the provisions of this resolution in affect for the ensuing academic years.

At the November 1935 meeting of the Faculty the Dean called attention to the fact that the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction had discussed the desirability or requiring five typescript copies of dissertations. the Faculty thereupon amended its regulations to require five instead of four copies.

At the April 1936 meeting the Faculty discussed the modification of printing requirement for dissertations. By inadvertence the Faculty neglected to provide for the examination on typescript alternative. with the consent of the Dean’s office, however, candidates under the Faculty of Political Science have been permitted to present their dissertations in typescript even though technically this privilege lapsed as of June 30, 1936.

Earlier this month a question rose in respect of the period which shall elapse between the presentation of the typescript copies and the date of the final examination. Under the terms of the resolution adopted by the Faculty of Political Science the period was three weeks. Under the printed terms of the regulations of the Faculties of Philosophy and of Pure Science the period is three weeks. As a matter of fact, this regulation is not enforced. Two weeks is deemed a sufficient period.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 783-790.

April 21, 1939

            The Chairman of the Committee on Publications further reported that, on the initiative of the Managing Editor of the Studies, the Committee had given consideration to the problem of reducing the financial burden upon doctoral candidates who publish their dissertations in the Studies. In consequence of this discussion, upon the recommendation of the Managing Editor, and in accordance with a unanimous resolution of his Committee, he offered the following resolution which was unanimously passed;

  1. Be it RESOLVED; That in order to afford to doctoral candidates an alternative method of publishing dissertations in the Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law at a lower cost than is possible under the existing requirements, these requirements be so modified as to permit, after October 1, 1939, at the option of the candidate,
    1. the use of paper binding
    2. the use of a double-column format, and of type smaller than that now employed, and
    3. the relegation of footnotes to the end of each chapter.
  2. Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to advance the sum of fifty dollars to each student publishing his dissertation in the Studies, said sum to be a first claim against the author’s royalties. In the event that said author’s royalties do not total fifty dollars within three years after the publication of the dissertation, the full receipts thereafter accruing to such volume shall be paid over to the University until such a time as the University is fully reimbursed for its advance.
  3. Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to authorize the Library to pay to each doctoral candidate who had published his dissertation in the Studies, the sum of fifty dollars, upon his depositing with the Library one hundred copies of the said dissertation.

[…]

            The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction reported that since receipt of the report of the Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (of which Professor Woodbridge was Chairman) the Committee on Instruction had given further consideration to the printing requirements. He submitted the following motions which were passed:

  1. BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty favored such modification of the present requirement for the printing of the doctoral dissertation as would allow candidates certain options, as follows:
    1. The dissertation may be printed from type and published in book form.
    2. The dissertation may be published as an article or series of articles in a scholarly journal.
    3. The dissertation may be reproduced by an offset process approved by the Dean of the Graduate Faculties.
  2. BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the sense of the Faculty that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting data which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.
  3. BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty, realizing that in the past insufficient attention has sometimes been paid to a student’s choice of subject, resulting in the necessity of the preparation of a manuscript of unreasonable length, calls attention to the need for considering the scope of the task when a topic for a dissertation receives its preliminary approval.
  4. BE IT RESOLVED, that the next available edition of the Bulletin of the Faculty include the first resolution on this subject stated abo e, setting forth the three options, and that in the Bulletin this be followed by a paragraph substantially as follows:

The departmental approval mentioned above relates to both the content of the dissertation and to the form in which it is printed. Students are therefore advised to consult their departmental representatives before exercising the option.

  1. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty authorize its Committee on Instruction to prepare a special leaflet for the benefit of candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, the leaflet to contain a full explanation of all the regulations on this subject.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 21, 1939) pp. 842-3, 845-846.

Image Source: Low Memorial Library, Columbia University from the Tichnor Brothers Collection, New York Postcards, at the Boston Public Library, Print Department.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists

Columbia. Major wave of economics appointments. Stigler, Polanyi, Hart, Nurkse, Bergson. 1947

 

The economics department of Columbia University could rightly boast of its bumper crop of faculty appointments for the 1947-48 academic year. I’ll be surprised if I ever come across a press release announcing a correspondingly large wave of resignations anywhere. However, it is not uncommon for members of rival departments to comment on the movement of colleagues from one department to another as the result of such movement raising the average in both departments. But no doubt, quite a proud moment for economics at Columbia.

_______________________________

Columbia University Press Release
August 28, 1947

Public Information Office
Columbia University
Morningside Heights
New York 27, N.Y.
———————–
Robert Harron, Director

Appointments of several noted scholars in the field of economics, effective with the new academic year, were announced yesterday (Wednesday) by Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, acting president of Columbia University.

Dr. George Joseph Stigler, who has been a member of the faculty of Brown University, has been appointed professor of economics. Dr. Stigler was graduated from the University of Washington in 1931, and received advanced degrees from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. He has held research positions with The National Resources Committee and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is the author of “Production and Distribution Theories: the Theory of Price.” [sic, actually two different books: Production and Distribution Theories, The Formative Period (1941) and The Theory of Price (Revised 1952)]

Dr. Karl Polanyi, former lecturer at Oxford, the University of London, and Bennington College, has been named as visiting professor of economics. Dr. Polanyi, who was born in Vienna and was from 1924 to 1934 on the staff of the “Oesterreichische Volkswirt”, then a leading financial weekly, has been a naturalized British citizen since 1940. In 1944 he wrote “The Great Transformation, [1944]” which attracted international attention. It is an analysis of free enterprise capitalism as it affects western society. He was at Columbia during the recent Spring Session.

Three who were visiting professors during the past year have accepted permanent status. They are Albert Gailord Hart, visiting professor of economics; Ragnar Nurkse, visiting professor of international economics, and Abram Bergson, visiting associate professor of economics.

Professor Hart was educated at Harvard and the University of Chicago, has taught at Iowa State and the University of Chicago, and has served as research economist for the Committee for Economic Development. He is the author of “Anticipations, Uncertainty, and Dynamic Planning,” “Debts and Recovery, 1929-1937,” “The Social Framework of the American Economy” (with J.R. Hicks) and, with collaborators, “Paying for Defense.”

Professor Nurkse, a native of Estonia, worked with the economic and financial section of the League of Nations and has had major responsibility for a number of its publications, notably the volume, “International Currency Experience.” He holds an advanced degree from the University of Edinburgh. His work will be largely in the School of International Affairs.

Professor Bergson, who came to Columbia a year ago as a member of the Russian Institute staff, was trained at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, and has taught at the University of Texas. During the war he served with the office of Strategic Services as Chief of the Economic Subdivision, U.S.S.R. Division. He was also consultant on Russian financial questions to the Department of State and a member of the U.S. Reparations Delegations to the Moscow and Potsdam conferences.

Newly appointed to the department, whose executive officer is Professor Carter Goodrich, are Lawrence Abbott, a graduate of Harvard who has taught at Hotchkiss School, and Aaron W. Warner, former instructor in labor law at the University of Denver. Mr. Abbott will be an instructor in Columbia College. Mr. Warner will be in charge of economics in the School of General Studies.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Historical Subject Files, Series I: Academics and Research,  Box 23, Folder 5 “Economics, Dept. of, 1915—”.

Image Source: George Stigler (left) at the 1947 Mt. Pelerin Society meeting from the Milton Friedman Papers at the Hoover Institution Archives. Karl Polanyi (1947)  (right) picture found multiple times on webpages without attribution.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Economics Programs Harvard Yale

Columbia. Plans for Graduate Classes and Creation of a School for Civil Service Preparation. Burgess, 1880

 

In the beginning was the pitch. On June 7, 1880 the Board of Trustees of Columbia College passed resolutions to establish the School of Political Science (within which the field of political economy was embedded). The School of Political Science would open for students beginning with the 1880-1881 academic year. The pitch and plan for a “School of Preparation for the Civil Service” of February 1880 by the School of Political Science founder John W. Burgess  is transcribed below.

From this document is clear that in Burgess’  initial vision the principal mission of the future Faculty of Political Science would be to “prepare young men for the duties of public life”. So one can think of the ancestor faculty from which today’s department of economics at Columbia University descended was actually a School of Public Policy in which History, Law, and Philosophy constituted the supporting disciplinary pillars. 

__________________________

OUTLINE OF A PLAN
FOR THE
INSTRUCTION of GRADUATE CLASSES
FOR THE
EXTENSION OF THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM OF STUDY
IN THE
UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENT.
AND FOR THE CREATION OF
A SCHOOL OF PREPARATION
FOR THE
CIVIL SERVICE

Macgowan & Slipper, Printers, 30 Beekman Street, New York.

__________________________

COLUMBIA COLLEGE

GRADUATE INSTRUCTION, AND THE EXTENSION OF
THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM

To the Committee of Trustees of Columbia College on the Course and Statutes:

GENTLEMEN: The circumstances of the College are at length such as to make it possible to provide for giving instruction of a more advanced character than is required in the undergraduate classes. This is an object which many members of the Board of Trustees have long esteemed to be desirable, and of which the accomplishment has been regarded as only a question of time. Educational institutions of a nominally superior order are numerous enough in our country, but those which possess any just claim to be considered fountains of really high learning are as yet comparatively few. The country has, nevertheless, need of such institutions, as is made evident by the yearly increasing numbers of American youth who resort for the completion of their education to the Universities of the Old World. Such institutions will accordingly be erected, but it is hardly to be expected that they will be built from the ground up, on new and independent foundations. They will rather be developed out of existing institutions already well established, well endowed, and possessed of instrumentalities in actual operation, adequate, with some modification of the mode of their application, to accomplish the new and higher work proposed, without interfering with their present usefulness, or materially increasing the burden of their maintenance. The number of educational institutions in our country capable of such development is not at present great, nor is it important that it should be. It is far from being desirable, in the interest of the higher education itself, that universities (employing the term in the commonly accepted sense) should be numerous relatively either to the population or to the schools of lower grade. It is, on the other hand, vastly preferable that they should be few, strong, and largely attended, rather than many and, as an almost necessary consequence, ill-supported and feeble.

Circumstances already very distinctly indicate certain of the educational institutions of our country as destined inevitably to occupy this higher grade. There are others, doubtless, which will yet be added to the number, whose destiny is at present less clearly manifest; but as to these few there can be no possibility of mistake. Among the conditions which will aid in determining the future of these institutions is, of course, the present possession of adequate financial strength; but another, which is of nearly equal importance, is geographical position. Many reasons conspire to make the city of New York the fittest place on this continent for the growth of an educational institution of the highest order. It is not merely because of its superior population or its superior wealth that it possesses this advantage. It is because here are gradually concentrating themselves, in the most marked degree, all the most important accessories to mental cultures, all that most strikingly illustrates the triumphs of the human intellect in science, in letters, and in the arts of civilized life. And it is because in the ebb and flow of the vast human ocean which overspreads the continent, this city is the point toward which the currents of the population are continually tending, or from which they are retiring; and this is therefore, the point in which knowledge may be most conveniently sought, and from which it may be most easily diffused.

Columbia College occupies this very favorable position. It has already an honorable and well-earned reputation. It has around it a large body of Alumni interested in its prosperity, zealous for the promotion of its usefulness, and occupying, many of them, positions of influence in the social and political world. It has gathered together the most important of the instrumentalities necessary to the efficiency of instruction, or to the aid of literary research or scientific investigation. It has built up professional schools which, in there several specialties, take easily precedence of all others of their class in the United States. Its several faculties embrace men accomplished as scholars, thoroughly versed in the various departments of science, and profoundly learned in history, philosophy, and the law. What it needs to give it the character of a true university is to open its doors to aspirants for knowledge, who are seeking, not, as at present in the undergraduate department, knowledge in its mere rudiments, nor, as in the professional schools, knowledge for its immediately useful applications, but knowledge in the largest sense—knowledge pursued for its own sake, or to qualify the learner to contribute on his own part to the intellectual progress of the race.

To aspirants of this class opportunities may be offered for instruction in a great variety of subjects, without any addition, not demanded in the interest of the undergraduate department alone, to the present educational staff. To this end it is only necessary to adopt the simple expedient of distribution the hours of instruction over a larger portion of the day than they now occupy. According to the existing arrangement, all instruction is given within the limited space of three hours daily, and these are filled up with the exercises of the undergraduate classes. It is true, that within this limit it frequently happens that officers have unemployed hours; but these are not so distributed as to permit the arrangement of a working system of graduate instruction. To make such a system practicable, it is necessary that the subjects which a student may desire to combine should be taught at different hours. And this condition cannot be fulfilled without scattering the exercises over the greater part of the day. This is what is done in the School of Mines, in which all the hours from nine or ten o’clock in the morning till four or five in the afternoon are made available in one form or another for purposes of instruction.

But this expedient, while it provides that instruction shall be going on at every hour in one department or another, involves to the individual student the consequence that, between the hours in which he is engaged in class, there will occur other hours when he is without any scholastic exercise to employ him. During these hours it is proper that he should be occupied in study; and so he might be presumed to be were his residence in every instance within easy distance from the College. The institutions which provide lodgings for their students upon their own grounds find no difficulty in this matter. At Harvard University, for instance, exercises occur at every hour from nine till five; but the students, when not under instruction, are expected to study in their rooms. Since students with us have no private rooms, and are, in general, too distant from their homes to study there, the distribution of time proposed would hardly be judicious or just unless provision should be at the same time made for usefully employing the hours intervening between class duties. In the School of Mines abundant occupation for these hours is found in drawing, laboratory work, or practice in the use of tools and instruments. For the undergraduates it would be necessary to provide study rooms, to be used by students in common, by setting apart for the purpose some portion of the buildings not as yet otherwise assigned. The upper floor of the recently-erected building is entirely suitable to this object, and is quite sufficient. It is not needed for any present college uses, nor for any likely to arise so long as the old building continues to stand; and it is very evident that that building cannot be demolished until another shall have been erected somewhere else. Its demolition would necessitate the provision of other accommodations for the great variety of operations now going on in it; and though such might be found for the physical department in the new building, yet, for the Herbarium, for the classes in French, German, Mechanical Engineering, and Descriptive Geometry, for the operations of air and water analysis, for the library overflow, the gymnasium, etc., etc., no adequate space could be found there disposable. The future wants of the institution, for which the remaining floor of the new building is presumably held in reserve, will, therefore, undoubtedly be provided for in some manner not likely to interfere with any present disposition which may be made of that floor; and hence the devotion of that now unoccupied space to the uses of a study room cannot on that account be regarded as objectionable.

Supposing this arrangement to be adopted, it is easy, without adding to the number of our instructors, to plan a system of instruction for graduates which shall embrace reading or lecture courses in the Classics, English Literature, Anglo-Saxon, Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, Physiological Psychology, Political Science, Public Economy, History, the Higher Mathematics, Mechanics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and certain branches of Natural History, to occupy, on an average, not less than two hours weekly each. There can be no doubt that, when this system shall have been fully inaugurated, the number of students attracted by it will so far add to the revenues of the College as to justify the appointment of additional instructors on subjects not included in the above enumeration, such as Foreign Literature, Hebrew, Oriental Literature, Comparative Philology, Ethnology, Archæology, Natural History in its various ramifications, Animal and Vegetable Physiology, Methods of Research in Physics and Chemistry, Physical Astronomy, Architecture and the Fine Arts, and any others which may be necessary to make the institution a school of universal knowledge.

For the purpose of illustrating the practicability of carrying the proposed plan into effect without interfering with the undergraduate course already in operation, an ideal scheme of attendance is annexed to this communication, showing a distribution of the subjects of instruction to the hours of each day throughout the week, by means of which the convenience of instructors, as well of students, both graduate and undergraduate, may be satisfactorily provided for.

ENLARGEMENT OF THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM FOR UNDERGRADUATES.

An advantage incidental to the distribution of the hours of instruction over the entire day will be the opportunity it affords for giving to the students of the undergraduate department a greater liberty of option than they at present enjoy in the selection of their studies. It appears to the undersigned that the collegiate course for the student of our day cannot properly he made so severely a course of mere mental discipline as it was judicious to make it in the last century, or even during the earlier years of the present. The average age of our graduates is that of fully grown men. The age of the applicant for admission, a century ago, ranged from ten to fourteen years. The four years of college life embraced at that time the period of gradual mental as well as of physical development and growth; and it was eminently proper that the studies enforced upon the learner should be adapted rather to train the faculties than to inform the mind. At present this period is spent mainly in the preparatory schools, and it is in them that this work of mental gymnastics should be chiefly carried on. The end of college instruction is not merely to discipline, but also to inform; and since men differ no less in their mental than in their personal characteristics, it follows that different individuals do not acquire the same kind of knowledge with equal facility, nor are they equally profited by it. This provision of nature is one of great and beneficial importance to the progress of the race; for inasmuch as it is impossible that any one shall be proficient in all departments of human knowledge, the fact that each seeks spontaneously some special field insures the certainty that every such field will be energetically explored.

It seems, therefore, to be proper that at that period of comparative maturity at which young men begin to be conscious of their fitness for some particular pursuit or vocation, and desirous to acquire the knowledge most likely to be advantageous in following it, they should be allowed, to a pretty large extent, to select their subjects of study from among those which are in harmony with their tastes and aspirations. That public opinion in the social and the educational world recognizes this propriety is manifest in the flourishing condition of the institutions in which the elective system of study has been largely developed, and in the rapidity with which those institutions have grown in popular favor. In our own College the introduction of this system on an extended scale has been hitherto impracticable, for the same reasons which have made it impossible to provide for the instruction of graduates; yet the results of the limited trial of it which we have made have been altogether favorable.

The introduction of the elective system, however, in its largest latitude, does not by any means imply the necessity of discarding the system which at present exists. If there should be any who prefer still to cling to traditions, they may enter themselves from the beginning for the course of study prescribed for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in our statutes as they stand, and follow the same undeviatingly to the end. Degrees in Arts may be reserved to be conferred on such only; while those who prefer the optional course may be graduated as Bachelors of Letters or Bachelors of Science, according to the character of the studies which they chiefly pursue.

The adoption of a scheme of study largely elective would not necessarily require an increase in the number of instructors employed. As it is true, however, that, in such a system, the modern languages ought pretty fully to enter, it would be advisable to add to our present corps, a tutor in Italian and a tutor in Spanish. As to the French, arrangements could probably be made by which the instructor in that language in the School of Mines would teach also in the College; and for the German, we have already a professor who has hitherto given instruction in his proper department only under circumstances of serious embarrassment, and who would find the proposed change advantageous to his usefulness.

An ideal scheme of attendance accompanying this communication shows in what manner the exercises may be arranged so that students pursuing elective courses may attend along with candidates for degrees in Arts, so far as the subjects of study of these two classes of students are identical. Another appended paper shows the variety of particular courses of study which may be offered in the several departments indicated only by general titles in the scheme of attendance. In this latter paper are embraced some titles which do not fall within the special province of any of our present instructors; such as Hebrew Sanskrit, the Evidences of Religion, Anatomy, Physiology, and the principles of the Common Law.

In regard to the Evidences, there is no doubt that, under the voluntary system, the Trustees would think it advisable to reestablish the course; since with the abandonment of the principle of compulsion would disappear the reasons which have led to its discontinuance heretofore.

As to Anatomy and Physiology, arrangements could be made not involving any considerable expense, with Professors of the Medical School, to give annual courses adapted to the wants of the general learner, of great interest and value, though not extending to more than ten or twelve lectures each. A brief course of similar extent, upon the principles of the Common Law, could be given by our principal Law professor, embracing information highly important to educated men, but not now easily obtain able except in professional schools. Such a course used to be given to the Seniors at Yale College during the lifetime of the late Judge Daggett, which was always fully attended, though attendance was merely voluntary.

As to Sanskrit, a language occupying every year more and more the attention of scholars everywhere, there would be very little difficulty. Some of our own recent Alumni have already honorably distinguished themselves in this interesting study. One of our Fellows in Letters of the Class of 1878, now pursuing his studies at the University at Leipzig, had made himself by his own private and independent efforts a proficient in Sanskrit literature before his graduation, and since entering upon the course at Leipzig has received signal marks of approval and consideration from the professor in that department there. Another, of the Class of 1875, after completing his course of study abroad, has returned to this country bringing flattering testimonials to his attainments in general scholarship, and especially as to his proficiency in this particular branch. This young man, or some other similarly qualified, could be appointed to fill one of the new tutorships which it will presently become necessary to create in Greek or Latin in our College, and could be engaged at the same time to take charge of the instruction of any class which might be formed in Sanskrit. Considering that the condition of things is such in College at present as to make it impossible any longer to defer increasing the number of subordinate officers, it may be regarded as a happy concurrence of circumstances which enables us by the same act to provide a competent instructor in a subject in which as yet in this country the proficients are few.

All the subjects, however, for which instructors cannot be found among the members of our present Faculties, unless the modern languages be excepted, may be omitted, if necessary, from our scheme, till the success of the measure shall permit them to be provided for without adding to the burdens of the treasury.

PREPARATION OF YOUNG MEN FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE.

Since the passage of the resolution in regard to graduate classes, now before the Committee, a plan has been proposed for establishing, in addition to the special schools connected with the College already in existence, a new one of an original character, designed to meet what is believed to be a want of the present time, by preparing young men to engage intelligently in the service of the government. Though as yet in our country the civil and consular service has not been securely placed beyond the control of influences purely political, the popular sentiment manifests itself more and more strongly every year in favor of such a separation, and enough has been already accomplished to make it evident that, at least in the lower ranks of this service, proper qualification and the personal merit of the aspirant are likely hereafter to carry with them more weight in the competition for office than political favor. Even, moreover, should the so-called Civil Service reform receive a check, the course of instruction which it is proposed to give in the new school would still prove attractive to young men who desire to fit themselves to deal with questions of public interest, whether in professional life, or as politicians, or as managers of public journals. A school of a character similar to this has for several years been in successful operation in Paris, and counts among its teachers some of the most eminent publicists of France.

The proposition referred to proceeds from our Professor of Political Science, and is set forth in its details in a letter addressed by him to the undersigned, which is given below. As the proposed school involves the question of both graduate and undergraduate instruction, its consideration falls within the scope of the resolution referred to the Committee. An ideal scheme of attendance hereto appended shows in what manner the exercises of this course may be combined with those of the graduate and undergraduate classes, so that each may be accessible, if desired, to the students of the others.

In order that this project may be carried into effect, it would be necessary to appoint, within the next two years, two additional instructors, at salaries of $2,500 each. Within the same period the number of students entering for the course might reasonably be computed at not less than fifty, and would probably be greater. It would conduce very much to the success of the undertaking that the Law School should be removed from its present situation and united with the other departments upon the same ground, though that need not be regarded as in dispensable.

Following the letter of Professor Burgess below, will be found, marked A, a succinct résumé of the essential features of the plan herein recommended, and also of that of the proposed School of Preparation for the Civil Service, marked B. Also, marked C, an estimate of the probable effect upon revenue and expenditure of the adoption of these projects; and finally, an enumeration, marked D, of the subjects of the several courses of instruction which the proposed plan will embrace. The hypothetical schemes of daily attendance referred to above are presented separately.

All which is respectfully submitted,

F. A. P. BARNARD, President.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, February 25, 1880.

__________________________

LETTER OF PROFESSOR BURGESS TO THE PRESIDENT.

323 West 57th St., Feb. 20th, 1880.

My Dear Dr. Barnard:

It seems to me evident that the time has now fairly arrived, both in the history of this nation and of this University, when a decisive step forward in the development of the political sciences is positively and specially demanded.

In the history of the nation it is so, not only because the Republic has now reached those mighty proportions demanding the finest training, as well as the finest talent, for the successful management of its affairs, but because the Government itself has recognized this fact, and in its Civil Service reforms, which, I think, are now fairly planted and destined, under the proper influences, to a noble growth, has opened the way for an honorable career to the young men of the nation in the governmental service, which may be successfully pursued by the best intelligence, skill, and fidelity, offering itself without any reference to political influence or patronage.

In the history of the University it is so, not only because it is the bounden duty of a university, worthy the name, to teach all that has been gathered by the world’s experience in this as well as all other departments of superior knowledge, and to add continually thereto, but because, also, of its metropolitan situation, which fits it better than any other in the nation, both to place its students in immediate connection with the Civil Service examinations, so far as they now exist, and to exert its influence with greatest efficacy for the extension of the same throughout every branch of that service, as the indispensable condition of appointment to governmental office, and because I think I may assert that the foundation is now already fairly laid in our University for the development which I now propose.

The elements of the plan which I would suggest are, in outline, as follows:

I

The course of study shall extend over a period of three years, and comprise the following subjects:

FIRST YEAR.— The History of Philosophy; The History of the Literature of the Political Sciences; The General Constitutional History of Europe; The Special Constitutional History of England and of the United States.

SECOND YEAR.— The Roman Law—the general principles of the jurisprudence of the existing codes derived therefrom; The Comparative Constitutional Law of the Principal European States and of the United States; The Comparative Constitutional Law of the Different Commonwealths of the American Union.

THIRD YEAR.— History of Diplomacy; International Law; Systems of Administration, both of the Nation and the Commonwealths in the American Union; The Comparison of the Administrative System of the United States with those of the principal European States; Political Economy in all its Branches, and Statistics.

II.

The requirements for admission to this department shall be:

FIRST.— The completion, successfully, of the Junior Year in any regular college of the United States; or—

SECOND.—The passing of a successful examination upon all  the studies of the first three years of the Academic Department of this University; and—

THIRDLY. — Including therein, in either case, a fair reading knowledge of the French and German languages.

III.

The degree conferred, upon the completion of all the courses and after successful examination therein, shall be that of A.M., Ph.D.; and if, in addition to the courses in this department, the student shall have received the degree of LL.B., either from the Law School of this University or from any other School of Municipal Law in good standing, the degree shall be that of D.C.L. For the students of a single year’s standing the degree will be that of A.B.

IV.

The fee for instruction in this department shall be the same in amount as is paid by undergraduates. But members of the Senior Class in the Academic Department of the University may attend the courses of the first year, and members of the School of Law may attend any or all of the courses free.

Finally, my dear Doctor, I would add that, in my opinion, this plan can be now realized without much, if any, additional expense to the Treasury of the University. When in complete running order it will require the appointment of two assistants to the Professor now in charge of the department — one for the courses in Roman Law and its branches, the other for the courses upon the administrative systems of Europe and the United States. I am confident that two fit persons, both graduates of the Law Department of this University, and now about finishing their courses of special study upon these topics in European universities — the one at Berlin and the other at the Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques in Paris–can be secured at salaries of $2,500 each per annum; and if one of these should be appointed, his office and salary to take effect from October 1st, 1881, and the other from October 1st, 1882, I fully believe that the receipts from the fees of students in the department would be sufficient to cover one, if not both, of these salaries, and in five years from this time would be a source of revenue to the Treasury. I am informed that in the city of New York  alone fifty or more vacancies occur every year in the Civil Service of the United States, from death, resignation, or inability to serve; and that, through the present method of Civil Service examinations, fifty or more appointments are therefore annually made to offices having salaries of from $1,200 to $5,000; and I feel assured that the institution of learning which shall first seize the opportunity for establishing among its departments a school of training for the Civil Service of the National Government, will not only increase its own prestige and be a national benefactor, but will also reap no mean financial reward therefrom.

Trusting that these suggestions may meet your favor and support,

I am, as ever, your most obedient servant,

JOHN W. BURGESS.

President F. A. P. BARNARD, LL.D.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

(A.)

PLAN FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF GRADUATE CLASSES, AND FOR THE EXTENSION OR THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM IN THE UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENT.

1.—Scholastic exercises to be distributed over all the hours of the day from 9½ A.M. till 4 P.M. from Monday to Friday inclusive, and from 9½ till 11 on Saturday.

2.—Every student to be under instruction in class for three hours each day till Saturday, and for two hours on Saturday.

3.—Students, when not under class instruction, to be occupied in study in rooms set apart for the purpose.

4.—A recess of half an hour to be allowed at mid-day for lunch.

DEGREES.

1.—If no modification of the course of instruction or no enlargement of its scope be made, the only degree conferred at the close of the four years’ course to be the degree of Bachelor of Arts.

2.—Should the course be enlarged and liberty of option be increased, the degrees of Bachelor of Letters and Bachelor of Science to be also given.

3.—The course leading to the degree in Arts to remain unchanged, consisting as at present of a prescribed curriculum up to the close of the Junior year, and of a partially elective course during the Senior.

4.—For degrees in Letters and Science, the course to be identical with the course in Arts during the Freshman year, and to embrace as obligatory during the subsequent years all the subjects of that course in the departments of English Literature, History, and Political Science, occupying six hours in the Sophomore year per week; five hours in the Junior, and four hours in the Senior. The remaining hours up to seventeen per week to be occupied by elective studies. The degree in Letters to be conferred on those who choose as electives the Languages, Ancient or Modern, Literature, Psychology, and Philosophy; and the degree in Science on those who choose principally the Mathematics, Physics, Mechanics, Astronomy, and Chemistry. Specific regulations in regard to this subject to be made by the Faculty, with the approval of the Trustees.

INSTRUCTION TO GRADUATES

1.—Instruction to be given to graduates of this and of other Colleges who desire to fit themselves for literary or scientific work not professional; as for authorship, historical or philological research, scientific investigation, etc.

2.—Special courses of instruction adapted to the wants of such graduates to be arranged in the departments of Greek, Latin, Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Philosophy, Political Science, Natural History, and the Modern Languages. Only such courses to be attempted at present as can be conducted without materially increasing the staff of instructors.

3.—Notice to be publicly given before the close of the present academic year of the purpose to institute courses for graduates, with specification of such as may be commenced in October, 1880.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

(B.)

SCHOOL OF PREPARATION FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE, DIPLOMACY, AND THE EDITORIAL PROFESSION.

1.—A School to be instituted with a definitely prescribed curriculum of instruction, designed to prepare young men for public life, whether in the Civil Service at home or abroad, or in

the legislatures of the States or of the nation; and also to fit young men for the duties and responsibilities of public journalists.

2.—Students of our own College, or of other Colleges in good standing, who have completed with credit the undergraduate course up to the close of the Junior year, to be allowed to enter themselves as students in this School.

3.—The course of instruction to extend over three years.

4.—At the close of the first year, the student, on passing an approved examination, to be entitled to the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy.

5.—At the end of the course, the student who passes all his examinations with approval, to be recommended to the Trustees for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

6.—Students of this School to be permitted to attend such exercises of the Graduate or Undergraduate department as their time will allow, the approval of the Professors in the School being first obtained.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

(C.)

PROBABLE EFFECT ON REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEME.

I.—EXPENDITURE.

It must, in the first place, be considered that the exigencies of the College will require, whether this plan be adopted or not, the appointment, in anticipation of the opening of the ensuing academic year, of an additional tutor in Greek, of one in Latin, and of one also in Mathematics. This will involve an increase of annual expenditure not to be charged to the present project, of $3.600.

For the supervision of students in their study rooms it will be expedient to appoint two Proctors at salaries of one thousand dollars each per annum. It is probable that this amount might be reduced by arranging that Tutors may act as Proctors.

The department of Modern Languages, in regard to which our College is now deplorably deficient, would require the appointment of an instructor in Italian, and an instructor in Spanish, who might probably be engaged for about $1,300 per annum each. The instructor in French of the School of Mines would probably be willing, for a slight increase of compensation, to take charge of the French classes in College also.

These comprise all the additions to our annual outlay which it seems to be necessary at present to make. Summed up they are as follows:

Two Superintendents of study rooms $2,000
Two Instructors in Modern Languages $3,000
Increase of salary of Instructor in French $500
Total $5,500

II.—REVENUE.

The tuition fee now charged in the Undergraduate Department is less by fifty dollars per annum than that which is charged at Harvard College or at the University of Pennsylvania. It seems fitting that, in so largely increasing the advantages offered to students here, we should make our charges equal at least to what they are elsewhere. To increase the fee from $100 to $150 per annum would not diminish the number of our undergraduate students, and hence, even should the new attractions fail to add to our numbers, the effect of this measure would be to add $10,000 to our annual revenue.

It may, however, be safely estimated that, before two years shall have passed under the new system, we shall have at least twenty graduate students, and that the number of undergraduates will be more than equally increased. The following, then, are the items of the probable increase of revenue, viz.:

From increase of tuition fee $10,000
From graduate students (say 20) $3,000
From increased number of undergraduates (say 20 also) $3,000
Total $16,000

The probability, therefore, is that the adoption of the plan, if accompanied as it should be with a simultaneous increase of the tuition fee, will tend to enlarge rather than diminish the annual balance in the treasury.

If, now, we consider the further effect of the establishment of the proposed new school of preparation for the Civil Service, we shall have to add to the annual outlay the amount of the salaries of two Instructors or Adjunct Professors, one in Roman Law and one in Administrative Law, each of $2,500. On the other hand, we may safely count on attracting to this school, in the course of the next two or three years, at least fifty students—a number likely afterward largely and rapidly to increase. We may assume, then, at the end of the second year, something like the following, viz.:

I.—EXPENDITURE.

Total as above $5,500
Salaries of two instructors $5,000
Total $10,500

 

II. REVENUE.

Total as above $16,000
Fees of fifty students $7,500
Total $23,500

Leaving a probable balance in favor of the treasury of $13,000 per annum.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

(D.)

COURSES OF STUDY.

The subjects or authors herein enumerated as for undergraduates, are in general those taught during the academic year 1878-9. In the classical departments these are liable to be changed from year to year. Should the proposed plan be adopted, every course not marked as obligatory will be open for election to all undergraduates above the Freshman grade, without regard to year.

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK.

1.— Iliad or Odyssey, one term 3 hours per week
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.— Herodotus, one term
3.—The Odyssey 2 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Voluntary.
4.—Aristophanes and minor poets 2 hours,
Sophomores,
Voluntary.
5.—Euripides, one term 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Elective.
6.—The Memorabilia, one term
7.—Sophocles, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective
8.—Plato, one term
9.—Æschylus, one term 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective
10.—Demosthenes, one term
11.—(To be announced annually in advance) 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
12.—(To be announced annually in advance) 1 hour per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF LATIN.

1.—Pliny 3 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Horace, one term 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Elective.
3.—Livy, one term
4.—Juvenal, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective
5.—Cicero De Officiis, one term
6.—Terence, one term 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective
7.—Catullus, one term
8.—(To be announced annually in advance) 2 hours per week,
Graduates,
Elective.
9.—(To be announced annually in advance) 1 hour per week,
Graduates,
Elective.

 

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS.

1.—Geometry, one term 5 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Algebra, one term
3.—Curves of Second Order, one term 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Elective.
4.—Trigonometry, Mensuration and Surveying, one term
5.—Differential and Integral Calculus 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective
6.—Calculus of Variations 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
7.—Quaternions 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICS AND ASTRONOMY.

1—Analytical Geometry, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective.
2.—Mechanics, one term
3.—Astronomy 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
4.—Practical Astronomy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
5.—Spherical Astronomy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
6.—Analytic Mechanics 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
7.—Physical Astronomy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS.

1.—Elementary Physics 2 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Heat and Electricity 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective.
3.—Optics and Acoustics 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
4.—Mathematical Physics 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
5.—Methods of Physical Research 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY.

1.—Elementary Chemistry 1 hour per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Theoretic Chemistry 2 hours per week,
Sophomores or Seniors,
Elective.
3.—Applied Chemistry 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective.
4.—Organic Chemistry 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
5.—Methods of Chemical Research 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY.

1.—Logic 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
2.—Psychology 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Obligatory.
3.—Philosophy 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
4.—Physiological Psychology 1 hour per week,
Graduates.
5.—History of Philosophy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LITERATURE.

1.—Rhetoric 3 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—History of Literature 2 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Obligatory.
3.—English Classics 1 hour per week,
Sophomores,
Obligatory.
4.—Logic 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
5.—English Classics 1 hour per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
6.—The Early English Authors 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE MODERN LANGUAGES.

1a.— French, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
1b.—Course of French Literature
2a.— German, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
2b.— Course of German Literature
3a.— Italian, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
3b.— Italian Literature 1 hour per week each,
Graduates or Undergraduates.
4a.— Spanish, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
4b.— Spanish Literature 1 hour per week each,
Graduates or Undergraduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.

1.—Outlines of General History 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Obligatory.
2.—History of England and the United States, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
—Political Economy, one term
3.—Political Economy and Statistics 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Obligatory,and School of Civil Service.
4.—British and American Constitutional history 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Obligatory.
5.—General Constitutional History 3 hours per week,

School of Civil Service.

6.—Literature of Political Science 1 hours per week,
3 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.
—Comparison of Constitutional law of Europe and the United States
7.—Systems of Administration 3 hours per week,
2 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.
—Comparison of Constitutional Differences of the American States
8.—Comparison of Systems of Administration 5 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.

 

ROMAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

1.—Roman Law 3 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.
2.—International Law 3 hours per week,

School of Civil Service.

 

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY.

1.— General Geology 1 hour per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
2.— Palæontology 1 hour per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
3.— Lithological Geology, first term 3 hours per week,
with School of Mines.
4.— Cosmical and Historical Geology, second term 3 hours per week,
with School of Mines.
5.— Economical Geology 2 hours per week, through the year
with School of Mines.

 

NATURAL HISTORY.

Botany, first term 2 hours per week,
with School of Mines.
Zoology 1 hour per week, throughout the year
with School of Mines.
Vegetable Physiology, Animal Physiology, Anatomy—Human and Comparative To be provided for.
Mineraology and Crystallography 2 hours per week,
with School of Mines.

 

LAW.

1.— Outlines of British Common Law Ten lectures.

 

SEMITIC AND ORIENTAL LANGUAGES.

Hebrew 2 hours per week,
To be provided for.
Sanskrit 2 hours per week,
To be provided for.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Historical Subject Files, Series I: Academics and Research/Series VIII: Events/I. Box 289. Folder 1 “Political Science, Faculty of, 1920s-1930s”.

Image Source: John W. Burgess, from the Columbia University, Department of History webpage: A Short History of the Department of History.

 

Categories
Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Harvard Michigan Popular Economics Yale

“Political Economy and the Civil War” by Laughlin that provoked an Economist-Bashing editorial, 1885

Before becoming the founding father of the department of political economy at the University of Chicago, the 35 year old Harvard assistant professor J. Laurence Laughlin (Harvard Ph.D. 1876) published an essay, transcribed below, arguing that liberal college education needed to be expanded beyond Greek, Latin, mathematics, and philosophy to include courses dealing with economic theory and its policy applications. He provides us a table of the limited course offerings in political economy at five major colleges/universities at the time. I stumbled upon an unsigned editorial written in response to Laughlin that I have also transcribed and which is placed at the end of this post. The editorial provides us with historical evidence that ill-tempered economics-bashing is hardly a creation of the Twitternet Age. No siree Bob! The editor was not amused by Laughlin’s presumption, calling him and his college professor colleagues who taught political economy to boys…”vealy milksops”. I dare any or all visitors to sneak that expression into a footnote.

________________________________

POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE CIVIL WAR.
By J. Laurence Laughlin.

Atlantic Monthly, v. 55 (April, 1885) no. 330, pp. 444-450.

In some parts of our country there is a current maxim among the old-fashioned gardeners to the effect that “a wind-shaken tree will bear much fruit.” There is some subtle force in it. In fact, it is an expression which may be regarded as finding its parallel in individual and social life. As individuals, we know that there is no real growth of character except by a conquest over opposing difficulties; the doing right when it is against our inclinations and prejudices. And in a social organism we seem to see a moral law of conservation of energy by which a sacrifice is the parent of some gain,— a thing which evidently underlies the movements attending many great convulsions in political life. We saw armies go out of our sight during the civil war, only to come back thinned, injured by disease, with half their number left dead on the field. Death meant bitter, indescribable sorrow in all our homes. The experiences of the war were felt to be pitiless, inexplicable, and hard. And yet, perhaps, a subtle suggestion may have come into our minds that it was not simply by dying, or in living, that the best law of our being was enforced; that there was, in truth, some Power behind it all; that some purpose was being worked out through each one of us, just as each leaf on the tree, for example, is necessary to the completed organism of the whole tree, and ceases to be when it is separated from the stem. Now, perhaps, even at this short distance from the struggle, we can begin to see some of the effects of that social and political upheaval, the greatest since the foundation of our government. It is worth while to examine whether the wind shaken tree has borne much fruit.

The process by which citizens from the secluded districts and remote towns were sent through new cities to opposite parts of the Union, exchanging ideas with men of different habits of thought, was a marked feature of the war period, and leavened the mental life of the American people in a way hither to little suspected. It was something like sending a country boy to college, only the effect was multiplied a million times. The rural population came into a knowledge of our cities, while the urban classes were carried out into new climates and into unvisited parts of our vast domain. New sights, new methods of cultivation, different habits of living, stimulated the dull and fired the active and enterprising men in the ranks. The life of the farm and the village was widened to an interest in the nation. About the same time, moreover, came a vast increase in easy means of communication by railways and a greater extension of the use of the newspaper and telegraph, by which provincial towns were brought into direct connection with the outside world. Even oddities of customs and dress began to disappear, in the process of comparison with the more attractive ways of the dwellers in the great cities and towns. In this fashion, the thinking horizon was extended. Dull intellects learned the presence of complicated problems, and brighter minds found new spurs to ambition in the questions of larger interest. On all sides men felt themselves coming daily into contact with new difficulties, under a dim consciousness of their bigness, but with a strong belief that the knowledge how to deal with them was inadequate. In short, the tremendous crisis through which we passed, apart from its effect on the preservation of the Union, has been subtly at work in moral and intellectual directions. The working of these new forces on a quick and susceptible race can easily be imagined. They have, in fact, under somewhat similar conditions, had a distinct influence on a more phlegmatic people than ours. Old students at Göttingen, who have returned to the university since the late wars in which Germany has been engaged, have been amazed to find the old-fashioned spot — where the customs, habits, and naive simplicity of one hundred years ago had prevailed until quite recently — now wholly changed. The commercial spirit has seized the formerly simple-minded peasants, and the quiet town now hears the heavy march of cosmopolitanism in its streets.

Like Germany, the United States had new problems to solve. While the conflict closed the long slavery struggle, it brought with it intricate questions, but of a character very different from those which had gone before. Without warning, and consequently without the ability to get due preparation or acquire proper training, our public men were confronted, as the war progressed, with matters of vital importance in international and constitutional law, in taxation, and in every form of administration and finance. The demand for men who had given themselves more particularly to the province of governmental science was an imperative one; but it was, generally speaking, met in a way which showed that there existed in the community a class from whom these necessary men could be recruited. That class was the legal profession of the country. The questions of reconstruction, the relation of the general government to the States, the civil rights of the negro, our relations with foreign powers during the blockade of Southern ports, were not abandoned to men who had never habituated themselves to discussions such as were involved in their settlement. There were differences of opinion, of course; but inasmuch as these differences of opinion were produced by different political theories, this proved that attention had been given to such subjects to the extent that a crystallized system of thought, formulated in dogmas, had been created by the various parties.

But, as has been suggested, new considerations arose. The magnitude of the military operations involved an enormous expenditure of money by the state, and made a demand upon our statesmen for financial skill of an almost unparalleled kind. To meet these extended questions of taxation, finance, and currency, what body of men could be called upon? To this, answer must be made that the war overtook us without a supply — or even a few — of trained economists and financiers. The economic part in the equipment of a public official had been wholly neglected. In fact, political economy and finance had never been seriously studied in the schools; but, if studied, they were classed in the old-fashioned required curriculum with Butler’s Analogy and the Evidences of Christianity. Although Adam Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations in 1776, political economy was an unknown science to the American people before 1860. It is an interesting study to examine the manner in which our people went under the burdens and tasks of our great civil conflict. There was the quick adaptability of Americans to start with; there was plenty of patriotism and good will, and no lack of those high qualities of self-sacrifice and heroism which are still fragrant to us; but lawyers, such as Chase and Fessenden, were practically our only financiers. Early in the war they were required to consider a scheme — for the right settlement of which a vast experience is necessary — of raising loans, and adjusting a plan of taxation corresponding to the extraordinary war expenses. Without considering alternatives, in a few years they created a debt as great as that incurred by old despotisms of Europe in centuries; without foresight, they drifted into a ruinous issue of irredeemable paper money; without intending it as the object of a definite policy, but through a desire simply to gain a war revenue, they established an extended system of “protection to home industries” by levying duties on imports, which has brought into existence business interests largely dependent on the continuance of these temporary war measures. When it is realized that principles of taxation are to-day probably less understood than any other branch of economics, it is not surprising to find that in 1864 Congress was occupied only five days in passing the most gigantic taxation measure of the war. The National Bank Act, which has given us the best system of banking ever enjoyed by the country, was, however, in reality passed as an act to facilitate the sale of our bonds and aid our tottering credit. We blundered egregiously, but we were capable of learning by experience. Yet it was from these very blunders, from this revelation of inexperience made evident by the demands of a great emergency period, that the community received an impetus toward the study of economic questions which was certain to result in good fruit.

In fact, it is now clear that a new interest in economics and finance has already arisen. The civil war was, so to speak, the creation of economic study in the United States. The war did for this country — in a different way, of course — even more than the corn-law agitation did for England. It actually gave birth to new motives for study. There never was a time in our history when there was so evident a desire to get light on the economic problems of the day as now. There is a new stir among the ranks of the young men at college; and the printing-press sends forth an increasing stream of new books upon subjects which are constantly discussed in the daily newspapers. There is unquestionably a new-born, slowly growing attention by the younger men of our land to the necessity (as well as the duty) of fitting themselves properly for the responsibilities of citizenship. If the war has given us this, — the absence of which used to be so often lamented a few years ago, — then may some of our sacrifices not have been in vain. The wind-shaking has resulted in abundant fruit.

In the present awakening in educational discussion, one phase of which has been called the “Greek Question,” it is worth while to notice the influence of the war period on the college curriculum. In most of our schools and universities, on the breaking out of the war (and even to the present day), the pecuniary resources and endowments had been tied down, under the force of old traditions, to supply instruction in the customary Greek, Latin, mathematics, and philosophy, which were then considered the only essentials of a liberal education. But when the rude shock of the war awakened us to our ignorance, and we looked around for the schools where the new studies could best be followed, it was discovered that the college curriculum made practically no provision for such instruction. In the old days when sailing vessels alone entered Boston harbor, only one channel was practicable, and all the fortifications were placed in a way to command it: but when steam took the place of sails, another channel was adopted, but it is now wholly undefended. The old ship channel must be defended, but so must the new one. So, in the collegiate studies, the old subjects are necessary, of course, but they are not the only necessary ones. The new demands, due to the progress of the age, must also be met. In fact, the response of the schools to these new demands is at once the evidence and result of the quickening and stimulating forces so briefly sketched in these pages. A comparison of the amount of instruction in political economy given by the principal institutions of the land in the years 1860, 1870, and 1884 will furnish us new proof that the wind-shaken tree is yielding full fruit.

Nothing could show more distinctly than the accompanying table how young any real systematic study of political economy is in this country, and it accounts for the lack of any number of trained economists among us. But the younger generation are happily recruiting their ranks, now that these better opportunities are open to them.

At no time, however, have public affairs demanded unpartisan study in economics more than to-day. In past centuries governments were supposed to labor, in an unsettled state of society, for the protection of life and property. Now that the general progress of civilization and Christianity has made life and liberty more secure, legislation in later years has concerned itself rather with property than life. In the Middle Ages trade was considered plebeian; to fight or to oppress was regarded as more noble. Now the chief solicitude of the modern state is the increase of wealth: the castles have become mills; retainers, productive laborers; and arms, the hammers and tools of the artisan.

1860.

1870.

1884.

Yale College. One third of Senior year One third of Senior Year 1.  Elementary Course. — Fawcett. — Discussions on currency, banking, and taxation. 3 hours a week for 13 weeks.
2.  Elementary Course. — Mill. — Currency, banking, and taxation. 2 hours a week for a year.
3.  Advanced Course. — Discussion of economic problems and fallacies, with selections from leading treatises. 2 hours a week for 20 weeks.
4.  Graduate Course. — Finance and the Art of Politics, as illustrated in the History of the United States. 2 hours a week for 2 years.
5.  Graduate Course (in alternate years.) — In 1883-4, Sociology. In 1884-5, Industrial History, History of Political Economy, Finance and Theory of Rights. 1 hour a week for each year.
6.  History, business methods, and social problems, of Railroads. 2 hours a week for a year.
[A course about equal to Courses 1 and 2 is given in the Sheffield Scientific School.]

Cornell University.

[Institution not founded]

One third of Junior Year

1. Elementary Course. — Lectures and Recitations. 2 hours a week 2/3 of a year.
2. Lectures on Political Economy.5 hours a week for 1/3 of a year.
3. Lectures on Finance.

University of Michigan.

Not in the Course of Study.

One Term of Senior Year.

1. Elementary Course. — Lectures. 3 hours a week ½ of a year.
2.  Advanced Course. — Competition, Free Trade and Protection, Commercial Depressions, Transportation, etc. 3 hours a week ½ of a year.
3.  Principles and Methods of Finance. — Banking, National Debts, etc. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
4.  History of Industrial Society [not given in 1883-4]. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
5.  Financial Seminary.— History of American Finance. 2 hours a week ½ of a year. [Not given 1883-4.]

Columbia College.

Elective in one part of Senior Year.

One Term of Senior Year.

1.  Principles of Political Economy.— Elementary Course. Rogers’ Manual. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
2. History of Politico-Economic Institutions. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
3.  Finance and Taxation. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
4.  Statistical Science, Methods and Results. 2 hours a week ½ a year.
5.  Communistic and Socialistic Theories. 2 hours a week ½ a year.
6.   [Topics like railways, banks etc., are placed under Administrative Law.]

Harvard University.

One half of Senior Year.

1. Rogers’ Manual One half of Junior Year 1. Elementary Course.— Mill’s Political Economy. Lectures on Banking and the Financial Legislation of the United States. 3 hours a week for a year.
2. Elective Course for Seniors: Adam Smith, Mill, Bowen. 3 hours a week for a year. 2. Advanced Course.— History of Political Economy. Cairnes, Carey, George, and recent literature. 3 hours a week for a year.
3. Investigation of Practical Questions of the Day.— Banking, Money, Bimetallism, American Shipping, Note Issues, etc. 3 hours a week for a year.
4. Economic History since the Seven Years’ War.— 3 hours a week for a year.
5. Land Tenures in England, Ireland, France, and Germany.— 1 hour a week for a year.
6. History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.— 1 hour a week for a year.
7. Comparison of the Financial Systems of France, England, Germany, and the United States.— 1 hour a week for a year. [Omitted 1884-5.]
8. History of Financial Legislation in the United States. 1 hour a week for a year.

Consider the character of the questions at this time pressing upon Congress for immediate attention. If we omit the administrative and political legislation on the civil service, the succession to the presidency, and a national bankruptcy law, the remaining questions before Congress to-day are almost entirely economic. (1.) There is, in the first place, the false silver dollar, masquerading in sheep’s clothing, and waiting to catch the unwary business world napping, when it will suddenly assume its true depreciated character, and devour fifteen or eighteen per cent of all creditor’s dues estimated at present prices. What is Congress doing here? Just what it did in the last months of 1861, when it let the country drift on to the shoals of depreciated paper. Monometallists and bimetallists, business men and bankers, are assaulting the dangerous silver legislation, and yet Congress is a very Gibraltar in which the silver owners are intrenched. (2.) Next, there is the banking question. Nothing can be more delicate and sensitive than the machinery of credit and banking in a great commercial country such as this; and yet men, to satisfy the prejudices of constituents, handle this mechanism with about the same air of cheerful indifference as that of a child who drags a rag doll round by the heels. The present national bank notes give a stability to trade in separate parts of the Union, by means of a currency equally good in Maine and Texas, never reached in the days of the vicious and changing state banks; and yet the present system is gradually vanishing before our very eyes, as calls are made for government bonds. (3.) Again, Congress is struggling with the most difficult of all problems, – national taxation. It means a reëxamination of our whole scheme of taxation, the retention of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, the management of our surplus revenue, the whole sub-treasury system; while the situation inevitably requires a readjustment of our customs duties. Duties needed in order to procure a large revenue in time of war are no longer necessary when the war is ended, and the national debt is reduced one half. (4.) There are the barbarous and mediaeval navigation laws, to which we cling with a curious indifference to the influence of all progress and liberal ideas. The problem of our shipping and merchant marine needs the touchstone of some wider training than is furnished by selfish individual interests. (5.) Our public lands and the settlement of our vast Western domain are important matters of land tenures, and yet they are abandoned to accident, while the possibilities of good disappear under the cloud of accomplished facts, where nothing can be done. It will not be long before all the public lands will be gone, and yet no notice is taken of existing evils. (6.) Then, again, one has but to mention the word “railway,” and there arises to the mind a congeries of difficult questions dealing with Western “grangers,” the ability of the state to regulate freight and passenger charges, and in fact the whole vexed discussion of state interference. Here is a field by itself, to which a man may well give his whole life-work. (7.) It would be wearisome to more than mention the topics of Postal Telegraph, Chinese Labor, Strikes, Trades Unions, and Communism, which attract our instant attention. (8.) Then again the unfortunate legal-tender decision of Judge Gray has brought back to us all the troublesome and intricate discussions on the currency which we once thought had been forever settled. As matters now stand, power is given to Congress, if it chooses, to repeat all the errors of Continental currency policy, and we are put back a century in our paper money teaching. (9.) To pass from merely internal matters, so long as we were the only civilized people on the western continent, our relations with our neighbors gave us little thought. The growth of commerce, the expansion of populous areas north and south of us, the discovery of mineral wealth outside our own limits, which invites our capital, has forced on us the consideration of reciprocity with Canada and Mexico. We have refused reciprocity to Canada; but to-day we are considering the desirability of granting closer commercial relations with Mexico, while Cuba and Porto Rico have asked the same advantages by a new treaty.

Such, in brief, are some of the subjects which must be made matter of instruction in our schools and universities. It will be observed how overwhelming a proportion of public measures at present are economic, and what a heavy responsibility lies upon our institutions of learning, if they are to meet the new demands in a fitting manner. But there is a still stronger reason for strengthening our educational forces on the economic side. This is to be found in what may be called the “economic portents.” To the present time we have been properly called a “young country,” which to the economist means an abundance of unoccupied land, a scanty population, large returns to capital, and high wages. A full knowledge of our resources has not practically been reached as yet, and will not be, probably, for a considerable time to come. These resources and the lusty health of our young country have made it possible heretofore for legislators to blunder with impunity. Constantly receiving large returns, labor and capital would not naturally be over-critical and hostile to each other. The young-country theory has also led to the encouragement of unlimited immigration, with which to settle our prairies and build up our towns. These new-comers do not, in fact, all go upon the land; but, arriving on our seaboard, instead of being drawn off entirely, they remain in the cities, like dirty pools of water in the streets. Indeed, the importation of uneducated, un-American, un-republican workmen from foreign lands is a problem in itself, and makes a strong demand upon all who can possibly do so to educate these masses, both economically and politically. Lawless communism, it is said advisedly, feeds on bad workmen. A saving mechanic is never a communist. To-day these men mean little to us; but when, by an increasing population and a denser settlement of the country, land becomes more scarce and valuable, profits on capital lower, and wages less, then even honest men, finding themselves pinched by a barrier of their own creation, brought into operation by natural laws, unless economically trained, will not know what is happening, and may in entire ignorance fly in the face of the law, and do in the United States somewhat of the things they are now doing in Europe. The day is more or less distant when this may happen, but it is coming nearer in proportion as the methods of men accustomed to conditions in old and crowded countries are brought here by a never ending stream of immigration.

The war has plunged us into the consideration of gigantic questions of an economic character, and the growth of our country in numbers and wealth is making a true understanding of them more necessary than ever to the prosperity of the nation, and a rising tide of interest in such studies is unmistakably evident. But these new and increasing demands are met by meagre and inadequate means in the great schools. It is a surprising fact that in some of the most important institutions there is no separate provision for such studies, and not even one settled instructor. Above all, we must educate in an intelligent manner, by stimulating investigation into home problems, and by encouraging the preparations of monographs on some out of the multitude of our economic questions. The best of the men in the university cannot now find a career in economic teaching, because few positions exist in this country as an object for honorable and ambitious students. Men find a profession in teaching Greek and Latin, but not Political Economy. When the community wakes up to a realization of this gap in the instruction of the land, and the importance of filling it, we may hope to see a more correct relation between means and needs than now exists.

________________________________

COLLEGE PROFESSORS AS ECONOMISTS.

Mr. J. Laurence Laughlin, in the Atlantic Monthly for April, appends his name to one of those egotistical screeds which serve to make those who teach political economy to boys contemptible in the sight of those who have occasion to practice legislative economies as practical statesman. Its fundamental assumption is that for want of the wisdom with such boys as Laughlin and Sumner possess nearly all that Hamilton, Gallatin, Chase, and Fessenden have done in America and quite all that Colbert, Napoleon, Pitt, Turgot, and Bismarck have done in Europe in an economic and financial way has been sad botchwork. Why do magazines like the Atlantic Monthly publish such ridiculous rant?

Instead of Chase and Fessenden having been in need of going to school to such vealy milksops as J. Laurence Laughlin, this college tutor shows on every page that he writes how greatly he needs the practical information which he could have got by attending for two or three years on the sessions of the Ways and Means Committee at Washington. Indeed, it is not legislators that need to be educated in economics by college professors, but college professors who need some means of picking up a few grains of sense by being brought into contact with actual legislation.

It is a singular fact that no man who has ever accepted a chair in a college as a teacher of political economy to boys has ever yet rendered any demonstrable service either to the cause of economic science or of legislation. Laughlin has the impertinence to say that, though Adam Smith wrote his “Wealth of Nations” in 1776, political economy was an unknown science to the American people before 1860. Does Mr. Laughlin mean to assert that Franklin, the intimate personal friend of Adam Smith and suggestor of some of his views, or that Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Clay, or Webster, Chase, Fessenden, Garfield, or “Pig Iron” Kelly are any less familiar with Adam Smith’s crudities, blunders, wisdom, and garrulous mud than Laughlin himself is? Adam Smith fell so far below Alexander Hamilton, and in many respects below Madison and Chase, in economic insight that while every commentator on Smith points out errors of fact and of theory, stupidities of ignorance and obliquities of vision on every page of the old scotch dullard and mugwump, we challenge Laughlin to point out with equal ease the ignorances and blunders in Hamilton’s economic papers or financial reports.

Adam Smith had the merit, however, of only styling his work as an “Inquiry.” It is the men who come after him who arrogate for his utterly unscientific, undefined meandering, inconsequential and self-contradictory fog-banks the quality of a science. Still Smith is helpful matter to a sensible legislator, because the latter can generally see on the face of Smith’s statements wherein the good Scotch plodder was wool-gathering, and could rectify Smith’s errors out of his own more modern and ample reading. The notion however, that Cairnes, Mill, Jevons, McLeod, Say, Lavelaye, or any other boy teachers have ever been helpful in matters of practical legislation is not warranted by facts. Ricardo was listened to with great respect by practical legislators, but he was a practical businessman like Franklin, the Careys, and Greeley, who had never undertaken the egotism of a pedagogue. The only economists America has yet produced are those who have either never or hardly ever sat in a professor’s chair. There seems to be something in the air of a school room which, if the professor remains in it until it conquers him, unfits him absolutely to mingle as a man among men in the affairs of men. It causes a cranky adoption of the most impracticable and erratic notions on the most inadequate basis of observation and fact, and at the same time inflates with a lofty and unapproachable egotism which precludes its possessor from meeting the views of an opponent with anything but epithets, however superior his opponent may be to himself in learning, experience, or sagacity. A precipitancy that has no nerves left for investigation and patience at criticism marks his every act and word. Laughlin shows this demoralizing precipitancy, so fatal to level-headed usefulness, by speaking of the silver coin, whose equal dignity with gold coin in all legal respects is irrevocably fixed in the letter of the Constitution of the United States, “as the false silver dollar,” thereby implying, of course that from 1853 to 1870, when silver happened to be worth more than gold, we must have been under a “false gold dollar.”

Laughlin also calls those navigation laws which have never existed either among barbarous or medieval nations, but which began in England under Cromwell, “barbarous and medieval.” He might as well call steam or the art of printing “barbarous and medieval.” Sensible man weary of these impudent epithets flung at them by young and graceless upstarts who have still their spurs to win in everything that distinguishes useful men from snobs.

Source:  The Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) April 15, 1885, p. 4.

Image Source: Portrait (1885-88) of James Lawrence Laughlin. Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Transfer from the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Language Requirements for PhD Report, 1951

In 1950 the economics department of the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University was able to amend the foreign language requirement for a Ph.D. in economics to allow mathematics to substitute for one of the two required non-English languages. In 1951 the sociology department wanted to follow suit but this led to a faculty meeting discussion “so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it” ending in a special committee being formed to consider the matter further. The eleven page report of that committee has been transcribed for this post. It follows the excerpt from the minutes of the faculty meeting that would lead to the appointment of the special committee.

The portions of the report that explicity address the issue of the substitution of mathematics literacy for additional foreign language literacy have been highlighted for convenience. Connoisseurs of the discourse of academic rule-making will find much to savour in the minutes and report below. I find it hilarious that a three person committee speaks of  “majority” and “minority” recommendations when the humble fact was that “two of the committee members” disagreed with “the other one”.

It is unfortunate that I happened to have stopped my collection of faculty minutes with the year 1951, so that at the present moment I don’t know the ultimate fate met by the report’s recommendations at a later general meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, presumably sometime in early 1952.

___________________

Excerpt from the Minutes of the annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, April 27, 1951.

…Professor Lazarsfeld [Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, Professor of Sociology] offered a resolution to permit students in Sociology and Economics to substitute Mathematics for one of the two foreign languages normally required for the Ph.D. degree. In the discussion Professor Wuorinen [John H. Wuorinen, Professor of History] asked to be enlightened on the tendency of the motion. The answer was that Mathematics is a language and one far more necessary to the statistical student of society than any of the languages that consist of words.

Professor Evans [Austin Patterson Evans, Professor of History] opposed the motion on two grounds: first, the principle that all Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University are rightly deemed able to use the literature of their fields in two foreign languages besides their own; second, the technicality that any change in the requirement must be approved by all three faculties.

From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality. Professor Angell [James W. Angell, Professor of Economics] urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright [James Cummings Bonbright, Professor of Finance] uttered the suspicion that our language requirement was not really effective, and implied that a mathematics requirement would be. Dean Krout rose to reinforce Professor Evans’ point that we could not take separate action as a Faculty.

Professor Evans introduced an amendment of which the effect was to reduce the requirement to one language for all fields. The amendment was not accepted by the first mover and Professor Angell called for a test vote on the original motion. It was carried 25-10; but given the Faculty lack of power to act independently on this matter, Professor Angell moved the appointment of a committee to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree. This suggestion was powerless to stem the debate. Professor Stigler [George Joseph Stigler, Professor of Economics]urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis [Kingsley Davis, Asssociate Professor of Sociology] wondered how much mathematics would equal one language. Dean Krout likewise wished to know what would be meant by “mathematics”. Professor Lazarsfeld replied that a committee exists and has expressed itself on the nature of the mathematical equipment required by social scientists. Professor Angell revealed that the Department of Economics has the specifications all worked out. Professors Macmahon [Arthur W. Macmahon, Eaton Professor of Public Administration] and Shoup [Carl Sumner Shoup, Professor of Economics] both agreed in considering mathematics a language and raised the spectre of a three-language requirement.

Finally the question was called for, and Professor Angell’s motion to appoint a committee was passed 26-9.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962, pp. 1039-40.

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
[Nov. 5, 1951]

Summary

Findings of Fact:

  1. The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements of faculties and departments.
  2. Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees retain residual powers which they may exercise when they wish.
  3. Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the requirements.
  4. The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirements, and they differed widely.
  5. In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took account of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages. The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-editing of the language requirement. Thus was established without specific discussion a Faculty rule requiring two languages.

Conclusions:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faculty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

A minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

 

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PH.D. DEGREE

By letter, dated October 1, 1951, Dean John A. Krout constituted the undersigned as a Special Committee of the Faculty of Political Science to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree.

The Special Committee was asked to treat the subject generally in its report and to give special attention to the following questions: (1) Is it wise for the Faculty to permit its Departments to modify the existing language requirement; and (2) If the Faculty determines that it is wise to permit Departmental modification, should the Faculty recommend to the University Council such a change in the language requirement rules without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

A third question emerges from a reading of the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on April 27, 1951. Some of the members expressed the question in terms of debate over the authority of the Faculty of Political Science under the currently existing “constitutional law” of the University to take action on the language requirement without reference to the University Council for approval.

In an effort to answer the three questions raised, the Special Committee has divided its study into its component parts, namely (1) Have the Departments and the Faculty of Political Science present authority under the Statutes of the University, the resolutions of the Trustees and of the University Council and accepted. practice to change the language requirements for the Ph.D. degree; (2) From a policy point of view, should a change be made; and (3) From a policy point of view, should such a change be made without concurrence of the Faculties of Pure Science and Philosophy?

The Findings of Fact

(a) Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees here residual powers which they may exercise as they wish.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Trustees of the University have supreme authority over the “educational policy” of the University. No proposal involving a change in this policy may take effect until after approval of the Trustees, or until after the termination of the second meeting following the introduction of the proposal, in the event that the Trustees remain silent on the subject.

This is so by virtue of the terms of Article 24 of the Statutes of the University, which reads as follows:

Chap. II. The University Council

Art. 24. LIMITATION OF POWERS. No exercise of the powers conferred upon the Council which involves a change in the educational policy of the University in respect to the requirements of admission or the conditions of graduation, shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting of the Trustees shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

The University Council has the right under the Statutes of the University to consider every proposal, submitted by the Faculties which involves a change in the educational policy of the University.

This is so by virtue of Articles 33 and 142 of the Statutes of the University, which read as follows:

Chap. III. Faculties and Administrative Boards

Art. 33. LIMITATION OF POWERS. Every proposed exercise of the power conferred on any of the Faculties, which involves a change in the educational policy of the university in respect to the requirements of admission, the program of studies or the condition of graduation shall be submitted to the University Council before being recommended to the Trustees, and such recommendation shall not be laid before the Trustees until the Council has acted thereon, or until another meeting of the Council has been held, subsequent to that at which the recommendation was submitted. No exercise of such power by any Faculty shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

Chap. XIV. Faculty of Political Science

Art. 142. DEGREES. (b) Ph.D. Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall be qualified to receive that degree upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by the University Council by concurrent action with the Faculty of Political Science.

While the authority of the Trustees and the University Council is clearly superior to that of the Faculties in matters concerning the “educational policy” of the University (which would seem to include the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree), the record seems to indicate that this authority has been delegated to the Faculties. The second finding of fact, is therefore:

(b) The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements for faculties and departments.

The finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute book of the University Council contains the following resolution, dated April 18, 1916, which reads as follows in its pertinent provisions:

“A student admitted to the University under the jurisdiction of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy or Pure Science, who wishes to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which his research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

    1. The student must have satisfied the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the faculty prescribe.

Such an interpretation of, the meaning of the resolution of the University Council, dated April 18, 1916, is supported by the action of the Faculty of Political Science in years subsequent to the adoption of the University Council’s resolution. The record is sufficiently clear on this score to permit the Special Committee to make the third finding of fact:

(c) Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the language requirements.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

On various occasions the Faculty has altered the language requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as will be indicated later in this report, but after April 18, 1916, the Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and of the University Council are silent as to any reference of changes in the language requirement to the University Council. References to the University Council appear in the minutes before April 18, 1916.

Compare the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on February 25, 1916 (Minute Book, page 404), with the minutes of the meetings of the Faculty of Political Science, held on March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468) and on February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488).

While the Faculty has established a practice of acting on language requirements without reference to the University Council, a minority of the Special Committee feels it desirable to raise with the Faculty the question of whether it might not be courteous to inform the University Council of changes in the future, with an indication that the change has been made under the provisions of the delegation of authority under the resolution of April 18, 1916. There would then be no possibility of a misunderstanding. The majority of the Special Committee believe such informative procedure unnecessary.

The record of the action of the Faculty of Political Science on the language requirements is sufficiently clear to permit the special Committee to make the following fourth finding of fact.

(d) The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free up until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirement, and they differed widely.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute Book of the Faculty of Political Science records the following action of the Faculty on language requirements for the Ph.D. degree.

(1) December 12, 1913: (Minute Book, page 371)

“The Dean then presented to the Faculty for its consideration certain resolutions of the Joint Committee on Instruction of the several graduate faculties, as follows:

…After the completion of at least one year of residence…..students may present themselves for examination in any two of the subjects, of graduate instruction. The satisfaction of this examination together with a demonstration of ability to read French and German or such other languages as may be accepted will entitle them to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ……”

The matter was referred to the Committee on Instruction for consideration and report.

The Committee on Instruction reported at, the meeting of January 23, 1914, and the following was ordered entered upon the Minutes of the Faculty: (Minute Book page 375).

“…. (2) Each department shall prescribe, by regulations approved by the faculty and by the dean, the subjects and languages in which the student must show himself proficient and the manner in which his proficiency shall be determined.”

(2) February 25, 1916: (Minute Book, page 404)

“The Dean then recommended to the Faculty the adoption of the following revised regulations for the control of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:

Students who wish to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which their research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

….2. The candidate must satisfy the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the Faculty prescribe.”

The recommendation was adopted by the Faculty and referred to the University Council. It was this resolution which evoked from the University Council the resolution quoted above in connection with the discussion of the powers of the Faculty.

(3) March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468)

“The following were moved as a substitute for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy approved by the faculty at its meeting of May 25, 1916.

    1. Admission to Candidacy.

“2. Languages. The applicant shall demonstrate his ability to read at least one modern European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally the requirements in the several fields are as indicated in the list of subjects below. The language requirement must be satisfied at least one academic year prior to the admission of the applicant to candidacy for the degree.”

(4) February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488)

A substitution in the requirements approved on March 28, 1919 was moved and accepted:

“4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for each subject as indicated in the following paragraphs:”

There were then listed a considerable number of subjects with varying language requirements for each. There were as much as four languages required of those obtaining their degree in Ancient History, and in American Government, always in addition to English.

(5) April 19, 1940 (Minute Book, page 865)

The Faculty voted to rephrase the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to read as follows, In the pertinent section:

“6. Matriculation as a Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After not less than one year of graduate residence, after satisfying the department that he is proficient in such languages as it prescribes for a candidate and after satisfying the department that he is prepared to undertake research under its direction, the prospective candidate will be recommended by the department to the Dean for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.”

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1940-1941 continued to carry without change the paragraph adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, and quoted under (4) above. See Announcement for 1940-1941 at pp. 12-13. An examination on the list of subjects with the language requirements for each indicates that there was no longer a single subject which required but one language other than English. All required two languages or more.

The crucial change in Faculty practice on the language requirement occurred in 1941. The Special Committee finds it possible to make the following fifth finding of fact.

(e) In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took count of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages.

The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-edited language requirement. In effect there was established in this manner a Faculty rule requiring two languages when no general Faculty rule requiring a specific number of language had existed previously.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1941-1942 changed one word in the paragraph which had been adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, namely the word “one”. This word was changed to “two”, making the statement on languages read as follows: “The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to read at least two languages other than English…” The list of subjects, which had been printed in the Announcement in previous years, continued to appear, there being varying requirements for each subject, but none less than two languages.

No Minute of Faculty action concern specifically the question of the language requirement.  Professor Austin P. Evans, who was Chairman of the Faculty’s Committee on Instruction at the time, has informed the Special Committee that he recalls making the change in editing the Announcement. He noted that all of the subjects listed required two languages, and to avoid any confusion on the part of students in reading a general rule requiring only one language and a list of subjects in which all required at least two languages; he made the change. The Announcement was then submitted, for adoption by the Faculty, so that the change in the general statement of the language requirement was adopted as a new Faculty rule.

In the Announcement for the following year, 1942-1943, the list of subjects with the specific foreign languages required of candidates for the Ph.D. degree in each field was dropped. The list has never reappeared, leaving the sole statement of the language requirement the paragraph which has been altered for the Announcement of 1941-1942.

No Faculty action has been found authorizing requirement by subject. It is possible that the deletion occurred as a part of the campaign of the Secretary of the University for shortened Announcements to save money. Whatever the reason, the change strengthened the rule, as amended in the previous year, and removed any indication that the rule had originally been a summarizing of the requirements as established by each department for the subjects under its control.

Conclusions

Having made the above five findings of fact, the Special Committee believes it possible to conclude at this point the following:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Considerations Underlying Recommendations

In seeking to find the basis for appropriate recommendations to the Faculty, the Special Committee has examined the report of the special committee for the review of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, appointed by the President of the University in the autumn of 1937, under the Chairmanship of Professor Woodbridge. The “Woodbridge Committee” report is the most recent of the exhaustive studies of the subject of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Reference was made to the language requirement, and this reference seems pertinent to the matter under discussion in this report.

In a preliminary report, dated May 12, 1937 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 349) the Woodbridge Committee proposed that no one should be admitted to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until he had passed an examination. In stating the ground to be covered by such an examination, the Woodbridge Committee included “command of English usage, and ability to read such foreign languages as the department may require”. The Committee suggested further that “The examination including that in foreign languages shall be written, and the quality of the writing be used as a test of the student’s command of English.”

In its final report, dated April 21, 1939 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 361) the Woodbridge Committee reaffirmed the recommendation of its preliminary report that there be an examination of prospective candidates, but said that it had changed its mind as to the manner of administration and was now of the opinion that the type of examination to be given should be determined by the department concerned and not by any central authority.

Parts of the Woodbridge Committee report were adopted by the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science in March, 1939. The resolution of the Faculties, as set forth in the record of the University Council (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 373) reads, as follows, in its pertinent provisions:

“1. An applicant may be admitted as a regular graduate student only after he has satisfied, in addition to the general University requirements for admission, any further requirements which may be specified by the Department of his major interest, and which may relate especially to the content and the quality of his prior studies and to his ability in the use of foreign languages.”

The practice of other Universities also seems appropriate to consideration of recommendations. The Special Committee has been informed of the results of a surrey of 18 Universities conducted by the Department of Economics of the University Oregon communicated to Dean John A. Krout by letter dated July 26, 1951. It reads as follows:

“About half of the Universities allow no substitutions or restrict substitutions, such as by prohibiting use of two romance languages. Five Universities have provided for substitution of subjects for a language. These are Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, Minnesota and Stanford, the substitutions being allowed mainly on economics in the first three institutions. Mathematics and statistics are the usual substitutes, though the practices vary. Ohio State requires only one language of candidates with a high competence in one language. The faculty of the University of Oregon was not disposed to allow any modification of language requirements, although the Economics Department and some other departments were seeking modification.”

The Special Committee has considered whether it is desirable that the Faculty of Political Science prescribe minimum language requirements for all departments, and the majority has decided in favor of such a minimum. Such a provision minimizes the probability of subsequent intervention by the Faculty in the affairs of the departments. It is believed also that a large number of the members of the Faculty share the majority’s view that, in so far as it is feasible, there should common minimum standards for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy throughout the Faculty. Prior to 1941 when departments were autonomous in the matter of language requirement they had in fact arrived at a common minimum which became a matter of Faculty decision thereafter.

The establishment of a minimum requirement involves the level of the minimum. The minimum resulting from the decisions of the separate departments prior to 1941 and thereafter endorsed by the Faculty was two foreign languages. For the majority of the students in the Faculty this still seems to be the minimum number of languages required for competence in their fields, especially to give them access to the work of eminent scholars of the past and present. In some fields of study there is a growing body of ideas in mathematical form. It seems desirable therefore, to acknowledge the increasing importance of this means of communication by permitting students to present mathematics in place of one language. We do not suggest that this substitution be permitted by all students but that it be allowed by the departments only where it appears to be especially appropriate to the individual student’s program of study. In fields where statistical analysis is important or desirable this option will assist the student who desires to acquire the mathematical basis for graduate work in statistical methods. It will also facilitate the use of analysis in mathematical form.

There may remain students who appear to need neither mathematics nor foreign languages as suggested above. The Special Committee is somewhat doubtful whether there are such  students because in most fields there are works in the basic theory or philosophy in foreign languages or mathematics to which the student should have access. Furthermore, the Doctor of Philosophy degree should certify more than competence in a selected and possibly narrow field of study. It should indicate also a measure in a cultural maturity. Finally students trained by the Faculty are likely to participate in increasing numbers in international associations, private and public, and the University should do nothing, especially at the present time, to discourage the acquisition of a knowledge of languages, except where it is necessary to permit some students to participate competently in the use of mathematical forms for the communication of ideas. These considerations all suggest the maintenance of the present requirement of a minimum of two languages apart from the exception above mentioned in favor of mathematics.

A minority of the Special Committee, while accepting in full the majority’s argument as to the importance of language for any scholar, dissents on the method proposed for enforcing the requirement. The minority finds that language requirements were dictated successfully by the departments without Faculty intervention prior to 1941. The development of the Faculty rule in 1941 seems not to have been caused by any abuse of autonomy by the departments. On the contrary it followed departmental action, which in several cases went beyond it. Its origin as the result of re-editing of the Announcement seems to the minority to have presented no occasion for thoughtful consideration of the change in principle involved. The minority would prefer to return to the procedure existing prior to 1941 when the departments set their own requirements, subject always to the authority of the Faculty to veto the proposal of a department if it seems to have been made without adequate consideration of the issues.

Such a return to departmental autonomy, subject to a reserved right of faculty veto seems to conform to the spirit of the Woodbridge Report. It also seems to have merit in that it would render unnecessary the present attempt of some departments to reduce the language requirements for their students by attempting to fit some other requirement for scholarship in the discipline under the rubric of “language”. Although the minority appreciates that there is reason to argue that some of these substitutions may aid communication between scholars, the minority would prefer calling the subjects what they are, and leaving the departments free to adopt them, whether they be mathematics, statistics, political theory or historiography, without attempting to call them a “language.”

To the minority the mixing of mathematics with the language requirement seems only to becloud the issue, which can be kept clear if no rigid Faculty rule of two foreign languages is set. The departments in the past indicated that they could be trusted. The Faculty has ample power through the veto to restrain any department in the future which exceeds the bounds of the “reasonable”. In consequence the minority prefers the return to the pre-1941 situation, with reservation in the Faculty of the veto with which it can maintain the uniformity as seems to be required.

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing, the majority of the Special Committee makes the following recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faulty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

The minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

Action by the Faculty Alone

One question asked of the Special Committee remains unanswered, namely, Should the Faculty recommend to the University Council a change in the language requirements without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

Since the Faculty’s Special Committee is recommending no change in the existing the Special Committee, the question is academic, but if the Faculty should vote with the minority, the question would be pertinent.

Even if the Faculty should vote to change the rule, there appears to be necessity for parallel action by the three graduate faculties, in view of the delegation of power by University Council in 1916 to the faculties. As the requirements for competent training in the three faculties differ markedly, it is desirable to permit each to deal independently with this problem.

Respectfully submitted

Arthur R. Burns
John N. Hazard
Richard B. Morris

November 5, 1951

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962.

Image Source: From Roberto Ferrari, “August Rodin and The Thinker“, Columbia University Library Blog. June 8, 2014.

Categories
Cambridge Columbia Cornell Curriculum Economics Programs Germany Harvard Oxford Teaching

United Kingdom and other countries. Methods of Economic Training. Cunningham Committee Report, 1894

 

The Cunningham Committee report on methods of economic training in the United Kingdom and other European and North American countries from 1894 provides a wonderful overview of the (Western) state of economics education.

Previous posts with information for U.S. economics courses taught in the 1890s can be found in the previous posts:

Chicago, Columbia, Harvard 1893-94

United States. Economics Courses in 23 universities, 1898-99

____________________________

Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries.

Report of the Committee, consisting of Professor W. CUNNINGHAM (Chairman), Professor E. C. K. GONNER (Secretary), Professor F. Y. EDGEWORTH, Professor H. S. FOXWELL, Mr H. HIGGS, Mr. L. L. PRICE, and Professor J. SHIELD NICHOLSON.

APPENDIX

I.— On the Methods of Economic Training adopted in Foreign Countries, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 2 ff.

      1. Austria
      2. Hungary
      3. Germany
      4. Holland
      5. Belgium
      6. Italy
      7. Russia
      8. United States of America

II.— On Economic Studies in France, by H. Higgs, pp. 20 ff.

III.—On the Condition of Economic Studies in the United Kingdom, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 23 ff.

      1. England
      2. Scotland
      3. Ireland

IN furtherance of the above purpose three reports have been drawn up after due inquiry and laid before your Committee.

These reports, which are appended, bring out very clearly some features of difference between the position of such studies in this and in foreign countries, and, with other information before your Committee, seem to them to call for the following observations. Before proceeding to the consideration of certain particular points they would remark that the growth of economic studies, and in particular the development among them of the scientific study of the actual phenomena of life (both in the past and in the present), have important effects, so far as the organisation of the study and its suitability for professional curricula are concerned. It may be hoped, indeed, that when the empirical side is more adequately represented, the importance of the careful study of economics as a preparation for administrative life will be more fully recognised both by Government and the public.

(a) The Organisation of the Study of Economics. — While fully recognising the great energy with which individual teachers in this country have sought to develop the study of this subject, your Committee cannot but regard the condition of economic studies at the universities and colleges as unsatisfactory. As contrasted with Continental countries and also with the United States, the United Kingdom possesses no regular system. In one place economics is taught in one way, and in connection with some one subject, not infrequently by the teacher of that subject ; in another place in another way, and with another subject. Very often it is taught, or at any rate learnt, as little as possible. In most places this lack of organisation is due to the weariness of introducing elaborate schemes for the benefit of problematic students.. At Cambridge the pass examination which has recently been devised only attracts a few. With regard to the higher study of economics, Professor Marshall, among others, has written strongly of the comparatively small inducements offered by economics as compared with other subjects. He adds: “Those who do study it have generally a strong interest in it; from a pecuniary point of view they would generally find a better account in the study of something else.” Some considerations bearing on this point are offered below, but here it may be observed that the attempts to introduce more system into the teaching of economics, and to secure for it as a subject of study fuller public recognition, should, so far as possible, be made together.

In the opinion of your Committee economics should be introduced into the honour courses and examinations of the universities in such a manner as to allow students to engage in its thorough and systematic study without necessarily going outside the range of degree subjects.

(b) The Position of Economics with regard to Professional and other Curricula. — In most Continental countries economics occupies a place more or less prominent in the courses of training and in the examinations through which candidates for the legal profession or the civil service have to pass. In Austria, Hungary, and the three southern States of Germany this connection is very real, and the nature of the study involved very thorough. The same cannot be said with regard to the northern States of the latter empire, where the importance attached to this subject is so slight as to make its inclusion almost nominal. To some extent or in some form it is regarded as a subject obligatory on those preparing for those callings, or, to speak more accurately, for the legal calling and for certain branches of the civil service in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. In Holland and Belgium, while a certain general knowledge only is required for a few posts or branches of the civil service, a very thorough study is incumbent on those qualifying for the higher branch of the legal profession. In both France and Russia it is an integral and necessary portion of the legal curriculum.

The two studies are cognate, and according to the view of your Committee not only would the institution of an examination in economics at some stage of legal degrees and qualifications be advantageous professionally, but the work of those who had enjoyed a legal training would react favourably on the advance of the science. In addition, economics should receive a much more important place in the Civil Service Examinations.

_______________________

APPENDIX I.
On the Methods of Economic Training
adopted in Foreign Countries
.
By E. C. K. Gonner.

The comparative study of the continental and other foreign systems of Economic Education brings out in clear relief certain features of either difference or coincidence which relate respectively to the impulses or circumstances giving this particular study its importance, to the method of study, and, lastly, to its organisation and the degree of success attained in the various countries.

(1) Putting on one side the purely scientific impulse to learn for learning’s sake, which can, after all, affect comparatively few, the inducement to a large or considerable number of students to interest themselves in any particular study must consist in its recognition, either positive or tacit, as a necessary preliminary to some professions or to certain positions. This may, as has been suggested, be either direct and positive, or indirect and tacit; direct and positive, that is, in the case of economics when in either one or more branches they are made part of the examinations admitting to the legal profession and the higher civil service; indirect and tacit when public opinion demands economic knowledge as necessary in those holding prominent positions as citizens or anxious to direct and control their fellows, either by the pen as journalists, or by act or word as statesmen or politicians. The importance of both these motives is, of course, largely increased when they exist in close connection with the purely scientific impulse. By itself this is not sufficient. The exclusion of one study, as economics, from professional or technical curricula, unless counteracted by the existence of a very powerful popular sentiment in its favour, practically removes it from the reach of students who have to make themselves ready to earn their living. Of the two influences, described above, the former, or the actual and positive recognition is given, in some shape or other, in Austria and Hungary, the southern states of the German empire, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, and Holland. In America, and to some extent in Canada, popular sentiment and interest supply the needful impetus by making economics a tacit requisite for those exercising particular callings. In both Germany and Austria there are signs of the growth of economics in popular appreciation. In Austria, indeed, the circumstances are peculiarly fortunate. Economic instruction is recognised as a matter of serious importance, while, on the other hand, economic knowledge is one of the subjects of the State examinations for the legal and administrative service. In addition, its careful and scientific study is pursued by a fair number of advanced students. In this way Austria occupies a central position among the various nations which range themselves with America at one extreme, where there is no positive or direct obligation in favour of economic study, and at the other extreme, the Scandinavian and lesser Latin countries where all recognition that exists is positive, but where this positive recognition is largely nominal.

It has been urged that the ill-success of economic studies in these latter countries is largely an argument against their inclusion in obligatory curricula—a proposition which probably those who make it would hardly apply to the cases of other subjects. But from the evidence furnished by the countries before us this ill-success can be traced to other causes. It is due, firstly, to differences in the methods of study, and, secondly, to the differences in the thing made obligatory. In South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, economics is obligatory on certain classes of students, and the study of economics is making rapid and satisfactory progress, but then in South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the method of study is one which commends itself to advanced students and educational critics, and the knowledge required in the examinations is thorough. In the lesser Latin countries, as Spain and Italy, the knowledge which the candidate is expected to show is elementary in itself, largely confined to elementary theory, and a marked unreality is imparted to the whole study, an unreality recognised alike by examiners, teachers, and students. On the other hand, the advantages which economics may receive from its public and positive recognition are borne witness to by those best acquainted with the condition of the study in Germany, where the usages of the north and south differ. Broadly speaking they consist in the removal of economics from the category of unnecessary to the category of necessary acquirements. Many of those who begin the study from compulsion continue it from choice. In America, indeed, the strength of popular sentiment and the ever present interest of politics together with the action of the universities, where nearly all studies, and not economics alone, are put on a voluntary footing, give it an adequate position; but failing the combination of conditions such as these, its absence, both from all professional curricula and from the earlier stages of education, cannot but be regarded as disastrous and unjust.

(2) The method of economic studies is of a certain importance with regard to the subject last discussed. Though it would be unfair to estimate the work, or to judge of the scope of schools of economic teaching from their extreme tendencies, these afford not unsatisfactory means of distinction. Speaking broadly, they may be placed in two groups—those in which the dominant influence is empirical; those in which it is theoretical or abstract. Very few economists, whether teachers or writers, are wholly empirical or wholly theoretical. Some bias, however, they nearly all have, and it is by that they may be ranked for the present purpose. Nor must it be supposed that the distinctions drawn in one country, with regard to these opposing lines of study, at all correspond with those existing in another. In Germany, for instance, the attitude of Professor Wagner is attacked by the members of the historical school— one branch of the empirical—but judged by the standards of France and England he would rank in the main as an empiricist. The theorists of Germany and Austria do little more than assert that theoretical study has its due place and is a necessary part of the equipment of an economist.

When discussing the assertion that compulsory economics, however enforced, tended to issue in perfunctory attendances and poor results so far as interest was concerned, it was urged that these consequences depended largely on the method and nature of study. This is remarkably llustrated by the fact that the countries where such evils are regretted or anticipated are those where the study of economics is mainly theoretic, or where economics is distinctly and openly subordinated to other subjects. Lessons of this latter kind are never thrown away upon students. But with regard to the former, it is not from the southern states of the German empire, or from Austria, that we hear these complaints. There economic study is obligatory, and the economic study involved is two thirds of it empirical in character. In the Latin countries the state of things is very different. The basis of study is, if I may say so, text-book theory, and the position of economics, so far as progress is concerned, is unsatisfactory in the extreme. This has been particularly dealt with in the paragraphs relating to Italy.

In two of the great nations the mode of study practised is largely empirical. In Germany, despite the contrast between different leaders of thought, the importance of this method is well illustrated by the position which the study of Practical or Applied Economics invariably occupies. In America, the study of economic history and of modern economic fact grows into greater prominence year by year.

(3) Turning to the question of success, the question arises at once as to the tests whereby such may be measured. Of these, many, varying from popularity to eclecticism, have been suggested, but possibly the one most suitable is the ability of a system to produce a high general level amongst a good number of students. Something more is required of a system than that it should bring together large audiences for elementary courses, while as for the production of a few very good students, a few will always press to the front through all difficulties, despite systems good or bad, or in the absence of any system at all. But a system that is to be deemed good must place within the reach of all industrious and apt students the means of a good general economic training, while stimulating him to prosecute original and independent work. Further, it should provide these advantages regularly and not intermittently. The way in which these two needs are met in practice can be stated briefly. General training is provided by a systematic series of courses which should include at least Theory of Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance. The seminar, or classes organised like the seminar, offer opportunities for guiding a student into the ways of original work.

Seminar instruction is given regularly in Germany, Austria, Hungary, in the better equipped universities of America, Switzerland, and to some extent in both Sweden and Holland. In Russia the professors may and sometimes do organise seminars or discussion classes. In Belgium classes are held in connection with some of the courses.

With regard to the systems of providing for a good ground knowledge of the leading branches of Economics, classification is rendered difficult by the different methods adopted in the various countries. Some are more, some less thorough. Among the former we may put without hesitation the countries already singled out for notice—Germany, America, Austria, and Hungary.

From the accounts given in detail below it is clear that in these countries the study of economics is advancing. The training is systematic. A fair proportion of students pass from the more general into the more special or advanced courses. The production of work, not necessarily of the first order, for with that we are not dealing, but of the second, or third, or fourth order, is great and still increases.

AUSTRIA.

The position of Economics in Austria is largely determined by its relation to legal studies, by the place, that is, which its various branches hold in the examinations qualifying for the legal profession and for the juridical and higher administrative services. According to the system till recently in force, but now somewhat modified, candidates intending to enter these had to attend certain courses at the universities, and to pass certain examinations varying according to the positions sought. Those entering the legal profession had to pass the first State examination in addition to the three political rigorosa of the university, success in which latter conferred the degree of Doctor. Other candidates only needed to pass the three State examinations. These latter were as follows:— The first (Rechtshistorische Staatsprüfung) was held at the end of the second year of study, and comprised the following subjects: Roman Law, Canon Law, and German Law in its historical aspect. The second (Judizielle Staatsprüfung) was held towards the end of the eighth semester, in the following subjects: Austrian Law, civil, commercial, and penal; Austrian civil and criminal Procedure. At the end of the four years came the third and final examination (Staatswissenschaftliche Staatsprüfung), which alone is of importance so far as the legal recognition of Economics is concerned. The subjects examined in were Austrian Law, International Law, Economics (including Economics, the Science of Administration, Finance and Statistics). The political rigorosa, while they correspond in outline to the State examinations, have some few points of difference both with regard to method and subjects. They, too, are three in number, and may be described as the Austrian rigorosum, corresponding to the second State examination, the Romanist, corresponding to the first State, and the Staatswissenschaftlich, which closely resembles the third State examination, though not including Statistics or Administration. There is no regulation as to the order in which they are to be passed, but that indicated above is customary. Their greater severity may be judged from both the additional length of preparation prescribed and the manner in which they are conducted. The earliest date at which a candidate may pass his first rigorosum is at the end of the fourth in place of the second year. The second and third may follow at respective intervals of two months. The Staatsprüfung is an examination taken by groups of four students, each group being under examination for two hours; but in the rigorosa each candidate is under examination for two hours, spending half-an-hour with each examiner. Both State and university examina tions are oral, and the latter are said to impose a severe strain on both examiner and candidate. In the latter the examiners are the university professors, while in the State examinations these are variously composed of professors, functionaries of the State, and barristers of good standing.

By the law of April 28, 1893, which came into effect in October, the system sketched above underwent certain alterations. A complete separation will be effected between the university examinations or rigorosa, and those qualifying for the legal profession and State services, the former no longer serving as a possible substitute for the second and third of the latter. In addition, some slight change has been introduced into the curriculum and examinations imposed upon students designing to enter these. They will have to attend courses and to be examined in— (a) The Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), and with special reference to Austrian Law; (b) Economics, theoretical and practical; (c) Public Finance, and especially Austrian Finance. In addition they must attend lectures (without subsequent examination) on Comparative and Austrian Statistics. These alterations will leave the number of students in the more elementary subjects unaffected, and so far from operating in discouragement of economic and political studies, will, it is hoped, lead to their more thorough prosecution, by raising the degree to a more scholarly position.

The marked recognition of Economics by the State, and the large number of students whose prospects are involved in its successful study, naturally affect the teaching organisation provided by the universities and other bodies.

This is fairly uniform throughout Austria, as apart from Hungary, though the extent to which the subject is pursued, and the variety of its forms, depend mainly on the enthusiasm of particular teachers and the greater opportunities offered by particular universities or other institutions. At the universities the ground plan of work may be described as identical, Economics being taught in the faculty of law. There are certain courses which must be delivered, and at which attendance is obligatory for certain classes of students. These are on National Economy, Finance, Statistics, and the Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), which includes instruction in practical economics, public health, army, matters of policy, justice, &c. But in addition to these the teachers, whether professors or privat-docents may, and often do, deliver special courses dealing with more particular subjects. These are not necessarily or usually the same from year to year; and may be described as instruction of an unusually high order, inasmuch as each teacher is accustomed to select for treatment such branch of science in which his own activities and studies lie. The large2 voluntary attendance at such lectures is a testimony to the regard in which economic studies are held among a large body of students.

1Vienna—Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Graz, Innsbruck, Krakau (Polish), Lemburg (Polish).
2At Vienna the attendants at special courses varies from 50 to 100.

Seminar instruction is customary, as in Germany. At Vienna there are two seminars, one for Economics, one for Statistics and Political Science (Staatswissenschaft), while in addition there is an Institute of Political Science, attached to all of which are libraries and places for the members to carry on their work in close contact with their professor or his deputy. The members consist in part of young doctors of the university who have recently graduated, in part of those preparing for the examinations of the university, and include, as a rule, several foreigners who have come to Vienna to pursue their studies. The arrangements at the other universities are similar, though in some they lack the completeness displayed at Vienna.

Students who, having passed their examinations with credit, or other wise performed their work to the satisfaction of their teachers, wish to carry on their studies in other countries are eligible for Reisestipendia (travelling scholarships). These are rewarded to encourage study in foreign universities, or to enable their holders to carry out investigations which necessitate a journey. Unfortunately they are but few in number, and as they are open to students of all faculties, few economists can hope to obtain them. Among the more recent holders in Vienna are Professors Böhm-Bawerk, Robert Meyer, Von Phillipovich, and Dr. Stephen Bauer, the two latter of whom published reports on matters studied abroad.

In this way a method of economic instruction has been developed in the Austrian universities which not only provides a large number with a carefully systematised series of courses, but offers to those disposed to more thorough or more special study ample opportunity. The more eager and energetic pass through the courses compulsory for the law degree, in themselves a fitting preliminary to more detailed work, to attendance at the special courses and membership of the seminar; from these they may, if fortunate, advance into the position of travelling or research scholars of their university. Though most of the students at the Economic Lectures are jurists, the attendance frequently includes members qualifying in other faculties, or even more general ‘hearers.’ At Krakau, students of the philosophical faculty form some 20 to 25 per cent of the total. All these students are entirely free so far as their choice of Economic courses is concerned. It is not possible to give the exact numbers of the students to be described respectively as elementary and advanced. The particulars, however, furnished by the various universities permit a rough general estimate. Not fewer than one thousand students undergo the more general courses, thus attaining to a fair systematic acquaintance with the main branches of economic study, while out of that number more than two hundred take special courses and enter the various seminars. This account rather under than over estimates the extent to which economic studies extend. As to the character of the advanced work there is no doubt. As has been pointed out, it is of a high order. But some question has been raised as to the value of the knowledge likely to be attained by the more general student. The variety of subjects required in the examinations either of the university (political rigorosa) or of the State, and the number of courses obligatory on the students, do not allow of an early specialisation.1 But a glance at the nature of the examination, and at the syllabus of the various courses, forbids the inference that the instruction given is of a purely rudimentary nature.

1This, as Professor von Milewski contends, interferes with the scientific character of the various studies required for the degree. As each has to take up several subjects, and to pass examinations in these, he cannot give very special attention to Economics or any other branch of social science in which he may happen to be interested.

Much, it is true, depends upon the personal enthusiasm and force of the teacher, for, despite the obligation of attendance, a dull and unininteresting lecture will rarely obtain the audiences registered to him, many students preferring to buy copies of the course hectographed from the notes of their predecessors in the lecture room, and only troubling themselves to appear at the beginning and end of the semester.

In the University of Krakau, Economics are obligatory, both in study and examination, for the students of agriculture who attend special lectures, apart, that is, from the law students. Instruction in Economics (Political Economy, Finance, and Statistics) is given also at all the Technical High Schools (Technischen Hochschulen) in Austria,1 while attendance at the courses (though without examination) is obligatory at the schools of agriculture, where similar conditions prevail. At the Commercial Academies (Handelsakademien of Vienna and Prague) a course of lectures is given with particular reference to the Economic branches which throw most light on commercial facts and features, and on the relations existing between the various classes engaged in industry and trade. To obtain the diploma of these institutions the lectures are followed by an examination. Courses are provided for the consular service at the Oriental Akademie in Vienna, and for the service of the administration of the army.2 There is also a Fortbildungschule for officials of the railway, where political economy is taught and examined in. Members of these courses are considered specially fitted for the attainment of the higher posts in their service.

1Of these there are six:-Vienna, Brünn, Graz, Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Lemburg (Polish). After examination diplomas are granted, which are necessary for those becoming teachers in agricultural schools, and are, it is said, a strong recommendation in the eyes of landlords when engaging their officials, agents, &c.
2An Intendanz-Class for officers willing to serve as Intendanten for the provision of the army.

A knowledge of Economics, duly and doubly certified by registered lecture courses and by examination, is a necessary preliminary to certain careers. Attendance at the university lectures and the attainment of the juridical degree are the qualification for the higher branches of the legal profession (advocate, &c.), and like attendance and degree, or, in the place of the latter, the diploma of public service, are required for all branches of the legal profession and for the whole civil service. Entrance into the consular and diplomatic services may also be obtained through the courses of the Oriental Academy. Further, as has been pointed out above, a certain acquaintance, or supposed acquaintance, with economic studies is considered necessary in some other vocations.

At the present time very considerable importance is attached to economic studies in Austria. Their scientific character is a general matter of care, and an extension of the sphere in which they are obligatory, or at least advisable on the part of those who seek success in their particular calling or profession, is earnestly advocated by some. In the first direction the reforms in the juridical studies at the universities will operate. As Dr. Mataja writes:— ‘Economics will have greater and not less weight.’ On the other hand, and in the other direction, different suggestions have been made. Some advocate the extension of compulsory study to engineers who will become officials and directors in factories, to the employés of the fiscal service, to those attending the more elementary technical schools. Others would like to see schools of political and social science (including Economics) founded in the great industrial centres. Whether these suggestions be carried out or not, they serve to illustrate the feeling which exists, at least on the part of some, with regard to the value of Economics both as a special and as a branch of general study.

HUNGARY.

Economics holds a position somewhat similar to that in Austria. It is obligatory on all students in the faculty of law and political science at the two universities,1 and in the Rechtsakademien (legal faculties, as at Kassa), who must take courses in Economics and Finance before the end of their second year, when they have to pass an examination, among the subjects of which these are included. After the second year their studies bifurcate, according to the degree which they seek (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Cameralium). In order to obtain the former, they must pass an examination in financial law. But if they wish to take the latter degree (Dr. Cameralium), they must pass two rigorosa, among the subjects of which are Economics (theoretical and practical), Finance, Finance Law, and Statistics. The knowledge required in this case is exceedingly thorough, and the degree is of high value in the public service. There are also state examinations which serve as qualifications, though to a lesser extent, for the legal and administrative services. Though easier, they correspond closely with the above. In the universities the system of economic study in its general features resembles that in vogue in Austria, the chief courses being those on Economics and Finance; but both at Budapest and Klausenburg, as, for instance, at Strassburg to take a parallel, these studies belong not to a sole legal faculty, but to a legal and political faculty (Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät). In addition to successful examinations the candidates have to present a thesis. The possession of the degree of Dr. Cameralium implies a very sound economic training, and it was till lately the chief means of entering the higher civil service both of the kingdom and of the states. Considerable attention is paid to Economics, the seminars being well frequented, and the interest and activity of students great. This is particularly true of Budapest, where the lectures are varied and delivered by a numerous and able staff.

1Budapest, Klausenburg (Kalorsvar).

GERMANY.

The differences in the history and regulations of the various states composing the German empire have led, not unnaturally, to considerable differences in the positions which economic studies occupy. On the one hand, they are affected by the diversity of usage existing as to their connection with the course of study required for the legal profession and the civil service. On the other hand, the particular faculty in which they are included has been determined by reasons possessing little but historical validity.

  1. Prussia.—At the Prussian universities Economics belongs to the faculty of philosophy, and, speaking generally, to that section of this faculty known as the Sciences of the State. A student takes his degree in Economics entirely apart from law, the position of which as a separate faculty unfortunately precludes a student who presents a thesis in one of these two subjects from selecting the other as one of the two collateral subjects which he is bound by regulation to offer himself for examination in. Further, it must be noticed that the degree of doctor in this country, and, indeed, in Germany generally, is not a qualification, as was till recently the case in Austria and still is in certain of the Latin countries. Some assistance it may be in a judicial career, but even then the degree of Doctor Juris has naturally much more value than that of Doctor of Philosophy in the State Sciences.

Nor does Economics occupy an important place in the State examinations which qualify for the legal and administrative services. To enter these a candidate must pass examinations, the first of which is common to both services (referendar Examen). This consists of two parts, the first written and dealing with law, the second oral, which includes, among other matters, the elements of Economics. So subordinate is this subject that, in the opinion of many critics, it hardly counts in the decision as to the eligibility of candidates. The course of examination then bifurcates, some taking that for Justiz-Assessor, others for that of Regierungs Assessor, for neither of which is Economics required. At the latter of these (Reg. Assessor) some knowledge of Economics in its applied branches is said to be highly desirable, but inasmuch as the examination takes place some five years after the conclusion of the university course, the demands it makes are chiefly met by knowledge supplied from books. With regard to the constitution of the examining boards it should be noticed that, even at the referendar Examen, it is not in accordance with common practice to include professors of Economics.

  1. Saxony. —The system recently adopted in Saxony is, in so far as the subordination of Economics is concerned, nearly identical with that of Prussia. In one point it is more favourable to the interests of this subject, the professoriate being invariably represented on the board of examiners.
  2. Reichsland.—In the Reichsland Economics is of no more importance than it is in Prussia.
  3. Saxe Weimar.—In Saxe Weimar, too, it is of but nominal importance in the juridical examinations. There, too, the board of examiners is constituted irrespective of economic requirements, and, as has been caustically said, it is rare to find the examiners academically qualified in the subjects in which they are supposed to examine. The position, in the main, is very similar to that prevailing in Prussia.
  4. Bavaria.— In the chief southern and south-western states Economics holds a more important position in the legal and civil service curricula. Thus, in Bavaria, all students of law, administration, and forest (Landwirth) have to pass an examination in which it forms one of the subjects. The time of the examination is at the conclusion of the four years devoted to legal or other studies respectively, and the presence of the Professor of National Economy among the professorial examiners necessitates due attendance at lectures and thorough study. The second examination for the civil service is technical in character, and only requires economic knowledge in its connection with practical developments and issues.
  5. Würtemburg.—In Würtemburg, though Economics forms no part of the strictly legal examinations, in the other State examinations for administrative students it is of very great importance. For these there are two examinations, the first of which, more general in character than the other, takes place at Tübingen, and involves a very considerable acquaintance with Economics.
  6. Baden.—Every legal student, as well as every candidate seeking entrance into the higher employments in the State departments of revenue and administration, must, in his time, attend lectures on, and pass examinations in, the economic and financial sciences.

The varying positions which Economics holds in the examinations qualifying for State and legal employment in the different German states affect a large number of university students who have to pass these examinations, but do not of necessity take a degree. To them the connection of Economics with one faculty or the other in the university cannot be a matter of much importance, but with others the case is different. Students reading for the degree are, as has been already said, restricted now on one side, now on another, as to their choice of collateral subjects for examination. Sometimes they can offer Economics in connection with law, sometimes they cannot. In addition, the influence which kindred studies taught in one faculty may bring to bear on the methods of instruction may, in some instances, prove of not inconsiderable importance even in the case of the students studying for the doctorate. Professor Brentano, however, whose personal experience extends from Leipzig to Strassburg, from Vienna to Breslau and Munich, contends that the varieties of combination matter less than might seem probable. The facultative position of Economics varies considerably. In Prussia and Saxony they find place among the many heterogeneous subjects grouped together in the faculty of philosophy, though in certain places, as at Berlin, they fall into a distinct subdivision. At Berlin they belong to the Staats- Cameral-und Gewerbewissenschaften. At Strassburg (Reichsland) they combine with law to form a Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät. At Tübingen (Würtemburg) a Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät exists independent of the law, a practice identical with that current at Munich (Bavaria). At some universities, as for instance at Jena, economic lectures are largely attended by the students of Landwirthschaft.

A comparison of the studies preliminary to the doctorate in Germany with those in Austria reveals two chief points of difference. At German universities there is little prescription of the course of study, or, indeed, of the methods to be adopted by the student, who within certain wide limits has a perfectly free choice of subjects. But this comparative freedom from restraint is closely connected with the great importance attached to the thesis, a custom which, its critics urge, leads to premature specialisation. In both countries candidates for the civil and legal services are much more closely restricted to definite courses.

In their practical working the systems of the different universities bear a close resemblance, at any rate in their earlier stages. There are three main courses, delivered annually, on pure Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance, all of which, even the first, involve a careful study of economic fact as distinct from hypothesised theory. The extent to which the method adopted in the first course is empirical depends, of course, on the position of the teacher as an adherent of one or other of the opposing schools of economic thought; but, speaking generally, even the least empirical among them would be deemed empirical by those accustomed to English methods. But, in addition to these three annual courses, lectures are delivered on special subjects. At Freiburg (in Baden), in the summer semester of 1891, these were:

    • History of National Economy and Socialism.
    • Agrarian and Industrial Policy, including the Labour Question.
    • History of Statistics.

The list of special lectures at Berlin, to take the most completely equipped of the universities, shows more clearly the wide range of subjects dealt with under the term Economics. In the summer term, 1892, besides the ordinary annual courses, there were courses of lectures on the following subjects:

    • Theory of Statistics.
    • History of Statistics.
    • Statistics of the German Empire.
    • The Economic and Social History of Germany from the end of the Middle Ages to the Peace of Westphalia.
    • History and Modes of Industrial Undertakings.
    • Money and Banking.
    • Early Commercial and Colonial Policy (till 1800).
    • Industrial and Commercial Policy.
    • The Social Question.
    • Forms of Public Credit.

In addition to lectures, necessarily more or less formal, opportunities are afforded for systematic instruction in classes and in the seminar. The latter institution varies considerably, according to the character of the students frequenting particular universities, for its efficiency, and accord ing to the position of the professor undertaking it, for the direction of its studies. Each teacher collects around himself a group of students who follow his method, adopt his attitude, and frequently devote themselves to those branches of economic research which have occupied his attention. Thus, at Strassburg, Professor Knapp’s seminar deals chiefly with agrarian questions; at Berlin, Professor Wagner’s influence is seen in the predominance of finance and financial topics among the subjects discussed. At Munich, to pass to the question of organisation and method, the two professors join in holding a seminar in which “there are about twenty-four young men taking part. Each of them has to undertake some work: the younger ones get a book to read, and have to report on it; the more advanced have to treat a subject after reading several books on the subject; the most advanced have to make a work themselves, the professors aiding them in furnishing material and giving assistance.’ At some universities there are two seminars, at others one. It is a matter for regret that, with all these opportunities, a comparatively small number of students are ranked as advanced. The explanations offered are many, but probably a very adverse effect on the study is produced by the paucity of the positions to which a thorough economic study can serve as an introduction. Teaching posts are few, and the requirements in the State examinations for the legal and administrative services are, if not as in many cases nominal, strictly limited to an elementary knowledge.

In some of the technical schools, and in all the schools of commerce, instruction in some branch of economics forms part of the regular course, and, in these latter, an examination is held. In the former, however, the subjects thus taught are distinctly subordinated to the technical sciences which occupy the chief attention of the students, while in the schools of commerce only those branches receive adequate treatment which bear or appear likely to bear upon commerce in its practical aspects.

HOLLAND.

The connection between the universities and the legal profession is close in Holland, none but doctors of jurisprudence being qualified to practise as advocates. This is a circumstance which has a material effect upon the study of economics, inasmuch as this, in its more elementary branches, forms one of the obligatory subjects of the first examination for the degree. Thus, so far as this one profession is concerned, a certain knowledge of economics is necessitated.

In the higher administrative service no such knowledge is obligatory, but it is considered that officials who possess the degree of doctor of political science have better chances of promotion. For this degree a thorough study of economics is required. In certain other government services demand is made for acquaintance with certain branches of the subject. In the examinations for the consular service the ‘general principles of economics’ and the ‘elements of statistics,’ chiefly with regard to trade and shipping, form subjects of examination. A similar knowledge is required for the diplomatic service. In none of these cases, it should be noted, is attendance at specified courses compulsory. The subject forms part of the examination.

The requirements indicated above explain to some extent the position which economics occupies in the four Dutch universities. It is a necessary subject for two degrees—the doctorate in laws and the doctorate in political science. But the nature of the knowledge required differs greatly. In the former it is elementary, not going beyond the first principles of the theory, while in the latter case the examination necessitates a really careful and detailed study. In addition to the general course of lectures taken by all, candidates for this latter distinction usually attend two other courses, one in capita selecta (taxation, finance, socialism, &c.), and another in statistics. These courses, unlike those at German universities, extend throughout the academic year, i.e. from September to July. For advanced students discussion classes are held, where the students, after a previous study of a chosen subject, meet to discuss it among themselves and with the professor. Before proceeding to the degree of doctor a candidate has to write, and afterwards to defend, a dissertation on some branch of the general science which he has taken up. Thus, in the case of political science, the thesis may be on some economic question. Outside the universities the chief study of economics takes place in the intermediate schools, where, during the fourth and fifth years of the five years’ curriculum, it is taught for two hours weekly by a doctor of political science, or by another teacher duly qualified by a special examination. At the Polytechnic at Delft there is a chair of economics, but neither is attendance at the course obligatory, nor does it form one of the subjects of examination.

BELGIUM.

By the law of 1890, which provides the regulation for higher instruction, political economy is made obligatory for the attainment of the degree of doctor of laws, a distinction proving a professional qualification, and for the grade of engineer, the course for the former involving some forty-five lectures, that for the latter some fifteen. In both cases the subject is taken in the earlier years of study. Students training for these professions would appear to form the great bulk of those attending economic lectures at the universities. In neither case can the course be said to furnish more than elementary instruction.

The universities have made provision outside these State requirements for more advanced students. The candidates for the degree of doctor of political science have to show a more thorough acquaintance with economic subjects. At the University of Ghent the course which is provided for them is considerably longer; still more stringent regulations prevail at the University of Louvain, for the degree of  ‘docteur en sciences politiques et sociales.’ The important regulations are as follows :—

ART. 5.

Pour être admis à l’épreuve du doctorat il faut:

    1. Avoir acquis depuis une année au moins le grade de docteur en droit.
    2. Avoir pris une inscription générale aux cours du doctorat en sciences politiques et sociales et avoir suivi les cours sur lesquels porte l’épreuve.
    3. Présenter, sous l’approbation du président de l’École, un travail imprimé sur un sujet rentrant dans le cadre du doctorat.

ART. 7.

L’épreuve comprend un examen oral d’une heure et demie. Cet examen porte:—

    1. Sur six branches portées comme principales au programme de l’École.
    2. Sur deux branches au moins choisies parmi celles qui sont portées comme branches libres au programme de l’École ou—avec l’autorisation du président de l’École—parmi celles qui sont portées au programme de l’université.
    3. Sur le travail présenté par le récipiendaire.

The list of lectures for the two years’ curriculum, 1892-3, 1893-4, is as follows :-

For the first year—Histoire parlementaire de la Belgique depuis 1830, la législation ouvrière comparée ; le droit public comparé; de la neutralité de la Belgique et de la Suisse; du régime légal des sociétés commerciales en droit comparé.

For the second year—Histoire diplomatique de l’Europe depuis le Congrès de Vienne; l’Evolution économique au XIXe siècle; les institutions de la France et de l’Allemagne; lé régime colonial et la législation du Congo; les associations en droit comparé.

Seminar or class instruction is given at the universities, though the particular form it takes varies with the other organisation provided, and the character of the students. At the University of Ghent a class supplementary to the lectures is formed, where discussion takes place; at Louvain Professor Brants directs a ‘cours pratique,’1 the members of which (some dozen in number) write treatises, discuss economic movements, and make excursions to centres presenting features of economic interest.

1Conférence d’Économie Sociale. Rapport sur ses travaux, 1891-92. Louvain.

ITALY.

Outside the universities there are in Italy but few institutions which give much instruction in economics. Though courses are delivered at the superior schools of commerce, as, for instance, at Genoa, Venice, and Bari, and the Polytechnic School of Milan, which compare in their nature with those existing at similar places in Austria and Germany, the main aim of such schools, and the limited extent to which they are frequented, prevent them from obtaining any control over the development of economic teaching in the country. It is, then, to the universities that we must look for information as to the methods chiefly employed. At them economics is studied as a subsidiary subject to law, being taken by students in their second year. There are three courses at which attendance, or, to speak more accurately, inscription is obligatory on legal students. In the case of the three obligatory courses the attendance is fairly regular, owing, it is said, to the combined effect of the latitude allowed in the teaching of the subject and the position of the professor as examiner. Without passing the economic examinations students cannot attain to legal degrees. The courses are those in Economic Theory and Administration, Finance, and Statistics. According to the condition of the university these are taught by the same or different teachers, in most cases by the professors who are appointed and paid by the State. In addition to these courses others are given at the option of the teachers, either professors or docents. The attendance at these is not good, though in many cases a large number of students enter themselves as a mark of courtesy towards the lecturer. It costs them nothing, as they pay a compound fee, and it benefits him considerably if a docent, as he receives from the State a payment proportionate to the number of students registered for his courses. In addition to the examination, a candidate for the legal degrees presents a thesis which may, and not infrequently does, deal with some economic subject.1 The study of economics is, moreover, obligatory on students seeking the higher official careers. Many complaints are made as to the position occupied by economic studies in Italy. Their connection with law creates no doubt a certain and a large audience in the lecture room; but, as one Italian professor points out, students do not remain there long enough to acquire anything like a sufficient knowledge of the subject. They come from the schools wholly unprepared, and they leave the university without having undergone a training thorough enough to counterbalance the loose economic notions gathered from their more diligent study of the newspapers. The study of economic facts does not seem to have had sufficient place in the universities of Italy. Attempts are now being made to remedy this defect by the formation of discussion societies among the students of economics, and the encouragement of research into statistical and similar questions.

1Professor Tullio Martello calculates that at the University of Bologna some 15 per cent of those graduating in law present a thesis dealing with economics.

At the minor technical schools lectures are delivered on elementary economics, finance, and statistics.

RUSSIA.

The conditions under which Economics is taught in Russia bear a superficial resemblance to those prevalent in the Latin countries, where it is annexed to the study of law, and pursued very much as a subject of secondary importance. Here, too, it forms part of the regular training through which a jurist must pass in his four years’ curriculum. There are three economic courses which he must attend, and in the subject-matter of which he must display sufficient knowledge in the May State examinations. These are on Economic Theory, Statistics, &c., and Finance. In addition to formal lectures, the professors in charge of the subject may, and sometimes do, organise classes, discussion societies, or seminars, though attendance at these is not obligatory.

The provision for further and more detailed study is considerable. A student who has finished his law studies with a diploma of the first degree can remain in the university, if he wishes, for more special research in one or other subject (Roman law, political economy, private law, financial law, &c.), under the supervision of the special professor or professors. Such a student is examined, and, if successful, obtains the title of magistrandus of the subject in question. Then he must present a dissertation and defend it, after which he obtains the degree of magister. After a second dissertation and disputation he attains the higher degree of doctor of his special subject.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The conditions under which the study of Economics is carried on in the United States of America are widely different from those which prevail in the countries of continental Europe. On the one hand, there is no inducement held out to students by its inclusion among the subjects of state or professional examinations. On the other, there is evidence in the importance which such subjects have assumed at the universities and colleges of a strong public sentiment in favour of their careful study far exceeding that in existence either in these countries or in the United Kingdom. In one respect the regulations of the colleges have had an important effect, independent of the action which they have taken in respect of the strong public demand. Owing to the freedom of the students in most of these institutions from prescribed and compulsory courses of study in most stages of their career, Economics has escaped being relegated, as, for instance, in England, to the position of a subject outside the usual curriculum, and optional only in some one or, perhaps, two stages. Where such prescription does exist it is not deemed a subject necessarily unfit to form part of a compulsory general course. Its inclusion, to some extent, would probably be demanded by the strong public opinion which has grown up during the past twenty years.

The causes of the popularity of Economics are stated with fair unanimity by various writers, though their respective importance is very differently estimated. In the first place, the very novelty of economic studies is itself in favour of their ardent prosecution. Till comparatively recently, it has been said till between 1870 and 1880, they were disregarded because unknown. Now they are seized, studied, and followed because they offer, or seem to offer, an explanation of the vast and complex economic condition which is in process of rapid evolution in this country at once so great and so new. So, too, in England some half century back or more the theories of the economists of that time were received by large numbers as an intellectual gospel. But in the next place the circumstances attending this ‘novelty’ of study have considerable consequences. That the study of Economics is a novel study is important, but it is of equal importance that it is novel at the present time and under present conditions. The American economists have not to shake off the half-uttered, half-silent opprobrium attached to their subject through the action of the more numerous though less conspicuous of their predecessors in their rigid adherence to incomplete or ill-founded theories. They are fortunate in entering upon their teaching at a time when the need of inductive inquiry and training is more fully recognised. This gives a more systematic aspect to the economic instruction demanded from them than was the case in England. In the third place, the campaign in favour of civil service and tariff reform has drawn a great deal of attention to those departments which deal with finance and the more prominent aspects of political life. Lastly, it is urged that the political eagerness which so largely affects the younger generation of Americans combines with the foregoing to crowd the economic lecture rooms with anxious and willing students. Economics is needed by politicians, and ‘we are all politicians,’ writes one professor; it is needed by journalists both because they are keen for political knowledge themselves and because they write for politicians.

The same causes which stimulate economic students have often led to its connection with political science, with history, and in some instances with general sociology.

Returns from several of the universities show the large number of students who attend economic lectures, and the comparatively large number who pass into advanced courses. The universities differ so much among themselves that no common standard of teaching exists. In some the elementary courses are very elementary, in others more thorough than might be concluded from the name. Thus at Harvard these include a study of Mill’s ‘Principles of Political Economy,’ lectures on general theory, or on what is termed descriptive economics, including a survey of financial legislation, while in addition a course is provided on the Economic History of England and America since the Seven Years’ War. In some cases a great part of the junior work consists in the use of text-books, and proceeds rather by class instruction and interrogation than by lecture. Turning to the consideration of the courses organised for the more advanced students, it is highly satisfactory to note the very considerable proportion which these form of the total number engaged in economic study. According to the information collected from various quarters, at Harvard they amount to some 38 per cent; at Columbia College to 41 per cent; at Cornell to 26 per cent. At some others they do not present so favourable an appearance, though at Michigan I am informed that the twenty returned as ‘advanced’ consists entirely of very advanced students, all the others being included under the heading of elementary. No doubt students described as advanced at one institution may not be so regarded at others, for, as has been already suggested, these vary very greatly as regards both their courses and the attainments of their students. With regard to the former, those provided at some of the better known and more highly developed and equipped universities afford a description of the nature of the training offered in the United States. At Harvard the advanced courses for the year 1892–93 are as follows:—

Full courses—

    • Economy Theory—Examination of Selections from leading writers.
    • The Principles of Sociology—Development of the Modern State and its Social Functions.
    • The Social and Economic Condition of Working Men in the United States and in other Countries.
    • The Economic History of Europe and America, to 1763.

Half-courses—

    • History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.
    • Railway Transportation.
    • The Theory and Methods of Taxation.
    • History of Economic Theory down to Adam Smith.
    • History of Financial Legislation in the United States.

At Columbia College the courses are as follows:—

    • Elements of Political Economy.
    • Historical and Practical Economics.
    • History of Economic Theories.
    • Science of Finance.
    • Science of Statistics.
    • Railway Problems.
    • Financial History of the United States.
    • Tariff and Industrial History of the United States.
    • Communism and Socialism.
    • Taxation and Distribution.
    • Sociology.

At Cornell the lectures which succeed the purely elementary ones are not quite so full, but consist of courses on—

    • Economic Reforms.
    • Finance.
    • Economic Legislation.
    • Statistics.
    • Economic History.
    • Financial History of the United States.

There are few universities which do not offer some courses beyond these on elementary theory and history. As a rule, finance and some other branch of applied economics are added. Where graduate schools have been established, as, for instance, at Harvard and at Michigan, the study proceeds very much on the lines indicated above, so far as the former is concerned. At Michigan, the advanced courses are distinguished into intermediate and graduate. Intermediate courses treat of the following:—The Transportation Problem. Principles of the Science of Finance. Theory of Statistics. History and Principles of Currency and Banking. History of the Tariff in the United States. History and Theory of Land Tenure and Agrarian Movements. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. History and Theory of Socialism and Communism. History of Political Economy. Graduate courses:–Critical Analysis of Economic Thought. Critical Examination of the Labour Problem and the Monopoly Problem.

Most universities have, in addition, established seminars, where study proceeds on the lines with which continental students are familiar. Individual members, in most instances graduates, and all advanced students, undertake particular subjects on which they prepare reports or treatises to be read and discussed at the weekly meeting. During their researches they are more or less under the direction of the professor or teacher who undertakes the courses in connection with the department of economics under which their subject falls. At Yale there are two seminaries and one discussion society; at Columbia College there is one for students who have studied only one year, two (in Economics and Finance) for those who are more advanced. The value of the work produced differs, of course, with the character of the university. At Harvard and the other more highly developed universities it is naturally very high.

In certain other countries the attention given to the subject of Economics demands for different reasons less detailed notice. In some instances the resemblance to countries already described renders further description superfluous; in others the geographical limitations of the country, or the comparative absence of opportunities for such special branches of the higher education, necessitate a much slighter notice than that given to the foregoing countries.

In Spain the connection between economic and legal studies is very similar to that existing in Italy. Students of the first and second year attend courses in Economics and Finance, Statistics being apparently nowhere insisted upon. At some of the universities an attempt is made to supplement these elementary courses by conferences and by visits, both to industrial undertakings, as factories, mines, &c., and to financial establishments, as banks; while the introduction of sociological institutes or seminars is looked for at others, as, for instance, at Oviedo.

In Sweden ‘there are two professors of political economy, one at the University of Upsala, one at the University of Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Law, and teaching in addition to Political Economy some purely juridical subjects. There are also two professors in Politics and Statistics, one at Upsala, one at Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Arts, and teaching at their discretion, Public Law, either Swedish or foreign, and Statistics.’ ‘The two professors of Political Economy in the Faculty of Law have to prepare and examine all the students who go in for the State examinations for entrance to the different branches of the civil service. But as Political Economy possesses very little importance in any of the three forms of these examinations, as compared with Jurisprudence, little stress is laid on its study in this faculty. Of the two other professors, one (at Upsala) lectures chiefly on Politics, the other on Statistics, both these studies being optional for the two arts degrees. The theory of Political Economy is not taught. Seminar instruction is arranged to supplement that given in the lecture courses.

In Norway, at the University of Christiania, the system is nearly identical with that of Sweden. There, too, it is found that, owing to the complete subordination of Economics to Law, the knowledge required is elementary in character.

The same impulses which direct the attention of young Americans to the study of Economics are felt in Canada. At the University of Toronto the importance attached to such studies is adequately shown by the large attendances present at the several courses. These courses are carefully arranged and graduated so as to furnish the student with a sound knowledge of the various branches of the subject, and to fit him to undertake, as he is expected to do in his latter years, research into some branch of economic fact.

In Switzerland, the position held by economic studies is, on the whole, at least as favourable as that in the southern countries of Germany. A knowledge of Economics is obligatory on those entering the legal profession, while, owing to the arrangements made, the duty of examining the candidates may, and in practice, I believe, does fall largely on the university professors. Moreover, in the university curricula, the place of economics, so far as Berne is concerned, is very fortunate. True, the subject is optional, as indeed are all subjects for the doctorate, but it may be taken for either the legal or the philosophical doctorate (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Phil.). At the Zürich Polytechnicon it is taught, being obligatory in some form or other for the diplomas of forestry and agriculture. In addition there is a fair voluntary attendance at these lectures. The system of instruction presents no features requiring particular notice. The chief courses are on National Economy and Finance, with the frequent addition of Practical Economics. These are supplemented by special courses at the option of the teacher, and by the seminar.

 

APPENDIX II.

On Economic Studies in France.
By Henry Higgs.

Economic teaching in France, so far as it consists of lectures regularly delivered at the same place by the same person, is to be looked for in—

(i.) The Collège de France, Paris;

(ii.) The Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, Paris;

(iii.) The Université de France, consisting of the aggregate of local ‘universities,’ or faculties officially recognised, in Paris and the provinces;

(iv.) The free or unofficial faculties and schools in Paris and the provinces, including all the Catholic ‘universities’ (which cannot come to terms with the State on the question of the faculty of theology), the École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, and others.

A certain amount of economic instruction is also imparted in the Écoles supérieures du Commerce, generally endowed by the municipalities of commercial towns. Elementary notions of Economics are officially prescribed as part of the programme of elementary schools.

(i.) It is at the Collège de France that one expects to find leading teachers of Economics in France. The traditions of its chair (which was founded in 1830), and the authority vested in its occupants, added to the attractions of a scientific post in Paris, have been a sufficient inducement for the most eminent economists to offer themselves for appointment here. The stimulus of contact with growing, vigorous, and inquiring minds is not, however, afforded to the professors, and they have to fight against a tendency to fall into prosy sermons and easy repetitions of old theory. No fees are charged to the students, nor is any record kept of their names unless they wish to obtain certificates. The lectures are delivered twice a week (two on Economics by M. Leroy-Beaulieu, and two on Statistics by M. Levasseur), in the afternoons. The auditors are for the most part a casual collection of shifting persons, of whom many are foreigners passing through Paris, who attend once or twice out of curiosity to see the lecturer. There is no discussion either during or after the lectures. The professors are paid a fixed stipend by the State. They appear to regard their lectures in the main as vehicles for the dissemination of generally received economic theory. So far, however, as they employ their leisure in prosecuting original research, their stipends may be regarded as an endowment for the advancement of Economics. Their personal examples are stimulating. It would be difficult to mention two more active economists in Europe. But in their lectures they are perhaps too dogmatic to supply students with the zest of grappling with ‘unsettled questions,’ or with the incentive to enlarge, however little, the bounds of knowledge by pointing out to their hearers the frontiers of ignorance which are often in sight.

(ii.) The oldest chair of Political Economy is in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, and was first filled, in 1819, by J. B. Say. The instruction now given here is of a more popular character, consisting of lectures addressed to the working classes at a late hour of the evening. M. Levasseur delivers a five-year cycle of about fifty lectures a year on Economics, and M. de Foville a four-year cycle on Industry and Statistics. There are on the average from 300 to 400 auditors. They pay no fees. The professors are appointed and paid by the Government.

(iii.) By a law passed in 1877 Economics was for the first time officially incorporated into the organisation of higher education in France, by being made an obligatory subject in the second year’s studies of the faculties of law. Economics in France has, it is said, laboured under the disadvantage of offering no opening for a career. On the other hand, the youth of the country flock to the schools of law, for to lawyers all careers are open— politics, journalism, literature, education, legal practice, and many official appointments. The professor of law is overworked, and the professor of Economics underworked. The faculty of law, therefore, generally expects of its professor of Economics that he shall be able to help in legal instruction and examinations; and there has been a tendency to select a lawyer rather than an economist for these chairs. This reproach, however, is rapidly being removed, and the new professors of Economics are in many cases vigorous and promising in their proper spheres. Economics has recently been transferred from the second to the first year’s programme. The law students are said to show a better intelligence of law now that they also study Economics. It can hardly yet be stated what effect this organisation will produce on Economics itself.

In addition to this obligatory study, Economics may be taken as one of the eight optional courses at a later period of preparation in the law faculties. For this purpose there is generally a special course of lectures on Finance, in which financial legislation is a prominent topic; but the option in favour of Economics is not much exercised.

The professors and lecturers in Economics and (in italics) in Finance in the official faculties of law are as follows:—

Paris. MM. Beauregard, Alglave and Ducrocq; Fernand Faure (Statistics); Planiol (Industrial Legislation); Maroussem (Monographs).
Aix: M. Perreau.
Bordeaux: MM. St. Marc, de Boech.
Caen: MM. Willey, Lebret.
Dijon: MM. Mongin, Lucas.
Grenoble: MM. Rambaud, Wahl.
Lille: MM. Deschamps, Artus.
Lyons: MM. Rougier, Berthélémy.
Montpellier: MM. Gide, Glaise.
Nancy: M. Garnier.
Poitiers: MM. Bussonnet, Petit.
Rennes: MM. Turgeon, Charveau.
Toulouse: M. Arnault.

There are also at Montpellier lectures on industrial legislation by M. Laborde.

(iv.) The position of the Catholic ‘universities’ has already been referred to. While following the lead of the State in associating economics with law, they have the advantage of recruiting among their students a large number of those who desire to enter the Church with a training in economic science as an aid to the study of social problems. The respective professors are MM. Jannet (Paris), Baugas (Angers), Béchaud (Lille), Rambaud (Lyons), and Peyron (Marseilles).

The École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, directed by M. Boutmy, is perhaps the most hopeful academic institution in France for the promotion of economic study. Lectures are given by MM. Cheysson (Economics); Stourm, Dubois de Lestang, Plaffin, Courtin (Finance); Levasseur (Statistics); Dunoyer (History of Economics since Adam Smith); Arnauné Foreign Trade and Customs Laws); Lévy (Banking); P. Leroy-Beaulieu (Colonial Systems); Paulet (Industrial Legislation); and Guieysse (Industrial Problems). In addition to these lectures, which are well attended by paying students, there are discussions and classes for original work on the seminar plan. Travelling scholarships are also given, and excellent work is done, to which the general scheme of instruction largely contributes. The primary function of the school is the thorough intellectual equipment of young officials for the State. Foreign languages, travel, and comparative study of laws and social institutions are encouraged, together with an intelligent interest in history and politics. The personal assistance rendered to individual students by the professors, the seminar, and the scholarships, the comprehensive breadth of view, and the rigid impar. tiality of this school are, as yet, unique in France.

Other economic lectures in Paris which require mention are those of M. Colson, at the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (where the Government non-military engineers and road surveyors are trained), of M. Cheysson at the École Nationale des Mines (also under Government), of M. F. Passy at the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (endowed by the municipality), of M. Émile Chevallier, &c. Lectures (by M. Guérin) are organised by the Société d’Economie Sociale, founded by Le Play. M. Demolins, the leader of a secession from this school, also delivers a course of lectures. There is, on the whole, too much diffusion of separate economic lectures in Paris.

An impressive plea has lately been published by M. Chailley-Bert for the recognition of distinct economic faculties, and for such endowments as will spare professors from the need of spending their time and brains upon accessory sources of income.

APPENDIX III.

On the Condition of Economic Studies
in the United Kingdom.
By E.C.K. Gonner.

Though the full extent of the disadvantages under which economic study in this country suffers can only be realised from a fairly detailed account of its position in the various universities and with relation to certain professions, it will not be out of place to preface this report with a few words as to their nature.

(a) In the first place it is a matter of serious concern that economics is not regarded as a necessary part of any professional curriculum. This particular hardship, however, might be faced with comparative equanimity were there existent in this country, as for instance in the United States of America, a strong body of popular feeling in support of its study and its efficient teaching. But, despite frequent assertions to the contrary, I believe, and in this I shall have the concurrence of many colleagues engaged in teaching, that there is no such body of feeling. Its absence has been variously accounted for. To a great extent it is no doubt part of the legacy of distrust and misunderstanding due to the false view of Economics placed before a former generation, and it will probably be a long time before the popular conception of an economist as a compound of text-book theory and ignorance of fact can be entirely dispelled.

(b) Owing largely to the early prominence of the abstract school of economic thought in England the position which the subject holds in the University curricula is far from satisfactory. It is treated as a subject narrow in scope and subordinate—necessarily and naturally subordinate— to other subjects. But this is by no means the position which it should hold, and now that the importance of the studies of economic fact and administration is more clearly seen, the impossibility of effective teaching within the prescribed lines has become glaringly apparent. At present indeed English economic teaching is without a regular system. It is usually supposed that prescribed University courses should offer a means of systematic training in the various subjects, the pass courses of ordinary training, the honours courses of advanced and thorough training. So far as Economics is concerned, this is precisely what the Universities do not provide. With one possible exception they offer at the present time little more than isolated opportunities of showing economic knowledge in examinations primarily devoted to other subjects.

In the United Kingdom the encouragement of the study of Economics rests entirely with educational bodies. So far as professional examinations and curricula are concerned it meets with almost universal neglect. This is wholly so with regard to the examinations qualifying for the practice of law, either as barrister or solicitor, and partly so in the case of the Civil Service Examinations. For these latter Economics may be taken up, as may almost any other subject included in the Sciences and Arts. It is not recognised, that is to say, as more cognate to the administrative callings for which these examinations qualify, than is Chemistry, for instance; indeed, in comparison with many of these other subjects it is at a discount owing to the smaller maximum of marks assigned to it. In other words, it is excluded from the legal curriculum; in the Civil Service Examinations it is an optional but not an important subject. Elementary Political Economy is one of the optional subjects in the examination for chartered accountants, and is obligatory on candidates for the voluntary examination recently instituted by the Institute of Bankers.

At the Universities it receives an insufficient recognition in the degree courses, but as its position varies a great deal a brief summary of the usages of the various Universities with regard to it may be given. Degrees are granted in England by the five Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London, and Victoria; in Scotland by the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrews; in Ireland by Trinity College and the Royal University of Ireland.

ENGLAND.

At Oxford it is an optional subject which may be taken up as one of the three selected subjects for the pass B.A. degree. As studied for this examination it is mainly elementary and largely theoretical, many of the questions relating to certain prescribed portions of the works of Adam Smith and Walker. To pass this examination, for which the yearly number of candidates presents an average of two hundred, demands common sense and a fair general acquaintance with leading Economic topics. A paper on Economics is included among those set in the Honour School of Modern History.

At Cambridge the position occupied by Economics in the University curricula is far more satisfactory. In some shape or other it forms part of three degree examinations. All candidates for the ordinary pass B.A., after passing the general examination, have to take up a special subject for their concluding study. Of these, sixteen in all, there are seven arts special subjects, one of which is Economics. The special examination in Economics (Political Economy) consists of two parts, which may be taken at separate times:—

Part I.—Three papers.

    • Two in General Economic Theory.
    • One in Economic History.

Part II.—Three papers.

    • Two in Taxation and Economic Functions of Government, with History of Trade and Finance, 1760–1860.
    • One in General Theory of Law and Government.

In the Moral Science Tripos (Honour B.A.) there are six obligatory papers, two being assigned to Political Economy (i.e. Theory), while in addition advanced Political Economy ranks as one of the optional subjects, two of which must be passed in by a candidate desirous of being classed. Lastly, in the Historical Tripos (Honour B.A.), one paper is in Economic History, the paper on general History of England also being supposed to require some Economic knowledge. Further, candidates who desire it may take Political Economy and theory of Government with International Law as an alternative to the study of a second special subject. Of these three examinations the one which seems most satisfactory, so far as Economics is concerned, is the special for the pass B.A., which embraces at once the four important branches of administrative, theoretical, historical, and financial Economics, and it is to be regretted that it has not yet been possible to organise an Honour examination on corresponding lines, but wider and more advanced. Were such in existence it would furnish English students with similar encouragement to systematic study and similar opportunities to those provided in the better developed Continental schools.

In the University of Durham, in addition to the obligatory subjects, two optional subjects have to be chosen by candidates for the degree. These are selected out of a number of subjects, of which Economics is one. The knowledge required is not of an advanced nature.

In the University of London Economics holds no position but the somewhat unfortunate one of an optional subject for candidates proceeding from the B.A. to the M.A. degree in Moral Science, a position which at once restricts the number of students likely to study it, and prevents its study from extending beyond the knowledge of general theory. It is not a subject, either optional or obligatory, at any other examination.

In the Victoria University Economics, comprising Political Economy and Economic History, forms one of the twelve optional subjects, of which two have to be selected for the final year of study by candidates for the pass B.A. degree, the two other subjects being more or less restricted. Economic Theory or History may also be taken in conjunction with Modern History as one subject by candidates who wish, for instance, to take Modern History but not Ancient History. As, however, nearly all the other subjects are, with some difference of standard or period, subjects at the Intermediate or Second-year Examination, in some instances compulsory, and again in certain cases subjects at the final examination, the study of Economics, involving as it does the entry of the student upon a wholly new subject during his final year, is naturally discouraged. Further, Economic Theory (Political Economy), like any other arts or science subject, may, by permission, be substituted for one of the two selected general subjects, Ethics or Modern History, at the intermediate stage of the Law degree (LL.B.). A course of lectures in Political Economy has to be attended by candidates for the Honours degree in History. It is not a subject in the examination.

SCOTLAND.

By the regulations of the Commission applicable to all Scotch Universities Economics holds a two-fold position.

(a) With regard to the ordinary M.A. examination, it is one of the three optional subjects which have to be selected out of the usual arts and science subjects. In all, seven subjects must be taken, but of these four are more or less prescribed. The course which must be attended consists of at least 100 lectures.

(b) It is further a compulsory subject for the first examination for the Agricultural B.Sc. In this case the knowledge required is much slighter, and naturally much more closely related to rural economy.

IRELAND.

At Trinity College Economics is part of one of the seven groups in which the Honour degree may be taken, the other subjects in this group being History and Law. All candidates for the law degree must be graduates in Arts, but not necessarily graduates in honours, or if in honours, in this particular group. It is also included among the options for the pass degree.

In the Royal University of Ireland Economics (Political Economy) is an alternative with Ethics in one of the three groups, one of which must be passed by candidates for the ordinary pass B.A. In the examinations for the Honour degree (B.A.) it, with Civil and Constitutional History and General Jurisprudence, constitutes one of the six groups open to the student. It holds a very similar position in the examination for the M.A. degree.

—————————

The foregoing account shows clearly how little opportunity is given for the systematic study of Economics as a preliminary to degree examination, and especially in the case of honours. It is certainly very unfortunate that an able student anxious to graduate in honours is almost precluded from devoting a large amount of attention to the study of Economics.

In face of this tacit discouragement, so far as examinations are concerned, the provision for teaching made in many places by colleges and universities is almost a matter for surprise. At both Cambridge and Oxford it is satisfactory in all but one respect. It is varied, copious and comprehensive, but—and this is a matter of regret—it is not systematic. At each of these universities there is a professor engaged in active teaching, while other lecture courses are provided by college lecturers. At the universities and colleges in the rest of England the provision for teaching is of necessity less complete. At those best equipped, instruction in Economics depends on the energy and vigour of a single teacher, supplemented, perhaps, by an occasional course of lectures by some other Economist, while at the rest, if taught at all, it is attached to the duties of a teacher principally engaged in, and probably principally interested in, teaching some other subject, for, as a general rule, the teaching of Economics in conjunction with some other subject has meant little more than that the teacher of some other subject has had to give a course of lectures on General Economics. At two of the three colleges of the Victoria University Economics has separate teachers, at Liverpool one holding the rank of professor, at Manchester one holding that of a lecturer. At Leeds, on the other hand, there is no teacher of Economics. At the other university colleges in England the two London colleges possess each a professor, though the professor at King’s College delivers Economic lectures only during the six winter months. At the University College, Nottingham, Economic lectures are delivered by a professor at the same time engaged in teaching history and literature. The other colleges (Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield, and Newcastle) at present make no provision for teaching a subject which they find so discounted as a subject for examination.

In Wales two of the University Colleges (Aberystwith and Cardiff) have made some sort of provision for Economic teaching by the appoint. ment of lecturers in History and Political Economy, while at Bangor Economics is tacked on to the duties of the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Scotland there is a fully instituted chair of Political Economy at the University of Edinburgh, and measures are in progress for the endowment of a Professorship at Glasgow, where the Economic work has recently been performed by a lecturer acting as assistant to the Professor of Moral Philosophy. At St. Andrews a yearly course of lectures is delivered by the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Ireland, at Trinity College, Dublin, there is a Professorship of Economics. At the Queen’s Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway this teaching is combined with that of Jurisprudence, and limited to a very short portion of the year. Owing to the great differences existing between the courses delivered at the various institutions, and the entirely diverse character of the respective audiences, it is impossible to give any satisfactory statistics of attendance. From most quarters come complaints. Indeed, with the two possible exceptions of Oxford and Cambridge, it is difficult to imagine a more complete indifference to the scientific study of Economics than that displayed at the present time.

In addition to lectures, more informal instruction is often imparted to more advanced students, but the formation of a seminar in Economics has been undertaken but seldom, if at all. That this is due not to lack of will on the part of the teachers in those colleges where Economic teaching is entrusted to a separate teacher, but mainly to the singular deficiency in advanced or even moderately advanced students, is shown by the readiness with which individual instruction, often involving much sacrifice of time, is given to such students when they do present themselves. Such an institution can be successfully introduced only when Economic studies are so recognised as to be able to attract the abler students in a university or college.

Attempts to develop popular Economic instruction by means of evening classes, and separate courses of lectures, have been made by the University Colleges and other institutions, and by the Societies for the Extension of University Teaching; and at some of the former particular attention has been paid to the Economic teaching, noticeably at Owens College, Manchester, and University College, Liverpool. The class of students attracted to these lectures may be spoken of very favourably. From the reports and information supplied by the Societies, it would seem that though the attendance at Economic courses, when given, is good, the demand for them is not very great. The interest shown in the subject in some one or other of its branches is said to be reviving—certainly to be greater than it was some few years ago. There has been a decided increase in the demand for lectures on Economics, and subjects partially economic, during the last two years.

Economic studies in England require at the present time organisation and encouragement. As to the ability of English Economists and the quality of their contributions there can be no doubt; but, when compared with continental countries, England is sadly lacking in the number of Economic students. Where they have many, she has few. As has been said, this is largely due to the unfortunate positions to which Economics has been relegated in many Universities, and its neglect so far as professional callings are concerned. On the other hand, the revival of interest in Economic matters, so abundantly manifested, makes it more than ever desirable to provide means and opportunities for sound scientific training.

Source: Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries. Report of the Cunningham Committee, Report of the Sixty-Fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Oxford in August 1894, pp. 365-391.

Also: at the Biodiversity Heritage Library Website; and at Harvard College Library, Gift of the Overseers Committee to visit the Department of Economics.

Image Source: William Cunningham page at the Trinity College Chapel website.

 

Categories
Columbia Suggested Reading

Columbia. Topics and readings to prepare for oral exam in economic theory, 1961

 

The only surprises in the following list of relevant readings for the Columbia University oral examinees in economic theory are (i) the number of introductory or intermediate level items and (ii) the overwhelming identification of economic theory with microeconomics, indeed, only 1/5 of the topics have to do with income theory (i.e. macroeconomics). Monetary economics is found under distribution theory.

________________________________

[Handwritten note at top of page:] 1961

Preparation for the Oral Examination in Economic Theory:
A Communication from the Faculty to the Candidates

The following list of topics and relevant readings are recommended to the attention of students preparing for the oral examination in economic theory. The readings are in no sense “required” since, in most cases, they are merely a small sampling of a voluminous literature that contains many other works of comparable or superior merit. The readings listed below, however, are a good place to begin; and when the student has no previous acquaintance with the literature relevant to a topic, he is advised to begin with a book or article marked [.

TOPICS AND RELEVANT READINGS

Preface: Methodology in Economics

Boulding, The Skills of the Economist (1958)

Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics (1953)

[Knight, “The Limitations of Scientific Method in Economics,” in The Ethics of Competition (1935)

Papandreou, Economics as a Science (1958)

[Robbins, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science (2d ed., 1946)

Schoeffler, The Failures of Economics (1955)

Part I: The Theory of Demand

  1. Consumer Behavior

Hicks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946) Part I

[Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics (2d ed., 1957)

Robertson, Utility and All That (1952)

Vickery, “Measuring Marginal Utility by Reactions to Risk,” in 13 Econometrica 3/9 (1945)

  1. The Industry Demand Curve

Bailey, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” in 62 J. Pol. Econ. 255 (1954)

[Friedman, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” in 57 J. Pol. Econ. 463 (1949)

Schultz, Henry, Statistical Studies in the Theory of Demand (1938)

Working, “What Do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show,” in 41 Q. J. Econ. 212 (1927); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Yeager, “Methodenstreit over Demand Curves,” in 68 J. Pol. Econ. (1960)

  1. The Firm Demand Curve

Stigler, “The Kinked Demand Curve and Rigid Prices,” in 55 J. Pol. Econ. 432 (1947)

Sweezy, Paul, “Demand Under Conditions of Oligopoly,” in 47 J. Pol. Econ. 568 (1939); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Part II: The Theory of Production

  1. Industry Cost Curves

Ellis and Fellner, “External Economies and Diseconomies,” 33 Am. Econ. Rev. 493 (1943); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in PriceTheory

[Knight, ”Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Social Cost,” in The Ethics of Competition (1935); also in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Scitovsky, “Two Concepts of External Economies,” 62 J. Pol. Econ. 143 (1954)

Schwartzman, “The Methodology of the Theory of Returns to Scale,” 10 Oxford Economic Papers 98 (1958)

  1. Cost Curves in the Firm

Clark, J.M., Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs (1923)

Dean, Joel, Statistical Determination of Costs (1936)

Eiteman and Guthrie, “The Shape of the Average Cost Curve,” 42 Am. Econ. Rev. 832 (1952)

Staehle, “The Measurement of Statistical Cost Functions,” 32 Am. Econ. Rev. 321 (1942); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

[Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” 3 Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 23 (1932); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

  1. Capitalization

Fisher, Irving, The Nature of Capita1 and Income (1927)

[Samuelson, Economics (3d ed. 1955) Appendix to Ch. 29

  1. Activity Analysis

[Baumol, W. J., “Activity Analysis in One Lesson,” 68 Am. Econ. Rev. 837 (1958)

Dorfman, Samuelson and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (1958)

Makower, Activity Analysis (1957)

Spivey, Linear Programming (1960)

  1. Input-Output Analysis

Cameron, “The Construction of the Leontief System,” 19 Rev. Econ. Stud. 19 (1951)

Dorfman, Samuelson, and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (1958)

[Leontief, The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1939 (2d ed. 1951)

Input-Output Analysis (National Bureau, 1955)

Part III: The Theory of Markets

  1. Competition, Pure, Perfect and Workable

Clark, J. M., “Toward a Concept of Workable Competition, Am. Econ. Rev. (1940; reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Social Control

Fetter, “The Economic Law of Market Areas,” 38 Q. J. Econ. 520 (1924); reprinted in The Masquerade of Monopoly

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1922)

[Stigler, “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” 65 J. Pol.Econ. l (1957)

  1. Monopoly

Greenhut and Pfouts, “The Pricing Policies of a Spatial Monopolist,” 9 Metroeconomics 153

[Patinkin, “Multiple-Plant Firms Cartels, and Imperfect Competition,” 61 Q. J. Econ. 173 (1947)

Robinson, Joan, Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933). Books IV, V and VI

  1. Oligopoly

Baumol, Business Behavior, Value and Growth (1959), Part I

Fellner, Competition Among the Few (1949)

Hotelling, “Stability in Competition,” 39 Econ. J. 41 (1929); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Lerner and Singer, “Some Notes on Duopoly and Spatial Competition,” 45 J. Pol. Econ. 145 (1937)

[Modigliani, “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 215 (1958)

Stigler, “A Theory of Delivered Price Systems,” 39 Am. Econ. Rev. 1143 (1949)

  1. Game Theory

[Luce and Raiffa, Games and Decisions (1957)

Shubik, Strategy and Market Structure (l959)

[Stone, J. R. N., ”The Theory of Games,” 58 Econ. J. 184 (1948)

  1. Monopolistic and/or Imperfect Competition

Chamberlin, E., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (7th ed. 1955)

Dewey, ”Imperfect Competition No Bar to Efficient Production,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 24 (1958)

[Robinson, Joan, The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933)

Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (2d ed. 1947) Chapters 7 and 8

Smithies, “Equilibrium in Monopolistic Competition,” Q. J. Econ. (November, 1940)

 

Part IV: The Theory of Distribution

  1. Capital and Interest: Without Money

Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, (1888)

Fisher, Irving, The Nature of Capital and Income (1927)

[Knight, “Diminishing Returns from Investment,” 52 J. Pol. Econ. 26 (1944)

Knight, “’Capital, Time, and the Interest Rate,” Economica 257 (1934)

  1. Capital and Interest: With Money

[Hart, Money, Debt and Economic Activity (2d ed. 1953)

Htcks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946) Parts III and IV

Metzler, “Wealth, Saving, and the Rate of Interest,” 59 J. Pol. Econ. 93 (1951)

Patinkin, Money, Interest, and Prices (1956)

Wicksell, Interest and Prices (English ed. 1936)

  1. Land as Capital

Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933) Ch. 8

Worcester, ”A Reconsideration of Rent Theory,” 36 Am. Econ. Rev. 258 (1946)

  1. Distribution According to Marginal Productivity

[Samuelson, Principles of Economics (3d ed. 1955) Appendix to Chapter 27

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (1946) Ch. 12

[Stonier and Hague, A Textbook of Economic Theory (1953) Ch. 16

  1. Labor and Wages

Conrad and Meyer, “The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 95 (1958)

Douglas, Paul, The Theory of Wages (1934)

[Dunlop, John, Wage Determination Under Trade Unions (1944)

Lampman, “Recent Changes in Income Inequality Reconsidered,” 64 Am. Econ. Rev. 251 (1954)

Lester, R.A., “Marginalism and Labor Markets,” 37 Am. Econ. Rev. 135 (1947); with rejoinders by Machlup and Stigler

Mincer, J. “Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income Distribution,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 281 (1958)

  1. Profit and Uncertainty

Davis, R. M., “The Current State of Profit Theory,” 62 Am. Econ. Rev. 245 (1952)

Hart, A.G., Anticipations Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning (1940)

[Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1922)

Shackle, Expectation in Economics (1949)

Weston, “The Profit Concept and Theory: A Restatement,” 62 J. Pol. Econ. 152 (1954)

  1. The Problem of Optimum Efficiency

Beckwith, B.P., Economic Theory of a Socialist Economy (1949)

Lerner, The Economics of Control (1944)

Pigou, Economics of Welfare (4th ed. 1932)

[Reder, The Theory of Welfare Economics (1947)

Vickery, “Some Objections to Marginal Cost Pricing,” 56 J. Pol. Econ. 218 (1948)

Vickery, “Utility, Strategy and Social Decision Rules,” 74 Q. J. Econ. 507 (1960)

  1. General Equilibrium

Hicks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946)

[Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (1946) Ch. 9

[Stigler, Theory of Price (1952) Ch. 16

Walras, Elements of Political Economy ( 1874)

 

Part V: The Theory of National Income

  1. Income Theory Before Keynes

Bellamy, Edward, “Parable of the Water Tanks,” in Equality (1897)

Foster, W. T. and Catchings, The Road to Plenty (1928)

[Haberler, Prosperity and Depression (2d ed. 1939)

Hobson, J. A., The Problem of the Unemployed (1896)

Mitchell, W. C., Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting (1927)

Robinson, Joan, An Essav on Marxian Economics (1947)

  1. The General Theory and its Reception

[Keynes, The General Theory of Interest, Employment and Money (1935)

[Klein, The Keynesian Revolution (1947)

Pigou, Keynes’ General Theory (1950)

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes (1953)

Harris, ed., The New Economics (1949)

Terborgh, The Bogey of Economic Maturity (1945)

  1. Recent Developments in Income Theory

Christ, C., “Aggregative Econometric Models” 46 Am. Econ. Rev. 385 (1956)

[Friedman and Becker, “A Statistical Illusion in Judging Keynesian Models,” 65 J. Pol. Econ. 64 (1957)

Klein and Goldberger, An Econometric Model of the United States,

1929-1952 (1955)

Weintraub, A General Theory of the Price Level, Output, Income Distribution and Economic Growth (1959)

  1. Some Problems of Economic Growth

Brems, Output, Employment, Capita1, and Economic Growth (1959)

[Domar, Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (1957)

Harrod, Toward a Dynamic Economics (1948)

Smithies, “Economic Fluctuations and Growth,” 25 Econometrica 1 (1957)

 

USEFUL TEXTBOOKS AND GENERAL COMMENTARIES ON ECONOMIC THEORY

Allen, R.G.D., Mathematical Economics

Bain, Pricing, Distribution, and Employment

Baumol, Economic Dynamics

Boulding, Economic Analysis

Chamberlain, A General Theory of Economic Process

Fellner, Modern Economic Analysis

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes

Henderson and Quandt, Microeconomic Theory

Leftwich, The Price System and Resource Allocation

Machlup, Models of Sellers’ Competition

Makower, Activity Analysis

Klein, The Keynesian Revolution

McKenna, Aggregate Economic Analysis

McKenna, Intermediate Economic Theory

Robinson, Introduction to the Theory of Employment

Samuelson, Principles of Economics

Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition

Stigler, The Theory of Price

Stonier and Hague, A Textbook of Economic Theory

Robertson, D.H., Lectures on Economic Principles

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 1, Folder “Eco. Dept.—Qualifying Examination Committee”.

Image Source: August Rodin’s Le Penseur at Columbia University. InSapphoWeTrust from Los Angeles, California, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economist Market Economists

Columbia. Early Industrial Organization. Career of Arthur Robert Burns, husband of Eveline M. Burns

In the previous post we encountered social security pioneer Eveline Mabel Burns née Richardson at the point in her career when the Columbia University economics department signaled a definitive end to any hopes for promotion from the rank of lecturer to a tenure track assistant professorship in economics for her with them. In this post we follow the parallel case of her economist husband, Arthur Robert Burns (and no, not the Arthur F. Burns of Burns-Mitchell fame!), who cleared the promotion to assistant professor hurdle at Columbia relatively easily, but was stuck at that rank for nine years, in spite of repeated proposals by the department to promote him sooner.

The heart of this post can be found in the exchange between the  Arthur Robert Burns and then economics department head R. M. Haig in November 1941. Biographical and career backstories for Arthur R. Burns through 1945 can be found in excerpts posted below from budgetary proposals submitted by the economics department over the years. Burns was seen as a pillar of Columbia University’s Industrial Organization field at that time and remained at Columbia through his retirement (ca. 1965) while his wife took up a professorship in Social Work.

____________________________

From: Seligman’s 1929-30 budget recommendation to President Butler (December 1, 1928)

“During [Clara Eliot’s] absence [from Barnard College)  Mr. A. R. Burns has been acting as substitute. In our judgment he has been a valuable addition to the staff, and we recommend that he be reappointed as instructor. In Miss Eliot’s absence the course in statistics has been reduced from two semesters to one. There is a distinct demand for an additional course, though it would be on a different basis from formerly, and our proposal is that Miss Eliot be appointed solely to give two three-point courses in statistics, conducting a statistical laboratory as part of this work. This would relieve Mr. Burns from the course in statistics, and enable him to offer a new course of a somewhat more theoretical character than any now given at Barnard, on “the price-system and the organization of society”, a course which would distinctly help to round out the present offerings in Economics”.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Biographical and professional background through 1930-31
of Arthur R. Burns

…Arthur R. Burns was born in London, in 1895. He served in the army from September, 1914, to April, 1917, when he was discharged as no longer fit because of wounds. He entered the London School of Economics at once, took his B.Sc. degree with honors in 1920, taught economics in King’s College for women (University of London) for four years, and took his doctor’s degree in 1926. The award of Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowships brought Dr. Burns and his wife to this country, where they traveled somewhat widely for two years, studied competitive conditions in industries characterized by large business units, and where they were induced to stay by Columbia.

Dr. Burns has now been a lecturer in economics at Barnard College for three years. Members of our department have thus had an opportunity to become well acquainted with his quality. We think that he is by native ability, temperament and training an investigator, and that, given such opportunities as the graduate department affords, he will make significant contributions to economic science. His publications include several technical papers and two books: Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, 1926, (a learned treatise on the origin and early history of coinage and monetary practices), and The Economic World, 1927 (written in collaboration with Mrs. Burns).

Source: Letter outlining plans for the future development of the economics department by Wesley C. Mitchell to President Butler. January 16, 1931. In Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 667, Folder 34 “Mitchell, Wesley Clair, 10/1930 – 6/1931”. Carbon copy also in Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Department recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
already in 1937-38
[Note: actual promotion only occurred Apr. 3, 1944]

[…] I would make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1937-1938]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1937-1938”.

____________________________

Department again recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
[Note: Burns was given the salary increase this time]

[…] I would respectfully make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1938-1939]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1938-1939”.

____________________________

Department then begins unsuccessfully to push for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 28, 1938]

[…] I respectfully recommend budgetary changes for the coming academic year 1939-1940, involving increase of compensation to the following members of the staff:

[…]

3. Arthur R. Burns from $4,000 to $4,500;

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has established himself as an authority in his chosen field, and it is the desire of his colleagues that he be advanced to a full professorship as rapidly as university resources will allow. His tenure has already been long, and his advancement slow. It is our thought that he be given current recognition and enccouragement, with hope of promotion to rank commesurate with his repute among economists.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, “Economics Budget 1938-1939”. [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Requesting unpaid leave for a Twentieth Century Fund project

March 1, 1939

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.
President of Columbia University

Dear President Butler:

Professor Arthur R. Burns has been invited to take the directorship of a study of the public utility industry, under the auspices of the Twentieth Century Fund. We of the Department think it wise that he do this and recommend that he be granted leave of absence without pay for the academic year 1939-40. I shall be prepared before long to make recommendation of some outstanding person to serve as a partial substitute for Professor Burns during the coming academic year with a stipend which will absorb approximately three-fifths of Professor Burns’ current compensation.

Very sincerely yours,

Executive Officer
Department of Economics

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940”.

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 18, 1939]

[…] I respectfully make the following recommendations affecting the budget of 1940-41:

[…]

6. That Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be granted added compensation of $500 [i.e. from $4,000 to $4,500].

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has served a long apprenticeship with subordinate rank in the Department. At the moment, either from the standpoint of scholarly attainment or from that of efficiency in graduate instruction he suffers not at all by comparison with the best endowed and most effective of his colleagues. Because of his merits and of the importance of the field he covers, he should be advanced rapidly to full professorial status.

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940” [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary reducing  promotion to Associate Professorship
[October 27, 1941]

MEMORANDUM
Department of Economics
October 27, 1941

[…]

Arthur R. Burns. Proposed: Advancement–assistant professor to associate professor.
Present salary $4,500
Proposed salary. $5,000

[…]

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

Arthur R. Burns demands promotion to the rank of professor

3206, Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

November 1st 1941.

Dear Professor Haig,

As I shall not be in New York this year to talk about the departmental plans for next year I must write. It seems to me that the question of my status in the department now calls for definitive action. Doubtless the unsettled times will be advanced as a reason for postponing promotion. At the outset, therefore, I wish to emphasise that I should regard any such attitude as entirely unfair. If the University is to go through hard times (as well it may) its misfortunes should be shared equitably among all the members of the faculty. To be frank, I feel that I have already been asked to bear an altogether unreasonable share of such financial stringencies as the University may have suffered. There have been many occasions in the past thirteen years on which I have been told that my promotion has been recommended (and more in which I have been told that it would have been recommended) but that no action has been taken for general financial reasons. I fully expect to bear my share of the burden of contemporary events but I feel that the time has come for my position to be given special consideration irrespective of those events, no matter how serious.

Various reasons have been given to me during my thirteen years of service to the University for its failure to promote me. But I think I am justified in believing that there has been less than the usual amount of criticism of my scholarship or my teaching capacity. The number of my students who have progressed in the outside world (sometimes already beyond my own rank and salary) indicates that I have been reasonably effective. Furthermore, I think that you will find that in recent years there has been an increasing number of graduate students coming to Columbia to work with me.

I now ask you, therefore, to have my academic status reviewed, whether or not the University wishes on principle again to avoid promotions. And after this long delay promotion only to an associate professorship will not, in my opinion, be compatible with my professional reputation and status. For six or seven years now my recognition outside the University has been widely at variance with my academic rank. My salary as Director of Research for the Twentieth Century Fund was $10,000 per annum. I have recently been invited to join the Anti Trust Division of the Department of Justice at a salary of $8,000 per annum. I am now the Supervisor of Civilian Allocation in the Office of Production Management. I suggest that this evidence justifies promotion to a full professorship. If economies are necessary, I am ready, as I have said, to accept them on the same basis as my colleagues.

I have written to you with complete frankness because I have been keenly disappointed with the disposal of suggestions for my promotion and I am anxious that you shall be clearly informed as to my feelings. I gather that for a number of years now there has been no serious objection but also no vigorous effort in my behalf. I now feel that if after all these long delays Columbia is unwilling to take special action to recognize my professional status I had better know before I am much older. I am now forty six years of age and if I must seek academic recognition elsewhere I must obviously begin to take the necessary steps without delay. I would of course prefer to stay with Columbia. I think you will agree that these long years of patient waiting are evidence of my loyalty but I think you will also agree that I cannot continue much longer to accept the present wide discrepancy between my status inside and outside the University.

Very sincerely yours,

[signed]

Arthur R. Burns

Professor Robert Murray Haig,
Chairman,
Department of Economics,
Fayerweather Hall,
Columbia University,
NEW YORK CITY

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department responds to Burns’ demands:
Associate professorship when your rejoin the faculty

November 22, 1941

Professor Arthur R. Burns
3206 Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Professor Burns:

Last night our group met at dinner to consider the budget. This afforded an opportunity to comply with your request that your academic status be reviewed. I wish you could have listened to the discussion that took place. It was highly friendly and appreciative in tone, but at the same time it was pervaded by a deep sense of responsibility for the ultimate objectives for which we are striving. I am sure that it would have impressed you, as it did me, with the essential soundness of the policy of placing heavy dependence upon the deliberate, critical judgment of one’s colleagues in considering questions of promotion.

Your letter of November 1st, which I read to the brethren in full, arrived at a time peculiarly unfavorable for the consideration of finalities and ultimatums. Moreover, I regret to have to report some of the statements and implications of that letter were not altogether fortunate in the reactions they inspired. Let me elaborate on this last statement first.

(1) You state that you gather that in the past there has been “no vigorous effort” in your behalf. I can speak with full knowledge only regarding last year. If the implication is that your failure to secure more adequate recognition is ascribable to lack of vigor on the part of your colleagues as a group, or of the chairman of the Department in particular, I wish to state that I know it to be untrue with respect to last year and have reason to believe it to be untrue of several previous years. As a matter of fact, last year as the program moved forward from the Faculty Committee on Instruction, the recommendation for your promotion was placed at the very top above all others in the Faculty of Political Science. Until the very end, when the Trustees at their March meeting ruthlessly scuttled the program, I had high hopes that the effort would be successful. The only budgetary changes last year in this entire Department of 32 members were a) a $300 increase for which the College authorities had obligated themselves to secure for Barger and b) the temporary allocation of $600 to Wald for one year only from a sabbatical “windfall”.

(2) The citation of the salaries and fees you have been able to command in the government service and in the service of private research organizations as evidence that “justifies promotion to a full professorship” does not greatly impress your colleagues. We rejoice in the recognition and rewards that have come to you in return for your efforts while on leave of absence from your post at Columbia. Certainly the work of the Department has been carried on under a distinct handicap when your courses haven manned by part-time substitutes and we should like to believe that the sacrifices involved had borne rich fruits in professional and material rewards to you personally as well as to the general cause of science. However, you will readily agree, I take it, that our promotion and salary policy cannot be based on the principle you seem to suggest, viz., that the University must be prepared to match, dollar for dollar, the potential earning power of the staff on outside jobs. The rate of compensation for such outside work is, to my certain knowledge, likely to run over four or five times the rate of University compensation. Indeed, I can think of many of our colleagues who, on the basis of such a principle, could cite evidence even more convincing than your own.

(3) In the next place your letter seems to imply an understanding of the nature of the University connection that is not in complete harmony with our own. While it may be the policy elsewhere that mere length of service by a person who joins the staff at an early age, even though that service be reasonably effective and untouched by unfavorable criticism, carries assurance of promotion to the highest rank, this is definitely not the policy at Columbia University. Theoretically, at least, the University retains complete freedom of action to withhold advancement subject to a continuing critical appraisal of the individual’s value to the institution, against the background of changing circumstances, among which the University’s ability to supply funds must be listed near the top. Everyone is continually on trial to the very end of his career. This is evidenced in the practice regarding early retirement, the working of which I have recently had an opportunity to observe. Assurance regarding stability of tenure at a given level is a different point and mere humanitarian considerations are given generous weight. However, fundamentally the University connection is to be regarded as an opportunity (an opportunity, incidentally, of which you, in the opinion of your colleagues have, on the whole, made very good use) and promotion and early retirement are certainly affected and, in many cases at least, determined by the manner in which a member of the staff rises to that opportunity. Moreover, when such heavy dependence is placed upon the continuing critical appraisal by one’s colleagues, each man must have regard for his responsibility for the long-run interests of the department and of science. If, as the years roll along, the department is to contain a reasonably large percentage of intellects of the highest order, the critical appraisal must be a continuing process and sufficient freedom of action must be retained in promotion and salary policy to enable the group to make reasonably effective its collective judgment as to what is best for the department in the light of the individual’s developing record and the fluctuations of the resources available for supplying opportunities. I hope that you will forgive me for laboring this point but it is important that you understand what I am certain is the sentiment of the group of which you are a valued member, viz., that no matter on what basis of rank you may return to us, say, for example, as an associate professor, further recognition in rank or salary will be dependent upon decisions reached in harmony with the general policies outlined above.

I now revert to my earlier statement that your letter arrived at a peculiarly unfavorable time.

(1) On November 13th a letter was received from the President of the University indicating that Draconian economies were indicated for this year’s budget. Our own enrolment in the graduate department of economics has shrunk this year about 25 per cent and this shrinkage is on top of last year’s substantial shrinkage. Even in advance of the preparation of the formal budget letters, the department chairmen were summoned before a special committee at the behest of the trustees and urged by the elimination of courses and other means to contract the normal budget to smaller proportions. Consequently only in emergency cases where the interests of the University are considered to be vitally affected, will serious consideration be given to recommendations involving an increased expenditure.

(2) With the retirement of McCrea, the question of the future of the School of Business has been thrown open for discussion. Under the new Dean a radical revision of policy is being formulated, including as one item the transfer of the School to a strictly graduate level. The intimate interrelationships of staff and curriculum between our department and the school are being reexamined. Plans are still in a state of flux but your particular field of interest is involved. So highly dynamic is the situation that the budget letters of both the Department and the School are to be considered tentative documents, subject to modification as decisions of policy are taken during the weeks that lie ahead.

(3) The situation is further complicated by the fact that within our Department itself we have reached the stage, which arises every decade or so, when long-time plans require consideration. Not only are we faced with an important retirement problem, but we are also asked to have regard for the situation that will result if the present trend toward lower enrolments continues. To deal with this situation, a special committee has been set up in the department, headed by Professor Mitchell, to formulate plans for the future. A series of meetings is being held at which the present and probable future importance of the various subjects falling within the scope of the departments are being discussed and questions of staff and curriculum are being intensively studied. Here also important decisions are in the making but definite conclusions have not yet been reached.

I am writing at such length in order that you may understand clearly and fully the background against which we were called upon to consider your letter and the reasons underlying the action that was taken in your case.

The recommendation that I am instructed by our colleagues to include in the budget letter is that I renew the recommendation made last year that you be promoted to the rank of associate professor at a salary of $5,000. I realize that this will be a disappointment to you. You have stated that you consider this degree of recognition, if we are successful in securing it for you, would not be compatible with your professional reputation and status. I infer from your letter that you consider it so inadequate that you are not prepared to accept it. However, you do not make yourself unequivocally clear on this point. If your mind is definitely made up, it will simplify the procedure if you will inform me of the fact at once. On the other hand, there is no disposition to press you for an early answer in case you are not as far along toward a decision as your letter would seem to imply.

In considering the problem of your probable future with us, as compared with the various flattering alternatives open to you, I feel that I should make the following statements:

(1) I have no assurance that the recommendation will be adopted. It will carry the vigorous support of the department and of the Chairman. I have already raised the question informally before the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty and am happy to be able to report that this committee is warmly friendly to your cause. Frankly, however, I am not as optimistic as I was last year at this time regarding the outlook for a favorable outcome when the trustees finally take action.

(2) I should report that, in view of all the circumstances, including the state of ferment that exists at the moment regarding future plans for the department, your colleagues would not be willing to urge your appointment to a full professorship immediately, even if they were convinced that such a recommendation would stand a chance of acceptance by the trustees. You are highly regarded and much appreciated. Your colleagues regret the harsh circumstances that have made it impossible to give you more recognition than you have already received. They consider you an excellent gamble for the long future. They consider the fields of your special interest important. However, it is hoped and believed that you have not yet reached a full development of your potentialities. When faced with the question as to whether they are convinced that, on the record to date, you are reasonably certain to be generally regarded, during the next twenty years, as one of the dozen or so most distinguished economists in active service, there is a general disposition to reply “not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Although they have no illusions about the difficulty of carrying out this policy with success, they have decided to take the position that they will henceforth recommend for a full professorship no one who does not meet such a test. They prefer to have you return with the clear understanding all around that the final issue, the question of the full professorship, shall not be decided in your case until more evidence is in. They take this position with the best of will and with a considerable degree of confidence that the final decision will be favorable. In connection with this, they feel that the important work upon which you are now engaged should contribute substantially to your “capital account” and should have a highly favorable effect upon your future record as a scholar and teacher.

You paid me the compliment of writing me a candid and forthright letter. In return I have attempted to lay before you with complete frankness all the considerations I know of that bear upon the question you have to consider.

Finally, I should like to say, speaking both in a personal capacity and as the chairman of the department, that I hope you will find it possible to send me word that you desire to continue as a member of our group under these conditions. We have an interesting and important task before us. I believe that you have a rôle to play in its accomplishment. If, unhappily for us, your decision takes you away from us, we shall sincerely regret the termination of our close association with you. To a remarkable degree you have earned for yourself not only the respect but the affection of your colleagues at Columbia.

Faithfully yours,

R.M. HAIG

P.S. At your early convenience will you be good enough to send me a note of any items that should be added to your academic record for use in my budget letter.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

From: Economics Department’s Proposed Budget for 1946-1947
November 30, 1945
[Burns recommended for professorship]

[…]

We recommend that Arthur Robert Burns, now an associate professor at a salary of $5,000, be promoted to a professorship at $7,500. Professor Burns, who has been connected with the University since 1928, was appointed an assistant professor in 1935, an associate professor in 1944. He has returned this year to his academic work, after a six-year leave of absence devoted to research and to important governmental service. His war-time activities have included service as Chief Economic Adviser and deputy Director of the Office of Civilian Supply, Deputy Administrator of the Foreign Economic Administration, and a mission to Europe in 1945 as a member of the American Group of the Allied Control Commission, advising on economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.
Professor Burns is carrying one of the fundamental graduate courses on Industrial Organization. He has agreed to offer one of the courses that will be central in the curriculum of the School of International Affairs–a course on “Types of Economic Organization”. His close acquaintance with the organization of the economies of the United States, Britain, and Germany, and his scholarly background in the field are of great value in this development of systematic academic work on comparative economic systems. Burn’s scholarly reputation is high. His study of The Decline of Competition, which is accepted as a standard in the field, is one of the major products of the Columbia Council on Research in the Social Sciences. He has served the country in recent years in administrative and advisory posts of high responsibility. We believe that he should have the rank of full professor.

[…]

Annex C

ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS

Academic Record

1918. Gladstone Memorial Prize, London School of Economics, London.
1920. B.Sc. (Economics) degree with First Class Honors, University of London.
1926. Ph.D. degree, University of London.
1926-28. Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowship.

Teaching

1922-26. University of London.
1928-31. Lecturer in Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University.
1931-35. Lecturer in Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1935-44. Assistant Professor of Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1939. Special Lecturer, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Leaves of absence without salary for 1940-41 through 1944-45.
1944-45. Promoted to Associate Professor of Economics
Returned to Columbia University for 1945-46.

Published Work

“Indian Currency Reform.” Economica, about 1925.
“The Effect of Funding the Floating Debt,” Economica, about 1933.
“Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times.” London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1927. About 650 pp.
“The Economic World.” London, University of London Press, 1928. [sic: co-authorship of wife Eveline M. Burns was not included in the citation].
“The Quantitative Study of Recent Economic Changes in the United States.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 31: 491-546, April, 1930.
“Population Pressure in Great Britain.” Eugenics, 3: 211-20, June, 1930.
“The First Phase of the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933”. Political Science Quarterly,  49:161, June, 1934.
“The Consumer under the National Industrial Recovery Act.” Management Review, 23:195, July 1934.
The Decline of Competition. New York, McGraw Hill, 1936. 619 pp.
[not listed: “The Process of Industrial Concentration” 47 Q.J.E. 277 (1933)]
“The Anti-Trust Laws and the Regulation of Price Competition.” Law and Contemporary Problems, June, 1937.
“The Organization of Industry and the Theory of Prices.” Journal of Political Economy, XLV: 662-80, October, 1937.
“Concentration of Production,” Harvard Business Review, Spring Issue, 1943.
“Surplus Government Property and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, April, 1945.

Unpublished Studies

1935-38. Investigation of the pricing of cement with special reference to the basing point system (in collaboration with Professor J. M. Clark).
1939. Report on the pricing of sulphur.
1938-39. Study of distribution costs and retail prices.
1939-41. Director of Research, Twentieth Century Fund study of “Relations between Government and Electric Light and Power Industry.” Has been completed and is now in hands of the Twentieth Century Fund.

Other Work

1935. Alternate member. President’s Committee to report on the experience of the National Recovery Administration.
1938-39. Chairman, Sub-Committee of Price Conference on Distribution Costs and REtail Prices.
1939-41. Member of Board of Editors, American Economic Review.
1941. Supervisor of Civilian Supply and Requirements, Office of Production Management.
1942. Chief Economic Adviser, Office of Civilian Supply, War Production Board.
1942 (July-August). Member of mission to London to study British methods of concentration of industry.
1943. Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Supply.
1943. Director of Planning and Research, Office of Civilian Requirement
1943, December to March, 1945. Special assistant to Administrator, Deputy Administrator to the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945-continuing. Consultant to Enemy Branch of the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945, Summer. In Europe with the American Group of the Allied Control Commission to advise on the economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budget ’46-47 and related matters”.

___________________________

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economists Gender

Columbia. Eveline M. Burns parts ways with the economics department. 1941-1942

This post is the first of two-parts dealing with a married economics couple who taught at the Columbia economics department during the second quarter of the twentieth century, Eveline Mabel Burns and Arthur Robert Burns. [Warning: not Arthur F. Burns!] Both of the Burns felt themselves relatively undervalued by their Columbia colleagues, but the case for Eveline Burns is particularly clear. She was the weaker spouse but in hindsight the stronger economist of the two. This post presents the end-game correspondence for Eveline Burns with respect to the Columbia economics department. She was quite remarkable, someone who  can be credited as being the midwife for the birth of the U.S. Social Security System (to use a gendered metaphor for a gendered case). The post closes with a list of her publications and her c.v. that is conclusive (ex post) documentation of just how wrong the Columbia economics department got it in the early 1940s. Brava, Eveline Burns!

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Meet your glass ceiling

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

December 9, 1940

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

As you may have heard, Professor McCrea is retiring at the end of the current academic year and the chairmanship of our Department has been passed along to me. After extensive conferences to ascertain the sentiment of our colleagues, I have prepared my first budget letter. In fairness to you as well as to the Department, I feel that I should report to you in very definite terms the attitude of your colleagues toward your future as a member of the staff.

I understand that you are well aware that in previous years opposition has developed to the proposal to advance you from your present position as Lecturer to that of Assistant Professor, an advancement which would carry with it, of course, some intimation of an intention to promote you later to still higher rank and to a permanent career in the Department. I regret to say that in the course of the budget discussions this year it has become apparent that this opposition has not diminished. It is indeed now so substantial that clearly it will be necessary for you to plan your future on the assumption that there is no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science.

Since I share the admiration that your colleagues in the Department feel for your many admirable qualities and your many impressive achievements, it is not an easy thing to send this message, which, in spite of previous notice, will doubtless cause you pain and disappointment. The plain fact is, however, that even your most enthusiastic friends agree that viewing the situation in all its aspects, you should not be encouraged to believe that your connection can be made more permanent, or that your rank can be advanced. This conclusion has been reached after extended consideration and will not, I feel certain, be modified by further discussion or debate.

In the budget letter you are being recommended for an appointment for the academic year 1941-42 as Lecturer at a stipend of $3,000.

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT M. HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns was not amused

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

January 21, 1941

Professor Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

My dear Professor Haig:

I have now had an opportunity of reading with more care your letter of December 9th which you handed to me yesterday and I find it is of a nature which obviously calls for a formal acknowledgment from me. Will you therefore please accept this letter as such? Since no reasons are given for the decision you have conveyed to me there is clearly no comment that I can make, ever were any comment appropriate.

I understood you to say that it would be unnecessary for me formally to give you in writing my reasons for being unwilling to accept a full time appointment as lecturer at a stipend of $3,000, and that you would explore the possibilities of a part time arrangement.

There is, however, one phrase in your letter to which I must take exception for the purposes of the record. In the last paragraph but one of your letter you use the words “in spite of previous notice.” I should like to state formally that to the best of my knowledge no such clear statement of the intentions of the faculty has ever been given to me. On the contrary, on each occasion when I have sought a clarification of the situation from the Dean or, at his suggestion, from other members of the faculty, I have always been given to understand that the individual approached was personally sympathetic to my cause and anxious to see my position regularized but that it would take time for this result to be achieved because of certain admitted difficulties which it was hoped would ultimately be removed.

At varying times I have been informed that there were difficulties because of: (a) my sex, (b) the fact that my husband was also on the staff, (c) the personal objections of an individual faculty member; or that it was undesirable to make a formal recommendation at the time because: (a) a recommendation was being made in favor of my husband and it would be unwise to make recommendations for both husband and wife simultaneously, or (b) that there were staff members, junior to myself, whose economic situations were more pressing than mine, or (c) that it would be advisable to wait until my book on British Unemployment Relief was published, or (d) that there was a general shortage of funds in the university.

In these circumstances I feel that it was not unreasonable for me to draw the conclusion, especially in view of the evident validity of the last consideration cited, that the problem was one of “when”, rather than “whether”, my position would be regularized.

The only occasion on which I was given any indication that this might not be the correct interpretation was in December 1938 when Professor McCrea informed me that while the Department was anxious to expand the work in Social Security, there was some disposition on the part of certain members with whom he had talked to feel that they would like to bring in some outside person to head up the work. I immediately offered my resignation to the Dean, on the ground that for me to continue at Columbia University under such circumstances would not be consistent with my standing in my field and the fact that I had for so long been teaching this subject. Moreover, I pointed out that such a decision implied the negation of any hopes of promotion that I might have formed.

At the request of the Dean, I withdrew my resignation until he could call a meeting of the faculty to discuss the question of my future in the University and at his request I furnished him with a list of my professional activities and publications and the names of outstanding experts in my field from whom he could obtain an opinion as to my standing. That meeting was held in January or February of 1939 and I subsequently received a letter from the Dean (which I do not have with me in Washington) informing me that the decision had been “favorable to my cause” or words to that effect. In those circumstances I felt, wrongly as it now appears, that I was justified in not proceeding with my resignation.

I wish to make it very clear that I am calling attention to these facts solely for the purposes of the record. Even had your letter not emphasized the finality of the judgment, I feel that if my colleagues were prepared to reach such a decision after my thirteen years of service without giving me any reasons therefor, it is unrealistic to expect that their attitude would be changed by any reminder of the facts that I have reported. Nor have I any desire to claim, on the grounds of obligation, expressed or implied, a recognition which the faculty is unwilling for other reasons to give me.

May I say how very sincerely I appreciate your frankness and friendliness yesterday in performing a task which I know could not have been a pleasant one for you. I cannot but feel that had my other colleagues displayed an equal candor and courage during the last seven or eight years, the problem of planning my professional and personal life would have been greatly simplified.

Yours very sincerely,

Eveline M. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Terms of ex-dearment

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

February 15, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Eve Burns:

This is to report to you that on behalf of the Department I have today sent to the Provost of the University a recommendation that you be appointed Lecturer for the academic year 1941-1942, on a part-time basis, at a stipend of $2,500. This, I understand, conforms to your wishes. This appointment contemplates that you will offer one course and will be available for dissertation, essay, and general Departmental work within the area of your special field. It is understood that the arrangement is for a single year, with no commitment by either of us for the period beyond June, 1942.

I have placed your letter of January 21st in the University file.

I had thought of the New York School of Social Work, but I am told that, for the present at least, there is no opening there that would be attractive to you. There is, however, an opening at Hunter College (which may involve the chairmanship of the Department at $6,000 or more) and I have suggested you name to them.

Faithfully yours,

[unsigned, presumably Robert M. Haig]

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns to Department
Roger that.

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

February 27, 1941

Dr. Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Haig:

I wish to thank you for your letter of February 15th stating that you have sent forward a recommendation for my appointment as Lecturer for the academic year 1941-42 on a part-time basis at a stipend of $2,500. I have also noted your statement that the arrangement is for a single year with no commitment for the period beyond June 1942.

Sincerely yours,

Eveline M. Burns

Director of Research, Committee on
Long Range Work and Relief Policies

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (appreares to have been dictated) no signature, no printed letterhead):

November 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Que [sic] Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Doctor Burns:

Last January, after you had expressed your unwillingness to accept reappointment as full-time lecturer at $3,000, the part-time arrangement presently in force was made with the understanding that it involved no commitment beyond June, 1942.

In accordance with a decision reached at a conference of members of the department last night, I have included in the budget letter a recommendation that no provision be made for the continuance of your connection with the department beyond the end of the current academic year.

As I send you this communication I am certain that I speak for all of the members of the department in expressing regret for the circumstances which have prevented the realization of some of our hopes and in expressing appreciation of the contribution you have made to our joint product during the period of your association with Columbia.

With renewed assurances of my personal esteem, I am

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Repeat: you quit, you were not fired

December 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 10th.

My understanding of the course of events in your case, based on the written record and upon my recollection of our conversation on January 20th, 1941, is this:

            1) You demanded promotion and expressed an unwillingness to return to us as a full time lecturer at $3,000;

            2) You were then told, both orally and in writing, that there was no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science;

            3) Thereupon you suggested a special arrangement for 1941-2, stated, both orally and in writing, to be temporary in character, and to involve no commitment on either side beyond June 30, 1942.

            It would seem to be correct to describe what happened as a voluntary withdrawal by you from your position as lecturer because of your dissatisfaction with that status and your unwillingness to continue in it in the face of the University’s inability to promise advancement. It would seem to be incorrect to describe it as a “dismissal”. We decline to regard it as such in our discussions with you and certainly shall not describe it as such in any communications with outsiders who may have an interest in you.

Since, according to my understanding, you were not dismissed, but withdrew, I cannot supply you with the reason for your “dismissal”. You insisted upon promotion. Your colleagues regretfully decided that it was not possible to encourage you to expect promotion to professorial rank and a permanent career in the department.

With respect to the confidential character of the statements at the decisive meeting, I should like to make it clear that, while we agreed not to report each others’ remarks at the meeting, there was no agreement that would preclude any individual who felt so inclined from giving you his own opinion of your qualities in such detail as he might desire.

Yours truly,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
We said: you weren’t fired, you quit

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

January 6, 1942

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 30th, 1941. [Not found in my files]

I am sorry that my recollection of what occurred at our oral interview on January 20th, 1941 does not substantiate in all particulars the statements you make in this letter. My recollection of what occurred is set forth in my letter of December 22d, 1941.

Yours truly,

ROBERT M. HAIG.

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Salary Structure of Economics Staff at Columbia and Barnard
1941-42

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
The Budget as Adopted for 1941-42

Office or Item

Incumbent

1941-1942
ActualAppropriations

McVickar Professor Political Economy Robert M. Haig $9,000.
Professor of Political Economy Leo Wolman $9,000.
Professor of Economic History V. G. Simkhovitch $9,000.
Professor Wesley C. Mitchell $9,000.
Professor John Maurice Clark $9,000.
Professor James Waterhouse Angell $7,500
Professor Carter Goodrich $7,500
Professor Harold Hotelling $7,500
Professor Horace Taylor $6,500
Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns $4,500.
Assistant Professor Robert L. Carey $3,600.
Assistant Professor Boris M. Stanfield $3,600.
Assistant Professor Joseph Dorfman $3,600.
Honorary Associate Richard T. Ely ($1,000.)
Instructor Hubert F. Havlik $3,000.
Instructor C. Lowell Harriss $2,400.
($300.)
Instructor Walt W. Rostow $2,400.
Instructor Courtney C. Brown $2,700.
Instructor Harold Barger $3,000.
Instructor Donald W. O’Connell ($2,400.)
Lecturer Carl T. Schmidt $3,000.
Lecturer (Winter Session) Robert Valeur ($1,500.)
Lecturer Eveline M. Burns $2,500.
Lecturer Louis M. Hacker $3,000.
Lecturer Michael T. Florinsky $2,700.
Lecturer Abraham Wald $2,400.
($600.)
Visiting Lecturer Arthur F. Burns ($2,000.)**
Departmental appropriation $800.
Assistance $1,200.
$118,400.

** Chargeable to salary of Prof. Mitchell, absent on leave.

BARNARD COLLEGE:
Economics Budget for 1941-42

Associate Professor Elizabeth F. Baker $5,000.
Assistant Professor Raymond J. Saulnier $3,600.
Instructor Donald B. Marsh $2,400.
Instructor Mirra Komarovsky $2,700.
Lecturer Clara Eliot $2,700.
Assistant in Economics and Social Science Mary M. van Brunt $1,000
$17,400.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folders “Economics Budget, 1940-1941” and “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

But don’t cry for Eveline M. Burns
She did very well for herself.

A Festschrift was published in honour of Professor Burns in 1969 under the title: Social Security in International Perspective: Essays in Honor of Eveline M. Burns, Ed. Shirley Jenkins, New York and London, Columbia University Press.

____________________________

Eveline M. Burns’ Publications:

“The French Minimum Wage Act of 1915” in Economica, III, 1923;

“The Economics of Family Endowment” in Economica, V, 1925;

Wages and the State: A Comparative Study of the Problems of State Wage Regulations, London, P. S. King and Son, 1926;

The Economic World: A Survey (with A. R. Burns), London, Oxford University Press, 1927;

“Achievements of the British Pension System” in Old-Age Security: Proceedings of the Second National Conference, New York, American Association of Old-Age Security, 1929;

“Planning and Unemployment” in Socialist Planning and a Socialist Program, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, Falcon Press, 1932;

“Misconceptions of European Unemployment Insurance” in Social Security in the United States: 1933, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1933;

“Lessons from British and German Experience” in Social Security in the United States: 1934, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1934;

“Can Social Insurance Provide Social Security?” in Social Security in the United States: 1935, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1935;

“The Lessons of German Experience with Unemployment Relief” in Lectures on Current Economic Problems, Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Graduate School, 1936;

“Basic Principles in Old-Age Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1936, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1936;

Memorandum on “Wall Street Journal” Articles, Washington, Bureau of Research and Statistics (Memorandum No. 3), 1936

Towards Social Security: An Explanation of the Social Security Act and a Survey of the Larger Issues, London, Whittlesey House, and New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936;

“Social Realities versus Technical Obfuscations” in Social Security in the United States: 1937, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1937;

The Arguments for and against the Old-Age Reserve, Washington, Social Security Board, 1938;

“Some Fundamental Consideration in Social Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1940, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1940;

British Unemployment Programs 1920-38 (Report prepared for the Committee on Social Security), Washington, Social Science Research Council, 1941;

Security, Work and Relief Policies (Report of the Committee on Long-Range Work and Relief Policies to the National Resources Planning Board: Eveline M. Burns, Director of Research), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942;

“Building for Economic Security—Six Foundation Stones” in The Third Freedom: Freedom from Want, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, League for Industrial Democracy, 1943;

“Equal Access to Health” and “Equal Access to Economic Security” in National Resources Development Report for 1943 (Part I), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943;

Discussion and Study Outline on Social Security, Washington, National Planning Association (Planning Pamphlets No. 33), 1944;

“Social Security” in Economic Reconstruction, Ed. S. E. Harris, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1945;

“Economic Factors in Family Life” in The Family in the Democratic Society, New York, Columbia University Press, 1949;

“How Much Social Welfare Can America Afford?” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1949, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1950;

“Social Insurance in Evolution” in Readings in Labor Economics, Ed. F. S. Doody, Cambridge (Mass.), Addison Wesley Press, 1950;

The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edition, 1951;

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1950: An Appendix to The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1951;

“An Expanded Role for Social Work” in Social Work Education in the United States, Ed. E. V. Hollis and A. L. Taylor, New York, Columbia University Press, 1951;

“Fifteen Years under the Social Security Act: An Evaluation” in Current Issues in Social Security, Ed. L. MacDonald, New York University, Institute of Labor Relations and Social Security, 1951;

“The Doctoral Program: Progress and Problems” in Social Work Education in the Post-Master’s Program. No. 1: Guiding Principles, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1953;

Comments on the Chamber of Commerce Social Security Proposals, Chicago, American Public Welfare Association, 1953;

Private and Social Insurance and the Problem of Social Security, Ottawa, Canadian Welfare Council, 1953;

“Significant Contemporary Issues in the Expansion and Consolidation of Government Social Security Programs” in Economic Security for Americans: An Appraisal of the Progress made from 1900 to 1953, New York, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 1954;

“The Role of Government in Social Welfare” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1954, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1954;

“The Financing of Social Welfare” in New Directions in Social Work, New York, Harper, 1954;

America’s Role in International Social Welfare (Editor), New York, Columbia University Press, 1955;

Social Security and Public Policy, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956;

“Welfare Assistance” in A Report to the Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City of New York, by the New York City Fiscal Relations Committee, New York, The Committee, 1956;

Papers and Proceedings of the Conference on Social Policy and Social Work Education, Arden House, April 1957 (Editor), New York, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University, 1957;

“Social Policy and the Social Work Curriculum” in Objectives of the Social Work Curriculum of the Future, by W. W. Boehm, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1959;

“The Government’s Role in Child and Family Welfare” in The Nation’s Children, Vol. III: Problems and Prospects, Ed. Eli Ginsberg, New York, Columbia University Press, 1960;

“A Salute to Twenty-Five Years of Social Security” in Social Security: Programs, Problems and Policies, Ed. W. Haber and W. J. Cohen, Homewood (Illinois), R. D. Irwin, 1960;

“Issues in Social Security Financing” in Social Security in the United States: Lectures Presented by the Chancellor’s Committee on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Social Security Act, Berkeley, University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1961;

A Research Program for the Social Security Administration, Washington, U.S. Government Printer, 1961;

“Introduction” in Federal Grants and Public Assistance: A Comparative Study of Policies and Programmes in U.S.A and India, by Saiyid Zafar Hasan, Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1963;

“The Functions of Private and of Social Insurance” in Studi sulle assicurazione raccolti in occasione del cinquanterario dell’Istituto Nazionale della Assicurazioni, Ed. A. Giuffre, Milan, 1963;

“The Determinants of Policy” in In Aid of the Unemployed, Ed. J. M. Becker, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965;

“Social Security in America: The Two Systems—Public and Private” in Labor in a Changing America, Ed. W. Haber, New York, Basic Books, 1966;

“Income Maintenance Policies and Early Retirement” in Technology, Manpower, and Retirement Policy, Ed. J. M. Kreps, Cleveland, World Publishing Co., 1966;

“The Challenge and the Potential of the Future” in Comprehensive Health Services for New York City (Report of the Mayor’s Commission on the Delivery of Personal Health Services), New York, The Commission, 1967;

“Foreword” in Poor Law to Poverty Program, by Samuel Mencher, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967;

“The Future Course of Public Welfare” in Position Papers and Major Related Data for the Governor’s Conference, Albany (New York), New York State Board of Social Welfare, 1967;

Social Policy and the Health Services: The Choices Ahead, New York, American Public Health Association, 1967;

“Productivity and the Theory of Wages” in London Essays in Economics, Ed. T. E. Gregory and H. Dalton, London, G. Routledge, 1927; republished, Freeport (New York), Books for Libraries Press, 1967;

Children’s Allowances and the Economic Welfare of Children (Editor and Contributor), New York, Citizen’s Committee for Children, 1968;

“Needed Changes in Welfare Programs” in Urban Planning and Social Policy, New York, Basic Books, 1968;

“Social Security in Evolution—Towards What?” in Unions, Management and the Public, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 3rdedition, 1968;

“A Commentary on Gunnar Myrdal’s Essay on the Social Sciences and their Impact on Society” in Social Theory and Social Invention, Ed. H. D. Stein, Cleveland, Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1968;

“Welfare Reform and Income Security Policies” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1970, Proceedings of the National Conference on Social Welfare, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970;

“Health Care System” in Encyclopedia of Social Work, New York, National Association of Social Workers, 1971

____________________________

Eveline Mabel Burns
C.V.

Vital information:

Born: Eveline Mabel Richardson on March 16, 1900 in Norwood, London.

Married: Arthur Robert Burns (b. December 2, 1895; d. January 20 1981) of London, 1922.

U.S. Citizenship: 1937.

Died: September 2, 1985 in Newton, Pennsylvania.

Education:

B.Sc. (Econ.), Ph.D. (London), Honorary D.H.L. (Western College; Adelphi; Columbia), Honorary LL.D. (Western Reserve University). Professor Emeritus, Columbia University, since 1967; and Consultant Economist, Community Service Society, New York, since 1971.

Streatham Secondary School, 1913-16; London School of Economics and Political Science, 1916-20; London County Council Tuition Scholarship; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1st Class Honors in Economics, 1920; Ph.D., 1926; Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926.

Positions Held

(1)  Normal Full-time Positions

Title of Position. Name of Institution/Organization. Years of Tenure. Compensation

Junior Administrative Officer. Ministry of Labor, London, England. 1917-21. £ 250

Assistant Lecturer, London School of Economics, University of London. 1921-28 (On Leave 1926-8). £ 350

Lecturer, Graduate Department of Economics, Columbia University. 1928-42 (on leave 1940-2). $ 3000-3500

Chief, Economic Security and Health Section, National Resources Planning Board, Washington, D. C. 1940-3. $ 7500

Professor of Social Work and Chairman and Administrative Officer, Doctoral Committee, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University. 1946 to [retired 1967] $ 9500

(2)  Special Assignments

London School of Economics. Asst, Editor, Economica, 1922-6.

University of London Social Security Committee. Senior Staff Officer, 1937-9. $6500

Social Science Research Council

National Planning Association, Washington, D. C. Consultant on Social Security, 1943-4. $7000

(3)  Visiting Professorships

Anna Howard Shaw Lecturer, Bryn Mawr College, 1944
Visiting Professor, Bryn Mawr College, 1945-6
Visiting Professor, Princeton University, 1951

I have also given short courses or individual lectures at the following institutions:

Department of Economics, University of Chicago
Smith College School for Social Work
Littauer Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard Univ.
School of Applied Social Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
School of Applied Sciences, Western Reserve University

For several years I have conducted the Advanced Seminar arranged by the Social Security Administration for its senior staff, and have given brief seminars for foreign social security experts brought to this country by the Mutual Security Agency

(4)  Consultantships

Consultant, Committee on Economic Security, Washington, 1934-5
Principal Consulting Economist, Social Security Board, 1936-40
Consultant, Social Security Administration, 1948 to date

I have also served as consultant on specific issues to the:

United States Treasury
The Federal Reserve Board
The Works Progress Administration
The New York State Department of Labor

OTHER DISTINCTIONS

Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Fellowship, 1926-8
Guggenheim Fellowship, 1954-5
Florina Lasker Award (“for outstanding contributions in the field of Social Security”), 1960
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Western College, 1962
Honorary LLD, Western Reserve University, 1963
Honorary Fellow, London School of Economics, 1963
Bronfman Lecturer, American Public Health Assn., 1966
Ittelson Medal (“for contributions to Social planning”), 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Adelphi University, 1968
Woman of Achievement Award, American Assn. of University Women, 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Columbia University, 1969

POSITIONS OF CIVIC OR NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, MEMBERSHIP OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, ETC.

Member American Economic Association (Member of Executive Ctte, 1951-3  and Vice-President, 1953-4)
National Conference on Social Welfare (Secretary, 1955, First-Vice President, 1956 and President, 1957-58)
American Public Health Association (Vice-President, 1969-70)
Vice-President and President, Consumers’ League of New York, 1935-8
Member and Chairman of various committees, Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security, 1952-70
Member, Legislative Policy Committee, American Public Welfare Assn., 1956-68
Member, Steering Committee, White House Conference on Children, 1959-60
Member, Federal Advisory Committee on Area Redevelopment, Subsequently the National Committee on Regional Economic Development, 1961-69
Member, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Hobby’s Advisory Committee on Coverage Extension of the Social Security Act, 1953-4
American Delegate to International Conference on Social Welfare, 1958, and member of Steering Ctte and Vice-Chairman of Commission I
Chairman, Social Security Administration Advisory Committee on Long Range Research, 1961-5
Member, President Johnson’s Task Force on Income Security Policy, 1964
Member of Sub-Committee on Social Policy for Health Care and member of its Executive Committee, N. Y. Academy of Medicine 1964 to date
Member, Mayor Lindsay’s Commission on Delivery of Health Service in New York City, 1967-8
Member, National Council, American Assn. of University Professors 1961-4

Original Source: Eveline Burns Papers. Box 1. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Social Welfare History Archives. Minneapolis, MN.

Transcribed and posted on line: Davidann, J. & Klassen, D. (2002). Eveline Mabel Richardson Burns (1900-1985) — Social economist, author, educator and contributor to the development of the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Welfare History Project.

Image: Eveline Mabel Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Harry Johnson opposes major appointment to be offered to Gary Becker, 1964

From the perspective of today it is rather difficult to imagine that the idea of bringing favorite son Gary Becker back to the University of Chicago from Columbia could have faced any, much less, serious resistance from within the economics department. But as the following letters from Zvi Griliches’ papers in the Harvard archives show, Harry Johnson’s displeasure with this prospect was a force taken most seriously by several of his colleagues, at least in the Spring of 1964. Perhaps more was at play than Johnson’s principle objection to a Becker hire:

“…his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him.”

Johnson offered another interesting claim with regard to 1964 Chicago faculty expectations for a Ph.D. thesis:

“I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (‘the quality and length of a good journal article’)…”

Perhaps the birth of the concept of a job-market-paper?

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

May 20, 1964

To: Al Harberger, Zvi Griliches

From: Al Rees

Re: Gary Becker

The question of an appointment for Gary will be discussed at a Department Meeting on June 4. I enclose a copy of a confidential memo from Harry in which he opposes the appointment. Harry will be in Italy on June 4 and cannot present his views in person. I would very much like to have your reaction before the meeting.

You should also know that appointments are being offered this week to Jimmy Savage and to Hans Theil, both at high salaries and both joint with the School of Business. There seems to be a very high probability that both will be accepted.

I am somewhat concerned about the number of tenure posts the Administration will let us have; in particular, I do not want to do anything that might “freeze out” Larry Sjaastad, for whom I have very high hopes.

Another consideration is the effect on Harry of making a senior appointment that he opposes. He seems to feel somehow outnumbered and is still actively considering a move to London.

Gregg has already put to you the case for Gary; in any case you know his stengths too well to need to be reminded of them.

[signed] Al

_____________________

 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date May 19, 1964

CONFIDENTIAL

To: A. Rees
From: H.G. Johnson
In re: [Economics] Department Meeting, June 4th

As I will not be at the departmental meeting on June 4th, I am taking the unusual course of putting on paper my views about certain matters due for discussion, on which I would have spoken.

I. A. (1) The thesis prospectus seminar on Choudhri was dissatisfied with the prospectus; it considered making him prepare a new prospectus, but decided instead to make him get agreement from the three members of his Committee on a new draft. Earl Hamilton was in favor of another prospectus seminar, but was overruled. I have had second thoughts, and believe that the matter should be reconsidered, for the following reasons:

(a) next year’s money workshop will be in different hands than this year’s; I am worried that, in the rush to get students past their prospectus seminar, we will land next year’s workshop with a batch of poorly thought out prospectuses that will have to be patched up with great labor.

(b) Choudhri has an excellent record; he should be able to do much better, and we should make him do better–if we let him get by with low-quality work, we are doing his future career a disservice.

(c) I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (“the quality and length of a good journal article’), bad for student morale, and inimical to good teaching. An example in this case would be salutary, and it would do Choudhri himsèlf little harm and probably some good.

I. A. (1) I would like to recommend strongly that we go after R. A. Mundell for the Ford Fellowship for 1965-66. Mundell is one of the most original and elegant moentary theorists going: he has contributed to the theory of economic policy under fixed and floating exchange rates, and started off the analysis of optimum currency areas, and he has made a number of contributions to the price theory of money and of inflation. He is also a first-class international trade and general value theorist, and a man who is always ready for an intelligent argument. Apart from our mathematical economists, we have no-one here with Mundell’s interest in pure monetary and value theory; and we have no-one with his practical experience at the IMF. I should add that I have suggested Mundell partly because I have talked with him, and he would like to spend 1965-66 in this area.

I. B. (2) Just as strongly, I feel that the department should not pursue the proposal to offer a tenure appointment to Gary Becker. I have a high respect for Becker’s theoretical abilities; but as his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him. 

In addition, I would point out that Becker is probably the most distinguished graduate this department had had in recent years, and that going after him would be a repetition of the cannibalization-of-the-young policy that in my judgment has seriously weakened this department in the past decade or so. Unless we get our good graduates established in good departments in other Universities, we are going to have to live with the present image of the Chicago School in the profession at large, and we are not going to have representatives in other good universities steering good students towards us. If we persistently try to bring our own best back, we will defeat ourselves in the long run in two ways: we will not get the students; and we will not get the top-quality men we should get either, because we are bound to miss out on some of our own, and the fact that a new non-Chicagoan will necessarily be one of a minority outgroup will make the place unattractive to such men.

I am also fairly sure that Becker would not come, because he is intelligent enough to know that he should not come and begause he is well entrenched at Columbia, where a number of senior men are due to be replaced and will be replaced by men of his own

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

June 15, 1964

Professor Zvi Griliches

The Maurice Falk Institute for
Economic Research in Israel
17, Keren Hayesod Street
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Zvi:

I have your letter of June 7.

At the Department Meeting a week ago last Friday, we took no action on Richard Moorsteen other than agreeing to invite him to come to Chicago for a visit next fall. We agreed to invite Bob Mundell to join our faculty for the year 1965-66 on the Ford Foundation Professorship.

The Department took no action on my proposal to offer a major appointment to Gary Becker. It is likely that the question will come up again next fall and you will be here then to state your own point of view.

It is quite clear now that Theil is not going to give us his decision until after his return to the Netherlands. At the moment I am fairly optimistic that when he makes his decision, it will be favorable. Theil has been offered a quite good package, I think, and I judge from conversations with him that he feels he also has a good package.

Furthermore, Judy got the impression that Laura Theil would be favorable to coming here.

You ask in the postscript to your letter whether I got a raise. I presume that what was in your mind was the question: Will I get a raise if the chairmanship is offered to me and I accept it?

I can’t answer your  question for sure since the chairmanship has not been offered to me. Indeed, I have taken steps at this end to try to insure that it won’t be offered to me. If it is offered to me, it is very unlikely I will accept it. Indeed, I can’t imagine that the terms on which it would be offered would be sufficiently attractive to induce me to accept.

Sincerely,

[signed] Gregg

H.G. Lewis

HGL/agm

Source: Harvard University Archives, Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder „Correspondence, 1960-1969“.

Image Sources: Harry Johnson (Archives of two giants of economics donated to the U Chicago Library. U Chicago News, October 25, 2018); Gary Becker (University of Chicago Booth School Nobel Laureate Page for Gary Becker).