Category: Economics Programs

M.I.T. Stats on women economics Ph.D.s, 1960-72

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-08-31

Besides documenting the figure of 5.8% of the MIT economics Ph.D.s granted during the period 1960-1972 going to women, the correspondence between the heads of the UCLA and MIT departments transcribed for this post indicates that there could be up to 14 other departmental responses to the UCLA request in 1972 regarding the gender breakdown of economics Ph.D.s. Can somebody check the UCLA archives for us?

_________________

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024

19 September 1972

Chairman
Department of Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Dear Sir:

The Administration of the University has requested that I obtain from the fifteen best Departments of Economics (as judged by the Roose-Anderson Report) data concerning women Ph.D.s. First, how many women Ph.D.s did you produce from 1960-65, 1965-70, and 1970-72? Second, our Administration wishes specific information on those women with Ph.D.s, or those nearing completion, whom you would recommend for academic appointments.

While it might appear that this Department is about to initiate a policy of discrimination in favor of women, I want to emphasize that we shall continue to select our faculty solely on the basis of merit. Therefore, this year, as in past years, we should very much appreciate information concerning all of your Ph.D.s available for employment in 1973-74.

Sincerely,

[signed]
J.C. La Force
Chairman

JCL:aa

[Note: Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen, A Rating of Graduate Programs, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. 1970.]

_________________

Carbon copy of E. Cary Brown’s response

September 28, 1972

Professor J. C. La Force
University of California, Los Angeles
Department of Economics
Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Professor La Force:

The data you requested are as follows:

	Ph.D. Awarded
	Women	Men
July 1, 1960—June 30, 1965	5	76
July 1, 1965—June 30, 1970	7	95
July 1, 1965—June 30, 1972	1	40
[Total]	13	211

We have not yet compiled a list of the potential supply of Ph.D.’s for next year. I will ask Professor Evsey Domar to call to your attention such women candidates as he would recommend to you. If the list is a sgood as last year’s, they could all be enthusiastically supported.

Very truly yours,

E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/jfc

Source: M.I.T. Institute Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder Ph.D. Program Statistics

Tags BrownEC, LaForce

Curriculum Economics Programs Fields Harvard Statistics

Harvard. Report on statistics and national income courses. Crum and Frickey, 1945

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-05-29

William Leonard Crum and Edward Frickey taught Harvard’s economic statistics courses in the 1930s and 1940s. Paul Samuelson recounted his second semester (Spring 1936) as a graduate student following his previous semester’s worth of Crum: “…I was able to learn genuine modern statistics from E. B. Wilson, bypassing Edwin Frickey (who with Leonard Crum taught at Harvard courses against modern statistics!)” [On this, Roger E. Backhouse’s Vol I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948, p.101].

Reading the following intradepartmental report on economic statistics courses and how to integrate national income and product accounting into the graduate curriculum that was written by a committee of two (Crum and Frickey), one discovers that even a decade after Samuelson’s experience, the proper preparation of “ink charts” was a subject that warranted faculty discussion. Harvard Ph.D. Robert Solow later went to Columbia to play catch-up ball with respect to statistical analysis before starting his M.I.T. contract. Harvard economics was a full generation behind the times with respect to statistical method at mid-20th century.

A 1947 Crum/Frickey joint memo regarding preparation for taking the comprehensive field exam in statistics has been posted earlier.

______________________

6 March 1945

Report on the course offerings in Statistics, and in National Income

At the Department meeting of 13 February, 1945, the undersigned were named a committee to study course offerings and proposed offerings in Statistics and in National Income, discuss their findings with the Chairman, and report to the Department. Attached are the two reports: I, on Statistics; II, (page 10) on National Income.

W.L. Crum
Edwin Frickey

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

I. The Offering in Statistics

At the meeting of the Harvard Economics Department on 13 February, 1945. W. L. C. and E. F. sought opinions from colleagues as to additional instruction needed in statistics and as to changes needed in existing instruction. The following is in part a report of the informal discussion, in part an indication of what W. L. C. and E. F. think can advisedly be done. The present statement is preliminary; a more definitive report will be prepared, after consultation with H. H. B., for submission to the Department at a later meeting.

Opinion was expressed that many of our graduate students show conspicuous lack of ability to present statistical material in the form of chart or table, for example, in theses. Instruction in statistics here has for several years relied upon capacity of students to learn by emulation—they have abundant opportunity to acquaint themselves with good statistical presentation, both tabular and graphic, in our courses in statistics and in the source materials of other courses. In course 21a, some instruction is incidentally given in orderly tabulation of limited sorts, but we make no attempt to teach students to prepare ink charts. Apparently, something more is needed; and three suggestions, perhaps all to be followed together, are made:
1. By compressing some other parts of the work, we can include a small amount of instruction on presentation in course 21a. This should help put those graduate students who are required to take that course here on the right track.
2. For students not required to take 21a, because they have had the “equivalent” elsewhere, one possibly helpful device is to require in course 121b a written report involving presentation in tabular and graphic form. Such report could be graded if sufficient funds are available to cover the grading, and the instructors could make a moderate effort to advise particular students about defects in their reports. The reports would presumably be required of all students in 121b, whether or not they had had 21a.
3. The Department’s specialists in statistics could advise any graduate student, whose thesis involved matters of statistical presentation, concerning such matters. When the Department acquires a general research laboratory, with a regular supervisor, the supervisor could give such advice. In the meantime, the instructors in statistics could stand ready to give such advice in appropriate cases. The undersigned emphasize that this advice should be understood to concern presentation of statistical materials: they do not feel but they should be called upon ordinarily to advise such as student about sources of statistics for his thesis, or about the methods of analyzing the statistics, or about their interpretation. They have often given advice on such matters in certain cases, and will continue to do so, but take the stand that they should not be regarded as under the obligation to give such advice to all comers. The point is that; if the candidate proposes to write a statistical thesis in any field of economics, a vital part of his job is to obtain, analyze, and interpret his data. We see no reason why faculty specialists in statistics should make an extraordinary contribution to a thesis which happens to have quantitative aspects.
Little emphasis appeared, in any opinions expressed, on the need for laboratory instruction in statistics in our graduate offering. Some suggestion was advanced that the “homework” type of problem task could helpfully be employed. W. L. C. and E. F. have a little faith that much could be accomplished in this way – the great advantage of the supervised laboratory is that the supervisor can get students actively started on the task and can catch and clear away difficulties as they arise. (We assume, of course, any problem work of this sort, in graduate courses, should be on an advanced – not elementary – level.) To meet this suggestion, we propose only that point A2 above be put into effect, and that the following change in present operations be considered. At present, course 121a includes two home-work problems, which stretch over several weeks, but are not graded and are not used as bases for specific advice to individual students. The proposed change is that these problems be handed in, and treated like the problem described in A2. (In these cases, as in that case, grading of the reports would be feasible if funds are available for the purpose.)

An emphatic suggestion was made that graduate students have the use of laboratory equipment, and be made welcome in the laboratory. We do not believe this can be managed with the laboratory facilities of course 21a. We note, however, that a moderate chance now exists that the University will presently provide the Department with a research laboratory in statistics, adequately equipped, and under competent supervision. If and when this is done, no difficulty will arise in making ample place for work by graduate students on any statistical tasks in which they may properly be interested. We remark that the arguments in favor of a general research laboratory in statistics are much more likely to bring conviction in responsible quarters that the argument, however strongly put, in favor of facilities merely for the occasional use of graduate students.

Supposing we are to give an additional half graduate course in statistics, opinions pointed toward three alternatives:
1. A course in theory, intermediate between course 121a and Prof. Wilson’s course 122b. This does not appear a good use of our manpower, for the election in such a course would inevitably be small, especially as the mathematics prerequisites would necessarily be much more severe than those – almost nil – on which we now limp through 121a.
2. A further course was suggested – beyond 121b and perhaps alternating with it – in topics in the application of statistics to economic fields. Economics 121b now includes a selected list of such topics, which varies moderately from year to year; but it is by no means a comprehensive coverage of all even of the major possibilities. We could readily prepare an additional half course to be called 121c of further topics in the applied fields, and many students would probably like such a course. Such a course can be described as follows:

Economics 121c will be a half-course which might be entitled Topics in Applied Economic Statistics. Economics 21a or its equivalent will be a prerequisite. Properly qualified undergraduates may, with the consent of the instructor, be admitted to economics 121c.

Economics 121c will deal with statistical problems arising in connection with the use of basic statistical data in a selected list of economic topics. (As compared with 121b this course will lay more emphasis on the basic material and less emphasis on statistical theory.)

On each topic each student will be expected to familiarize himself with the immediate and the basic sources of the main materials, through actual examination of such materials, and to present a critical appraisal of these fundamental statistics. The instructor will give a succinct historical background – an outline of the principal work which is already been done on the topic. The instructor and the class will work out together conclusions as to what are the leading issues involved, and will consider what it is that statisticians are trying to measure and what they should be trying to measure.

Such topics as the following will be included:

Consumption
Commodity prices
Cost-of-living
Employment and unemployment
Wages
Money and Banking
Production and Trade (certain phases)
Balance of international payments
Public Finance

1. 1. 1. The subordinate suggestion that, in this case, basic preparation for the oral exam and also the write-off field might consist of 121a and either 121b or 121c, was advanced. A strong objection to this appears in the fact that 121b, although made up largely of topics in applied statistics, now includes – and should continue to do so – certain topics which need to be covered by every general economist (we do not here have in mind the statistical specialist) who is to have “literacy” in the field of economic statistics today. Several of the “applied” topics now in 121b include in fact fundamental matters of statistical theory needed by all economists, and not elsewhere covered in our instruction. These include, for example: the theory of index numbers, statistical deflation, secular trends in business cycles, the basic theory of measuring production and income, and at least demand and cost curves not to mention more sophisticated matters of econometrics. These essentially theoretical topics in statistics should remain part of the basic graduate year course in statistics. (This goes also for our present topic of national income: even if the Department offer a course in that subject, the course will not be taken by all students, and all should have at least the brief survey now in 121b). For the foregoing reason, we emphatically urge that 121a and 121b stand as the basic year course in the field, and that the new course 121c be regarded as an additional – but not an alternative–half course.
    2. The subordinate suggestion at 121b and 121c be given in alternate years appears to fall for the same reason given in C2a.

1. Instead of the course described under C2 suggestion was made that we introduce a course in administrative (we use this word provisionally, for want of a better) statistics – mainly, but not exclusively, governmental statistics. We have not outlined such a course in full, but can suggest its nature by indicating that it would emphasize the problems encountered in actually doing statistical work in government or private agencies. Such topics as the preparation and use of index numbers of prices and production; the compilation and use of data on employment and the labor force; statistics of farm production and operation; the gathering of and analysis of facts concerning trade, both foreign and domestic; financial data such as are developed by the treasury, the S. E. C, the F. R. B., and private agencies; statistics used in the analysis of particular enterprises; the rapidly developing field of quality control in industry, suggest themselves for inclusion. The nature of the course can also be indicated by somewhat loose contrast with the course described under C2 above: in that course, the point of view is of the user (economist, or other analyst) of statistics, and attention is given to the origin of the statistics only in so far as it is needed to guide and inform the user. In this course, the point of view is of the maker of statistics, and attention is given to the use of the statistics only in so far as it is needed to guide the maker in his work. This course would go far toward meeting the contention that our students, while well founded in statistical theory, are not ready to handle the kind of statistical tasks which they encounter in government or other research agencies.

At the moment we are not ready to choose between the courses described under C2 and C3, the former (and obviously the latter) being understood as in addition to, and not alternative to, 121b.

No opinion was expressed concerning course 122b, and we think it should continue to be given in alternate years.

No opinion was offered concerning the content of course 121a. We have in mind some compression of one of the topics know given. This, plus the longer term under the peace-time schedule, will enable us to give more satisfactory attention to the topic of small samples.

We were commissioned to report also on national income. This is covered in a separate memorandum.

We layout now, in tentative form and subject to revision by the Department, our recommendation as to the entire offering in statistics in the early post-war years.

21a. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in A1.

121a. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in B and the change noted in D.

121b. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in A2.

(Courses 121a and 121b to be regarded as the core of the preparation in the field of statistics, and to be recommended to the candidates for the general oral in statistics as the most helpful unit in their preparation.)

121c. A new half course, either that described under C2 or that under C3. To be open to graduate students who have had 21a or by consent of the instructor to those who have had the equivalent of 21a, and by consent of the instructor to properly qualified undergraduates who have had 21a.

122b. Substantially as at present, and to be given in alternate years as at present.

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

II. Offering in National Income

The suggestion is made that a half course, at the graduate level, in National Income be offered. The main purpose of such a course would be to give our students an extensive factual basis for their use of national income concepts and data in a wide range of our theoretical and applied fields. The course by itself could provide only a beginning for specialization the subject of national income for its own sake, and we do not understand that the Department contemplates recognizing the field in that subject.

While the course should be concerned primarily with the facts of national income, we understand that some attention could properly be given to the interpretation of those facts into their economic and social implications. Moreover, even to handle properly the factual side, the course would need give much attention to matters of definition and concept, matters which actually stand at the root of most of the “problems” of measuring national income and its chief constituents.

The core of the course would consist of the presentation, discussion, and criticism of the existing statistical facts on the national income and its constituents. These materials would presumably be limited to the United States; although some of the critical portions of the course, dealing with concepts and the like, would necessarily make large drafts on studies in certain other countries. Emphasis would be on the problems of measurement, the effectiveness and validity of the methods used, and the appropriateness of the results obtained as answers to questions posed by the economist.

In addition to the over-all aggregate of national income, viewed in real and money terms and in its variations over time, the course would examine the chief constituents of national income. These would include:

Contributions to national income by various types of economic activity.
Contributions from various geographical regions (much less is known on this.)
Allocation, so far as it is known, to the several factors of production.
Distribution according to size of income (money income) received by individuals.
Distribution of income according to use: consumption expenditures of individuals (perishable, semi-durable), consumption through government, savings (by individuals, by enterprises, by government).
Capital formation, and its relation to savings.
Relation of taxes and public expenditures to the flow of income.

Your committee makes no recommendation as to the personnel to be assigned the task of conducting such a course. It does recommend: that the course be limited to graduate students, and to those advanced concentrators who receive permission from the instructor(s); that all students who take the course be required to have completed one half year course at the graduate level in economic theory and in statistics; that the course be given each year, rather than in alternate years; that the course be considered as a pro-seminar in statistics for the purpose of excuse – under our existing rules for reducing the oral examination to three fields – from the oral examination in statistics.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers, 1902-1950. Box 23. Folder “Course Announcement 1945-46”.

Image Source: Crum and Frickey in the Harvard Class Album, 1942 and 1950.

Tags Crum, Frickey, WilsonEB

Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Completion rates for economics graduate students, 1947-57

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-05-11

Here is an interesting summary of the spectrum of completion from drop-out through award of the Ph.D. in economics for Harvard University 1947-1957. Note the labels “desperate, doubtful, better, safe” for the forecasted prospects of students who had left the gravitational pull of residency.

____________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57

Comment:

The attached survey shows the history of graduate students in the Department of Economics from 1947-57. The details by years are available in Littauer M-8, but we are not duplicating that part of the report.

You will note that of 525 students (378 Arts and Sciences, 50 Radcliffe and 97 Graduate School of Public Administrations) in these ten years, there were a total of 113 withdrawals, about 55% because of poor grades and 45% despite good grades. Of the remaining 412 students, 40 have had but one year’s residence and have not yet taken the General Examination, while 372 have taken and passed the General Examination for an advanced degree. Of these, 69, or about 16%, were awarded a terminal A.M. largely because they passed for the A.M. only. This leaves 303 who have passed the General Examination for the Ph.D., but so far only 152, or roughly 50% have received their Ph.D. There are 50 students still in residence working on their thesis. Of 101 students no longer in residence, 69 have thesis overdue and 39 have not yet written their thesis but are still within the five year limit.

Further details may be had by glancing at the attached sheet.

* * * * * * * * *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57
SUMMARY

1.	Enrollment 1947-57: (Arts and Sciences 378, Radcliffe 50, Graduate School of Public Administration 97)		525
2.	Withdrawn
a)	with poor grades, in discontent or upon request:
	after one term	20
	after two terms	36
	after four terms	_6_
		62
b)	despite good grades:
	after two terms	48
	after four terms	3
	after more than four terms	_0_
		51
	Total Withdrawals		113
3.	Now in residence before General Examination		40
	Forecast:
	Prospects for withdrawal	6
	Prospects for terminal A.M.	14
	Prospects for Ph.D.	20
4.	Passed General Examination for advanced degree		372

5.	A.M. Awarded as terminal degree		69
6.	A.M. expected as terminal degree	5
7.	A.M. awarded in course toward Ph.D. degree	188
8.	Candidates for the Ph.D. degree	343
9.	Ph.D. degree awarded		152
10.	Students still in residence working on thesis (29 of these, 3 yrs residence; 2, less than 3 yrs)		50
	Forecasts:
	Prospects for completion safe	40
	Prospects for completion doubtful	10
11.	No longer in residence, thesis overdue		62
	Forecasts:
	Prospects for completion desperate (Poor record: thesis overdue 2-5 yrs.)	26
	Prospects for completion doubtful (Fair record; thesis overdue 1-4 yrs.)	13
	Prospects for completion better (Good record; thesis overdue 1-4 yrs.)	23
12.	No longer in residence, thesis within 5 yr. limit		39
	Forecasts:
	Prospects for completion doubtful	5
	Prospects for completion safe	34	___
			525

	Summary:
	Ph.D. prospects safe	117
	Ph.D. awarded	152
	Ph.D. awarded or safely expected	269

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961. General-Exams-Haberler.(UAV.349.11), Box 13.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1946.

Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Cornell Duke Economics Programs Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Minnesota Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Stanford UCLA Vanderbilt Wisconsin Yale

Economics Departments and University Rankings by Chairmen. Hughes (1925) and Keniston (1957)

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-04-09

The rankings of universities and departments of economics for 1920 and 1957 that are found below were based on the pooling of contemporary expert opinions. Because the ultimate question for both the Hughes and Keniston studies was the relative aggregate university standing with respect to graduate education, “The list did not include technical schools, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, nor state colleges, like Iowa State, Michigan State or Penn State, since the purpose was to compare institutions which offered the doctorate in a wide variety of fields.” Hence, historians of economics will be frustrated by the conspicuous absence of M.I.T. and Carnegie Tech in the 1957 column except for the understated footnote “According to some of the chairmen there are strong departments at Carnegie Tech. and M.I.T.; also at Vanderbilt”.

The average perceived rank of a particular economics department relative to that of its university might be of use in assessing the negotiating position of department chairs with their respective university administrations. The observed movement within the perception league tables over the course of roughly a human generation might suggest other questions worth pursuing.

Anyhow without further apology…

______________________

About the Image: There is no face associated with rankings so I have chosen the legendary comedians Bud Abbott and Lou Costello for their “Who’s on First?” sketch. YouTube TV version; Radio version: Who’s on First? starts at 22:15

______________________

From Keniston’s Appendix (1959)

Standing of
American Graduate Departments
in the Arts and Sciences

The present study was undertaken as part of a survey of the Graduate School of the University of Pennsylvania in an effort to discover the present reputation of the various departments which offer programs leading to the doctorate.

A letter was addressed to the chairmen of departments in each of twenty-five leading universities of the country. The list was compiled on the basis of (1) membership in the Association of American Universities, (2) number of Ph.D.’s awarded in recent years, (3) geographical distribution. The list did not include technical schools, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, nor state colleges, like Iowa State, Michigan State or Penn State, since the purpose was to compare institutions which offered the doctorate in a wide variety of fields.

Each chairman was asked to rate, on an accompanying sheet, the strongest departments in his field, arranged roughly as the first five, the second five and, if possible, the third five, on the basis of the quality of their Ph.D. work and the quality of the faculty as scholars. About 80% of the chairmen returned a rating. Since many of them reported the composite judgment of their staff, the total number of ratings is well over 500.

On each rating sheet, the individual institutions were given a score. If they were rated in order of rank, they were assigned numbers from 15 (Rank 1) to 1 (Rank 15). If they were rated in groups of five, each group alphabetically arranged, those in the top five were given a score of 13, in the second five a score of 8, and in the third five a score of 3. When all the ratings sheets were returned, the scores of each institution were tabulated and compiled and the institutions arranged in order, in accordance with the total score for each department.

To determine areas of strength or weakness, the departmental scores were combined to determine [four] divisional scores. [Divisions (Departments): Biological Sciences (2), Humanities (11), Physical Sciences (6), Social Sciences (5)]….

… Finally, the scores of each institution given in the divisional rankings were combined to provide an over-all rating of the graduate standing of the major universities.

From a similar poll of opinion, made by R. M. Hughes, A Study of the Graduate Schools of America, and published in 1925, [See the excerpt posted here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror] it was possible to compile the scores for each of eighteen departments as they were ranked at that time and also to secure divisional and over-all rankings. These are presented here for the purpose of showing what changes have taken place in the course of a generation.

The limitations of such a study are obvious; the ranks reported do not reveal the actual merit of the individual departments. They depend on highly subjective impressions; they reflect old and new loyalties; they are subject to lag, and the halo of past prestige. But they do report the judgment of the men whose opinion is most likely to have weight. For chairmen, by virtue of their office, are the men who must know what is going on at other institutions. They are called upon to recommend schools where students in their field may profitably study; they must seek new appointments from the staff and graduates of other schools; their own graduates tum to them for advice in choosing between alternative possibilities for appointment. The sum of their opinions is, therefore, a fairly close approximation to what informed people think about the standing of the departments in each of the fields.

OVER-ALL STANDING
(Total Scores)

1925			1957
1.	Chicago	1543	1.	Harvard	5403
2.	Harvard	1535	2.	California	4750
3.	Columbia	1316	3.	Columbia	4183
4.	Wisconsin	886	4.	Yale	4094
5.	Yale	885	5.	Michigan	3603
6.	Princeton	805	5.	Chicago	3495
7.	Johns Hopkins	746	7.	Princeton	2770
8.	Michigan	720	8.	Wisconsin	2453
9.	California	712	9.	Cornell	2239
10.	Cornell	694	10.	Illinois	1934
11.	Illinois	561	11.	Pennsylvania	1784
12.	Pennsylvania	459	12.	Minnesota	1442
13.	Minnesota	430	13.	Stanford	1439
14.	Stanford	365	14.	U.C.L.A.	1366
15.	Ohio State	294	15.	Indiana	1329
16.	Iowa	215	16.	Johns Hopkins	1249
17.	Northwestern	143	17.	Northwestern	934
18.	North Carolina	57	18.	Ohio State	874
19.	Indiana	45	19.	N.Y.U.	801
			20.	Washington	759

ECONOMICS

1925			1957
1.	Harvard	92	1.	Harvard	298
2.	Columbia	75	2.	Chicago	262
3.	Chicago	65	3.	Yale	241
4.	Wisconsin	63	4.	Columbia	210
5.	Yale	42	5.	California	196
6.	Johns Hopkins	39	5.	Stanford	196
7.	Michigan	31	7.	Princeton	184
8.	Pennsylvania	29	8.	Johns Hopkins	178
9.	Illinois	27	9.	Michigan	174
10.	Cornell	25	10.	Minnesota	96
11.	Princeton	23	11.	Northwestern	70
12.	California	22	12.	Duke	69
13.	Minnesota	20	13.	Wisconsin	66
14.	Northwestern	18	14.	Pennsylvania	45
15.	Stanford	17	15.	Cornell	32
16.	Ohio State	15	16.	U.C.L.A.	31

According to some of the chairmen there are strong departments at Carnegie Tech. and M.I.T.; also at Vanderbilt.

Source: Hayward Keniston. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (January 1959), pp. 115-119,129.

Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market

Chicago. Draft memo of a program to rebuild the department of economics by T.W. Schultz, 1956

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-04-04
3 Comments on Chicago. Draft memo of a program to rebuild the department of economics by T.W. Schultz, 1956

The following draft memo by T. W. Schultz outlines the serious faculty replacement needs of the University of Chicago department of economics in the mid-1950s. Particularly noteworthy, aside from the impressive list of lost faculty, is the appended table listing the sponsored research/3rd party funders of the economics department at that time. One also sees that the department had been authorized to make offers to Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow and Arthur F. Burns. So much for the best-laid plans of mice and men. A better historian of economics than I might spin a counterfactual tale of a post-Cowles Chicago with Arrow and Solow on the faculty.

Regarding the ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center, Schultz wrote “The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine ‘laboratory’ in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development– a major new field in economics.” This reminds me of the old Cold-War Eastern European joke about whether Marx and Engels were scientists (“No, real scientists would have tried their experiments on rats first”). What a “fine ‘laboratory'” for testing oneself!

_________________________

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics
(first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Your Department of Economics has been passing through a crisis. Whether it would survive as a first rate department has been seriously in doubt, with one adversity following another as was the case up until last year. It is now clear, however, that we have achieved a turning point in that we can rebuild and attain the objective which is worth striving for – an outstanding faculty in economics.

The crisis came upon us as a consequence of a combination of things: (1) the department, along with others in the University, had been denied access to undergraduate students of the University who might want to become economists; (2) Viner left for Princeton, Lange for Poland, Yntema for Ford and Douglas for the Senate; (3) the Industrial Relations Center drained off some of our talent and when it jammed, Harbison left for Princeton; (4) Mr. Cowles’ arbitrary decision to shift “his” Commission to Yale was a major blow; (5) Nef been transferring his talents to the Committee on Social Thought, and (6) add to all these the retirement of Knight.

Meanwhile, there were several external developments which did not reduce our difficulties: (1) a number of strong (new) economic centers were being established – at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Vanderbilt, M.I.T. and with public funds at Michigan and Minnesota; (2) our salaries were falling behind seriously relative to some of the other places, and (3) recruiting of established, highly competent economists became all but impossible given the crisis that was upon us and the (then) low repute of the University neighborhood.

The ever present danger of the past few years has been that we would be in the judgment of competent colleagues elsewhere, in the beliefs of oncoming graduate students and in the eyes of the major foundations – not recover our high standing but instead sing to a second or even a third-rate department and in the process lose the (internal) capacity to recruit and rebuild.

We now have achieved a turning point distinctly in our favor.

The major efforts which have contributed most have been as follows:

We have taken full advantage of our unique organization in combining real research with graduate instruction. Our research and instruction workshops are the result. The Rockefeller Foundation gave us three grants along the way – agricultural economics, money and public finance – to test this approach and advanced graduate work. The Ford Foundation has now financed our workshops with $200,000 (eight 5-year grant) (our proposal of January 1956 to The Ford Foundation states the theory and argues the case for this approach on the basis of the experiences we have already accumulated).
We set out aggressively to recruit outstanding younger economists. The workshops were a big aid to us in doing this; so was the financial support of the University. We had the ability to “spot them”. We now have the best group of talented young economists, age 30 and less, to be found anywhere. This achievement is rapidly becoming known to others in keen “competition” is already upon us as a consequence.
We need urgently to run up a lightning rod, a (rotating) professorship with a salary second to none, to attract talent and make it clear we were in business and would pay for the best. The Ford Foundation took favorably to the idea. (Thought so well of it that they will do the same for 3 other privately supported Universities – Columbia, Harvard and Yale!)
The $500,000 endowment grant from them for a rotating research professorship is our reward.
The foundations have given us a strong vote of confidence: grants and funds received by the Department of Economics during 1955-56 now total $1,220,000. (A statement listing these is attached).
The marked turn for the better in the number and the quality of students applying for scholarships and fellowships is, also, an affirmative indication.
The Economics Research Center is filling a large gap in providing computing, publishing and related research facilities which was formally a function of the Cowles Commission.
The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine “laboratory” in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development – a major new field in economics.

There remains, however, much to be done. We must, above all, not lose the upward momentum which is now working in our favor.

Faculty and University Financial Support

To have and to hold a first rate faculty in economics now requires between $225,000 and $250,000 of University funds a year.

To have a major faculty means offering instruction and doing research in 8 to 10 fields. Up until two years ago we came close to satisfying the standard in our graduate instruction. We then had 11 (and just prior to that, 12) professors on indefinite tenure.

Then, Koopmans and Marschak were off to Yale, Harbison to Princeton and Knight did reach 70. And, then there were 7. On top of these “woes” came the serious illness of Metzler which greatly curtailed his role; and, Nef having virtually left economics. Thus, only 5 were really active in economics with Wallis carrying many other professional burdens. Meanwhile we added only one – Harberger was given tenured this year.

Accordingly at the indefinite tenure level we are down to about one-half of what is required to have a major faculty. Fortunately, several younger men have entered and have been doing work of very high quality.

It should be said that the Deans and the Chancellor have stood by, prepared to help us rebuild.

Major appointments were authorized – Arrow, Stigler, Solow and others. We still are hoping that Arthur F. Burns will come.

The resignations and the retirement, however, did necessarily reduce sharply the amount of financial support from the University.

In rebuilding, at least five additional tenure positions will be required:

Labor economics (from within)
Trade cycle (we hope it will be Arthur F. Burns, already authorized).
Money
Econometrics and mathematical economics.
Business organization
Consumption economics (when Miss Reid retires; next 3 years we shall have the extra strength of Dr. D. Brady with finances from The Rockefeller Foundation)
International trade (pending Metzler’s recovery)
Economic development.

The faculty and the University financial support recommended is as follows:

Tenured positions (for individuals fully committed to economics).

1. Now in the harness

6: Friedman, Johnson, Harberger, Hamilton (Metzler), Wallis (Nef), Schultz

1. To be added

5: Burns pending, (labor), (money), and two other fields, most likely econometrics and business organization

Budget: 11 [tenured positions]	$165,000
Metzler and Nef	$15,000
	$180,000
III. Supplementary non-tenure faculty	$45,000
Altogether	$225,000

Outside Financial Support for the Department of Economics

Grants	Amount of grant	Available 1956-57
A. Received during 1955-56.
1. Sears Roebuck Fellowships	$4,000	$4,000
2. National Science Foundation (2 years)	$13,000	$6,500
3. Conservation Foundation (2 years)	$33,000	$16,500
4. Rockefeller Foundation: consumption economics (3 years)	$45,000	$15,000
5. American Enterprise (2 years)	$17,250	$8,625
6. Ford Foundation: research and instructional workshops (5 years)	$200,000	$30,000
7. Earhart Fellowships.	$6,000	$6,000
8. S.S.R.C. Student Grants	$5,000	$5,000
9. Ford Foundation: 3 pre-doctoral grants	$10,200	$10,200
10. Ford Foundation: faculty research grant (Hamilton)	$12,500	$8,000
11. ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center Fellowships, research support (3 yrs)	$375,000	$125,000
12. Ford Foundation: endowment for rotating research professor	$500,000	$25,000
13. Rockefeller Foundation: Latin America (Ballesteros)	$5,000	$5,000
Sub-totals	$1,225,950	$264,825
B. Received prior to 1955-56 where funds are available for 1956-57.
1. Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in money (3 years with one year to go)	$50,000	$20,000
2. Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in public finance (3 years with one year to go)	$50,000	$20,000
3. Resources for the Future (3 years with one year to go)	$67,000	$27,000
4. Russian Agriculture (2 years with one to go)	$47,000	$22,000
B sub-totals	$214,000	$89,000
A and B totals	$1,439,950	$353,825

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 42, Folder 8.

Image Source: 1944 photo of T.W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07479, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Cf. Wikimedia Commons, same portrait (dated 1944) from Library of Congress.

Tags Arrow, Brady, BurnsAF, Cowles, Douglas, Friedman, Hamilton, Harberger, Harbison, JohnsonDG, Knight, Koopmans, Lange, Marschak, Metzler, Nef, Reid, SchultzTW, Solow, Stigler, Viner, Wallis, Yntema

Duke Economics Programs Economists

Duke. Career information about the first quarter century of economics Ph.D.’s, 1957

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-04-03

Early lists of economics Ph.D. degrees awarded by Harvard (1875-1926) and the University of Chicago (1894-1926) have been posted earlier. Duke University awarded its first Ph.D. in economics in 1932. The department published a survey of its 45 Ph.D. alumni in its October 1957 departmental newsletter that is transcribed below. Year the Ph.D. was awarded, employment in 1957, some employment history, and sample publications are included.

_________________

Duke Economics Graduates Newsletter
Number 3. October 1957

Duke University
Durham
North Carolina

Department of Economics
and Business Administration

COMMENCEMENT in 1957 marked the end of a quarter century since the University awarded its first Ph.D. in economics. The degrees conferred last June brought the total to 45, distributed as follows.

1932	2	1947	1
1934	2	1948	3
1935	1	1949	1
1937	3	1950	4
1938	1	1951	2
1939	1	1952	1
1940	1	1953	3
1941	5	1954	2
1942	1	1955	2
1943	2	1956	1
1944	2	1957	4

The first few pages of this NEWSLETTER are devoted to the activities of these 45 Doctors of Philosophy in economics. The response to the questionnaire distributed last summer was so abundant that it has proved impossible to report all the data submitted. In particular, the editor has had to pare publications lists in order to keep the NEWSLETTER within reasonable bounds. It is his hope that its contents nevertheless fairly represent the varied research interests and the wide experiences of our graduates in university, business, and government employment. By the way of preface to the Ph.D. and M.A. rolls [Note: M.A. rolls not included in this post] Professor Hoover has the following greeting for former graduate students in economics:

To all who have been graduate students in Economics at Duke:

This occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Duke University’s granting of the first Ph.D. in Economics coincides with the beginning of my thirty-third year at Duke University and with the relinquishment of the Chairmanship of the Department after twenty years’ service. My association with our graduate students has been the closer since for ten years I also served as Dean of the Graduate School. This was in like manner true of my predecessor, Dean W. H. Glasson, who laid the foundations of graduate work in our Department and in the University. We are fortunate in having as the new Chairman of the Department, Dr. Frank de Vyver who has for so long helped so efficiently in carrying on the administrative duties of the Department. Dr. R. S. Smith is currently acting as Director of Graduate Studies in place of Dr. Joseph Spengler, who continues to contribute so much to our program of graduate training and research. Dr. Spengler has a Ford Fellowship for the present academic year.

We are gratified with the recognition which the research work and graduate teaching of our faculty has received during the past years. It is upon your accomplishments and attainments since leaving Duke, however, that we depend in large degree for our standing in the academic world. We are grateful to you and our best wishes are always with you.

Sincerely
Calvin B. Hoover

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

Doctors of Philosophy

DR. CLARK LEE ALLEN ‘42
Head, Department of Economics, North Carolina State College

Regional Economist, OPA, 1942-43; Army Finance Dept., 1943-45; Duke, 1945-46, 1947-49; Northwestern, 1946-47; Head of Department, Florida State, 1949-54; Head of Department, Texas A.&M., 1954-56.

American Economic Association, Graduate Record Examination Comm., 1951, 1953, and Economic Education Comm., 1957-60; Editor, Southern Economic Journal, 1956-.

“Rayon Staple Fiber: Its Past and Its Prospects,” Southern Economic Journal, Oct. 1946.
“Modern Welfare Economics and Public Policy,” Southern Economic Journal, July 1952.
(Co-author) Prices, Income, and Public Policy. 1954.

* * * * * *

DR. WILLIAM R. ALLEN ‘53
Assistant professor, University of California, Los Angeles

Washington University, 1951-52; Northwestern, 1952.

Social Science Research Council Fellow, 1950-51; Conferee, Ford Foundation Seminar on Sociology of Knowledge, 1953; Conferee, Merrill Center for Economics, 1955; Conferee, SSRC Seminar on Diplomatic History, 1956.

“The Effects on Trade of Shifting Reciprocal Demand Schedule,” American Economic Review, Mar. 1952.
“The International Trade Philosophy of Cordell Hull, 1907-1933,” American Economic Review, Mar. 1953.
“Stable and Unstable Equilibria in the Foreign Exchanges,” Kyklos, VII, Fasc. 4, 1954.

* * * * * *

DR. KARL E. ASHBURN ‘34
Director, Division of Business Administration, Alabama College

Southern Methodist; Texas Christian; University of Florida, Texas Technological; Chief of Placement, Tenth U.S. Civil Service Region; Dean, Division of Commerce, McNeese State College, 1952-57.

Editor, Southwest Social Quarterly, 1937-38; Labor Consultant, Executive Dept., State of Texas, 1938; Migratory Labor Comm., State of Louisiana, 1940-41; Louisiana Survey on Higher Education, 1954-56; State of Louisiana Comm. on Industrial Development, 1957; Advisory Board, Port of Lake Charles, 1957.

“Slavery and Cotton Production in Texas”, Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Dec. 1933.
“The Texas Cotton Control Acreage Law,” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, July 1957.

* * * * * *

DR. ELBERT V. BOWDEN ‘57
Associate professor, College of William and Mary in Norfolk

Duke University, 1952-54 and 1955-56; Bureau of Business Research, U. of Kentucky, 1954-55.

* * * * * *

DR. R. BUFORD BRANDIS ‘43
Chief Economist and Director, Economic Research Division, American Cotton Manufacturers Institute

Littauer Fellow, Harvard, 1940-41; Research Dept., Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1941-45; Supply Officer, U.S. Naval Reserve, 1945-46; Emory University, 1946-52; Research Economist, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1952-54.

“British Overseas Trade and Foreign Exchange,” Political Science Quarterly, June, 1943.
“British Prices and Wage Rates, 1939-41,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1943.
(Co-author) The American Competitive Enterprise Economy, 1953.

* * * * * *

DR. ROYALL BRANDIS ‘52
Associate professor, University of Illinois

War Regulations Analyst, E.I. du Pont, 1941-43; Foreign Trade Economist, National Cotton Council, 1947-49; Duke, 1949-52.

“Cotton Competition: U.S. and Brazil, 1929-1948,” Journal of Farm Economics, Feb. 1952.
“Cotton and the World Economy,” Southern Economic Journal, July, 1956.
“Notes on the Theory of Games and the Social Sciences,” Erhversokonomisk Tidsskrift, 20, Sept. 1956.

* * * * * *

DR. EVERETT J. BURTT, JR. ‘50
Chairman, Department of Economics, Boston University

University of Maine, 1939-41; Denver University, 1941-42; War Manpower Commission, 1942-43; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1946-47.

“Labor Utilization during National Emergencies,” Monthly Labor Review, Oct. 1951.
“Full Employment in the Postwar Period,” Social Science, Jan. 1943.
“After the Shutdown in Howland, Maine,” Southern Economic Journal, July 1941.

* * * * * *

DR. JAMES J. CARNEY, JR. ‘38
Chairman, Department of Finance, University of Miami

Duke, 1934-37; University of Illinois, 1937-40; Regional Labor Economist, War Manpower Commission, 1942-43; Regional Labor Economist, Fourth Service Command, 1944.

“Some Aspects of Spanish Colonial Policy,” Hispanic American Historical Review, May 1939.
Institutional Change and the Level of Employment: A Study of British Unemployment,1918-1929. 1956.

* * * * * *

DR. WALTER H. DELAPLANE ‘34
Dean of Arts and Sciences, Texas A.&M. College

Duke, 1934-43; Economist and Chief, Iberian Section, Blockade Division, 1943-45; National Univ. of Paraguay, 1945-46; Colegio Libre, Buenos Aires, 1946; Head of Dept., St. Lawrence Univ., 1946-48.

* * * * * *

DR. WILLIAM P. DILLINGHAM ‘50
Professor, Florida State University.

Univ. of Georgia, 1947-49; Senior Consultant, President’s Comm. on Veterans Pensions, 1955-56; Research Staff, Florida Citizens Tax Council.

Federal Aid to Veterans, 1917-1941, 1952.
The Historical Development of Veterans’ Benefits in the United States. 1956
Taxation of Intangible Personal Property in Florida. 1956

* * * * * *

DR. EDWIN WOODROW ECKARD ‘37
Project Evaluator, Glenn L. Martin Company

University of Arkansas, 1946-52; Division Economist, Office of Price Stabilization, 1952-53.

Economics of W. S. Jevons. 1940

* * * * * *

DR. RALPH T. GREEN
Director, Texas Commission on Higher Education

Financial Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 1949-55; Chairman, Department of Economics, Baylor University, 1955-56.

Southern Regional Education Board, 1957-; Official Texas Delegate, Southern Regional Conference on Education Beyond the High School, 1957; Delegate, Fourth Meeting of Technicians of Central Banks of the American Continents, 1954.

“Evaluating Adequacy of Bank Capital: An Analysis of the Problem,” Journal of Finance, Sept. 1954.
“The Challenge of Inflation,” Texas Industry, Feb. 1951.
“Meeting the Challenge of Public Higher Education in Texas,” Texas School Board Journal, June 1956.

* * * * * *

DR. PERCY L. GUYTON ‘52
Head of Economics Section, Department of Social Sciences, Memphis State University.

Mississippi State, 1928-36; Research Fellow, Brookings Institution, 1938-39; Simpson College, 1939-43; Associate Price Executive, OPA, 1945; Northwestern, 1945-46; Head, Department of Economics and Business, King College, 1946-54.

* * * * * *

DR. RECTOR R. HARDIN ‘35
Professor of Business Administration and Acting Chairman, Dept. of Management, College of William and Mary in Norfolk

Head, Dept. of Economics, Berea College, 1935-46; University of Arkansas, 1946-47; Head, Dept. of Economics, Howard College, 1947-57.

American Institute of Management Fellow, 1954-57; President, Kentucky Academy of Social Sciences, 1940-41; Alpha Kappa Psi Deputy Councillor, 1949-57.

“Conservation of Manpower in Alabama,” Alabama Academy of Science Journal.

* * * * * *

DR. H. WALTER HARGREAVES ‘42
Professor, College of Commerce, University of Kentucky

Texas College of Mines and Metallurgy, 1940-42; Economic Analyst, New York Life Insurance Co., 1946-48.

“The Guaranteed Security in Federal Finance,” Journal of Political Economy, 1942.

* * * * * *

DR. DAVID M. HARRISON ‘41
Associate Professor, Ohio State University

* * * * * *

DR. DOUGLAS G. HARTLE ‘57
Lecturer, Department of Political Economy, University of Toronto

Chief, Employment Labor Market Section, Economics and Research Branch, Dept. of Labor, Ottawa, 1955-57. Governor, Carleton University, 1957-60.

* * * * * *

Dr. R. MURRAY HAVENS ‘41
Head, Department of Economics, University of Alabama

Baldwin Wallace College, 1941-43; Regional Analyst, OPA, 1943; Economist, Economic Cooperation Administration in Paris, 1948-1949; Economist, Mutual Security Administration, 1951-52

“Laissez-Faire Theory in the Presidential Messages,” Journal of Economic History, Jan. 1942 (Supplement).
“Federal Government Reactions to the Depression of 1837-1843,” Southern Economic Journal, Oct. 1941
“The Significance for American Policy of British Reserve Losses, 1951-1952,” Southern Economic Journal, July 1951

* * * * * *

DR. HERMAN BROOKS JAMES ‘49
Head, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Carolina State College

Teacher of Vocational Agriculture and Country Agent, 1933-40; Farm Management Specialist, N.C. Agricultural Extension Service, 1940-42, Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1943-44.

Chairman, Committee on Agricultural Economics, Social Science Research Council, 1953-56; Vice-chairman, National Committee on Agricultural Policy, Farm Foundation, 1956-; President, American Farm Economics Association, 1956-57.

“Limitations of Static Economic Theory in Farm management Analysis,” Journal of Farm Economics, Nov. 1950.
(Co-author) Farm Mechanization, (N. C. Experiment Station Bulletin 348).
(Co-author) Cotton Mechanization in North Carolina. (N. C. State College Technical Bulletin 104)

* * * * * *

DR. KEITH W. JOHNSON ‘44
Economist, Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Deane College, 1938-40; Franklin & Marshall College, 1940-42; Economist, War Production Board, 1942-45; Economist, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1945-47; University of New Mexico, 1947-48; Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 1948-52; Statistician, Regional Office, General Services Administration, 1952-54

“Residential Vacancies in Wartime U.S.,” Survey of Current Business, Dec. 1942
“Construction and Housing,” Historical Statistics of the U.S., 1789-1945. (Chapter H).
“The Interstate and Foreign Commerce of Texas,” Monthly Business Review(Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas), Oct. 1948

* * * * * *

DR. JAMES MAYNARD KEECH ‘37
Chairman, Department of Management, University of Miami

Recruiting Specialist, U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1942-44; Auxiliary Departments Analyst, 1948-49.

Workmen’s Compensation in North Carolina, 1929-40, 1942

* * * * * *

DR. CLIFTON H. KREPS, JR., ‘48
Wachovia Associate Professor of Banking, School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina

Mt. Union College, 1945-46; Pomona College, 1946-47; Denison University, 1947-49; Economist; Chief, Public Information Division; Chief, Financial Statistics Division, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1949-55

“Federal Reserve Policy Formation,” American Economic Review, Sept. 1950
(Editor) Federal Taxes, 1952
“The Commercial Paper Market” and “Bankers Acceptances,” in Money Market Essays. 1951

* * * * * *

DR. JUANITA MORRIS KREPS ‘48
Assistant Professor, Duke University

Denison University, 1945-49; Hofstra College, 1952-54; Queens College (N.Y.), 1955.

(Co-editor) Aid, Trade and Tariffs, 1953
Our National Resources, 1955

* * * * * *

DR. EDWARD T. MC CORMICK ‘41
President, American Stock Exchange

Security Analyst; Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission, 1934-51; OPA and WPB (on loan from SEC)

Understanding the Securities Act and the S.E.C. 1948

* * * * * *

DR. PHILLIP D. MC COURY ‘57
Professor, Division of Social Science, Humboldt State College

Central College (Missouri), 1950-52; University of Tennessee, 1955-57

* * * * * *

DR. EDWIN MANSFIELD ‘55
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Institute of Technology

Fulbright Scholar to the United Kingdom, 1954-55; Diploma, Royal Statistical Society, 1955; University of Maryland Overseas, 1954; Research Associate, Duke, 1953-54

“The Measurement of Wage Differentials,” Journal of Political Economy, Aug. 1954.
“Community Size, Region, Labor Force and Income,1950,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov. 1955.
“City Size and Income, 1949,” Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 21, 1957.

* * * * * *

DR. WILLIAM L. MILLER ’50
Professor, Alabama Polytechnic Institute

DePaul University, 1946; Duke, 1946-47; Bowling Green State University, 1947-49

“Some Short-Run Relationships between Changes in the Quantity of Money, the National Income, and Income Velocity,” Southern Economic Journal, 1950
“The Multiplier Time Period and the Income Velocity of Active Money,” Southern Economic Journal, 1956.

* * * * * *

DR. JAMES J. O’LEARY ’41
Director of Investment Research and Economist, Life Insurance Association of America

Wesleyan University, 1939-45; Duke University

“Should Federal Deposit Insurance be Extended?”, Southern Economic Journal, July 1943

The Future of Long-Term Interest Rates. 1945

* * * * * *

DR. HENRY M. OLIVER, JR. ’39
Professor, Indiana University

Univ. of Mississippi, 1937; Duke, 1937-39; Yale, 1939-41; Associate Economist, National Resources Planning Board, 1941; Economic Analyst, U. S. Treasury Department, 1941-45; Univ. of North Carolina, 1946-47; Northwestern, 1947-49.

Vice-president, Indiana Academy of Social Sciences, 1951; Fulbright Lecturer, University of Ceylon, 1955-56.

A Critique of Socioeconomic Goals. 1954
“Wage Reductions and Employment,” Southern Economic Journal, January 1939
“Average Cost and Long-Run Elasticity of Demand,” Journal of Political Economy, June 1947.
Economic Opinion and Policy in Ceylon. 1957

* * * * * *

DR. OLIN S. PUGH ’57
Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina

General Education Board Fellow, 1951-52; Southern Fellowship Fund Fellow, 1955-56.

The Export-Import Bank of Washington; Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of South Carolina, 1957.

* * * * * *

DR. CHARLES BRYCE RATCHFORD ‘51
Assistant Director, N. C. Agricultural Extension Service

In charge, Extension Farm Management and Marketing, N. C. Agricultural Extension Service, 1950-54; Assistant Farm Management Specialist, 1942, Farm Management Specialist, 1946-47; In charge, Extension Farm Management, 1947-50; Advisory Committee, Bureau of the Census; National Extension Marketing, Committee; Cotton and Cottonseed Research and Marketing Advisory Committee; Educational Advisory Committee, National Cotton Council; Agricultural Advisor, N. C. Bankers Association.

A Mountain Community Moves Forward: Circular 300, N. C. Agricultural Extension Service, 1947
“Economic Implications of Farm and Home Planning Work,” Journal of Farm Economics, No. 5, 1955.
A Price Support Program for Farm Commodities in the U. S. Department of Agricultural Economics, N. C. State College.

* * * * * *

DR. B. U. RATCHFORD ‘32
Professor, Duke University

District Price Officer, OPA, 1942-43; Economic Advisor, Military Government in Berlin, 1945-46; Deputy Chief, Office of Program Review, E. C. A. (Paris), 1948; Deputy Chief of Mission and Chief Economist, I. B. R. D. Mission to Turkey, 1950; Director of Research, N. P. A. Committee of the South, 1952-55.

Vice-President, American Finance Association, 1946-47; President, Southern Economic Association, 1952-53; Editor, Southern Economic Journal, 1941-45; Editor, American Economic Review, 1946-49; Medal of Freedom, War Department, 1946; Litt. D., Davidson College, 1957.

American State Debts. 1941;
(Co-author) Berlin Reparations Assignment. 1947
(Co-author) Economic Resources and Policies of the South, 1951.

* * * * * *

DR. CHARLES EDWARD RATLIFF, JR. ’55
Chairman, Department of Economics, Davidson College

Aviation Supply Officer, U. S. N., 1945-46

“The Centralization of Government Expenditures for Education and Highways in N. C.,” National Tax Journal, Sept. 1956
“Comment on School Efficiency,” American School Board Journal, July 1956.

* * * * * *

DR. WILLIAM D. ROSS ’51
Dean of the College of Commerce, Louisiana State University

Economist, Military Government in Berlin, 1945-46; Duke, 1946-49

(Co-author) Berlin Reparations Assignment, 1947
Louisiana’s Industrial Tax Exemption Program, 1953
“Highway Development and Financing,” Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, May 1956.

* * * * * *

DR. HOWARD G. SCHALLER ’53
Chairman, Department of Economics, Tulane University

Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1948-49; University of Tennessee, 1952-53.

“Veterans Transfer Payments and State Per Capita Incomes, 1929, 1939, and 1949,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov. 1953
“Social Security Transfer Payments and Differences in State Per Capita Incomes, 1929, 1939, and 1949,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Feb. 1955
“Federal Grants-in-Aid and Differences in State Per Capita Incomes,” National Tax Journal, Sept. 1955

* * * * * *

DR. LEONARD S. SILK ’47
Economics Editor, Business Week Magazine

University of Maine, 1947-48; Simmons College, 1948-51; Economist, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, 1951-52; Assistant Economic Commissioner, U. S. Mission to NATO and OEEC (Paris), 1952-54

F. Lincoln Cromwell Fellow, American-Scandinavian Foundation, 1946; Fulbright Scholar to Norway, 1952.

Sweden Plans for Better Housing. 1948
Forecasting Business Trends. 1956
“The Housing Circumstances of the Aged in the U.S.,”Journal of Gerontology, Jan. 1952

* * * * * *

DR. WILLIAM J. J. SMITH ’48
Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1945-53; LL. D., UCLA, 1957.

* * * * * *

DR. ROBERT S. SMITH ’32
Professor, Duke University

Visiting professor: N. C. College, 1940; University of Costa Rica, 1945; Northwestern, 1947; University of San Carlos, 1949; University of North Carolina, 1955-56; University of Buenos Aries, 1956.

Guggenheim Memorial Fellow, 1942; Honorary Professor, University of Costa Rica and University of San Carlos; U.S. Specialist, State Department, 1955, 1956, 1957; Honorary Console, Republic of Guatemala, 1955-

The Spanish Guild Merchant. 1940
“Mill on the Dan: Riverside Cotton Mills, 1882-1901,” Journal of Southern History, February 1955
“The Wealth of Nations in Spain and Hispanic America,” Journal of Political Economy, April 1957.

* * * * * *

DR. THOMAS M. STANBACK, JR. ‘54
Assistant Professor, School of Commerce, New York University

University of North Carolina, 1947-55; Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1955-56

“Comments,” Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, 1957

* * * * * *

DR. CHARLES T. TAYLOR ’40
Assistant Vice-president, Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Georgia State College for Women, 1938-42

“Population Increase, Municipal Outlays, and Debts,”Southern Economic Journal, April 1943
“Financing of Fishing Vessels by Commercial Banks,” Proceedings, Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 1953
“Recession and Economic Growth,” Monthly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, January 1955

* * * * * *

DR. ROBERT H. VAN VOORHIS ‘44
Head, Department of Accounting, College of Commerce, Louisiana State University

Duke University, 1941-44; Senior Accountant, Ashlin & Hutchings, 1944-45; Timberlands Accountant, West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 1945-49; University of Alabama, 1949-57.

Chairman, American Accounting Association Committee on Internal Auditing Education, 1953-54; National Research Committee of the Institute of Internal Auditors, 1953-54; Chairman, American Accounting Association Committee on Standards of Accounting Instruction, 1955-56

(Co-author) “Cost Control in the U S Air Force,” N.A.C.A. Bulletin, November 1951
“Internal Auditing Courses in American Colleges,” Accounting Review, October 1952 “Operating Reports and Controls,” Accountants’ Handbook(section 4), 1956
How the Smaller Business Utilizes Internal Auditing Functions. 1957

* * * * * *

DR. E. S. WALLACE ’37
Professor, Millsaps College

Hendrix College, 1937-39; District Price Executive, Regional Price Economist, and Associate Regional Price Executive, OPA, 1942-46.

Fellow, Case Institute of Economics-in-Action Program, 1950; Fellow, Yale School of Alcohol Studies, 1952; President, Mississippi Association of Collegiate Registrars, 1948-49; President, Mississippi State Council, AAUP, 1957-58

* * * * * *

DR. WILLIAM H. WESSON, JR. ’50
Associate Professor, College of Commerce, Louisiana State University

Assistant Supervisor, Merit Examination, State Of North Carolina, 1941-42, 1946; Duke, 1946-48; Head, Department of Economics, University of Chattanooga, 1948-56.

Fellow, Case Institute of Economics-in-Action Program, 1956; President, Adult Education Council of Chattanooga, 1955-56

Negro Employment in the Chattanooga Area, 1954

* * * * * *

DR. W. TATE WHITMAN ’43
Professor, Emory University

Accountant (Durham), 1934-36; The Citadel, 1936-47; Duke, 1939-40

(Co. author) Investment Timing: The Formula Plan Approach, 1953
(Co-author) “Formula Plan and the Institutional Investor,” Harvard Business Review, July 1950
“Liquidation of Partnerships by Installments,” Accounting Review, October 1953

* * * * * *

DR. E. R. WICKER ’56
Assistant Professor, Indiana University

“The Colonial Development Corporation,” The Review of Economic Studies, June 1956
“A Note on Jethro Tull: Innovator or Crank,” Agricultural History, January 1957.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Lionel W. McKenzie, Box 32, Folder “Personal Correspondence, 1952-1998”

Image Source: Duke University, 1938. Photographed by Frances Benjamin Johnston. From the Carnegie Survey of the Architecture of the South, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Tags AllenWR, Brandis, BurttEJ, HarrisonDM, HooverCB, KrepsJM, Mansfield, Ratchford, Silk, SmithRS, SmithWJ

Curriculum Economics Programs Michigan

Michigan. Major Expansion of Economics Department, 1892

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-03-19

About a dozen years after the University of Michigan established its own department of political economy, a major expansion took place under the leadership of professor Henry Carter Adams in 1892. Below you will find the course offerings for the academic years 1891-92 and 1892-93 along with two U. of M. Daily reports about the department’s economics program.

Other links of interest regarding economics at the University of Michigan:

History of the University of Michigan economics department through 1940.

List of University of Michigan economics faculty up through 1980.

Memorial to Henry Carter Adams (1851-1921) in the Journal of Political Economy, 1922.

Pictures of Henry Carter Adams’ home (interior and exterior photographs)

_________________________

POLITICAL ECONOMY.
A Letter From Dr. Adams.
(January, 1891)

Eds. U. of M. Daily,

Gentlemen: It gives me pleasure to comply with your request, and state the nature of the work which will be Undertaken in Political Economy during the Second Semester. The usual courses will be offered, but with some slight modification. They are as follows:

First: “Unsettled questions in Political Economy.” This course will comprise three lectures a week. It will embrace a study of the money question, statistics in relation to Political economy, development of economic thought, commercial crises, the railroad problem and the problem of emigration [sic].

Students who elect this course will have the privilege of listening to the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, who will give six lectures upon Statistics in their relations to the economic and social problems. Mr. Wright was for years at the head of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, of Massachusetts and is now at the head of the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington. His first lecture will be given on March 9^th.

Dr. E. R. A. Seligman, Professor of Political Economy, in Columbia college, New York City, will some time in the month of May deliver, as part of the same course, lectures [sic] on the History of Political Economy. Dr. Seligman is well known as one of foremost economists in this country and his lectures on this subject may be looked forward to with great interest.

Arrangements had been made with Dr. Edmund James, of the University of Pennsylvania, to deliver a few lectures in this general course, but a letter has just been received saying that his physician will not permit him to undertake any extra labor. The other topics in this course will be treated by myself.

Second: “Social and Industrial Reform.” This course of lectures will embrace the development of industrial classes, poor law legislation, labor problem and socialism will be given under my immediate direction.

Third: “Foreign Commercial Relations of the United States.” This course of lectures, which will be two hours a week, will be given by Dr. Frederick C. Hicks. Dr. Hicks has given a great deal of attention to this subject. He will treat in this course of the theories of foreign and domestic trade, of the industrial resources of the United States on which trade must rest, and of the possibilities of developing a foreign commerce for the United States. He will, also, speak of the principles of free trade and protection in connection with foreign trade. This course of lectures will be most interesting and instructive. The students who are prepared to elect it are earnestly recommended to do so.

Fourth: “Seminary in the Science of Finance.” This course will be limited to students who are prepared to take advanced work in the science of finance. The study undertaken will be either the Financial History of the United States or Taxing System in the United States. It will be conducted by myself, with some assistance from Mr. Hicks

I am, of course, very solicitous that the work in economics should not suffer on account of my partial absence during the year. I am sure it has not suffered at all under the proficient direction of Professor Taylor, and I think that the students will see from the above program that it is not likely to suffer during the second Semester.

Very respectfully,
HENRY C. ADAMS.

Source: The U. of M. Daily, Vol. I, No. 75 (January 20, 1891), pp. 1.

_________________________

Courses of Instruction
1891-92

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

FIRST SEMESTER.

Elements of Political Economy (short course). Text-book: Walker. M, W, F, Sec. I, 2-3; Sec. II, 3-4. Dr. HICKS.
Course I is designed for those who desire to obtain a general knowledge of Political Economy. It embraces, in addition to a statement of fundamental principles, brief studies on practical economic problems.

History of the Development of Industrial Society. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, Tu,Th, 11½—12½. Quiz, M, Sec. I, 11½—12½; W, Sec. II, 11½—12½. Professor ADAMS.
Course 3 is designed to be introductory to all Courses in Political Economy except Course 1. It is desirable that it should be preceded by Course 1 in History. Students who intend to take all the work offered in economics should elect Course 3 the first semester of their second year of residence.

Principles of the Science of Finance. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, M, W, F, 2-3. Quiz, Tu, Sec. I, 2-3; Th, Sec. II, 2-3. Professor ADAMS.
Course 5 must be preceded by Course 4.

Socialism and Communism. Recitations, with assigned readings. Text-books: Ely’s French and German Socialism; Adams’s Relation of the State to Industrial Action. Tu,Th, 11½—12½. Dr. HICKS.
Course 7 must be preceded by Course 2.

Theory of Statistics. Lectures, with practical work. Tu, Th, 4-5.
HICKS.

Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. Lectures. Tu, Th, 3-4. Dr. HICKS.
Course 11 must be preceded by Courses 2 and 4.

Seminary in Economics. M, 4-6. Two-fifths Course. Professor ADAMS.
Course 13 must be preceded by Courses 2 and 4.

Current Economic Literature and Legislation. Once in two weeks, M, 7-9. One-fifth Course. Professor ADAMS and Dr. HICKS.
Course 15 is designed for candidates for advanced degrees, or for students especially proficient in Political Economy.

SECOND SEMESTER.

Elements of Political Economy. Text-book: Walker. M, W, F, Sec. I, 10½—11½; Sec. II, 11½—12½; Sec. III, 2-3. Dr. HICKS.

Unsettled Problems in Political Economy. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, M, W, F, 2-3. Quiz, Tu, Sec. I, 2-3; Th, Sec. II, 2-3; F, Sec. III, 2-3. Professor ADAMS.
Course 4 comprises lectures on commercial crises, immigration, free trade and protection, the labor question, and the monopoly question. It must be preceded by Course 2.

The Railroad Problem. Lectures. Tu, Th, 11½—12½. Professor ADAMS.
Course 6 must be preceded by Course 2.

History of the Tariff in the United States. Lectures and text-book. Tu, Th, 3-4. Dr. HICKS.
Course 8 must be preceded by Course 2; Course 11 is also desirable.

History of Financial Legislation in the United States. Lectures and readings. Tu, Th, 4-5. Dr. HICKS.
Course 10 must be preceded by Course 5.

Critical Analysis of Economic Theories. Lectures and readings. W, 3-4. Professor ADAMS.
Course 12 is intended for advanced students, who are making a special study of Political Economy.

Seminary in Finance. M, 3-5. Two-fifths Course. Professor ADAMS.
Course 14 must be preceded by Course 5.

Current Economic Literature and Legislation. Once in two weeks, W, 7-9. One-fifth Course. Professor ADAMS and Dr. HICKS.
Course 16 is designed for candidates for advanced degrees, or for students especially proficient in Political Economy.

Source: University of Michigan. General Register for 1891-92, pp. 62-64.

_________________________

WORK IN ECONOMICS.
(October 1892)

A Great Change Introduced into This Department.
A Daily Man Has a Talk With Prof. Adams. — Nine Men are After Advanced Degrees with Political Economy for a Major. — A Word About the New Instructors. — Both are Graduates of the University of Michigan.

A complete change has been brought about in the department of Political Economy. Its scope has been greatly enlarged, new courses have been added and many of the old ones have been revised. An assistant professorship has been created and two new instructors have been engaged. The course now offered is as complete as can be found in any American college. Prof. Henry C. Adams, when interviewed on the subject, said:

“Yes, the work in Political Economy has been entirely rearranged. Our primary object has been to adapt the courses as far as possible to the needs of all the various classes of students. We place in the first class those who desire to obtain a brief, general view of the subject, such as may be had in one semester’s work. The text-book course in Walker is designed to this end. In the next class come those students who wish to enter more fully into the work but still confine themselves to a general knowledge of the subject. For them the four lecture courses, known as the undergraduate work, are intended, viz: Industrial History Elements of Political Economy, Unsettled Problems and the Science of Finance. The third class consists of those undergraduates who wish to advance so far as to take those special studies known as the intermediate courses. The fourth class comprises the graduate students.”

“The changes in this department look toward the organization of a graduate school. It is my belief that when students have completed their third year in the University they are well prepared to enter upon a higher plane of work. That which is most valuable in an education can not be obtained in lecture and recitation courses. Above these, which are designed to give the mind breadth of grasp and general preparation, come the seminary courses in which specialization is sought. Text books are discarded and for them are substituted the general literature of Political Science, and statistics, the raw material of economics. From a wide range of reading the student is forced to construct for himself a clear and consistent idea of the subject in hand. The advantages of this system are two-fold. In the first place, the knowledge that the student gains is thorough, and he makes it his own as he could never do in a lecture or text-book course. Secondly, and what is of far greater importance, he gains an insight into methods of original research and becomes accustomed to the handling of unworked material.

“It will readily be seen that such results are not obtainable in large classes. Personal contact between the instructors and students are indispensable to the work. With this in view are given Courses 21 and 22 in which the graduate students and the four instructors meet one evening in two weeks for the discussion of current economic literature and legislation. To bridge over the chasm between professor and student it was determined to appoint two instructors on half time, who, as they are candidates for advanced degrees, belong in part to the student body, rather than appoint one full instructor. The changes in the course have proven eminently successful. There are already nine candidates for advanced degrees with Pol. Ec. for their major study. Five of them are for the degree of Ph. D. and the others for Master’s degrees.

“Every student should specialize before leaving college. Whether his subject be Political Economy or History or Literature or Philosophy or Languages, matters not. Let but his investigating powers be given exercise in the proper field and the benefit derived will be enormous.”

Assistant Professor Taylor is so well known to students of the U. of M. as scarcely to need an introduction. He is a graduate of Northwestern University, has studied at Johns Hopkins, and took the degree of Ph.D. at Michigan. Two years ago he took the place of Prof. Adams for one semester. Since then he has held the chair of History and Political Science at Albion College. His doctor’s thesis is a finished work and has received the highest commendation from the most eminent critics.

Mr. Cooley, a son of Judge Thomas Cooley, graduated from the U. of M. first as M.E., then as A.B. He has since studied in Germany and Italy. In the recent census he had charge of the statistics of street railways and published an exceedingly interesting monograph on the subject. He is a candidate for the degree of Ph.D.

Mr. Dixon is so recent a graduate of the U. of M. as to be well known to all readers of the Daily. He too is a candidate for the Ph.D. degree.

Source: The U. of M. Daily, Vol. III, No. 6 (October 7, 1892), pp. 1, 3.

_________________________

Courses of Instruction
1892-93

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

The Courses in Political Economy are classified as undergraduate, intermediate, and graduate Courses. The undergraduate Courses, viz: Courses 1, 2, 3, and 5, may be taken by any student, but are not accepted as counting for an advanced degree. The intermediate Courses, viz: Courses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, may also be taken by any student; in the case, however, of students who are pursuing their work on the University system, and of graduate students, special instruction of one hour a week is given in connection with each Course. This extra hour is devoted to a more careful analysis and a more extended discussion than is possible in the lectures. The graduate Courses, viz: Courses 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22, are not open to undergraduate students who pursue their work on the credit system, but may be taken by those who are working on the University system.

FIRST SEMESTER.

Elements of Political Economy (short course). Text-book: Walker. M, W, F, Sec. I, at 2; Sec. II, at 3. Mr. C. H. COOLEY.
Course 1 is designed for those who desire to obtain a general knowledge of political economy. It embraces, in addition to a statement of fundamental principles, brief studies on practical economic problems. It is not accepted as a substitute for Course 2 unless supplemented by Course 3.

History of the Development of Industrial Society. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, Tu,Th, at 11½. Quiz, M, Sec. I, at 10½; Sec. II, at 11½; Tu, Sec. III, at 11½; W, Sec. IV, at 10½; Sec. V, at 11½. Professor ADAMS and Mr. DIXON.
Course 3 is designed to be introductory to all Courses in Political Economy except Course I. It is not, however, required for admission to such Courses. It embraces a history of English industrial society from the twelfth century to the present time, and is designed to show how modern industrial customs and rights came into existence. It is desirable that it be preceded by Course I in History. Students who intend to take all the work offered in economics should elect Course 3 the first semester of their second year of residence.

Problems in Political Economy. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, M, W, F, at 2. Quiz, Tu, Sec I, at 2; Th, Sec. II, at 2; F, III, at 3. Professor ADAMS and Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.
Course 5 treats in a cursory manner current problems in political economy. The problems studied are the following: The Railway Problem; Industrial Crises; Free Trade and Protection; Industrial Reforms; Labor Legislation; Taxation. It is designed as the supplement of Course 2, by which it must be preceded; and as introductory to Courses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, although it is not required for those Courses.

History and Theory of Land Tenure and Agrarian Movements. M, W, at 4. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

History and Principles of Currency and Banking. Tu, Th, at 4. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. Tu, Th, at 11½. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

Theory of Statistics. Th, at 5. Mr. C. H. COOLEY.
Courses 7, 9, 11, and 13 must be preceded by Course 2.

Critical Analysis of Economic Thought. M, at 8¼. Professor ADAMS.

Seminary in Finance. M, 9½—11½. Professor ADAMS.

Current Economic Legislation and Literature. Once in two weeks. W, 7-9, P.M. Professor ADAMS, Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR, Mr. C. H. COOLEY, and Mr. DIXON.

SECOND SEMESTER.

Elements of Political Economy. Lectures, M, W,F, at 3. Quiz; Tu, Sec. I, at 11½; Sec. II, at 3; Th, Sec. III, at 11½; Sec. IV, at 3. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

Principles of the Science of Finance. Lectures, M, W,F, at 2. Quiz, M, Sec. I, at 3; W, Sec. II, at 3; F, Sec. III, at 3. Professor ADAMS and Mr. DIXON.

The Transportation Problem. Tu, Th, at 11½. Professor ADAMS.

History and Theory of Socialism and Communism. Tu, Th, at 4. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

History of the Tariff in the United States. Text-book: Taussig. Tu, Th, at 10½. Mr. DIXON.

History of Political Economy. Text-book: Ingram. M,W, at 10. Mr. C. H. COOLEY.
Course 12, if taken by students who have passed Course 1, will be accepted as an equivalent for Course 2.
Courses 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 must be preceded by Course 2.

Critical Examination of the Labor Problem and of the Monopoly Problem. M, at 8¼. Professor ADAMS.

Seminary in Economics. M, 9½ to 11½. Professor ADAMS.

Social Philosophy, with especial reference to economic relations. Th, at 8¼. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

Current Economic Legislation and Literature. Once in two weeks. W, 7-9, P. M. Professor ADAMS, Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR, Mr. C. H. COOLEY, and Mr. DIXON.

Source: University of Michigan. General Register for 1892-93, pp. 69-71.

Image Source: 1891 photograph of the Michigan Wolverines football team. By J. Jefferson Gibson, Ann Arbor, Michigan – Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan, Public Domain,

Tags AdamsHC, Cooley, Dixon, HicksFC, JamesEJ, Seligman, TaylorFM

Barnard Columbia Economics Programs Gender Undergraduate

Columbia. Splitting the costs. Department of Economics v. Barnard College, 1906-9

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-02-05

The growing pains of the modern university can be seen in attempts to mould ad hoc understandings made earlier into long-term, binding, and explicit rules and regulations. We see this in E. R. A. Seligman’s untiring reminders to the Columbia University central administration and to Barnard College deans as to how to manage the legacy of having first hired John Bates Clark to fill a Barnard position while swapping Clark Barnard hours with the Department of Economics in the Faculty of Political Science hours, either by having department professors offer courses in Barnard College or by allowing Barnard women to take Columbia College or graduate courses. It was complicated, leaving plenty of room for misunderstandings. Seligman can be seen in the following memo and letters to have been one smooth intra-university operator. Still we come away (at least hearing his side of the story) that he would neither give nor take an inch. His motto apparently: Pacta sunt servanda.

____________________

MEMORANDUM AS TO PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN BARNARD COLEGE AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS. [Carbon copy, 1906]

I. HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

In 1895 a friend of Barnard College established for three years the Professorship of History and the Professorship of Economics, on the understanding that each of these departments should offer a corresponding amount of separate instruction to Barnard seniors and graduates, and that the Barnard Corporation would endeavor to maintain these Professorships after the expiration of such term. It was arranged that these professors should lecture at Columbia as well as at Barnard, and that for every course given by them at Columbia, a course should be given at Barnard by them or their departmental associates. The normal number of lectures by a professor was fixed at six; so that the Professor of Economics gave 2 hours at Barnard, the other four being supplied by his colleagues.

In 1898 Barnard College agreed to continue those professorships; and as a recognition of the action of the Barnard Trustees, the Faculty of Political Science decided to open to women holding a first degree, the graduate courses in History and Economics.

When Barnard College was incorporated into the educational system of the University, this arrangement was perpetuated. The 5^thand 6^thSections of the Agreement of June 15, 1900, read in part, as follows:

“On and after January 1^st, 1904, all of the instruction for women leading to the degree of B.A. shall be given separately in Barnard College……Barnard College will assume as rapidly as possible all of the instruction for women in the Senior year ****** and undertakes to maintain every professorship established thereof or an equivalent therefor shall be rendered in Barnard College; and when means allow, establish additional professorships in the University which shall be open to men and women, to the end that opportunities for higher education may be enlarged for both men and women.

The University will accept women who have taken their first degree on the same terms as men, as students of the University and as candidates for the degree of M.A. and Ph.D. under the Faculty of Philosophy, Political Science and Pure Science, in such courses as have been or may be designated by those Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses.

From the foregoing it is clear that so far as the Faculty of Political Science is concerned the opening of the University courses to women was in return for the establishment and maintenance of the professorships, and Barnard College thus declared itself ready to pay one-third of the salary of the professors of Economics, at that time three in number. In addition, Barnard College paid for the Junior work under the Department of Economics.

On this basis the whole system has reposed and has been continued. Changes in the personnel have been made in the mean time, and the instruction given to Juniors by the Department of Economics has been strengthened. Two professors, (or as during this year a professor and an instructor) have taken the place of what was originally an assistant. These changes, which called for an additional outlay on the part of Barnard College, were made with the consent of Barnard.

The Department of Economics and Social Science as it existed up to last spring, has kept strictly to the letter of the agreement. At an earlier period Professor Giddings had agreed to give at Barnard College a course in sociology in return for a suitable compensation. In 1900, however, he ceased to be paid an additional sum and his two hours were counted with the consent of Barnard College toward the six due from the Department, the other four being provided by Professors Seligman and Clark. In 1902 two additional hours were given at Barnard College by the new instructor, Professor Moore. Since then the Department has provided six hours of instruction at Barnard College, (two hours by Professor Clark, two by Professor Seager, and two by Professor Giddings.) It has given an additional two hours by Professor Moore to the Seniors, and it has put the Junior work in the hands of Professors Moore and Johnson (this year [word torn off from corner] Moore and Dr. Whitaker.) Every course given to the Columbia College undergraduates is duplicated at Barnard College, with the exception that it seemed unwise to the Barnard authorities to give the course on Taxation and Finance as being somewhat too remote from the interests of the Barnard undergraduates. The substance of this course is however included in that given by Professor Seager. This explains the fact that 12 hours are given at Barnard College whereas 14 hours are given at Columbia College. This arrangement was made with the consent of the Barnard authorities. In 1906 again with the consent of Barnard College, Barnard Seniors were admitted to the course of Prof. Giddings at Columbia, the Barnard course being discontinued. This arrangement has, however, not yet received the permanent sanction of the Faculty of Political Science.

Although Barnard College is not only getting all that was bargained for at the time, and although it has in addition the services of a full professor for both Senior and Junior work (Prof. Moore.), and although the proportion of the original expense of the Department of Economics paid by Barnard College was at the outset considerably over e4%,–being one-third of the salaries of the professors plus a payment for the Junior work, the proportion of the total expense of the Department of Economics and Social Science borne by Barnard College has now been reduced to 29.19%, Barnard paying at present $8350 out of a total budget of $28,600.

Barnard pays:		Columbia pays:
		Seligman	$5000
		Giddings	$5000
		Seager	$3500
		Moore	$1750
Clark	$5000	Devine	$3500	University Courses
Moore	$1750	Simkhovitch	$500
Whitaker	$1600	Tenney	$1000
	$8350		$20250	Total $28600

In other words Barnard College receives more than it originally did and pays proportionately less.

II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE SHARE OF BARNARD COLLEGE.

Up to the year 199[blank] Barnard College made a money contribution to Columbia for each of the women graduate students enrolled, under the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science. In that year the money contribution was abandoned, and since then women graduate students have paid their fees directly to Columbia. It might be claimed by Barnard College that this new arrangement absolved it in future from all financial responsibility for or interest in the purely university (graduate) work. This claim is however, negatived by the provisions of the agreement of June 15, 1900 still in force, whereby Barnard College obligated itself to “maintain every professorship established at its instance” and to “establish additional professorships in the University upon foundations providing for courses which shall be open to men and women.” These contractual obligations are in no wise impaired or weakened by the modification subsequently introduced in the method of payment of fees by women students.

It might again be claimed that the financial obligations of Barnard are reduced whenever a Senior course, hitherto repeated at Barnard, is given only at Columbia, but open to Barnard Seniors. This claim, however, is likewise inadmissible if the change be made by and with the consent of Barnard College. For as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the instruction, and as long as the Barnard authorities consent for any reason, that this instruction be given at Columbia, the financial obligation cannot be deemed to be impaired. As a matter of fact, this situation has not permanently arisen in the department of Economics and Social Science. In only one case, that of the Senior course by Professor Giddings, has a purely provisional arrangement been made for the year 1906-’07, with the understanding and the express statement on the part of the Barnard authorities that this would make no difference whatever in the financial arrangement for the year. It was on this understanding that the scheme was provisionally ratified by the Faculty of Political Science.

No opinion is here expressed by the Department of Economics as to the desirability of opening Senior courses at Columbia to Barnard students. It may be that for pedagogical reasons it is desirable in some cases to repeat courses at Barnard, or in other cases to admit Barnard Seniors to the Columbia courses. It may also be desirable to utilize the services of a professor, hitherto repeating a Senior course at Barnard for instruction in one of the lower classes at Barnard. But whatever decision may be reached by the Barnard authorities in conjunction with the Department of Economics, it is clear that this will not change the financial obligations of Barnard, as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the same amount of instruction as before.

If it be maintained that the existing contract should be abrogated, the question arises: What share should Barnard College in equity contribute to the expenses of the Department? This question may be discussed on the basis of the number of hours given by the members of the department at Barnard College, at Columbia College, and in the University courses which are open to men and women graduates.

In any such computation it must be recognized that some part of the cost of the graduate instruction should be borne by Barnard College. For, irrespective of the existing contract, it cannot be claimed that women ever possessed a right to share in the advantages offered by an institution, originally established and endowed for the instruction of men without making some proportionate contribution to the support of that institution. The force of this argument is strengthened when it is remembered that every student costs the University more than he or she pays and that every increase in the student body entails the necessity of increasing the teaching course and of providing additional lecture rooms, educational appliances and library facilities.

It is for this reason that in any estimate of the share of the University expenses which is to be borne by Barnard College, a proportionate share of the expense of graduate instruction should be allotted to that institution.

On this assumption, the figures would be as follows:

Hours given
	Barnard College	Columbia College	University
Clark	2	2 (109-110)	3 (205-6 & 291)
Seligman	—	3 (1 & 101-102)	3 (203-4 & 292)
Seager	2	2 (105-106)	2 (233 & 289)
Moore	3	1 (104)	2 (210 & 255)
Whitaker	3	4 (1-2)	—
Giddings	2	2 (151-152)	3 (251-2 & 279)
	12	14	13

For undergraduate instruction		For Professors giving undergraduate instruction
Barnard pays:		Columbia pays:
		Seligman	$5000
Clark	$5000	Moore	$1750
Moore	$1750	Seager	$3500
Whitaker	$1600	Giddings	$5000
	$8350		$15250	=Total $23600
In addition Columbia pays for Purely University work				$5000
Grand Total				$28600

Total hours given as above by Professors giving undergraduate instruction = 41.

There is thus chargeable to:

The University 15/41 of $23600 = $8635 + $5000 =	$13,635
Columbia College 14/41 of $23600 =	$8,058

Barnard College should pay 12/41 of $23,600=	$6907
+ 1/3 of $13,635=	$4543[sic]
	$11450

Barnard gets 12 hours to Columbia’s 14 and both share equally in the University work, although Barnard is here charged with only 1/3, not ½ of the purely university expenses. Yet Barnard pays $8350 instead of $11,450.

In the above computation Barnard College is charged with 1/3 of the purely university instruction because this was the proportion as arranged when the original professorship was established. On the basis, however, of the actual enrolment of women students the obligation of Barnard College would be slightly less. In the year 1906-07 there re-enrolled (not counting duplicates) in the purely university courses 60 women out of 251 students or 23.90%, i.e. roughly ¼. The contribution of Barnard College on this basis ought then to be: 12/41 of $23,600 = $6,907 + ¼ of $13,635 = $3,490 [sic, should be $3409] or a total of $10,316 in lieu of $8350, the present payment.

III. THE REDUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY BARNARD COLLEGE.

Although the authorities of Barnard College have not yet formulated any definite scheme it is understood that they have in contemplation a plan which calls on the one hand for a considerable reduction of the contribution, and on the other hand, the opening to Barnard Seniors of several Senior courses at Columbia College to make good the reduced facilities at Barnard College. In other words, Barnard College does not propose more opportunities with the same contribution as hitherto, nor does it demand the same opportunities with a smaller contribution; but it suggests more opportunities with a smaller contribution.

In considering the contemplated proposition of Barnard College it must finally be remembered that the Department of Economics has been built up on the assumption that the original scheme would be adhered to. All the instructors giving courses in Barnard College have been called with the advice and consent of Barnard College. Some of them have been put in part on the Barnard salary list. The contractual obligation “to maintain the professorships established at its instance” clearly attaches to the new professorships, which were established in 1902 in the department of Economics at the joint instance and expense of Barnard and Columbia. Any financial comparison between the Department of Economics and other departments on the basis of relative hours of instruction given at Barnard College is not pertinent in view of the contractual obligations hereinbefore recited. Barnard College entered at the outset into a definite contractual relation which has been perpetuated by the agreement of 1900 and which has not been impaired by the minor changes of 190[blank] hereinbefore referred to. Above all, the admission of women to university courses was arranged as a quid pro quo, and is specifically restricted in the agreement of 1900 to such courses “as have been or may be designated by these Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses”.

It is sincerely hoped that no action will be taken that might imperil this arrangement and that Barnard College may see its way, if not to make what it here suggested as an equitable contribution, at all events to maintain the status quo so that on the one hand Columbia may not be made to assume a still heavier burden, or that on the other hand the department of Economics may not be seriously crippled in its endeavor to provide adequate instruction at Columbia and Barnard alike.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Papers of Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman. Box 36, Folder “Barnard 36-37”.

____________________

Letter of Seligman to Gill [carbon copy]

New York, December 30, 1906.

Miss Laura D. Gill, Dean,
Barnard College, Columbia University
New York City.

My dear Miss Gill:

Your letter of December 13^thwas received shortly before the Holidays. In reply, I would say that several weeks ago, at the request of the University authorities I submitted to the Committee on Education of Columbia University a detailed memorandum giving facts and suggestions as to the financial arrangements between Barnard College and Columbia University so far as the Department of Economics is concerned. That matter has now passed out of my hands entirely.

Let me however call your attention to the fact that these suggestions contained in your letter will require action not alone by the Department of Economics, but also by the Faculty of Political Science, as well as by the Faculty of Columbia College. If the recommendation contained in my memorandum to the Trustees were carried out, I think that I could urge the Department of Economics to prevail upon the Faculties concerned to take action in accordance with your wishes; but I am quite decidedly of the opinion that until some definitive financial arrangement is entered into between Barnard College and Columbia University, so far as the Department of Economics is concerned, it will be hopeless for the Department of Economics to expect any action whatever on the part of the Faculties concerned; and without such action nothing could of course be done.

Again assuring you of my readiness to co-operate with you and to take up the matter with the Department and with the respective Faculties as soon as we can learn from the Committee on Education what the financial arrangements are for next year,

I remain
Very respectfully yours

[E.R.A. Seligman]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

President Butler to Seligman [carbon copy]

December 28, 1908

Professor E. R. A. Seligman,
324 West 86 Street,
New York

My dear Professor Seligman:

I beg to hand you for your information an important letter which I have received today from the Acting Dean of Barnard College. Mr. Brewster points out that Barnard, under the present arrangement, is not securing its just due in the matter of economics teaching. Will you give this matter your attention and offer such suggestions as seem to you appropriate as to how the situation can be bettered?

Very truly yours,
President

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to President Butler

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Political Science

January 4, 1909

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University, City.

My dear President Butler:

In reply to your letter of December 24^th, 1908, I take pleasure in stating that I had a very satisfactory talk with Acting Dean Brewster a few days ago. I am enclosing to you herewith copy of the letter which I have sent to him as to the historical development, and which explains itself.

As to the new scheme, permit me to state that in my Budget letter I assumed that there would be hereafter in the second term in the Junior course at Barnard, four sections, as is now the case in the first term. It was on that assumption that I made the recommendations as to assistants.

I quite agree with Acting Dean Brewster that if the situation is to remain as at present, namely, nine hours in the first term and five hours in the second term, the new Adjunct Professor will be entirely competent to take charge of this. That would mean an average of seven hours per week, and as he is to do three hours’ work at Columbia that would mean a total of ten hours per week, which is not excessive. This would, however, reduce the Budget at Barnard from $2,700 to $2,500.

On the other hand, if, as there now seems to be some possibility, the Committee on Instruction of Barnard College decides to make the second term work nine hours (with four sections) the Acting Dean of Barnard agrees with me that the work will be a little too much for one man, and that he ought to have the aid of at all events the part time of an assistant.

Upon the decision to be reached, however, depends therefore the final recommendation of the Department for the assistants in the University as a whole. If no assistance is required at Barnard College the Department of Economics will be able to get on, although with some difficulty, with one high-class tutor, for his work will be to take charge not only of three of the four sections at Columbia, but also of the three new sections in the School of Mines, and this would mean the assumption by Columbia of his salary of $1,000. On the other hand, if the additional work is taken up at Barnard, it will be imperative to have a second man as assistant, at a salary of $500., as the amount of work to be done will be entirely too much for one tutor. We should then arrive at the final conclusion reached in my original Budget letter, which is the employment of two men, at a joint salary of $1,500., in addition to the new Adjunct Professor. What part of this salary of $1,500 is to be paid by Barnard, is, of course a matter on which I am not asked to express an opinion.

Permit me to say in conclusion that I am deeply sensible of the cordial way in which the Acting Dean of Barnard has accepted the propositions of the Department for the improvement of the work. Under the scheme as outlined not only will the work be, I think, entirely satisfactory to the authorities of Barnard College, but it will also be a considerable improvement at Columbia. The Department of Economics will be very glad indeed to adjust itself to whichever of the two alternative schemes may be adopted by Barnard: the one being the maintenance of the present situation calling for an appropriation for assistants of $1,000., to be paid entirely by Columbia, the other—involving additional work at Barnard—calling for an appropriation of $1,500 for assistants, to be defrayed in part by Barnard College.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to Brewster [carbon copy]

January 4, 1909

Professor William T. Brewster,
Acting Dean, Barnard College, City.

My dear Sir:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a letter of December 24, 1908, from President Butler, enclosing your letter of December 23, 1908, in which you refer to the courses offered by the Department of Economics at Barnard College.

As the existing situation is the result of steps taken by the administrative authorities of Barnard College and Columbia University, and as these agreements and instructions were never embodied in formal written documents, I venture to send you a written statement of the history of the case, in the hope that this letter may be put on file with the original agreement, in order that the question as to the interpretation of the original agreement may be settled, if it should again arise in the future.

The original agreement made with Professor Clark and the Faculty of Political Science, when he was called to the University in 1895, was to the effect that for every hour given by him at Columbia a member of the existing Columbia staff should give an hour at Barnard College. Under this agreement it was arranged that Professor Clark should give two hours at Barnard and four hours at Columbia. Of the four exchange hours due to Barnard, two were given by Professor Giddings and two by Professor Seligman. Several years later, when Professor Seager was called to Columbia, he took the courses previously given by Professor Seligman.

In the year 1905 when the Chair of the History of Civilization was founded at Columbia University, an arrangement was effected between the Dean of Barnard and the President of Columbia University, whereby the two hour course of Professor Giddings, given at Barnard, was transferred to Columbia, the Columbia course being now, however, open to Barnard students. This was recognized as a substantial equivalence, and since that time the Barnard students have been coming to Professor Giddings’ course at Columbia.

When Professor Henry L. Moore was called to the University in 1902 an arrangement was made whereby a portion of his work was to be done at Barnard in return for the payment of aa portion of his salary b Barnard College. Under this arrangement Professor Moore offered a two hour course to the Seniors at Barnard College, and took general supervision of the Junior work in Economics, which was, however, actually carried on by assistants. Several years later, as the Junior work at Barnard was not entirely satisfactory, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that Professor Moore give up his Senior course and in exchange take an active part in the lecturing and teaching of the Juniors at Barnard. This suggestion was adopted, and as the number of sections gradually increased at Barnard the work was finally divided between Professor Moore and two assistants, the class being divided into four sections in the first term and into two sections in the second term. As a compensation for the Senior course which was now dropped by Professor Moore, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that courses 107-108, given by Professor Seligman at Columbia University be open to Barnard students. This suggestion was adopted by the Department, and ratified by the Columbia Faculty, and has continued ever since.

What I desire especially to emphasize is the fact that in no case did the initiative for any of these changes come from the Department of Economics, but that in every case the initiative came either from the Dean of Barnard College or from the President of Columbia University in conjunction with the Dean of Barnard College. The Department of Economics has been at all times willing and anxious to live up to the terms of the original and supplemental agreements, and has in every case been glad to adopt the suggestions of the authorities of Barnard College. It so happens that during the present year Professor Seager is on his Sabbatical leave of absence, and that Courses 107-108 were not given at Columbia; but this is an exceptional situation, including the $5,000 salary of Professor Clark, with the corresponding work given in exchange at Barnard, the number of hours of instruction given at Barnard are economics A, 9 hours, Economics 4, 5 hours, or an annual average of seven hours per week. The salary list has been $2,700.,–$1,700 for Professor Moore and $1,000 for two assistants. This is an average of less than $400 per hour, and if we include Courses 107-108 at Columbia, which were open to the Barnard students when the supplemental agreement was made, it would reduce the cost per year to considerably less than $400, which I understand is the average in other Departments.

The new scheme of courses which has been elaborated by the Dean of Barnard College to take effect next year, meets with the entire approval of the Department of Economics, and is outlined in another letter a copy of which I have the honor of submitting herewith. I venture to hope, however, that this statement of the historical development of the situation may be put on file, in order to show that the Department of Economics has at all times endeavored to abide loyally by the spirit of the agreement between Barnard College and Columbia University.

Respectfully submitted,
[stamped signature: Edwin R. A. Seligman]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

Image Source: Barnard College, Columbia University. Boston Public Library, The Tichnor Brothers Collection.

Tags ClarkJB, Devine, Giddings, JohnsonA, Moore, Seager, Seligman, Simkhovitch, Tenney, Whitaker

Courses Curriculum Economics Programs Gender Wisconsin

Wisconsin. Economics Courses and Faculty, 1893-94

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2018-12-19

Early economics course offerings for Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, and a guide to graduate economics study at 23 universities from 1898 have been posted earlier. Today’s post for the University of Wisconsin serves as a reminder of the humble scale of economics departments just(?) 125 years ago: one professor (Ely), one associate professor (Scott), an instructor (Kinley) and two teaching fellows (Swain and Hubbard) covered the sixteen economics courses offered at the University of Wisconsin then. It is also worth noting the disciplines of the academic triplet joined at the hips: School of Economics, Political Science, and History. Finally I note that of three scholarships offered at the school, one was reserved for women.

_________________

Richard T. Ely

Richard T. Ely, the illustrious Director of the School of Economics, Political Science and History of the University of Wisconsin, was born in Ripley, New York, April 13, 1854. In 1876 he graduated from Columbia College, and, as the holder of the Graduate Fellowship of Letters in that institution, spent the next three years abroad in the study of social science, taking the degree of Ph.D. at Heidelberg in 1879. For several years he lectured in Cornell, Johns Hopkins and other Eastern colleges, and in 1885 Dr. Ely went to the associate chair of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University, which institution he left to become the Director of the new School of Economics in Wisconsin University at the opening of the present college year.

Dr. Ely can receive no eulogy at our hands. His fame is world-wide, and the prosperity of the department under his control attests his powers of organization and successful management. The foundation of this school has been the beginning of a new order of things in the Universsity. A superior class of post-graduate effort has come under the direction of Dr. Ely, and the University of Wisconsin has attracted students from the far East and from the West.

Dr. Ely’s own writings need no comment. His field is large and accurately sustained. He stands foremost in the ranks of the new-school writers on econoimcs, and he has done much to advance economic study to its present enviable position of wide sympathies and scholarly effort.

David Kinley.

David Kinley was born in Dundee, Scotland, August 2, 1861. He came to this country at the age of twelve, and was fitted for college at Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts, graduating from Yale in 1884. For the next six years Mr. Kinley was prinipal of the High School of North Andover, Mass. He then studied a year in Johns Hopkins, and at the end of that time was elected instructor in History and Political Economy in that institution, and instructor in Political Economy and Logic at the Woman’s College, Baltimore. At the beginning of the present college year Mr. Kinley came to the University of Wisconsin as fellow and instructor in the School of Economics.

[Note: David Kinley’s Ph.D. thesis (1892-93) at Wisconsin, “The Independent Treasury”.]

Willam A. Scott

Prof. W. A. Scott was born in Clarkson, Monroe County, New York, April 17, 1862. When sixteen years of age he entered the State Normal School at Brockport, New York, from which he was graduated in June, 1882. In the fall of the same year he entered the University of Rochester, and received therefrom in 1886 the degree of B.A., and a scholarship in political science. The latter was granted for success in a competitive examination on the works of Bluntschli and certain selected French writers on political economy.

During a portion of the academic year 1884-5 Prof. Scott occupied temporarily the position of instructor in Latin and Greek to the Normal School at Oswego, N.Y. The year following his graduation he spent in post-graduate study, occupying at the same time the position of librarian of the Reynolds Library at Rochester. In the spring of 1887 he was appointed Professor of History and Political Economy in the University of South Dakota, and after occupying this position for three years he was granted leave of absence to complete his course of post-graduate study. He entered Johns Hopkins University in October, 1890, was appointed instructor in that institution in January, 1891, and in June, ’92, received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Since September, 1892, he has occupied the position of Assistant Professor of Political Economy in the University of Wisconsin.

Besides numerous articles published in the newspapers and periodicals, Prof. Scott has in process of publication at the present time by T. Y. Crowell & Co. of New York, a book entitled: “The Repudiation of State Debts in the United States”.

Prof. Scott is a member of the Alpha Delta Phi and Phi Beta Kappa fraternities.

Source: The University of Wisconsin yearbook, The Badger 1894, pp. 26-29. Portraits inserted between pp. 26 and 27.

_________________

Faculty and Courses of Instruction
1893-1894

Officers of Instruction.

CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, LL.D., President of the University.
RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., L.L.D., Director and Professor of Political Economy.
JOHN B. PARKINSON, A.M., Professor of Constitutional and International Law.
FREDERICK J. TURNER, Ph.D., Professor of American History.
CHARLES H. HASKINS, Ph.D., Professor of Institutional History.
WILLIAM A. SCOTT, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Economy.
VICTOR E. COFFIN, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of European History.
DAVID KINLEY, Ph.D., Instructor in Administration and Political Science, and Lecturer on Money and Banking.
H. H. SWAIN, A.B., Fellow in Economics.
CHARLES M. HUBBARD, A.B., Fellow in Finance.
O. G. LIBBY, B.L., Fellow in History.

Introductory.

The purpose of the school is to afford superior means for systematic and thorough study in economics, political and social science and history. The courses are graded and arranged so as to meet the wants of students in the various stages of their progress, beginning with the elementary and proceeding to the most advanced work. They are also designed to meet the wants of different classes of students; as, for instance, those who wish to enter the public service, the professions of law, journalism, the ministry or teaching, or those who wish to supplement their legal, theological, or other professional studies with courses in social science or history. Capable students are encouraged to undertake original investigations, and assistance is given them in the prosecution of such work through seminaries and the personal guidance of instructors. A means for the publication of the results of investigations of merit and importance is provided in the University studies, the expense of which is met by the state.

Courses of Instruction.

I. ECONOMICS.

The Principles of Political Economy. — A survey of the principles of political economy in their present state. Emphasis will be laid upon the sociological character of the science and upon the importance of the subjective standpoint in the explanation of economic phenomena. — Ely’s Outlines of Economics. — Three hours per week during the fall term. — ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT and MR. SWAIN.
The Classical Economists. — A study of the development of economic theory as exhibited in the writings of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mill and Cairnes. Characteristic parts of the writings of these authors will be assigned to the students for careful study, and conversational lectures will be given for the purpose of summarizing, systematizing and supplementing the class discussions. Three hours per week during the winter term. — Associate PROFESSOR SCOTT.
Money and Banking. — A study of the functions and history of money and banks and of the problems connected therewith. Especial attention will be given to the history of bi-metallism in this country and Europe, to the various banking systems of the world, and to our own monetary and banking problems. — Walker’s “Money, Trade and Industry,” Laughlin’s “History of Bi-metallism in the United States,” and Dunbar’s “The History and Theory of Banking.” — Three hours per week during the spring term. — ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
Practical Economic Questions. — Socialism, Communism, Co-operation, Profit Sharing, Labor Organizations, Factory Legislation and similar topics will be discussed in this course. Its aim is to familiarize students with the problems of our social life and the plans suggested for their solution, and to give them actual practice in the investigation of such topics. — Three hours per week during the winter term. — MR. SWAIN and MR. HUBBARD.
The Financial History of the United States. — A survey of the financial legislation and experiences of the United States, including the finances of the Colonies and the Revolutionary epoch. — Three hours per week during the spring term. — MR. HUBBARD.
Distribution of Wealth. — Rent, interest, profits and wages. Plans which have been advocated for bringing about what their authors regard as a better distribution of wealth will be discussed. — Two hours per week throughout the year. — PROFESSOR ELY.
History of Economic Thought. — The history of economic theories in classical antiquity will be sketched; their development under the influence of the Christian era and the middle ages to the time of the Mercantilists will be discussed at greater length. The rise and growth of economics as a distinct branch of social science. Existing schools of economic thought. — Three hours a week during the winter term. — PROFESSOR ELY.
Theories of Value and Interest. — History of value and interest theories down to the present day. The seminary method of instruction will be employed, and each student will be expected to study critically the writings of the theorists examined. — Twice a week throughout the year. – ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
Theories of Rent, Wages and Profits. — A critical study of the history of these theories conducted in the manner described in the previous course. — Twice a week throughout the year. — ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
Theory of Exchange. — The history, methods and theory of domestic and foreign exchange will be considered in this course, under the two following heads:
1. Money. — This is an advanced course, open only to those who have done the equivalent of courses 1, 2 and 3. In it a knowledge of the history of money will be assumed, and attention devoted to the critical consideration of such topics as the international movement of the precious metals, the theory of prices, bimetallism, paper money, etc. — Two hours a week throughout the winter term. — MR. KINLEY.
2. Banking. — This is also an advanced course. The history, theory and practice of banking will be studied, including a comparison of the existing banking systems of different countries, the theory of credit, bank paper, the management of stringencies and panics, and the proper attitude of government towards the banking business. – Two hours a week throughout the spring term. – MR. KINLEY.
Socialism. — Historical account of its origin, followed by a critical examination of its nature, strength and weakness. — Three hours per week during the fall term.— PROFESSOR ELY.
Business Corporations. — The nature and economic functions of corporations, including a sketch of their origin and history. Lectures. — One hour per week during fall term. — MR. HUBBARD.
The Economics of Agriculture. — A discussion of those economic topics which are of especial interest and importance to farmers. This course is designed primarily for the students of the college of agriculture, though any student who desires may be admitted. — Lectures.—One hour per week during the winter term.—ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
American Taxation. — Brief examination of federal taxation and a more detailed study of taxation in American states and cities. — Three times per week during the spring term. — PROFESSOR ELY.
Sociology. — This course will consist of an historical study of the nature and principles of growth of the social body, and of a critical investigation of the positivist, the synthetic, the evolutionary, and other theories of society. — Three times a week throughout the fall term. — MR. KINLEY.
Economic Seminary. — This is designed primarily for advanced students who wish to carry on special investigations under the guidance which the department affords. Each student, with the consent of the instructors, may select a topic of investigation for himself, or one may be assigned him connected with the subject selected for the main seminary work of the year. The subject for 1893–94 will be American Taxation. A subordinate feature of the seminary work will be the review of recent books and important articles published in the periodicals. — PROFESSOR ELY and ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.

ARRANGEMENT OF COURSES.

Of the above courses, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12 are elementary. All beginners will take course 1; for those who wish to make a more special study of political economy, — with a view, possibly, of making it their major subject of study, — course 1 will be followed by courses 2 and 3 and these by course 6; those who expect to do most of their work in other departments, but desire such a knowledge of economic science as is needed for purposes of general culture and the proper performance of the duties of citizenship are advised to take courses 4 and 5 after course 1. Special students in economics are also urged to take courses 4 and 5 during the first year of their economic study, if their time will permit. Courses 7, 8 and 9 are theoretical. Course 7 is designed to furnish students with a general knowledge of economic literature and the general features of the development of economic thought. Courses 8 and 9 furnish opportunity for critical and exhaustive study of the most important economic theories, and are designed to cultivate the power of independent judgment; in other words, to equip competent students for original work in the domain of economic theory.

At least courses 1, 2 and 3, or their equivalent, must have been taken as preparation for courses 8 and 9. Graduate students will find it to their advantage to take at least courses 7 and 8, and, if possible, course 9 during the first year of their graduate study. Courses 10, 11, 12 and 14 furnish training in the application of economic principles to the affairs of practical life.

II. HISTORY
[11 courses listed…]

III. POLITICAL SCIENCE
[7] Courses by Professor Parkinson
[…]

ADMINISTRATION
[3] Courses by Mr. Kinley
[…]

Library Facilities

The General University Library, including the department libraries catalogued therewith, contains about 29,000 volumes and 8,000 pamphlets. About 200 of the best American and Foreign periodicals are taken. The College of Law has a special library of 2,300 volumes, and in addition students have access to the state law library, containing about 25,000 volumes, and to the city library of Madison, containing a well-selected collection of over 12,000 volumes.

The library of the State Historical Society contains about 76,000 volumes and 77,000 pamphlets. It is exceptionally rich in manuscript and other material for the study of the Mississippi valley. The collections of the late Lyman C. Draper are included in this library. Its files of newspapers and periodicals are among the most complete in the United States. There are over 5,000 volumes of bound newspapers published outside of Wisconsin, and the files cover, with but few breaks, the period from the middle of the seventeenth century to the present.

There is an excellent collection of United States government documents, and the material for the study of American local history, Western travel, the Revolution, Slavery, and the Civil War, is unusually abundant. In English history the library possesses the Calendars of the State Papers, the Rolls Series, and other important collections, including works on local history. The Tank collection (Dutch) offers facilities for the study of the Netherlands. The library of the Historical Society is accessible to students of the University, and thus affords exceptional facilities for the prosecution of advanced historical work. The Historical and Economic Seminaries have been generously granted special facilities in the rooms of the library. The Historical, State, University and City libraries afford duplicate copies of books most in use, and to a large extent supplement one another.

During the year 1892–93 the Regents of the University appropriated five thousand dollars for the supply of special works for the use of the seminary students of the school. The works supplied by this fund afford good facilities for investigations of an advanced nature.

These library facilities are unsurpassed in the interior, and equaled by very few institutions in the country.

Fellowships and Scholarships.

The University offers nine annual fellowships of $400 each, which are open to general competition without restriction except in one instance. During the current year three scholarships of $150 each will be awarded to members of the school. One of these is furnished by the Woman’s Club of Madison, and is open only to Women.

For further information, address

PROFESSOR RICHARD T. ELY,
Director,

Or the
REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY.

Source: University of Wisconsin. School of Economics, Political Science, and History. Announcement for 1893-94 (Madison, Wis., 1893), pp. 3-8, 14-15.

Images Source: The University of Wisconsin yearbook, The Badger 1894.

Tags Ely, HubbardCM, Kinley, ScottWilliam, Swain

Columbia Economics Programs

Columbia. Memo from economics chair to department members with three recommendations, 1945

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2018-12-07

October 30, 1945

To the Members of the Department of Economics:

During the past two years the members of the Department have reviewed the contents of the various courses in the present curriculum, and have discussed problems of departmental organization. Certain of the issues raised in these discussions, and one or two related general problems, should be settled within the present year. Questions that were academic during the period of reduced registration are more pressing at the present time, and will be insistent under the heavy registration to be expected next year.

The following are some of our present and pending problems:

The numbers of students registered in certain courses are too large for effective instruction by the methods preferred by the instructors. This problem promises to become more serious.
The heterogeneity of the student body with respect to training and experience makes it difficult to do justice to the well-prepared students while meeting the needs of the less well-prepared.
Like problems arise from the mixture of part-time and full-time students, and from the mixture of students planning to become professional economists with students who have no serious professional interests. Standards of instruction suffer, as a result.
Failure to week out weaker students lessens the effectiveness of the work we can do with capable advanced students.
Under present arrangements for the preparation of dissertations it is difficult properly to supervise the research work of advanced graduate students, and to give them adequate training in research procedures.

The following recommendations bear upon these and related problems. The considerations that prompt each recommendation will be familiar to members of the Department, and need not be expounded in detail.

I propose that we set up a clear distinction between two classes of graduate students.
1. Standard candidates, whose objective is the doctoral degree, with or without the M.A. as an intermediary degree.
  Standard candidates will be selected upon the basis of their own statements of intention, and after careful review of their educational records by the Office of Admissions and the Department of Economics. High standards will be enforced. Standard candidates must register each term for a minimum of 12 points (or for a smaller number if that number will complete residence requirements for the doctorate).
  Standard candidates may be designated at the time of admission to the Graduate School, or later.
  The status of all standard candidates will be reviewed by the Department at or before the close of their first full year of graduate study. This review may take the form of special written examinations. Only with explicit approval of the Department may standard candidates register for a second year of graduate work. The Department may subject standard candidates to review at later stages of their work, as well as at the close of the first year.
  Certain courses of instruction and certain seminars will be open only to standard candidates.
1. Terminal M. A. candidates. These are students whose final objective in the graduate school is the Master’s degree. In general, the present rules for the M.A. degree will apply to this group.
  The one important modification proposed is that grades of B or better be required for the 21 points of examination credit that must be offered for the M.A. degree. This tightening of M.A. standards seems essential. With it we might, to advantage, enforce more rigorous standards for the M.A. thesis.
  The students placed in this class would include all those who contemplate no graduate work beyond the M.A., and those whose intentions regarding graduate work beyond the M.A. are uncertain.
  The accomplishments of students in this group would be subject to periodic review and those with definitely unsatisfactory records would not be allowed to continue their graduate work.

Unclassified graduate students, students provisionally admitted to the graduate school and students not candidates for a higher degree will be grouped with Terminal M.A. candidates in determining admissibility to graduate courses and seminars. Students desiring to work for the doctorate but whose educational records do not warrant immediate acceptance as standard candidates will also be grouped with terminal M.A. candidates. The Department may transfer such students to the standard category on the basis of demonstrated capacity.

Under this proposed classification, we shall set off for special attention legitimate candidates for professional training as economists, and for this group shall enforce standards of attendance and accomplishment more rigorous than those applied to other graduate students. If we are to preserve high standards of instruction and training for the doctorate there is only one alternative to the proposed segregation. That is the drastic curtailment of the size of the graduate group. Under present conditions this does not appear to be a feasible alternative.

In determining what courses are to be restricted to standard candidates, account will be taken of the wishes of the instructors, the specified pre-requisites and the manner in which the instructors wish to handle their classes (e.g. lectures, or discussion), as well as subject matter.

Some review of our curriculum will be called for, if this division is to be enforced. Small classes, with more emphasis on seminars and specialized research, will be appropriate in the programs of the standard candidates. Large lecture courses and courses of fairly wide scope will continue to be given for the terminal M.A. candidates and unclassified students. There will be, of course, a mixing of groups in some classes.

There should be considerable flexibility in the framing of programs for the standard candidates, so that men who come to Columbia with a considerable background of work in economics will not be obliged to take certain of the general courses intended for men who come with a liberal arts background and little specialization in economics.

2. I recommend that every doctoral candidate be required to devote a period equivalent to at least one semester, and preferably one year, to rigorous research training, under the supervision of the Department. In general this should mean a year in residence, or in an approved research position, following the oral examination on subjects. During this period the candidate’s dissertation should be substantially completed. An appropriate administrative rule, when formulated, will have to make some allowance for flexibility of application, but the objective should be clear. The writing of the doctoral dissertation is an integral part of the candidate’s professional training. It should be completed under the guidance of the Department, or under other conditions that will assure appropriate supervision and sound training in research techniques.

3. I recommend that the Department approve, in principle, the organization of two specialized centers of economic research. Plans for these institutes, or research centers, will be submitted to the President. Financial support will be sought within and without the University. It is hoped that these institutes will provide members of the faculty with research funds and research facilities, and that they will strengthen the educational work of the Department by providing advanced graduate students with opportunities to assist in research projects during their period of graduate training.

The centers now proposed are an Institute of Public Finance and an Institute of International Economics. Detailed memoranda on the organization of these institutes have been prepared.

If the Department favors these three general recommendations consideration will have to be given to requisite curricular changes and, possibly, to admission procedures and minor administrative matters. Appropriate recommendations can be placed before the Department at a later time.

Frederick C. Mills

Source: Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-. Box 396. Folder: “1.1.288 1/1 Mills, Frederick Cecil.”

Tags MillsFC

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024

Carbon copy of E. Cary Brown’s response

Report on the course offerings in Statistics, and in National Income

I. The Offering in Statistics

II. Offering in National Income

HARVARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS 1947-57

Comment:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS 1947-57 SUMMARY

Summary:

From Keniston’s Appendix (1959)

Standing of American Graduate Departments in the Arts and Sciences

OVER-ALL STANDING (Total Scores)

1925

1957

ECONOMICS

1925

1957

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics (first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Faculty and University Financial Support

Outside Financial Support for the Department of Economics

Duke Economics Graduates Newsletter Number 3. October 1957

Duke University Durham North Carolina

Department of Economics and Business Administration

Doctors of Philosophy

POLITICAL ECONOMY. A Letter From Dr. Adams. (January, 1891)

Courses of Instruction 1891-92

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

FIRST SEMESTER.

SECOND SEMESTER.

WORK IN ECONOMICS. (October 1892)

A Great Change Introduced into This Department. A Daily Man Has a Talk With Prof. Adams. — Nine Men are After Advanced Degrees with Political Economy for a Major. — A Word About the New Instructors. — Both are Graduates of the University of Michigan.

Courses of Instruction 1892-93

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

FIRST SEMESTER.

SECOND SEMESTER.

MEMORANDUM AS TO PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN BARNARD COLEGE AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS. [Carbon copy, 1906]

I. HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE SHARE OF BARNARD COLLEGE.

III. THE REDUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY BARNARD COLLEGE.

Letter of Seligman to Gill [carbon copy]

President Butler to Seligman [carbon copy]

Seligman to President Butler

Columbia University in the City of New York School of Political Science

Seligman to Brewster [carbon copy]

Richard T. Ely

David Kinley.

Willam A. Scott

Faculty and Courses of Instruction 1893-1894

Officers of Instruction.

Introductory.

Courses of Instruction.

I. ECONOMICS.

ARRANGEMENT OF COURSES.

II. HISTORY [11 courses listed…]

III. POLITICAL SCIENCE [7] Courses by Professor Parkinson […]

ADMINISTRATION [3] Courses by Mr. Kinley […]

Library Facilities

Fellowships and Scholarships.

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57
SUMMARY

Standing of
American Graduate Departments
in the Arts and Sciences

OVER-ALL STANDING
(Total Scores)

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics
(first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Duke Economics Graduates Newsletter
Number 3. October 1957

Duke University
Durham
North Carolina

Department of Economics
and Business Administration

POLITICAL ECONOMY.
A Letter From Dr. Adams.
(January, 1891)

Courses of Instruction
1891-92

WORK IN ECONOMICS.
(October 1892)

A Great Change Introduced into This Department.
A Daily Man Has a Talk With Prof. Adams. — Nine Men are After Advanced Degrees with Political Economy for a Major. — A Word About the New Instructors. — Both are Graduates of the University of Michigan.

Courses of Instruction
1892-93

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Political Science

Faculty and Courses of Instruction
1893-1894

II. HISTORY
[11 courses listed…]

III. POLITICAL SCIENCE
[7] Courses by Professor Parkinson
[…]

ADMINISTRATION
[3] Courses by Mr. Kinley
[…]