Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard Race

Harvard. Application for Ph.D. candidacy. W.E.B. Du Bois, 1895

The following “Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.” for William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, who was awarded his Ph.D. in 1895 and whose 1896 publication of his dissertation book is noted, appears to be a record filed ex post. His 1895 Ph.D. was only the 3rd awarded by Harvard’s Division of History and Political Science in political science and it appears to me that the creation of an explicit, real-time record of a candidate’s satisfaction of degree requirements only came later. Similar omissions and ex post inclusions can be found in the similar applications filed for/by Frank W. Taussig and J. Laurence Laughlin.

For the previous post I have transcribed Du Bois’ updates in the reports up through 1920 by the secretary of the Harvard Class of 1890.

Research Tip: W.E.B. Du Bois Papers in the Special Collections and University Archives at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Cf. the portrait included in above linked page which is dated 1907 with the 1900 portrait  by Paul Nadar of Paris made in 1900. They are not identical, but close enough for me to suspect that they are both from the same Paris studio in 1900.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate handwritten entries]

______________________

William Edward Burghardt DuBois 1895

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY
AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

I. Name (in full, and date of birth).

[Name left blank] Feb 23—1868

II. Academic career. (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended; and teaching positions held.)

Fisk University 1888
Harvard College 1888-90
Harvard Graduate School 1890-92
Berlin University 1892-94?
Prof. Latin & Greek Wilberforce Univ (Ohio);
Prof. Econ. & Hist. Atlanta Univ (Georgia)

III. Degrees already attained (Mention institutions and dates.)

A.B. Fisk 1888
A.B. Harvard 1890 [cum laude]
A.M. Harvard 1891
Ph.D. Harvard 1895

IV. Academic Distinctions. (Mention prizes, honors, fellowships, scholarships, etc.)

1st Boylston Prize 1890-91 2nd Boylston Prize 1889-90

Matthews Scholarship 1890

Henry Bromfield Rogers Memorial Fellow [1890-91, first year studying Ethics in Relation to Sociology; second year studying history]

Foreign Fellowship on Slater Fund [1891-92, as non-resident at Harvard to study political science at the University of Berlin]

[Other Academic Distinctions not listed here: Honorable Mention in Philosophy awarded A.B.; Delivered the commencement disquisition “Jefferson Davis as a Representative of Civilization.”]

V. Department of Study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., in “History” or in “Political Science”?

Political Science

VI. Choice of subjects for the General Examination. (Write out each subject, and at the end put in square brackets the number of that subject in the Division lists. Indicate any digressions from the normal choices, and any combinations of partial subjects. State briefly what your means of preparation have been on each subject, as by Harvard courses, courses taken elsewhere, private reading, teaching the subject, etc., etc.)

1. [left blank]
2. [left blank]
3. [left blank]
4. [left blank]
5. [left blank]
6. [left blank]
7. [left blank]

VII. Special subject for the special examination.

[left blank]

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

The Suppression of the African Slave Trade in the United States of America.— ?illegible word? and published Harvard Historical Studies, I (1896).

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of either of the general or special examinations.)

[left blank]

*   *   *   [Last page of application] *   *   *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant.]

Name: William Edward Burghardt DuBois
Date of reception: [left blank]
Approved: [left blank]
Date of general examination: [left blank]
Thesis received: [left blank]
Approved: [left blank]
Read by: [left blank]
Date of special examination: [left blank]
Recommended for the Doctorate: [left blank]
Voted by the Faculty: [left blank]
Degree conferred: 1895 (Pol Sci.)

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government, and Economics, Box 1, Folder “Ph.D. degrees conferred, 1873-1901 (folder 1 of 2)”.

Image Source: W. E. B. Du Bois, identification card for Exposition Universelle, 1900. Nadar, Paul, 1856-1939 (photographer).

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard

Harvard. Ph.D. candidates examination fields. King, Bushee, Seaman. 1901-1902.

For three Harvard political science Ph.D. candidates in 1901-02 [Note: economics fell under “political science” in the administrative division at the time] this posting provides information about their respective academic backgrounds, the six subjects of their general examinations along with the names of the examiners, their special subject, thesis title and advisor(s) (where available). King and Bushée would have been easily classified under “economics” later. Seaman’s teaching assistantships were in history and constitutional law, so he would have been more likely classified under “government” later.

Other years, previously transcribed and posted:

1903-04
1904-05
1906-07
1907-08
1908-09
1909-10
1910-11
1911-12
1912-13
1913-14
1915-16
1917-18
1918-19
1926-27

___________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY
AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
1901-02

Eight candidates will take either the first or second examination: two more candidates … will take both. All examinations will be held on Thursday (except Tuesday, May 27, and Wednesday, June 11) at 3.30 p.m. in the Faculty Room.

[…]

6. William Lyon Mackenzie King.

Special Examination in Political Science, Thursday, May 22, 1902.

Committee of Examination: Professors Carver, Macvane, Beale, Ripley, Drs. Durand, Andrew, Sprague, Mr. Meyer.

Academic History: University of Toronto, 1891-96 (A. B. 1895, LL.B. 1896, A.M. 1897); University of Chicago, 1896-97; Harvard Graduate School, 1897-99 (A.M. 1898); Henry Lee Memorial Fellow, 1898-1900; Department of Labour, Canada, 1900-02.

(A) General Subjects. (Examination passed April 14, 1899.)

1. Constitutional Law and Government in England; and Constitutional History of Canada. 2. International Law. 3. Theory of the State. 4. Economic Theory and its History. 5. Applied Economics. 6. Economic History — outline of Europe and the United States. 7. Sociology.

(B) Thesis Subject: “The Sweating System and The Fair Wages Movement.” (With Professor Taussig.)

(C) Special Subject: Labor: History of Labor Organization; History of Labor Legislation.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

7. Frederick Alexander Bushée.

Special Examination in Political Science, Tuesday, May 27, 1902.

Committee of Examination: Professors Carver, Macvane, Gross, Ripley, Drs. Durand, Andrew, Sprague, Mr. Cole, Mr. Meyer.

Academic History: Dartmouth College, 1890-94 (Litt.B.); Hartford School of Sociology, 1895-96; Harvard Graduate School, 1897-1901 (A.M. 1898); Paine Fellow, 1899-1900; Assistant in Economies, 1901-02.

(A) General Subjects. (Examination passed April 11, 1900.)

1. Political Institutions in Continental Europe since 1500. 2. Theory of the State. 3. Modern Government and Comparative Constitutional Law. 4. Economic Theory and its History. 5. International Trade; and Financial Legislation of the United States since 1861. 6. Sociology. 7. Socialism and Communism.

(B) Thesis Subject: “The Population of Boston.” (With Professor Taussig.)

(C) Special Subject: The Theories of Sociology since Auguste Comte.

[…]

12. Charles Edward Seaman.

Special Examination in Political Science, Thursday, June 12, 1902.

Committee of Examination: Professors Hart, Macvane, Ripley, Coolidge, Drs. Durand, Andrew, Sprague, Mr. Meyer.

Academic History: Acadia College, 1888-90 (A.B.); Harvard College, 1894-95 (A.B.); Harvard Graduate School, 1895-98 (A.M. 1896) ; Instructor, University of Vermont, 1901-02.

(A) General Subjects. (Examination passed December 22, 1898.)

1. England to Henry VII. 2. England since Henry VII. 3. Modern Government and Comparative Constitutional Law. 4. Economic Theory and its History. 5. Applied Economics. 6. Economic History. 7. Sociology.

(B) Thesis Subject: “The Intercolonial Railway of Canada.”

(C) Special Subject: Railway Experience and Legislation.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics. Ph.D. Material through 1917, Box 1. Folder “Ph.D. applications pending.”

Image source: Harvard Gate, ca. 1899. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.

Categories
CUNY Curriculum Economics Programs Economist Market LipseyR Placement Undergraduate

Queens College, NYC. Memo on Responses of Graduates about Department. Lipsey, 1974

The 1974 memo by Professor Robert E. Lipsey that summarizes the responses of recent graduates of Queens College, City University of New York to a questionnaire sent out by the department is included below. It follows a brief timeline for Lipsey’s life and career and a link to a 2001 oral history interview with him about his NBER life conducted by Claudia Goldin

Bottom line of the Queens graduates: not every economics major goes to graduate school in economics so please add more business electives, especially accounting, to the curriculum.

__________________________

Robert Edward Lipsey

1926. Born August 14 in New York City.

1944. B.A. Columbia University.

1946. M.A. Columbia University

1945-53. Research Assistant, NBER

1953-60. Research Associate, NBER

1960-. Senior Research Staff, NBER

1961. Ph.D. Columbia University

1961-64. Lecturer, economics, Columbia University

1967-1995. Professor at Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY

1975-78. Director of international studies, NBER

1978-. Director of the New York Office, NBER

1995-. Professor emeritus, Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY

2011. Died August 11, New York City.

Source: Prabook website entry: Robert Edward Lipsey.

__________________________

Bonus Links

Claudia Goldin’s interview with Robert Lipsey
(8 August, 2001)

Obituary/Tribute to Robert Lipsey by J. Devereux and Z.M. Feliciano, (2013), Robert E. Lipsey. Review of Income and Wealth, 59: 375-380.

__________________________

QUEENS COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

MEMO TO: Economics Department
FROM: R. Lipsey
RE: Graduates Comments on Queens College Economics Program
DATE: October 25, 1974

There has been a great change in the last few years in the comments on the economics program made by graduates in response to our questionnaire. The graduates of the 1960’s, particularly graduate students, most frequently complained of their lack of mathematical and quantitative training, which they felt left them unprepared for graduate school. There are still some comments of this nature, made now from business students, but the bulk of complaints now, by far is from graduates who have gone to work directly from school, or tried to. They seem to feel that there were too few business-oriented courses, and even more, that they were not told of the importance of some training in accounting for those looking for jobs.

One indication of graduates’ feelings is that of about 160 respondents, among whom only a minority answered the questions about courses that had been especially helpful and courses they had not taken, but wished they had, 33 listed accounting in one category or the other. The other subjects with more than a few listings were:

Statistics 22 (mainly helpful in graduate school)
Business Law 14
Finance 12
Computer Science 8
Marketing 7

To give the flavor of graduates’ views I have put down the main comments on this issue by those who took the trouble to write at some length. My own reaction to the comments was to wonder whether we should consider offering a Business Economics specialization, geared to those planning to work immediately after graduation and, to a smaller extent, to those aiming at business school. Such a specialization would include the present requirements (Eco. 1, 2, 5, 6, 49) but require also at least 6 credits of accounting and 6 credits chosen from Business Law, Computer Science, Corporation Finance, Business Organization, Money and Banking, Business Cycles, Econometrics or Statistics.

February 1974

“For all economics majors accounting is virtually a necessity in order to obtain a career oriented position.”

“Unfortunately I did not receive enough information with regards to the importance of accounting courses.”

September 1973

“Economics graduates from Queens College get a decent background for further graduate work. However, there is no preparation or placement efforts to speak of for the Q.C. economies graduate with a B.A.

“All economics students should be required to take at least 6 credits in accounting. I have found this to be a major stumbling block on job applications.

Many business related jobs do require that you have at least 6 hours of accounting, and without it your job choice is cut considerably.”

“…School and education should work more with the outside than straight academia.”

“…the economics department is not meeting the needs of all its students. Approximately two thirds of those who attend graduate school go to business and law schools; the economics department does not meet the need of those students.

A course as basic as Econ. 43 (marketing) was not offered once at the day school during my 4 years. This course is a prerequisite for most MBA programs – not offering it during the day is a shame!

“I had to go to night school for my marketing courses. I feel that they should be offered during the day session also.”

“I feel more emphasis should be placed on areas relative to business. These courses should help to prepare one for the business world. As it is now, my degree in economics is of no use to me. Without my background in accounting I would not have been able to find a job. This I feel is a waste of an education.”

“Economics program should be refined to include courses of a more practical nature, i.e., those with a definite business application. Perhaps more diversification in programs offered would be appropriate.

“I regret not having gone into and majoring in accounting. I’d be making more money and would have had my choice of jobs.”

“Economics majors not planning on graduate school should be advised to take accounting courses and should be persuaded to stay away from courses with no value in the ‘real’ world.”

“Queens should offer more economics courses geared towards Marketing and Banking.”

June 1972

“…advanced courses in math and accounting should be required to get the degree.”

“I suggest all economics majors who plan to go to work directly from college have at least 12 credits in accounting. The number of accounting credits I have was a frequently asked question by employment agencies.”

January 1972

“The economics major should be geared to meet the demands of business. Accounting should be permitted to be incorporated in the economies major. The major should also incorporate one or more courses in computer sciences, marketing, merchandising, business administration and a mathematics background. Unless one pursued a master’s degree in economics, the major as previously structured did not help to prepare one to meet the demands of industry.”

“Queens should have more courses relating to business.”

“Some business courses should be required of economies majors.”

“Students who plan to work directly after graduation should take 9-12 credits in Accounting. Most entry level jobs that would interest an Economics major require a basic knowledge of Accounting.”

Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. The Papers of Abba P. Lerner. Box 17, Folder 3 “Queens College of the City University of New York, New York, N.Y.: Correspondence 1939-1941, 1963-78”.

Categories
Economics Programs Michigan

Michigan. On the early years of the School of Political Science, 1881-1887

I very much would like to have a few weeks in each of the libraries of the great state universities of Wisconsin and Michigan to be able to add some actual archival artifacts related to the economics programs in Madison and Ann Arbor, but until then I am happy to troll (in a good way) the internet for content to post here.

Today Economics in the Rear-view Mirror presents an excerpt from The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities (1887) by Johns Hopkins history professor Herbert B. Adams. In 1887 political economy was still served as one ingredient in a stew of social sciences that included a big chunk of history and a dash of social statistics.

____________________________

Other posts
with Michigan content:

____________________________

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

In the University of Michigan the development process from the old order to the new was largely aided by the School of Political Science and by the personal influence of Professor Charles Kendall Adams, the first dean of the new school. He appeared as the champion of the Michigan method of realizing the university idea, in a series of letters published in The Nation. A close study of the calendars of the university from 1881 to 1885, and of other official documents, will show that the historical department was foremost in the new movement; and yet the original impulses lay far back in the history of the university, as early as the régime of President Tappan and the opening of senior electives in the year 1856, when Watson took astronomy.

The study of political science was nothing new in Ann Arbor. The subject appears to have been taught by Professor Edward Thomson to the first class that ever graduated from the university. “Political Grammar,” Story on the Constitution, and Wayland’s Political Economy are mentioned in the oldest catalogue (1843-44). The latter subject continued for thirty years in the department of intellectual and moral science. President Tappan (1852-63) taught political economy, protesting that it should be joined with history rather than with philosophy. President Haven (1863-69) taught it in the same old-time way, in connection with mental and moral science and the evidences of Christianity. This was still the situation when President Angell came into office in 1871 (after a presidential interregnum of two years, during which time Professor Frieze was in charge of the university).

In his first annual report President Angell recommended “at an early day a professor to give instruction in political economy, political philosophy, and international law.” He said also that “provision should be made by which every student should be able to take a generous course in the political sciences” (report for 1872, p. 16). So important did the president think these studies that he soon determined to take charge of them himself. His report for 1874 shows that he had conducted a senior elective in political economy for two hours a week, during the first semester, with 48 students; and during the second semester a similar elective in international law, with 46 students. Both classes were taught by dictations and oral expositions, with questions at each meeting upon the topics presented at the previous lecture, In international law the aim was, “after tracing the growth of the laws which govern modern nations in their relations to each other, to expound and criticise the most important of those laws, and to illustrate them as far as practicable from the rich history of our own diplomatic intercourse with the world.” The history of diplomacy and the law of nations have remained to this day the president’s own specialty in the university course. His natural interest in the political sciences; his engagement of Dr. Henry Carter Adams to teach political economy when he himself went abroad for two years upon a diplomatic mission to China, 1881-82; Michigan zeal for political science, kindled by this very appointment; and the conspicuous example of Columbia College in opening a school of political science in 1880 — all these tributary influences entered the historical drift toward a school of politics in 1881. In June of that year the board of regents voted to establish a school of political science within the faculty of literature, science, and the arts.

In the requirements for admission it was provided that matriculated students in the department of literature, science, and the arts, might be admitted as candidates for a degree when they had completed two years of work in the ordinary college curriculum, work which had embraced at least twelve full courses, each averaging five hours a week for one semester, and including all the prescribed studies offered during that period towards the baccalaureate degree. Students with an honorable dismissal from any other college or university, and with a record equivalent to the above, were admitted to the school of political science without examination. Graduates might be received to advanced standing, receiving credit for any portion of the work of the school already completed.

OPENING OF THE SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

On the 3d of October, 1881, the new school of political science was formally opened by an address on the Relations of Political Science to National Prosperity, by the dean of the school, Professor Charles Kendall Adams. The address was published by the university, and is a vigorous plea for the encouragement of political science in the interest of good government and the general welfare of the people. The professor chose for his text a passage from Milton’s tractate on Education, wherein the great publicist and poet calls “a complete and generous education that which fits a man to perform justly, skillfully, and magnanimously all the offices, both public and private, of peace and war.” While urging, as educational ground work, the ancient and modern languages, mathematics, and natural science, Milton adds, “The next removal must be to the study of politics; to know the beginning, end, and reasons of political societies; that they may not, in a dangerous fit of the commonwealth, be such poor, shaken, uncertain reeds, of such tottering conscience as many of our great counsellors have lately shown themselves, but steadfast pillars of the state.” Professor Adams’ address was a development of this pregnant thought. He showed the necessary dependence of popular government and institutions upon educated public opinion. He showed that the Puritan foundations of New England and the national endowment of the Northwestern Territory both established schools and supplied the means of education.

Reviewing the examples set by European states, he noted that the excellence of French and Italian administration, in recent years, was due to schools of political science. English politics have been shaped by the economists, by the student of Adam Smith, Ricardo, McCulloch, Cairnes, Thorold Rogers, and John Stuart Mill. The upbuilding of Prussia through the economic reforms of Baron vom Stein was primarily due to the influence of the writings of Adam Smith and to the economic teachings of Professor Kraus in the University of Königsberg. New Germany is the result of such beginnings. The present efficiency of German administration is acknowledged to be the product of university-training and of special schools of political science. But are not American methods better than European? Professor Adams then put a few searching questions: “Is it certain that our municipal governments are better than theirs? Are our systems of taxation more equitably adjusted than theirs? Do our public and private corporations have greater respect for the rights of the people than theirs? Can we maintain that our legislatures are more free from corruption and bribery than theirs? Was our financial management at the close of our war wiser than that of France at the close of hers”?

Professor Adams then demonstrated the necessity of political education in our Republic by reference to the three main branches of government, the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive. Admitting the excellence of our federal tribunal and of the supreme courts of some of our States, our lower courts are, in many instances, a standing disgrace by reason of the ignorance and incompetence of judges, the frequent errors of judgment and delays of justice; “the cost of our judicial system is enhanced by the very means which have been taken to reduce it.” In legislation our country has need of all the wisdom that we can command. “Questions in education, questions in finance, questions in sanitary science, questions as to the control of our penal and reformatory institutions, questions as to methods of administration, as to the government of cities, as to the proper restraints to be put upon our corporations, in short, questions of every conceivable nature and of every conceivable difficulty demand consideration, and demand to be settled in the light of all the knowledge that can be gained from the experience of the world, for we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that some of the very evils are beginning to appear that played such havoc with the republics of the Old World.” Regarding the executive service of State and Nation, the necessity of reform is acknowledged by both political parties. The question now is whether we shall grope our way blindly to good methods of civil service, or whether we shall study the experience of England and Germany, countries that long ago reformed their administration. Besides the great branches of Government, there are two other important fields of influential activity — the press and the platform. In molding public opinion newspapers are more powerful than all other agencies combined. How necessary it is that our journals should have, not merely reporters, but educated journalists, competent to grapple with economic questions and to interpret the politics of the world. In this country there is more political speaking than in any other, on account of our frequent elections. What do our people want? “Not political cant, but political candor; not eloquent frivolity, but earnest discussion. If the history of the last twenty-five years in our country teaches anything, it is that there is much greater need of good leading than there is of good following.”

Professor Adams then said it was for the purpose of aiding in these directions that a School of Political Science had been established in the University of Michigan. He proceeded to mark out the proposed course of instruction and to define the relations of the new school to collegiate work, on the one hand, and to genuine university work on the other. He said that no part of the course would range within “the disciplinary studies of the ordinary college curriculum.” The University “has practically fixed the dividing line for its own students at the close of the second year.” Here would begin the work of the School of Political Science, after the usually required work in the ancient and modern languages, in mathematics, and natural science. “We shall give to our students the largest liberties; but we shall accompany those liberties with the responsibilities of a searching final examination. We shall endeavor to bring no reproach upon the school by giving its final degree to unworthy scholarship. In so far as we strive to imitate any we shall strive to follow in the methods and in the spirit of what we believe to be the best universities in the world.”

COURSE OF INSTRUCTION AND PROGRESS OF THE SCHOOL.

The course of instruction provided for the School of Political Science was based, like the Columbia course, upon historical foundations. The courses already described in connection with the work of Professor Adams and Assistant Professor Hudson constituted not only the basis but a considerable portion of the superstructure of the political edifice. To these beginnings were added elementary and advanced courses in political economy, each a course of two hours a week, by Dr. Henry Carter Adams (Ph.D., Baltimore, 1878), who, in the autumn of 1880, began lecturing in the University of Michigan. President Angell contributed his lectures on international law, two hours a week for one semester, to the up-building process. A course of two hours for a half year was given by Assistant Professor Vaughan on Sanitary Science. Judge Cooley introduced a law course on Civil and Political Rights, three hours a week for parts of both semesters. Social Science was represented, two hours a week for one semester, by Professor Dunster, and forestry, for one hour a week, second half year, by Professor Spalding. This was the course of instruction offered in 1881-82. It is impossible to show a tabular view of the arrangement or succession of courses, for, within such limits as those stated in the historical department, the work was more like the elective system of a German university than like the prescribed system of the Columbia School of Political Science.

In the report of the Dean of the Michigan school for 1882-83 may be found evidences of decided progress during the second year. Professor Adams says: “A grouping of the studies shows that there were twelve courses in History, eight courses in Economic Science, seven courses in Social, Sanitary, and Educational Science, and six courses in Constitutional, Administrative, and International Law. Of these the following were given in 1882-83 for the first time: The course in the History of American Finance, the course on Public Scientific Surveys, the course on the Economic Development of Mineral Resources, the course on the Historical Development of Educational Systems and Methods, the course on the Government of Cities, the course on the History of Modern Diplomacy, and the course on methods of Local Government in Europe and America. The studies offered for the first time during the past year, as well as those previously provided for, were open not only to the registered members of the school, but also to all students of proper advancement in the Academic Department of the University. The classes were in all cases attended by encouraging numbers. Of the students of the school who were examined at the end of the year for degrees, six took the degree of Master and one the degree of Bachelor. Three of those who received the Master’s degree had not previously taken the degree of Bachelor. Of these, two were examined at the end of the fourth year and one at the end of the fifth year in the University. A general survey of the work of the year would seem to encourage the belief that the school is doing a useful service. Of the twenty students who enrolled themselves in the school at the beginning of last year, nearly all carried forward their studies with an enthusiasm that is deserving of the highest praise.”

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION.

During the second year of the School of Political Science was organized the Political Science Association. This society was formed “with the design of drawing together into more intimate and sympathetic intercourse the teachers and students of the school, and of encouraging by mutual contact the spirit of scholarly and original research.” The idea of this friendly, co-operative association of students and instructors was probably imported into Ann Arbor from Baltimore by Dr. Henry Carter Adams, who had been one of the original founders of the “Historical and Political Science Association” of the Johns Hopkins University, in 1876, one of the first “Associations” that came into existence in that institution. It was a kind of enlarged form of the “Historical Seminary”; in fact, it was a monthly public session of the same, with invited guests and with an historico-political programme of a somewhat more interesting character than seminary meetings. This appears to have been the complexion of the “Political Science Association” of the University of Michigan. In his report of the School for 1882-83 the Dean said of this society: “Papers were presented by the President of the University, and by several of the professors and students of the school. Reports were given at each meeting of books on Political Science either recently published or recently procured for the University Library.” Some of the papers prepared in connection with the Historical or Political Seminary were finally read before the Association. Several of the subjects mentioned under the head of “Original Work at Michigan” were presented to the larger body. It occupies much the same place in the organization of the historico-political department of the University of Michigan as does the “Academy of Political Science” in Columbia College.

BEGINNINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY.

So important is a good working library to a department of historical and political science that the writer has noted with special interest the origin of the present facilities for advanced work in the University of Michigan. It is a striking fact that the first officer appointed by the first board of regents, in 1837, was a librarian, the Rev. Henry Colclazer. One of the first purchases, by vote of the regents, was Rafn’s Antiquitates Americanæ. The first catalogue (1844) mentions a library of between four and five thousand well-selected standard works in literature and science. The selection was largely made in Europe by Dr. Asa Gray, the first appointed professor of Botany, about the year 1840. The library grew by slow accretions, but with no especial vigor, until Dr. Tappan’s election to the presidency in 1852. He stirred the citizens of Ann Arbor to benefactions, and added 1,200 volumes to the old collection. The library and museums developed together. John L. Tappan, son of the president, became the first active librarian. In 1862 Charles Kendall Adams was made instructor in History and assistant librarian — an auspicious connection for the historical department. Soon after (1865) Mr. Andrew Ten Brook, the Historian of State Universities, took charge of the library and administered the same for over ten years, until (1877) the present active and helpful Raymond C. Davis took command of the situation and began to labor, with his colleagues, for a new library building.

THE RAU LIBRARY.

Meantime, in 1870, came the first gift of importance to the University and to the department of History. Acting President Frieze, in his report for 1871, describes the acquisition: “It consists of the entire collection of the late Professor Rau, of Heidelberg, made during his long service of fifty years as professor of Political Economy in Heidelberg University, and embracing all the most valuable literature contained in the European languages on political science and kindred topics. The number of volumes in this collection is 4,034, and of pamphlets more than 6,000. While this munificent gift is of great importance on account of the intrinsic worth of the collection, it is not less valuable as an example which cannot fail to find imitators. It is undoubtedly as nearly perfect as a library can be made on the specialty which it represents. And it was the well authenticated statement of this fact which influenced the authorities at Yale to send an order for the purchase of it before it was known to have been secured for this University. The most important is the series of volumes issued by the Academy of Vienna and those on the original sources of the history of the House of Hapsburg, a work of great importance in the study of European history.” Many of the volumes in the Rau library were unbound, but the donor, the Hon. Philo Parsons,* of Detroit, made provision for binding them and also increased the collection by fresh purchases. (See President’s report for 1874.) The present librarian, Mr. Davis, in his address at the opening of the new library building in 1883, estimated the Rau Library at 4,000 volumes and 6,000 pamphlets.

*The acquisition of the private libraries of distinguished specialists for the collections of American Universities is worthy of mention: Yale has the library of the distinguished Heidelberg publicist, Robert von Mohl, predecessor of Dr. J. C. Bluntschli, whose library went to the Johns Hopkins University, by the gift of German citizens of Baltimore; the library of Francis Lieber was presented to the University of California by [apparently missing text in original] Professor Rau’s collection was given to the University of Michigan by the Hon. Philo Parsons, of Detroit; the library of Neander is now owned by the University of Rochester; the library of Bopp, the German philologist, also that of Professor Anthon, of Columbia College, that of Professor Goldwin Smith, and that of Jared Sparks, of Cambridge, are all owned by Cornell University; the library of Leopold von Ranke has lately been purchased for the Syracuse University.

MOVEMENT TOWARDS THE NEW LIBRARY.

For many years the growth of the library was very slow. In 1874 President Angell reported to the regents that “We are able to add less than 1,000 volumes a year, including public documents of all kinds.” The present librarian, Mr. Davis, states that from 1856 to 1877 the average annual increase was only about 800 volumes; but since that date the increase has averaged 3,000 volumes annually, until, in 1883, the library numbered 40,000 volumes. This increase was largely due to the intelligent demands made by the faculties, by the students, and by the administration. The president in his annual reports repeatedly called attention to the fact that, in proportion to its size, the University library was in more active use than any other in the country.

The files of The Chronicle, the student organ of Ann Arbor, indicate that no need was greater, on the part of the University, than that of a new library and a gymnasium. The editors never ceased to quote mens sana in corpore sano and to reproach the regents for neglecting the body and soul of the University. When Professor Moses Coit Tyler, long the popular champion of the gymnasium cause, accepted a call to the Cornell University the editors understood that he was influenced by “the fact that the Sparks library is there — one of the richest libraries in American literature in the country. It is especially discouraging when it is remembered that the Sparks library might just as well have been secured for this University as not. When it was offered for sale, considerable talk was made about buying it, but the business was managed so slowly and so much time was taken to think about it that President White stepped in and bought it for Cornell.” In the spring of 1882, upon the return of President Angell from his mission to China, the editors promptly observed: “It was very truly said by President Angell, in his address upon the evening of his arrival, that our weak point is our library. It is impossible that in 30,000 volumes can be comprised half the needs of a great and growing institution like this, and equally impossible that, with the present meager appropriation of $2,500 a year, these needs can for a long time be supplied. Harvard has 200,000 volumes in her library, Yale 100,000, Michigan 30,000.”

Source: Adams, Herbert B. The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, No. 2, 1887. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1887), pp. 114-121.

Image Source: An earlier seal for the University of Michigan that gives the year of Michigan’s statehood as the founding year. In 1929 the regents changed the date on the seal to 1817, when the Catholepistemiad Michigania was founded on the Michigan Territory.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs

Columbia. Trustee behind the establishment of the School of Political Science. Ruggles, 1880

 

Today’s post introduces us to someone who was critical in creating the institutional infrastructure that promoted the development of economics at Columbia University. Samuel Bulkley Ruggles wanted political economy and public policy to be taught and as a trustee of Columbia College worked to have John W. Burgess hired in the first place and then supported Burgess’s plan to form a faculty of political science to fit between the School of Arts and the School of Law. There in the School of Political Science founded in 1880 would be the origins of the department of economics (sociology, mathematical statistics, public law, international institutes etc, etc).

Note: As far as the curator of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror can determine, there is no relation between Samuel Bulkley Ruggles and the Ruggles dynasty of modern economics.

____________________________

Biography of Columbia Trustee,
Samuel Bulkley Ruggles

RUGGLES, Samuel Bulkley, lawyer, b. in New Milford, Conn., 11 April, 1800; d. on Fire island, N. Y., 28 Aug., 1881. He removed at an early age to Poughkeepsie, was graduated at Yale in 1814, studied law in the office of his father, Philo, who was surrogate and district attorney at Poughkeepsie, and was admitted to the bar in 1821. He was elected a member of the assembly of 1888, and, as chairman of the committee on ways and means, presented a “Report upon the Finances and Internal Improvements of the State of New York,” which led the state to enter upon a new policy in its commercial development. This report proposed to borrow sums of money sufficient to enlarge the Erie canal within five years, and not, as had been at first decided, to rely upon part of the tolls to pay for the enlargement while waiting twenty years. The enlargement was not made at once, but Mr. Ruggles’s views, which were much assailed, were amply vindicated by the event. He was a commissioner to determine the route of the Erie railroad, and a director in 1833-’9, a director and promoter of the Bank of commerce in 1839, commissioner of the Croton aqueduct in 1842, delegate from the United States to the International statistical congresses at Berlin in 1863 and the Hague in 1869, U. S. commissioner to the Paris exposition of 1867, and delegate to the International monetary conference that was held there. He laid out Gramercy park, in the city of New York, in 1831, gave it its name, and presented it to the surrounding property-owners. He also had a considerable influence upon shaping Union square, where he resided, and he selected the name of Lexington avenue. He was for a long term of years a trustee of the Astor library, and he held the same office in Columbia college from 1836 till the end of his life. He was also a member of the Chamber of commerce of the state of New York, and of the General convention of the Protestant Episcopal church.

Mr. Ruggles’s claim to distinction rests chiefly upon his canal policy, and the steadfast attention that he continued to give to the Erie canal, both as a private citizen during his life and as canal commissioner, in which office he served from 1840 till 1842, and again in the year 1858. Yale gave him the degree of LL.D. in 1859. Among his numerous printed papers are “Report upon Finances and Internal Improvements” (1838); “Vindication of Canal Policy” (1849); “Defence of Improvement of Navigable Waters by the General Government” (1852); “Law of Burial” (1858); “Report on State of Canals in 1858” (1859); reports on the Statistical congress at Berlin (1863), the Monetary conference at Paris (1867), and the Statistical congress at the Hague (1871); “Report to the Chairman of the Committee on Canals” (1875); and a “Consolidated Table of National Progress in Cheapening Food” (1880).

Source: Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson and John Fiske, Vol. 5, Pickering-Sumter (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1888), pp. 343-344.

____________________________

Research tip

Ruggles of New York: A Life of Samuel B. Ruggles by Daniel Garrison Brinton Thompson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1946).  Includes a bibliography primary and secondary sources regarding Samuel Bulkeley Ruggles.

____________________________

Excerpt from Joseph Dorfman’s 1955 History of the Economics Department of Columbia

…In 1876, four years after [Francis] Lieber’s death, John W. Burgess was called from Amherst to revive Lieber’s work in the College as well as in the School of Law; it was expected that he would teach political economy. The subject was especially important in the eyes of Samuel B. Ruggles, the Trustee who led this movement for the revival of Lieber’s chair and who was well aware of the developments at Yale, Harvard, and abroad. A lawyer by profession, with extensive business interests, Ruggles was genuinely interested in the advancement of learning in general and political economy in particular. He had a reputation as a statistician, especially in monetary matters. He had served as American Commissioner to a number of international statistical and monetary conferences, had taken an active interest in the enactment of the Coinage Act of 1873, and was one of the leaders in the subsequent controversy over bimetallism.

To Ruggles, Burgess looked like the right person to teach political economy, for Burgess had taught the subject at Knox College from 1869 to 1871 as Professor of English Literature and Political Economy and had subsequently studied at Leipzig under Wilhelm Roscher, the foremost figure in the German historical school of economics. Burgess felt, however, that he could not do justice to the field because of his already heavy program, and he proposed that an assistant be secured especially for instruction in economics. A report presented by Ruggles, for the Trustees’ Committee appointed to inquire into the matter, marked the first definite, explicit recognition by a leading institution of the “historical school.” The report, submitted on October 1, 1877, declared that since [Charles Murray] Nairne had not specialized in political economy, he taught it

“…in a rather peremptory way in conformity with the methods of the old text books, in which certain general principles are first assumed to be true, and are subsequently followed out to their natural conclusions by applying to them the processes of logic. That the results thus reached have failed to command general acceptance not merely among the uneducated, but also with many who have made questions of Political Economy the principal study of their lives, is made evident by the widely discordant opinions which continue to be maintained by writers of ability in regard to matters which concern the very fountain springs of national prosperity. Either the truth of the assumed general principles of the theoretic writers is denied, or it is claimed that these principles are only true with so many qualifications and limitations as to render them practically useless. During the past half century, however, there has arisen a school of political economists, principally on the continent of Europe, who have endeavored to apply to this branch of science the same methods which have long been recognized as the only sure methods in physics and natural history, viz., the methods of induction from ascertained facts. These investigators have, with great labor, brought together and classified the immense amount of varied information in regard to the industrial condition of different countries under different systems of legislation gathered by the statistical bureaus of the several governments, and from these have sought to infer, not what on abstract principles ought to be, but what actually is, the system most favorable to industrial development, to growth in national wealth and to the fairest and most equal distribution of the rewards of labor. It was in the hope that these later views of a subject of so vast importance to the future of the world, and especially of our own country, in which questions of public economy must soon absorb the attention of our lawgivers to the exclusion of almost every other, might be introduced into our course of instruction that the Committee of this Board on the course, when, in 1876, it was proposed to appoint a professor of History and Political Science, gave their assent to such appointment on the condition that the professor so appointed should be charged with the duty of giving instruction on Political Economy.”

The report agreed with Burgess’s view that his value lay in the other branches in which he had specialized. Consequently, he should have an assistant to handle political economy. The report went on to point out that there was available for this post a former student of Burgess’s, a man who had for the “past two years been pursuing a course of instruction in Political Economy under the ablest teachers of this Science in Germany.” Accordingly, Richmond Mayo-Smith was, at the same Trustees’ meeting, appointed as an instructor to assist the Professor of History and Political Science. This was the first time in the College’s history that an appointment depended primarily on the candidate’s qualifications in political economy. Two years later he was promoted to Adjunct Professor of History, Political Science and International Law, and in 1883, at the age of twenty-seven, he obtained a full professorship. It is interesting that among the grounds given for his promotion was the fact that he had spent “three entire summers, in recent years, in study with his old instructors at Heidelberg and Berlin.” At first, half his teaching time was devoted to English constitutional history, which he taught until 1890. From the very beginning, however, he tripled the time allotted to the instruction in political economy. To the two-hour, one-semester course required of all juniors he added an elective, two-hour, one-year course for seniors. He gave the juniors “systematic work” with the aid of the familiar elementary textbooks of Fawcett or Rogers and the use of quizzes. For the seniors, however, he used the more sophisticated and advanced Principles of Political Economy of John Stuart Mill, the great codifier of classical economics.* Mayo-Smith supplemented it with lectures on “practical economics” and with “statistical and documentary works” that reflected the controversies over the tariff, bimetallism, greenbacks, the stir over Irish land reform, and Henry George’s single tax. His lecture topics included land tenure in Europe, monetary systems of Europe and America, and the financial history of the United States.

*The term “political economy” was then generally used in official records, but “economics” was often used, certainly as early as 1878. The printed form of the student’s periodical report card sent to the parent, lists “economics.” (See the report entry November 27, 1878, on E.R.A. Seligman, in Seligman Papers.)

Source: Joseph Dorfman, Chapter 9, “The Department of Economics” in A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), pp. 169-172.

____________________________

Burgess Recounts Ruggles’ Role in the Establishment of the School of Political Science

In the early autumn of 1875 I received from Professor Theodore W. Dwight, warden of Columbia Law School in New York City, a communication to the effect that the trustees of Columbia College had voted to invite me to deliver a course of lectures on political science to the students of the Law School during the following winter and had authorized him to transmit the invitation to me and to request from me an early reply. This was the second or third time that they had made this offer to me. I had declined it on account of lack of time to prepare the course, but now that I was to have no graduate students in the year 1875-76, I accepted the call and occupied all of my surplus time and energy during the autumn of 1875 in constructing the desired lectures. The month of January, 1876, was employed in the delivery of the same. The audiences were very large, consisting of the trustees of the college, members of the faculty, and the students of the Law School.

It was on the occasion of the first lecture that I made the acquaintance of Mr. Samuel B. Ruggles, the chairman of the committee of the trustees on the Law School, one of the most extraordinary men whom it has ever been my privilege to know. Mr. Hamilton Fish once said to me: “Ruggles can throw off more brilliant and pregnant ideas in a given moment than any man I ever saw.” He was then already seventy-five years of age and I but thirty-one, but from the first moment of our meeting we flew together like steel and magnet. He came to every lecture, and at the end of the course he said to me, “You are the man we have been looking for ever since Lieber’s death. You must come to Columbia.”…

… The months of February, March, April, and May of the year 1876 were among the most distressing of my life. Mr. Ruggles was continually writing and urging me to give my consent to his bringing my name before the trustees of Columbia College for election to a chair in that institution. Professor Dwight and President Barnard were doing likewise, and I was inventing all sorts of subterfuges for delay. At last, on the first Monday of May, 1876, the trustees, on recommendation of the committee of which Mr. Ruggles was chairman, backed by the approval of Professor Dwight and President Barnard, unanimously elected me professor of history, political science, and international law, without my having given any assurance of accepting the office. The action of the trustees was so cordial and complimentary that I cannot refrain from transcribing the resolution in the language of their own records. It ran as follows:

At a meeting of the Trustees of Columbia College of the City of New York on Monday, May 1st, 1876, it was

RESOLVED, that during the pleasure of the Trustees the salary of the Professor of History, Political Science and International Law shall be. . . . The Board then proceeded to an election for Professor and on counting the ballots Professor John W. Burgess was found to be unanimously elected.

Whereupon it was

RESOLVED, that Professor John W. Burgess be appointed Professor of History, Political Science and International Law to hold his office during the pleasure of the Trustees.

Notwithstanding this unanimous and hearty invitation, I still hesitated. Towards the end of the month of May I received a letter from Mr. Ruggles and also one from President Barnard urging me to send my answer before the meeting of the trustees on the first Monday of June following. At the last moment, with a heavy heart and many misgivings, I accepted the call….

…With the assistance of Mayo-Smith alone, I had worked on thus through the four years from 1876 to 1880, both in the School of Arts and in the School of Law, with some moderate measure of success, and had learned the obstacles to greater success and had felt the way towards it. My first plan was to have a third year added to the curriculum of the School of Law and expand the courses in political science and public law in the law curriculum. But Professor Dwight was distinctly opposed to this as impairing the practical nature of the law instruction according to his view. The peculiar relation of the Law School to the college at that time, which I have already stated, made his opposition to any project for change therein fatal to the undertaking. In the School of Arts all the time had been assigned to the courses in history and political economy which could be afforded in the stiff, required program of studies then obtaining in this school. No relief could be found there.

There was only one other way out of the cramping, unbearable situation, and that was to found a new faculty and a new school for the study, teaching, and development of the historical, political, economic, and social sciences. This was so progressive an idea that I did not dare to broach it for a long time to anybody. I had learned from experience with the vanity of man, to say nothing of that of woman, that the way to succeed in realizing any idea when it must be done through the will of another or others is to make the person or persons in the controlling position think that the idea emanates from him or them. This is not always an easy thing to do. It requires a good deal of skill in psychology to construct approaches through suggestion to the customary obstinacy and obstructiveness of American character. I felt almost instinctively that the man to whom I should turn was Mr. Ruggles. On the evening of the fifth of April, 1880, I went by appointment to his house, then 24 Union Square, for an interview with him. I found two other men with him, his nephew Mr. Robert N. Toppan and Mr. Toppan’s bosom friend John Durand, the American translator of the works of the French author Taine. At first I thought that their presence would prevent me from saying anything to Mr. Ruggles on the subject which I had been for months revolving in mind. But to my surprise and delight I found that Mr. Ruggles had asked them to come in for the purpose of talking with me on points nearly related to my intended proposition. Toppan had taken great interest in my work in the Law School from the beginning and had founded and endowed an annual prize for the best work in public law and political science, and Durand had just returned from Paris and had been telling Toppan about a project in which some of their French friends were participants. Mr. Ruggles immediately opened the conversation and asked me how things were going in my department. I told him and his visitors very frankly of the obstacles in the way of developing these studies in manner and degree as I thought required in a great republic like ours.

They all listened with great attention and evident interest, and when I finally paused in my account of the situation, Mr. Ruggles spoke up quickly and, as was his habit, with apparent impatience, and said: “Well, I do not see but we shall have to found a school for the political sciences separate from both the School of Arts and the School of Law.” At this my heart leaped with gladness into my throat, and it was with a great effort that I restrained myself from saying, “That is the idea I have been for some time entertaining.” I was happily, however, able to modify this into the reply that this would presumably solve the question, but that I knew of no precedent, except perhaps the faculty of “Cameralwissenschaften,” as it was called, of the German Imperial University at Strasbourg very recently founded. At this Mr. Durand said that he had just returned from Paris and while there had by his friend Taine been introduced to one Émile Boutmy, who, with such publicists as Casimir-Périer and Ribot and several others had just founded in Paris the École libre des sciences politiques and had already put it into successful operation. Mr. Ruggles suggested that I draw up a plan for a separate faculty and school of political science in Columbia College and put it into his hands and go myself immediately to Paris, enter the École libre as a student and study carefully its scheme and methods. This suggestion was seconded by both Mr. Toppan and Mr. Durand.

To me it promised the fulfillment of the hope which had been my life’s guide for more than fifteen years. So soon as proper courtesy would allow, I took my leave and hastened home to begin the draft of the proposed new development and to prepare for my journey to Paris. I did not sleep any that night. I did not even retire to rest, but spent the entire night in my study formulating my project. The next morning I summoned Richmond Mayo-Smith to my house and related to him the results of the conference at Mr. Ruggles’s house on the evening before. He, also, was overjoyed at the turn things had so suddenly taken. We talked over the general outline of the plan which I had drawn up and made a few modifications in it, and he agreed to join me in Paris so soon as his duties at the college would allow. I handed the plan to Mr. Ruggles after a few days of reflection upon it, and he assumed the burden of laying it before the trustees and of securing leave of absence for both Professor Mayo-Smith and myself in order that we might have as full an opportunity as possible to investigate the organization and operation of the École libre in Paris….

…At the meeting of the trustees of the college on the first Monday in May, 1880, Mr. Ruggles secured leave of absence for me to go immediately to Paris for the purpose above mentioned, and for Professor Mayo-Smith to go at the end of the month, and laid the plan for the new faculty and School of Political Science before them. This plan was in outline as follows:

  1. A faculty of Political Science should be created, composed of all professors and adjunct and associate professors already giving instruction in history, economics, public law, and political science to the senior class in the School of Arts and the classes of the School of Law and of such other officers of these grades as might be called to chairs in the new faculty.
  2. The plan provided a program of studies in history, economics, public law, and political philosophy, extending over a period of three years, and for a degree of Ph.B. or A.B. to be conferred upon students completing successfully the curriculum of the first year and of Ph.D. to be conferred upon students completing successfully the curricula of the three years and presenting an approved thesis.
  3. The plan provided, further, that members of the senior class of the School of Arts of Columbia College might elect the curriculum of the first year in the School of Political Science and have it take the place of the senior curriculum in the School of Arts and that members of the School of Law who had advanced successfully to the end of the junior year in any college of equal standing with Columbia might enter the School of Political Science as fully qualified candidates for the degrees conferred by recommendation of the faculty of that school.
  4. It provided, finally, that all “persons, of the male sex, having successfully completed the curricula of the first three years of any American college having the same standing as the School of Arts of Columbia College, were qualified to enter the proposed School as candidates for the degrees conferred upon recommendation by the Faculty of the School.”

Such was, in brief, an outline of the project which Mr. Ruggles laid before the trustees of the college at their regular meeting on the first Monday of May, 1880. The trustees referred the proposition to a committee for examination, report, and recommendation at their meeting to be held on the first Monday of the following June, and also granted leave of absence to Professor Mayo-Smith and myself to go to Paris…

…[In Paris] on Tuesday morning after the first Monday of June, I was awakened by a loud knock on the door of my sleeping room about five o’clock. On going to the door, an American cablegram was handed me. It read: “Thank God, the university is born. Go ahead.” It was signed “Samuel B. Ruggles.” This meant that the trustees of Columbia College had, on the day before, adopted the plan for founding the School of Political Science in the college and had authorized me to invite Edmund Munroe Smith, then student in Berlin, and Clifford R. Bateman, then student in Heidelberg, to join Mayo-Smith and myself in forming the new faculty and putting the new school into operation at the beginning of the academic year 1880-81, in the following October.

Source: John W. Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), pp. 150-153; 187-192; 194-195.

____________________________

Resolution of the Columbia College Trustees to Establish a School of Political Science

§. 4. SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

June 7th, 1880.

Resolved, That there be established to go into operation at the opening of the academic year next ensuing, a school designed to prepare young men for the duties of public life to be entitled a School of Political Science, having a definitely prescribed curriculum of study extending over a period of three years and embracing the History of Philosophy, the History of the Literature of Political Sciences, the General Constitutional History of Europe, the Special Constitutional History of England and the United States, the Roman Law and the jurisprudence of existing codes derived therefrom, the Comparative Constitutional Law of European States and of the United States, the Comparative Constitutional Law of the different States of the American Union, the History of Diplomacy, International Law, Systems of Administrations, State and National, of the United States, Comparison of American, and European Systems of Administration, Political Economy and Statistics.

Resolved, That the qualifications required of the candidate for admission to this School, shall be that he shall have successfully pursued a course of undergraduate study in this College or in some other, maintaining an equivalent curriculum to the close of the Junior year.

Resolved, That the students of the School, who shall satisfactorily complete the studies of the first year, shall be entitled on examination and the recommendation of the Faculty to receive the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy, and those who complete the entire course of three years, shall on similar examination and recommendation, be entitled to receive the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Resolved, That the annual tuition fee required of students of this School shall be one hundred and fifty dollars ($150).

Resolved, That Edmund Munroe Smith be appointed Lecturer on Roman Law in the School of Political Science, to enter upon his duties on the first day of October next, and to hold office for one year, or during the pleasure of the Board, at a compensation of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) per annum.

Resolved, That Clifford Rush Bateman be appointed Lecturer on Administrative Law and Government in the School of Political Science, to enter upon duty on the first day of October, 1881, and to serve for the term of one year, or during the pleasure of the Board, at a salary of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) per annum.

Source: Columbia College. Resolutions of the Trustees, Volume VIII, 1880-85, pp. 140-141.

Image Source: Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson and John Fiske, Vol. 5, Pickering-Sumter (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1888), p. 344.

Categories
Economics Programs Economist Market Economists Johns Hopkins Kansas Sociology

Kansas. Birth of seminary of historical and political science. Blackmar, 1889

 

A 35 year old Johns Hopkins University Ph.D., Frank Wilson Blackmar, was appointed professor of History and Sociology at the University of Kansas starting in the fall semester of 1889. He joined  the history and civics professor James Hulme Canfield to establish a joint seminary of historical and political science in Lawrence, Kansas. The seminary was to serve as a social scientific laboratory following the model of historical seminaries established earlier in German universities and later transferred to North American universities such as Johns Hopkins during the last third of the 19th century. Blackmar’s Ph.D. subjects were History, Political Economy and Literature and he taught a broad range of courses in political economy, sociology, cultural and intellectual history, as well as social policy at Kansas. He wrote textbooks for both economics and sociology but he eventually left economics for what he must have perceived to be the virgin fields of sociology, a career path similar to that taken by Franklin H. Giddings at Columbia. In 1919 he served as president of the American Sociological Association. 

Frank W. Blackmar served his university for forty years until being unceremoniously shown the door to retirement by his department in 1929. He was even forced to suffer the indignity of witnessing his own venerable sociology textbook dropped for a younger competitor.

Still Blackmar is of interest to us as one of the first generation wave of newly minted Ph.D.’s who were in search of their scientific fortune across the vast expanse of the United States at the end of the 19th century. He also serves as a reminder that the disciplinary wall between economics and sociology was then little more than a speed-bump compared to the well-fortified border today.

This is a long post so I provide the following intrapost links for ease of navigation:

___________________________

Frank Wilson Blackmar

1854. Born November 3 in West Springfield, Pennsylvania.

1874. Graduated at the Northwestern State Normal School at Edinboro, Erie county, Pennsylvania.

1874-75. Taught at West Mill Creek school at Erie.

1875-78. Taught in California public schools.

1878. Enrolled at the University of the Pacific (San Jose, California).

1881. Ph.B. with honors from the University of the Pacific.

1881-82. Taught mathematics in the San Jose High School.

1882-86. Professor of mathematics in the University of the Pacific

1884. A.M. in mathematics and literature from the University of the Pacific.

1885. Married Mary S. Bowman, daughter of Rev. G.B. Bowman, of San Jose.

1886-89. Graduate student and fellow of Johns Hopkins University.

1887-88. Instructor in history.
1888-89. Fellow in history and politics.
1889. June 13. Awarded Ph.D. Thesis: “Spanish Colonization in the Southwest.” Subjects: History, Political Economy and English.  Source: Johns Hopkins University, University Circulars, July 1889, p. 97.

1889-1929. University of Kansas.

1889-1899. Professor of history and sociology.
1889. Course in political economy. Thirteen students enrolled (University Kansan, September 27, 1889, p. 1)
1890. Course “Elements of Sociology” introduced.
1893. Course “Status of Woman” introduced.
1897. Course “Questions of Practical Sociology” introduced.
1897. Course “Remedial and Corrective Agencies” introduced.
1899-1912. Professor of sociology and economics.
1912-1926. Professor of sociology.
1899-1926. Head of the Department of Sociology.
1896-1922. Dean of the Graduate School
1929. Retirement forced at age 74 after 40 years of service to the University. His request to continue full-teaching and full-salary until June 1930 was denied.

1900-02. President of the Kansas Conference of Social Work.

1919. Ninth president of the American Sociological Society

1931. March 30. Died from influenza in Lawrence, Kansas.

Books, monographs, reports

The Study of History and Sociology. Topeka: Kansas Printing Office, 1890.

Spanish Colonization in the Southwest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1890.

The History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education. U.S. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information No. 9, 1890. Contributions to American Educational History, edited by Herbert B. Adams. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1890.

Spanish Institutions in the Southwest. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1891.

The Story of Human Progress, 1896.

Higher Education in Kansas. U.S. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information No. 2, 1890.

Economics. Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company, 1900.

Spanish Colonial Policy. Publications of the American Economic Association. Vol. 1 (3), 1900, pp. 112-143.

The Study of History, Sociology, and Economics. Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company, 1901.

The Life of Charles Robinson, the First Governor of Kansas. Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company, 1902.

The Elements of Sociology. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1905.  [In the Citizen’s Library series ed. by Richard T. Ely]

Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, prominent persons, etc. (2 vols.) edited by Frank W. Blackmar. Chicago: Standard Pub. Co. Volume I;  Volume II.

Economics for High Schools and Academies. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1907.

Report on the Penitentiary to Governor Geo. H. Hodges. Topeka, Kansas: Kansas State Printing Office, 1914.

Outlines of Sociology, with J.G. Gillin. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1915. [Published in series: Social Science Textbooks, edited by Richard T. Ely. Note: Ely’s own contribution to the series bears the analogous title “Outlines of Economics”]

First edition (1915);
Revised edition (1923);
Third edition (1930).

History of the Kansas State Council of Defense. Topeka, Kansas: Kansas State Printing Plant, December 1920.

Lawrence Social Survey (joint with Ernest W. Burgess). Topeka, Kansas: Kansas State Printing Plant, 1917.

Justifiable Individualism. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1922.

History of Human Society. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1926.

___________________________

Newspaper accounts regarding Blackmar’s appointment

PROF. BLACKMAR SELECTED.
A Good Man Elected to the New Chair of History and Sociology.

At the last meeting of the board of regents of the University, Prof. James H. Canfield recommended that instead of having an assistant as fixed by the legislature, a new chair be created to be known as History and Sociology. Prof. Canfield laid out the work to be pursued by each chair and two chairs were created by the regents as advised by him and he was allowed to have his choice and he took American History and Civics.

To-day the regents, after careful consideration of all the applicants, selected Prof. Frank W. Blackmar, who is taking an advanced course at Johns Hopkins University. Prof. Blackmar is a man of experience and is a graduate of the University of the Pacific at San Jose, Cal. For several years he has been professor of mathematics at that place. The following letter to the regents bears Mr. Blackmar good recommendations:

 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Baltimore, Md.

“The best man I can suggest for your purpose is Mr. F. W. Blackmar, our senior fellow in History and Politics. He was for some years professor in a California college before coming here and has just received an offer of $1500 to go to Mills College in that state. He used to receive $2000, but deliberately threw up a good place in mathematics for the sake of studying history. He is a man of fine character and ability with lots of hard sense and good tact, withal a good speaker and writer. I have employed him upon the most important of all the government monographs, the Relation of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education, a work covering the financial history of education in thirty-eight states. His report has just been accepted in Washington and will do Blackmar great honor. In fact he can get almost anything he wants after that report is published. You will be lucky if you catch him early and you will have to give him all the law allows. I shall recommend Blackmar to the vacancy arising at Bryn Mawr, where Woodrow Wilson used to be, if I am asked to nominate. Blackmar is married, has had experience as a co-educator, and has served as an assistant here, as well as a popular lecturer to workingmen. I have just answered three applications for professors, but have given you the best man

Very truly,
H. B. Adams.

 

With Professors Blackmar and Canfield in the political history department of the University, that department is sure to become one of the most attractive in the University.

Prof. Blackmar is a protectionist, a Republican and a member of the M. E. [Methodist Episcopal] church.

The “Athens of Kansas” welcomes Prof. and Mrs. Blackmar to her midst and we trust that they will find Lawrence a pleasant place in which to live. The success of securing such an able man is due largely to Prof. Canfield and Regent Spangler and the University is to be congratulated upon the new accession to the already strong faculty.

Source: The Evening Tribune, Lawrence, Kansas. Wednesday, May 8, 1889, p. 3.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The New Chairs.

The University has taken so many strides towards the front during the past four or five years, that each step has ceased to attract special notice. But a change has just been made which deserves mention, and which has already attracted wide-spread attention and favorable comment.

For several years Professor Canfield has urged a division of his chair, that broader work might be offered in History and in Citizenship. The Board has never been able to meet the necessary expenses of such enlargement, and the work has been carried or driven toward success under many embarrassments.

But now the Regents find the funds on hand for a new chair, and have determined to establish it in this department. Accordingly a special committee has been in consultation with Professor Canfield, and together they have elaborated courses that are peculiarly attractive.

At his own request Professor Canfield retains the work in American History and Civics, which will hereafter be the title of his chair. American History is the favorite option. “Constitutional and Political History of the United States,” elaborated and given daily instead of three times a week. This work absorbs “Colonial History,” “Finance and Diplomacy of the Revolution,” and the “Federalist.” In addition to this will be offered work in Constitutional Law, Public Finance and Banking, Local Law and Administration, and International Law and Diplomacy.

The second chair will be History and Sociology.

It is not possible to say now who the new Professors will be, nor what work will be offered. But the two chairs will work together—the work of one really preparing for that of the other, and together they will make a strong team.

This division of the old chair gives just twice the latitude in choice of options and elections, and the number of students eager to avail themselves of this opportunity is very large.

LATER.

Prof. Frank W. Blackmar, formerly a Professor in the University of the Pacific, and at present a fellow in Johns Hopkins, has been appointed to the chair of History and Sociology, which was recently created by the division of Prof. Canfield’s work Prof. Blackmar comes with the best of recommendations, and will be a strong addition to the faculty.

Source: University Times, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, May 10, 1889, p. 2.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Prof. F. W. Blackmar.

The rumor as to the appointment of Prof. F. W. Blackmar of Johns Hopkins University has been proven true. Through the kindness of Regent Spangler the Journal is enabled to print the following letter concerning Mr. Blackmar:

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
BALTIMORE, Md., April 13, 1889.

To the Trustees of Kansas State University—Gentlemen:

Allow me strongly to recommend for your new chair of History and Sociology, Mr. F. W. Blackmar, our Senior Fellow in these subjects. He was for four years Professor of Mathematics in his alma mater, the University of the Pacific, where he proved such a good administrative officer that at one time he served as the deputy of the President. We have thought so highly of his ability as a teacher and as a manager of young men that last year we put him in charge of a large class in History in our undergraduate department. He taught the class to our entire satisfaction. This year as Fellow he has not been allowed to teach, but has given his entire attention to original investigation. Besides writing a scholarly thesis on “Spanish Colonization in the Southwest,” based upon Spanish and other original authorities, he has completed under my direction a most elaborate government report on “The Relation of Federal and State Aid to the Higher Education,” or a financial history of American Colleges and universities in so far as they have been supported or assisted by government appropriations. This report, I am confident, will give Mr. Blackmar a national reputation, for it will meet the needs of every State board of trustees and of all superintendents of education in these United States. In addition to this government and university work, Mr. Blackmar has lent a hand in various popular lecture courses which I have instituted here in Baltimore. I append the printed outlines of one or two of his lectures. He is a man who can go before the people, if necessary, and make himself understood on practical questions. He takes a strong interest in social science, or questions affecting the public health and welfare, such as Sanitation, Charities, the Relation of the State and City to the care of Paupers, the Insane, the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb, etc. If you should see fit to appoint Mr. Blackmar to Historical. Economic and Social Science, it would be wise to encourage him during the coming summer to visit the leading charitable institutions of New York and Massachusetts, and to acquire a practical knowledge of the best methods, from interviews with men like Mr. Brockway, of the Elmira Reformatory, and with Mr. F. S. Sanborn, long secretary of the State Board of Charities in Massachusetts, and at one time lecturer upon these subjects at Cornell University. There is a great field here for a well-trained University man. With knowledge of the best experience of the world he can promote the usefulness and economy of charitable institutions throughout an entire state or city. The Johns Hopkins University is pushing men into this new field. Two of our graduates in succession have served as Secretary of the Organized Charities of Baltimore. Another has similar position in Brooklyn. A fourth has just been made Secretary of the New York State Charities Aid Association, an office which brings him into active relation with all the charitable institutions of both city and state. I emphasize these facts because they show the practical bearings of Social Science when properly represented in a University.

Let me say, in conclusion, that Mr. Blackmar is a young man of excellent moral character, a Christian gentleman, married and in good health, although just now a little overworked while preparing for his degree as Doctor of Philosophy. He is perfectly safe in all economic and social questions and is naturally endowed with a good stock of common sense.

Very respectfully recommended,
H. B. Adams.
In charge of the Department of History and Politics.

Mr. Blackwar is 34 years of age and a native of Erie county, Pa. In 1874 he graduated at the Northwestern State Normal school at Edinboro, Erie county, Pa.; the following year he taught the West Mill Creek school at Erie, at the same time carrying on studies preparatory for college. In the autumn of 1875 he went to California and there engaged in teaching in the public schools for a term of three years; in 1878 entered the University of the Pacific, San Jose, California, and graduated from that institution in 1881 receiving the degree of Ph.B. The following year he engaged in teaching mathematics in the San Jose High School. In 1882 he was called to the chair of mathematics in the University of the Pacific which he filled acceptably for a term of four years. In 1884 he received the degree of A.M. on account of work done in mathematics and literature.

In the following year he was married to Miss Mary S. Bowman, daughter of Rev. G. B. Bowman, of San Jose.

In 1886 he entered Johns Hopkins University, when he was appointed instructor in 1887 and fellow in history and politics in 1888.

Source: Lawrence Daily Journal, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, May 10, 1889, p. 3.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Prof. Blackmar Elected.

Tuesday the board of regents after the consideration of all the applicants elected Prof. Frank W. Blackmar, who is now taking an advanced course at John Hopkins, to fill the associate chair in the history department. Prof. Blackmar is a graduate of the University of the Pacific, a republican, a prohibitionist, a Phi [Kappa] Psi. The following letter to the regents bears Prof. Blackmar good recommendations, and the Courier bids him welcome.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Baltimore, Md.

“The best man I can suggest for your purpose is Mr. F. W. Blackmar, our senior fellow in History and Politics. He was for some years professor in a California college before coming here and has just received an offer of $1500 to go to Mills College in that state. He used to receive $2000, but deliberately threw up a good place in mathematics for the sake of studying history. He is a man of fine character and ability with lots of hard sense and good tact, withal a good speaker and writer. I have employed him upon the most important of all the government monographs, the Relation of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education, a work covering the financial history of education in thirty-eight states. His report has just been accepted in Washington and will do Blackmar great honor. In fact he can get almost anything he wants after that report is published. You will be lucky if you catch him early and you will have to give him all the law allows. I shall recommend Blackmar to the vacancy arising at Bryn Mawr, where Woodrow Wilson used to be, if I am asked to nominate. Blackmar is married, has had experience as a co-educator, and has served as an assistant here, as well as a popular lecturer to workingmen. I have just answered three applications for professors, but have given you the best man

Very truly,
H.B. Adams.

Source: The University Courier, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, May 10, 1889, p. 2.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

FRANK W. BLACKMAR

An extended sketch of Prof. Blackmar was given in The Courier last Spring, but for the benefit of the new students we reproduce a part of it. Prof. Blackmar is a native of Pa., and graduated from the Northwestern Normal School in 1874. He then went to California and taught a few years in the Public Schools of that State. He then entered the University of the Pacific, and graduated with honors with the class of ’81. He taught in the San Jose High School, and was then called back to the University of the Pacific to fill the chair of mathematics. This position he held until 1886, when he resigned to pursue a post graduate course in Johns Hopkins. During the year 1887-8, he was an instructor in History at that institution, and at the time of his election to the chair of History and Sociology in the University last spring, was a Fellow in History and Politics at Johns Hopkins. He is a member of Phi [Kappa] Psi Fraternity, having joined that organization while a student at the University of the Pacific. He took his degree of Ph.D. last June, at Johns Hopkins, the subjects covered in his course being History, Political Economy and English.

Source: The University Courier, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, August 16, 1889, p. 2.

___________________________

Department of History, Politics and Sociology—A Circular Issued Covering the Work in that Department.

The department of history in the State University has just issued a circular covering the work in that department. By the division of the chair of history and the election of an additional professor in that department the long wished for equalizing of the course was attained and under the name of American History and Civics and History and Sociology the University presents as strong and comprehensive course in that line of college work as any other college in the country. In order that our readers may know for themselves the extent of this course and also the division of the work between Prof. Canfield and Prof. Blackmer we print the circular entire.

HISTORY, POLITICS AND SOCIOLOGY.

The following statement covers the work of the last two years of the University course, and is made in answer to many inquiries received by the instructors in charge of these topics.*

Instruction in History, Polities, and Sociology is given by means of lectures, recitations, discussions, conference, and personal direction in study and research. Special pains are taken to facilitate the use of the University library by students taking these topics; authorities closely connected with the work in hand being withheld from general circulation, and rendered more available by carefully prepared card indexes.

AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVICS. — JAMES H. CANFIELD.

American History. — Instruction is given daily for two years in American History. The course has been prepared with especial care, with the thought that a thorough knowledge of the origin and development of the Nation is one of the most essential conditions of good citizenship. Marked attention is given to social life and institutional and industrial development; to the financial experiments of the general government, and to diplomatic relations; to the failure of the confederation, the struggle for the constitution, and to the text of the constitution itself; and to the constitutional and political history of the Union from 1789 to the present. For this the library now offers special facilities, in a complete Congressional Record, from the first Continental Congress to the present (including the Secret Journals and Diplomatic Correspondence), a complete set of Niles’ Register, and in a large collection of other public documents.

Local Administration and Law. — Lectures three times each week during the first term,† covering the management of public affairs in districts, townships, counties, cities, and States. This course is intended to increase the sense of the importance of home government, as well as to give instruction in its practical details.

Public Finance and Banking. — Lectures twice each week during the first term, on National, State, and municipal financiering; and on theoretical and practical banking, with the details of bank management.

Constitutional Law. — Lectures three times each week during the second term, on the constitution of the United States; with brief sketches of the institution and events that preceded its adoption, and with special attention to the sources and methods of its interpretation.

International Law and Diplomacy. — Lectures twice each week during the second term on the rise and growth of international law, and on the history of American diplomacy.

In all this work constant effort is made to determine the historic facts (as opposed to mere theorizing), to secure a fair presentation of opposing views, to promote free discussion and inquiry, and to encourage as complete personal investigation of all authorities as the University library permits. This method is thought to furnish the best conditions for sound opinion and individual judgment, while controlling neither.

HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY.
— FRANK W. BLACKMAR.

The aim in the following courses is to give a comprehensive knowledge of the great topics of history, and to investigate general social, political, and economic phenomena and theories — especially those of Europe.

Instruction will be given daily throughout the first term, as follows:

English History. — This course embraces a careful study of the English people and the growth of the English nation, including a general survey of race elements, and of social and political institutions.

The Intellectual Development of Europe. — A course of lectures tracing the history and philosophy of intellectual progress from early Greek society to modern times.
Particular attention is given to the influence of Greek philosophy, the Christian church, the relation of learning to liberal government, and of the rise of modern nationality.

Political Economy. — The fundamental and elementary principles will be discussed, and will be elaborated by descriptive and historical methods. A brief historical sketch of Political Economy may be given at the close of the course.

The second term’s work includes the following courses:

Institutional History. — Lectures three times each week, on Comparative Politics. The history of Germanic institutions will constitute the main body of the course.

The Rise of Democracy. — Lectures twice each week, on the rise of popular power and the growth of political liberty throughout Europe.

Elements of Sociology. — Lectures three times each week, on the evolution of social institutions from the primitive unit, the family; including a discussion of the laws and conditions which tend to organize society. The latter part of the course will be devoted to the elements of modern social science as preliminary to the consideration of the problems of the day.

Land and Land Tenures. — Twice each week. The course will begin with a discussion of the Roman land question and extend to the Feudal land systems of France and England, and thence to the consideration of modern land tenures of Great Britain and of the United States.

Practice Course in Economics. — A full term’s work applied in economics and in the elements of social science; consisting of conferences, discussions, practical ob-servation, and the preparation of a thesis of not less than twenty thousand words on some special topic selected by each student

All general correspondence should be addressed to the Chancellor of the University; special correspondence, to either of the instructors named in this circular.

*During the first two years of the University course, students have the subjects usually required in college courses — though with choice between four lines of work. (See University Catalogue.)

†The University year is divided into two terms, of equal length.

Source: Lawrence Daily Journal (Lawrence, Kansas), Sunday, July 14, 1889, p. 3.

___________________________

Seminary of Historical and Political Science.

Announcing the new Seminary

The Political Science Club has been succeeded by the Seminary of Historical and Political Science. This new society has been organized by Profs. J. H. Canfield and F. W. Blackmar. The membership of the society is limited to the department of History and Political Science, students having two or more studies in that department being active members and those having less than two studies being associate members.

This new association will embrace all of the best features of the Political Science Club, besides several new features. From his two years’ experience with the Political Science Club, Prof. Canfield is able to accept only those features that have proven to be practical. Under the new management the Seminary is expected to be even more interesting and valuable an adjunct to the department, in the future, than the Political Science Club has been in the past.

Source: University Kansan (Lawrence, Kansas), Friday, September 27, 1889, p. 2.

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

First Annual Symposium of the Seminary of Historic and Political Science of K. S. U.

A short time ago invitations were sent out to the members of the Political Seminary, and last evening a goodly number of both active and corresponding members assembled for the first annual reception and banquet. The guests were received by Prof. J. H. Canfield, director, and Prof. Blackmar, vice-director of the Seminary; and at 8:45 the line of march was taken up for room 15, which served for a banquet hall as well as a lecture room.

Here an excellent repast was served by young lady students of the University, after which Director Canfield announced the Symposium proper. The director spoke at some length of the work accomplished in the past year, giving a list of the more important papers presented, and announced that for next year papers on subjects of interest were promised by Geo. R. Peck, of Topeka; Frank H. Betton, labor commissioner of Kansas; Judge Humphrey, of Junction City; Judge Emery, D. S. Alford, Rev. Ayers, Charlie Scott and Dr. Howland.

Prof. Canfield then introduced Vice-Director Blackmar, and asked him to compare the work done by the seminary here with the same class of work in eastern colleges. Prof. Blackmar gave a short account of the present mode of studying history and political economy, saying that it was of recent date. Comparisons with Yale, Johns Hopkins and the University of Michigan, show that the work here is as thorough as at any of those institutions. The study of the Science of History has risen into prominence, as has the study of the natural sciences, and furnishes as good mental training as do the languages or even mathematics.

At the close of Prof. Blackmar’s speech Prof. Canfield announced the real topic of the occasion, “The University in its Relation to the People,” and called on Gov. Robinson to tell of the early struggle for a university in Kansas. The governor then told in his own happy manner of the early endeavors to secure a university in Kansas, of the first faculty and how it was selected for policy’s sake, of the work that the regents had to do even in the first years of the University. His hope that the present director of the seminary would never leave the University was heartily applauded.

The time having arrived when three minute speeches were in order, Prof.

Canfield called on Mr. H. F. M. Bear to talk on the “Influence of the University in the Community.” Mr. Bear opened with a story, and when that was finished so were his three minutes.

“What a University Course in Worth to the Bar of the State” was responded to by Judge Humphrey; the judge said “That a thorough collegiate education is becoming more and more recognized as a necessity in the lawyer’s profession; that the most important function of a state school is to equip men for good, honest lawyers.”

“The University Man in Politics” was discussed by A. L. Burney, of the class of ’90, “The true duty of the University graduate in politics is to be a leader, following the teachings of the golden rule.”

Colonel O. E. Learnard, in responding to “the University man” in connection with the press, said: “It was not a good plan to mix a University training with newspaper work, but that men should graduate from the University into the newspaper profession.”

Prof. Canfield, introducing the next speaker, congratulated the University in having begun right in the matter of co-education.

Miss Hunnicut, a post-graduate student in Political Science, spoke on “Post-Graduate Work, the link between the University and practical life;” thought the course too short, should be two years instead of one — this was the only opportunity offered the student to do original work.

“University boys’ outing life” was assigned to C. E. Esterley. Mr. Esterley declared that the University boys were always successful after leaving school.

“What the University can and does do for women,” was discussed by Miss Reasoner — class of ’90. Miss Reasoner is a pleasing speaker and was listened to with close attention,

Prof. Blake in speaking on “the University and applied science,” said that everything in K.S.U. depended on the crops in Kansas, and as the crop prospect was good this year, so was the outlook for applied sciences hopeful in our University. The object in giving our young men instruction in the shops was not that they might be laborers, but directors of our great industrial enterprises in the West.”

This closed the program of a most successful meeting, and Prot. Canfield then declared the assembly adjourned for one year.

Those present were: Prof. J. H. Canfield, director; Prof. F. W. Blackmar, vice-director; Misses Lockwood, Dunn, Spencer, Reasoner and Hunnicutt; Judge Humphrey, Gov. Robinson, Dr. Howland, Rev. Mr. Ayres, B. W. Woodward, D. S. Alford, Col. O. E. Learnard, Prof. Blake, and Messrs. Chapman, Esterly, Liddeke, Slosson, Burney, Mushrush, Bear, Roberts, Morse, Hill, Wilmoth.

Source: Lawrence Daily Journal (Lawrence, Kansas), Thursday, June 5, 1890, p. 4.

___________________________

Blackmar on place of political economy 

ECONOMIC POLITICS. — One branch of political economy falls directly within the scope of history, and this is what may be termed economic politics, or that part of political economy which has to do with the action of the state concerning economical development. This has been called “Historico-Political Economy,” as treated by the historian. It deals less with economic life as a philosophy, and more with the practical affairs of economic legislation. As such it might assume the German name of “National Economy,” only that it would include more than is here intended. It is a separate study from the science of Political Economy as now constituted. However, in the earlier conditions of the science, and to a certain extent now among some French and German writers, political policies are confused with the science of political economy.

Within the scope of economic politics should be grouped those social and economic movements which have been directly connected with the political changes that have taken place in states. Some of the so-called political institutions have their direct cause of existence, in social or economic movements. The so-called new school, or, what is more explanatory, the “historical school” of political economists, in contradistinction to the old or “deductive” school, base their operations upon historical conditions rather than upon a priori arguments. Consequently, the association of political economy with the study of history has become common. It is true, on the one hand, that science of political economy that struggles with a priori principles, ideal men, ideal nations, and ideal conditions, was released from many of its defects when a careful search into historical conditions was made. On the other hand, there is a politico-economic history of nations which may be incorporated with the study of history proper, and still allow Political Economy to retain its own province undisturbed. It is this phase of political history which should come under the head of economic politics. The study of Political Economy as an independent science will be treated of under that heading.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Such was the condition of the study of history in the American college up to a recent period, that the dull, dry conning of the facts of universal history with the chief idea of knowing the facts of the world’s history only to forget them, was the recognized process. President Adams tells us that during the first two centuries of the existence of Harvard College, the study of history consisted in spending one hour at eight o’clock on Saturday mornings in the hearing of compositions and the reciting of history, both ancient and modern. In 1839 a special chair for the study of history was endowed for the college, yet it was not until 1870 that there was any real change in the method pursued of conning history. At that time two men were employed, where before one man did all of the work. From this time there was rapid improvement. The condition in Yale and in Columbia was not much better than that in Harvard; in Yale the entire services of one man were not required until after 1868, to teach history, and it was not until 1877 that another man was put into the field.

In 1857 President White, of Cornell, instituted the study of history in the University of Michigan, and used the historic method employed in Germany with some modifications. This method was adopted in Cornell in 1870, and in Johns Hopkins in 1876, at the commencement of its career. With these beginnings a rapid progress has been made towards the treatment of history from a scientific standpoint. From this time the best institutions of America abandoned the old, dull process of memorizing and forgetting the facts of history without making good use of those facts. But this progress is not equal to the progress made in the old-world institutions in the organization and arrangement of courses and the number of separate fields of study. The methods used are somewhat the same.

Modern methods of historical teaching have for their chief points the systematic work of the student under the intelligent direction of the instructor. The process involves an investigation of materials, a search after the truth, a study of particular phases of historical truth, a comparison and classification of material, and an analysis of results. History is to be studied because it is interesting, and to be followed for the truth it will yield. In all of this the facts of history must not be ignored, nor the careful reading of standard authorities neglected. But the instruction works upon the principle that a person engaged in an interesting pursuit of the truth of history will retain by real knowledge of the subject the facts which if learned by rote without understanding would soon leave him.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The MODERN SEMINARY furnishes a means of bringing together those most interested and most advanced, for the special study of subjects in history or in political and in social economy. This method, now almost universal in the foremost institutions, is of German origin, and constitutes the germ of the modern method. The seminary had its origin with the class taught by Leopold von Ranke, and from that time has been greatly improved in Germany, and extensively adopted in America. The seminary represents the historical laboratory, and each meeting should be a clearing-house of the actual work done. The object of the seminary is to develop individual thought and investigation, and to test the same by criticism and discussion. Another beneficial result will be the development in a practical way of the best methods of study. We have laboratory work in physics, chemistry, and in most of the natural sciences; if history is to be taught as a science, it must not ignore this great means of investigation. Its work may not always be original, for the word original should be used with much care in its application to any study. It must be sufficiently individual and independent that the student may verify truth by his own investigation, and learn to exercise his own judgment concerning the materials before him. The undergraduate courses in chemistry or physics seldom go beyond this in their laboratory work. The seminary is an association of individuals coöperating in the pursuit of historical truth, using scientific methods in study, research, and presentation. It should represent the highest and best work of any department or group of departments working on kindred subjects.

But whatever methods are pursued, it must be kept in mind that there are scientific processes involved, and scientific results must be expected. The chief benefits to be derived from the study of history, or of the different branches of history and sociology, are similar to those of all other sciences.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor R.T. Ely wrote an Introduction to Political Economy which was more or less sociological in its nature, and which assumed that Political Economy was a branch of Sociology. Subsequently a controversy arose as to the relative position of Economics and Sociology, which has been finally settled by Sociology taking and maintaining an independent position in the category of social sciences. While nearly everything relating to society has been called, at different times, Sociology, there is to-day a well-established body of knowledge, well-defined principles, and a distinct boundary of the science of Sociology.

A word must be said about the treatment of what is known as “social science” in a peculiar way, as if the only province of sociology was to care for broken-down and imperfect society; and that sociology has to deal only with social problems, and not with the rational development of human society. It must be acknowledged that the value of the study of charities and corrections cannot be overestimated, and that as representative of the position of a certain phase of social disorganization, the study of these is invaluable. These studies represent the outcrop pings of society, and just as a ledge in the mountains will show by its nature the condition of the original bed, so these parts of disorganized society will show the nature of the true structure. So, also, as it treats chiefly in its scientific methods of the reorganization of society, there is an opportunity offered for the application of the best results of the study of sociology.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

THE STUDY OF ECONOMICS.

INSTRUCTION in economics has been for many years a part of the regular course of nearly every college and university in the land, and has recently been making rapid advancement in the secondary schools. There has been rather more controversy respecting its scope than of the methods employed in study and instruction. Some have contended that as Economics is an abstract science its scope is narrow, comprising only the body of principles and laws that have been drawn from concrete experience. Others have broadened the subject to include much that rightfully belongs to sociology and political science. Others have adopted the historical method to such an extent as to exclude all scientific nature of the subject, reducing it to a mere relation of facts concerning the industrial affairs of the nation. As usual, extremists may be of service in quickening thought, but they seldom hit upon the correct solution of problems that concern a large number of people. While it is proper and unavoidable to hold to the abstract or deductive political economy, it is also necessary to carry on concrete investigations by the inductive method. Nor must industrial history be neglected, for this makes a strong background for the science and enables the student to approach the subject from a new point of view. If a student will observe the following analysis and obtain a thorough knowledge of the subjects enumerated therein, he will have a fair knowledge of the science of Economics from every essential point of view. This analysis represents the essentials of economics; more would be superfluous and less would be insufficient. True, there are many subjects more or less directly related to economics, such as economic statistics, economic ethics, and economic jurisprudence, but they do not make up the body of the subject as a science.

CLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMICS.

  1. Classification according to the nature and logic of the science:
    1. Pure or abstract Political Economy.
      1. Laws, principles, and theories.
    2. Applied economics.
      1. Verification of laws and principles in concrete economic life.
      2. Practical investigation into economic phenomena, general or special, and classification and deduction of the same.
      3. Consideration of ideal standards and the means of approximating them.
    3. History of economic thought.
    4. Industrial history.
    5. Methodology of the science.
  2. Classification according to agencies:
    1. Private or non-political economics.
    2. Public or political economics.
      1. Public control of industries.
      2. Taxation and finance so far as related to economics.

While this outline carefully followed would give a student a fair knowledge of economics, it is not possible for him to have such knowledge with a narrower scope. Every point of the science is carefully fortified with concrete examples of economic life, and the progress of the industries acquaints one with the causes of changes or the process of economic evolution.

METHODS OF STUDY.

The chief difficulty met by the instructor in economics is to separate the principles and laws of economics from theoretical discussion. Theory of economics may have an important place in the class-room, but it is simply discouraging to find in an ordinary economic library that theory occupies so great a place in nearly all books on the subject. If economics is a science, what are its principles, what are its laws, and what the great body of classified knowledge that makes up the real elements of the science? In beginning the subject, then, it is necessary for the instructor to define carefully the boundary of the science. The student wants to know somewhat definitely the scope and purpose of the subject. If there is a science of economics, he wants to know definitely what is comprised in the body of classified knowledge it represents, and what are the laws and principles involved in its scientific processes.

After determining the scope of the science his next difficulty is in the classification of its subject-matter. This in itself is a difficult question; nor is the difficulty confined to economics, for it abounds in all social sciences and extends to considerable extent in the physical sciences. He will find the logical and comprehensive classification of either economic principles or economic phenomena a most difficult process. If the instructor or student can find the above conditions met in a well-arranged text-book the trouble is half over, for the principles of economic science are not difficult. Such a text-book should contain all of the essentials of the science, and should eliminate all controversial points and theories not yet well founded. For the discussion of theories, the elaboration of special topics, and the consideration of the views of economists, the student, like the instructor, must go to the library. For beginning classes this library should consist of a few carefully chosen books, each with a specific purpose. The library method in economics is largely the composition method, or possibly the compilation method. The student gets a re-statement of the principle of the text or lecture, either from a different point of view or in a more extended discourse. Great care should be taken to prevent a rambling course of reading, which is frequently carried on to the confusion of the student.

After the elements have been fairly well mastered the future work of the student should be on one or more of the great topics in economics, such as Money and Monetary Theories; Banking; Taxation and Finance; Industrial History; History and Theory of Economics: or the student may work on special themes, following them to the utmost limit, such as Capital, Wages, Interest, Labor Organization, Prices, etc.

In all this study the instructor and student must not forget to go to the concrete for verification, for illustration, and, so far as possible, for investigation. He must not forget that economic life and economic society are all about him, and the processes of economic practice, change and growth are to be observed at any time he will take the pains to inquire into their operations.

So long as the operations on the farm, the management of the household, the conduct of the factory, the operation of a bank, and the management of a railroad are ever present, the student from the beginning to the end of his course may find by actual study of the concrete the operation of the laws and processes of economics. Some difficulty will be met in teaching beginners to discriminate between the production of wealth in our economic sense and the technology of wealth-getting. In all concrete investigation this is to be carefully considered. For it is the general processes of production and their effects upon the market and upon society as a whole that interest the economist. Economics will not teach a boy how to carry on agriculture, or manufacturing; it will not teach him how to grow wealthy, except that as he studies finance, taxation, money, banking, production and distribution of wealth, he will have developed a tendency of thought, and an intelligence which would make him a better business man, a better financier, if he puts his knowledge to the proper use. The subjects treated in a general way will prepare a man theoretically if not technically for a business life. And without doubt, universities will eventually develop schools of commerce, trade, banking, business, and public service, which will give a professional and technical education in the great lines of industrial life.

The student must keep his eyes turned constantly upon the economic life around him if he would keep his knowledge from becoming visionary and non-vital. By a careful study of the actual operations of society in regard to questions of wealth and well-being, he will develop a practical knowledge of affairs that will be of service to himself personally and to the public at large. He will also find it convenient and profitable to consider the defects of economic life as compared with an ideal standard of justice, and set up a program of action. It is true that here he enters the field of economic ethics. If he then searches for a remedy for existing evils he enters economic politics. Yet economics as a science cannot be said to have worked out its purpose until it has become utilitarian in its attempt to better social conditions. It will not have done its duty until it inquires what ought to be. It should determine how the economic system of the world might bring a larger measure of justice to men, and plan such measures to be acted upon by the public to bring about a better condition of affairs. Every science must in the ultimate be of practical service to humanity if it has a reason to exist, and economics is especially adapted to render great service to humanity if properly studied and wisely taught.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

SELECTED REFERENCES.

[History]

ADAMS, C. K. — On Methods of Teaching History.

ADAMS, C. K. — Recent Historical Work in Colleges and Universities of America.

ADAMS, H. B. — Special Methods of Historical Study.

ADAMS, H. B. — New Methods of Study in History.

ALLEN, W. F. — Grades and Topics in Historical Study.

BLACKMAR, F. W. — The Story of Human Progress.

BERNHEIM, ERNST. — Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode.

BURGESS, J. W. — The Methods of Historical Study in Columbia College.

CALDWELL, H. W. — American History Studies.

DIESTERWEG, G. — Instruction in History.

DROYSEN, JOH., GUS. — Grundriss der Historik.

DROYSEN, JOH., GUS. — Principles of History. (Tr. by ANDREWS.)

EMERTON, E. — The Historical Seminary in American Teaching.

FLINT, ROBERT. — The Philosophy of History.

FLING, CHARLES MORROW. — Studies in European History.

FREEMAN, E. A. — Methods of Historical Study.

GETSCHELL, MERLE S. — The Study of Mediæval History by the Library Method.

HALL, G. STANLEY. — Methods of Teaching and Studying History.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL. American History told by Contemporaries.

LORENZ, OTTOKER. — Geschichtswissenschaft.

MACE, WILLIAM H. — Method in History.

MAURENBRECHER, WILHELM. — Geschichte und Politik.

[Sociology]

BLUNTSCHLI, J. K. — The Modern State.

CROOKER, J. H. — Problems in American Society.

DE GREEF, GUILLAUME. — Introduction a la Sociologie.

FAIRBANKS, ARTHUR. — Introduction to the Study of Society.

GIDDINGS, F. H. — Principles of Sociology; Sociology and Political Economy.

COMTE, AUGUST. — The Positive Philosophy.

KELLY, EDMOND. — Government, or Human Evolution.

LOTZE, HERMANN. — Microcosmus.

SEELYE, JULIUS H. — Citizenship.

SMALL, ALBION W. — Introduction to the Study of Society.

SMALL, ALBION W. — Methodology in Sociology.

SMITH, R. M. — Statistics and Sociology.

SPENCER, HERBERT. — Principles of Sociology.

SPENCER, HERBERT. — The Study of Sociology.

WARNER, AMOS G. — American Charities.

WARD, LESTER F. — Dynamic Sociology.

WARD, LESTER F. — Outlines of Sociology.

WILSON, WOODROW. — The State.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D. — Statistics in Colleges.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D. — Practical Sociology.

[Economics]

BLACKMAR, F. W. — Economics.

COSSA, LUIGI. — Introduction to the Study of Political Economy.

ELY, R. T. — Outlines of Economics.

ELY, R. T. — The Past and Present of Political Economy.

GIDDINGS, F. H. — The Sociological Character of Political Economy.

INGRAM, J. K. — The History of Political Economy.

SMITH, R. M. — Statistics and Economics.

Source: Frank W. Blackmar, The Study of History, Sociology, and Economics, pp. 7-8, 30-31, 56-58, 66-67, 83-89. Published in the series Twentieth Century Classics, No. 17 (January 1901). Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company.

___________________________

New Staff, New Names
Rebranding

The New Professors.

The resignation of Prof. James H. Canfield, regretted by all, has led to the reorganization of the work in history and political and social science. The two departments formerly known as those of American History and Civics, and History and Sociology respectively, have been combined into the one department of History and Sociology. This department is in charge of Prof. Frank Wilson Blackmar, Ph.D. To assist in the instruction in this department, the Board has elected F. H. Hodder, Ph.D., to be Associate Professor, and E.D. Adams Ph.D., to be Assistant Professor. Dr. Hodder is taken from the faculty of Cornell University. He has for the last year been pursuing historical studies in the University of Freiburg, Germany. He comes to the University of Kansas with a fine reputation for scholarship and teaching ability. Dr. Adams is a young man, a graduate of the University of Michigan and a brother of Prof. Henry C. Adam’s. Michigan University’s professor of Political Economy and Finance. Dr. Adams comes to the University with many good words from the strong men of eastern institutions.

Source: The Lawrence Gazette (Lawrence, Kansas). Thursday, August 6, 1891, p. 2.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

New name: Department of History and Sociology (1891)

Since the publication of the last number of Seminary Notes, several important changes have taken place. First, Mr. E.D. Adams was elected Assistant in History and Sociology. Soon after this Professor Canfield resigned his professorship to go to Nebraska. Immediately after accepting his resignation, the Regents consolidated the two historical departments, under the title of History and Sociology, and elected Mr. F. H. Hodder Associate Professor. It necessarily follows that the editorial staff of Seminary Notes has two new men in the place of Professor Canfield. The present editors will carry out the original plan of the publication with such improvements as may be made from time to time.

We are glad to learn of the prosperity of the former director of the Seminary, Chancellor James A. Canfield. The number of students enrolled in the University of Nebraska is thirty per cent, greater than last year. A new Law course has been established in the university. Upon the whole the new Chancellor of Nebraska is doing just what his friends predicted — making a great success of his new work. The University of Nebraska is to be congratulated that it was able to secure such an efficient man as Chancellor Canfield.

[…]

The senior professor [Frank W. Blackmar] in the department of History and Sociology is highly gratified that the Regents of the University have again displayed their wisdom in electing two able men to positions in the department. They are young men of scholarly habits and marked ability. Professor Hodder, Associate in American History and Civics, was born at Aurora, Ill., November 6, 1860. He graduated at Michigan University in 1883, having studied history under Prof. C.K. Adams, and political economy under Prof. H.C. Adams. He was principal of the High School at Aurora. Afterwards he went to Cornell University, where he was instructor and later Assistant Professor in Political Economy from 1885 to 1890. During the last year he has been studying at the universities of Göttingen and Freiburg, under Von Hoist, Conrad and others. He is an able instructor.

Mr. E.D. Adams, Assistant in History and Sociology, was born at Decorah, Iowa, in 1865. He was a student in Iowa College, 1883 to 1885; student in the University of Michigan 1885 to 1887, taking the degree of A.B. in 1887, was principal of the High School at McGregor, Iowa, 1887 to 1888, and student of the University of Michigan for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1888 to 1890. In 1890 he took the degree of Ph.D. Since 1890 he has been connected with the census work on street railways, and since December has held the position of special agent in charge of street railways. He is doing good work in Kansas University.

Source: Seminary Notes published by the Seminary of Historical and Political Science, Vol. I, No. 2 (October 1891), pp. 39-40.

Image Source: Kansas yearbook,The Jayhawker 1901, p. 18. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.
Cf. portrait of Herbert Baxter Adams posted earlier. His master’s look?

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Economists Germany

Columbia. Munroe Smith’s history of the faculty of political science as told by A.S. Johnson, 1952.

 

The following paragraphs come from Alvin S. Johnson’s 1952 autobiography that is filled with many such nuggets of fact and context that are relevant for the work of Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. The institutional histories from which departments of economics have emerged provide some of the initial conditions for the evolution of organized economics education. Like Johns Hopkins and unlike Harvard and Chicago, Columbia University economics was to a large part made in Germany.

_________________________

[p. 164] …Munroe Smith gave me detail after detail of the history of the faculty. Dean Burgess, as a cavalry officer in the Civil War, had had much time for reflection on the stupendous folly of a war in which citizens laid waste other citizens’ country and slaughtered each other without ill will. All the issues, Burgess believed, could have been compromised if the lawyers who controlled Congress and the state legislatures had been trained in history, political science, and public law. As soon as he was discharged from the army, after Appomattox, he set out for Germany to study the political sciences. He spent several years at different universities, forming friendships with the most famous professors and imbuing himself thoroughly with the spirit of German scholarship. On his return he accepted an appointment in history at Columbia College, then a pleasant young gentlemen’s finishing school. He was permitted to offer courses in public law. Although these could not be counted for credit toward the A.B., many of the ablest students were drawn to his lectures.

From among his students he picked out four and enlisted them in a project for transforming Columbia College into a university. The four were Nicholas Murray Butler, E. R. A. Seligman, Frank Goodnow, and Munroe Smith. They were to proceed to Germany to get their doctorates. Butler was to study philosophy and education; Seligman, economics; Goodnow, administration; Munroe Smith, Roman law. The young men executed Burgess’s command like good soldiers and in due time returned to offer non-credit courses at Columbia College.

Burgess’s next move was to turn his group into a graduate faculty. Such a faculty had been set up at Johns Hopkins, the first in America, and commanded nationwide interest among educators. Burgess argued with President Frederick Barnard on the need of a graduate school in the greatest city of the country. After some years the Board of Trustees authorized in 1886 the setting up of a graduate School of Political Science, manned by Burgess and his disciples, now advanced to professorial rank.

Butler early stepped aside to develop courses he later organized into Teachers College. Burgess and his three younger colleagues watched for opportunities to enlist additional abilities: William A. Dunning in political theory, Herbert L. Osgood in American history, John Bassett Moore in international law, John Bates Clark in [p. 165] economics Franklin Giddings in sociology. This process of expansion was going on energetically while I was on the faculty; Henry R. Seager and Henry L. Moore were enlisted for the economics department, Edward T. Devine and Samuel McCune Lindsay for sociology, James Harvey Robinson and later Charles A. Beard for history. In the meantime other graduate courses were springing up throughout the institution. The towering structure of Columbia University had risen up out of Burgess’s small bottle.

Still in my time the controlling nucleus of our faculty consisted of Burgess, Seligman, Goodnow, and Munroe Smith. They all knew American colonial history well and had followed the step-by-step evolution of Massachusetts Bay from a settlement governed by a chartered company in England to a free self-governing community, germ of American liberty. Step by step Burgess and his lieutenants built up the liberties of the School of Political Science. They got the Board of Trustees to accept the principle of the absolute freedom of the scholar to pursue the truth as he sees it, whatever the consequences; the principle of absolute equality of the faculty members; the principle that no scholar might be added to the faculty without the unanimous consent of the faculty. The principle was established that the president and trustees could intervene in the affairs of the faculty only through the power of the purse.

President Seth Low, regarding himself justly as a recognized authority on administration, sought admission to the meetings of the faculty. He was turned down. A university president could not conduct himself as an equal among equals. When Nicholas Murray Butler became president he thought it would be a good idea for him to sit in with the faculty. After all, he had been one of Burgess’s first panel. We voted the proposition down, unanimously.

Since my time the faculty has grown in numbers and its relations with other departments of the university have become closer. But the spirit of liberty and equality, established by Burgess and his lieutenants, still lives on at Columbia and has overflowed into the universities of America. From time to time a board of trustees steps outside its moral sphere and undertakes to purge and discipline the faculty. But established liberties stricken down are bound to rise again.

Source: Alvin Saunders Johnson. A Pioneer’s Progress. New York: Viking Press, 1952.

Image Source: The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Picture Collection, The New York Public Library. “Columbia College, Madison Ave., New York, N.Y” [Architect: C. C. Haight] The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1886-09-04. Image of the Mid-town Campus from The American Architect and Building News, September 4, 1886. (cf. https://www.wikicu.com/Midtown_campus)

Categories
Curriculum Economics Programs Economists M.I.T. Teaching

M.I.T. Charles Kindleberger’s Ruminations on Professional Education, 1966

 

Today’s post was an absolute treat to prepare. It gives us an opportunity to rise above the tactical aspects of economics education (i.e. syllabi and exams) to consider issues of grand strategy in higher education.

Charles Kindleberger was one of my professors in graduate school. Though I did take his course in European economic history, I must confess that I was not ready to absorb much of the intuition and wisdom that he tried to share with us. That said, my classmates and I very much respected his old-school, gentlemanly charm and deeply appreciated the scholar-economist dutifully warning us whipper-snappers that “the second-derivative is the refuge of a scoundrel!”

While this essay from 1966 mostly appears to present a distillation of Kindleberger’s experience at M.I.T. in the economics department and as chairman of the Institute Faculty, in it you will find timeless insights into the nature of higher education in general and of training in economics in particular. 

Research Tip:  I found this jewel of an essay while trawling through the collection of Technology Review ar srchive.org.

_______________________

The following essay was one of three papers having the theme “Innovation in Education” prepared for the 1966 M.I.T. Alumni Seminar.

Charles P. Kindleberger is professor of economics and chairman of the Faculty at M.I.T. He is known for teaching and research on world trade and economic development, and he is a member of the President’s Committee on International Monetary Arrangements. As chairman of the Faculty, Dr. Kindlberger has participated directly in many of the recent developments in professional undergraduate curricula at the Institute.

_______________________

Professional Education:
Towards a Way of Thought

by Charles P. Kindleberger

Technology Review, November 1966

THE age of the amateur is dead. Professionalism rules — in the cockpit of spaceships, in football, and in learning. We have abandoned the British tradition of the amateur who was good at everything for that of the Grandes Ecoles, with rigorous scientific training leading to professional competence. “He’s a pro,” which used to be insulting in Britain, is now a compliment everywhere.

There is some room left for the amateur tradition —  in politics. It is not good enough to duck the question of where the Inner Belt road should be located by saying that these are matters for resolution by experts. In economics, also, the number of distinct opinions on a given issue is frequently greater than one and sometimes approaches the number of experts. Social scientists resent that mere people feel entitled to have opinions on issues on which popular knowledge and capacity for theorizing are limited, but they have found no way to prevent it. And there is claimed to be scope for flair, inspiration and style — the hallmarks of the amateur — at the frontiers of science, when the ordinary professionals have carried the subject as far as they can. On the whole, however, the demand for professionals and professional education is greater than it has ever been.

Part of this demand is wasteful. An economic study some years ago claimed that there was not so much a shortage of scientists and engineers as very wasteful use of those on hand. Some part of the demand for Ph.D.’s today could perhaps be satisfied with M.S.’s, and some of the jobs seeking master’s could be filled by bachelor’s. During the long years of inadequate effective demand and considerable unemployment, we have tended to upgrade job requirements throughout the economy.

But the upgrading of the educational requirements of business and the professions goes well beyond snobbism and cultural lag. Knowledge has expanded. There is 100 times more information to be obtained today than in 1900, and it is estimated that by 2000 A.D. there will be 1000 times as much knowledge. Periodicals have risen in number from 45,000 in 1950 to 95,000 currently. Librarians blanch under the prospect of coping with the accelerating torrent of periodicals, books, monographs. A major problem in research is to find out what has been done by others so as to avoid rediscovering the same information.

The result is more professional education and more specialization. Eighty-five per cent of today’s new doctors are trained as specialists rather than general practitioners. Lawyers are experts in taxation, trusts domestic or international corporate law, or anti-trust. The man who used to be merely an economist is now a specialist in international economics or African trade. The one year of internship in medicine which was normal in 1945 has been extended to two, three or even four. Business recruits directly from the universities but increasingly from graduate schools of business, and even then the bright young graduate in management is put into a training program. Increasingly the practice is to spend a year in post-doctoral work in another university to extend one’s research training even beyond the scope of the doctorate. This stretching of the educational process to the point where the first professional income is not earned until age 25, or in some lines, 30 is expensive in many, as has been widely recognized by foundations, government, and, somewhat earlier, by parents. Together with the knowledge explosion, it is putting enormous pressure on our educational institutions to break out of old patterns and to find new ways of producing and packaging professional education.

These problems can properly be discussed in three Parts — preprofessional education, professional education as such, and mid-career upgrading. The divisions are hard to keep distinct, as will become apparent, but each section presents particular problems for the university in trying to rationalize and increase the efficiency of its professional mission.

BY preprofessional education is meant the provision of the prerequisites for professional training. In some fields such as law these are nothing more than the good general education which used to be required of the British civil servant. But I refer rather to the mathematics and physics which are needed for engineering, to organic chemistry and anatomy which used to be all that were needed as prerequisites for medical school, and to the elementary courses in a given field which must be mastered before a student goes on to the advanced reaches of any subject.

Any subject can be taught as general education, as preprofessional training, and for professional uses freshman mathematics can be taught so that the student learns to differentiate and integrate, which he needs to know preprofessionally outside of professional mathematics, or he can be taught them and mathematical analysis as well, either for general education, which includes a glimpse of the beauties of the mathematician’s universe, or as part of preprofessional work in mathematics. The clash between two of the ways of addressing a subject was neatly illustrated last spring by the resignation of 11 members of the Dartmouth medical school faculty who wanted to teach biochemistry, micro-biology and cytology as professional subjects rather than as preprofessional training for medicine.

The problem in the humanities is easier. One can argue that the ability to write a simple sentence is preprofessional education widely neglected, but for the most part English is taught as general education. But mathematics, physics, and chemistry are general education of a special sort, preprofessional education more narrowly.

The Challenge of Teaching

Most professional mathematicians, physicists, and chemists — and economists, political scientists, and psychologists as well — prefer professional to general preprofessional teaching. Preprofessional teaching for the narrow group or students which you know is going to be drawn further into the professional subject being taught is challenging and fascinating, but as general education, or preprofessional training for other fields, such training often fails to engage the excitement of the ordinary as opposed to the great teacher. The ordinary teacher is more engaged by the subject than by the students as people. The result is that he may succumb to the temptation to neglect this teaching, or to make it interesting to himself by making it more professional, or both. On his side the student is either bewildered or bored, or both. It is on this account that the quality of teaching in the first two years presents a problem of particular difficulty.

The problem is met not only at the university level. In medical school, I understand, the first two years are taken up with some anatomy and physiology but with a great deal of preprofessional training in biophysics, biochemistry, and subjects like pharmacology. It is difficult to have these well taught on the one hand, and well learned on the other, when the main professional mission or the school is clinical medicine.

Articulation: Skip or Repeat?

Articulation is painful. If the superbly trained preprofessional has to follow the regular route he is bored and discouraged. If he tries to skip large portions of early professional training which his preprofessional work presumably covered, he is never quite clear what of the work the others are taking he has mastered and what he has not.

Medical schools’ admissions officers profess to be looking for broad-gauged young men and women with wide-ranging interests developed through general education rather than those who have extensive study and good grades in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. In their admissions choices, however, they are likely to favor the science specialist over the generalist on the score or preprofessional advantage. But this leaves the particularly well-trained young scientist likely to waste a great deal of the first two years of medical school while his generalist colleagues catch up. The problem is particularly acute for graduates of such preprofessional curricula as molecular biology at places like M.I.T. for they are catapulted somewhere into the middle of the normal first two years of training in medicine

We have a similar problem in graduate education in economics for those students who come to us with excellent training in social science from their undergraduate institutions. For them to take the first year of graduate training — the regular courses in micro- and macro-economic theory, mathematics, statistics and economic history — involves a duplication of some 60 to 75 per cent of what they have already studied. The second time around, and more systematically, this material is warmed-over porridge and not very appetizing. But to leap right into the second year of graduate work runs the risk of missing vital elements of preparation in the 25 to 40 per cent which has been missed. And we find that the undergraduate teachers have exhausted a considerable portion of the wonder and beauty of first looking into Marshall’s Principles, if I may transliterate a line from Keats; indeed, a small but disturbing fraction of our best-taught young men become sufficiently discouraged to drop out. This can be regarded perhaps a difficulty of articulating professional rather than preprofessional education, but it is a general one.

The Several Routes to a Profession

Some of these difficulties might be overcome if the choice of profession were made earlier and all students followed the same path. But this is impossible. Professional choices are not made consistently by various young people at the same stage, with the result that there must be a variety of avenues to professional education rather than merely one. And if professional choice is made only in the junior year of college, at 21, it is hard to push the preprofessional training to lower levels.

While there are children who have known since the age of five that they wanted to be involved with electricity, or machinery, or the human body as a life’s work, career choice is more and more presenting a difficult problem to American youth. Two generations ago father dominance helped, and hurt, such choice. Today fathers know enough not to push their children in directions of which they approve —  or most of them know enough. The result is that career choice is much more squarely left to youth and is consequently fraught with youthful tension. The college dropout phenomenon is one aspect. Some young men welcome the army, the Peace Corps, or a year of travel, as legitimate means of delay in facing the necessity for career choice. Certain types of graduate training — business and law — are an escape from the need for decision. But even at M.I.T. at least 30 per cent of our undergraduates end up majoring in a different field than they put down as their intended specialization when they were admitted, and 20 per cent actually switch majors after they have chosen one at the end of their freshman year.

The social sciences labor under a considerable disability here, because fixing on a social science as a career comes as a rule much later than comparable decisions in science, engineering, medicine, or humanities. Children are aware of the body, animals, earth, sky, machines, and even prose, poetry, and the existence of the past, long before they become aware of the complexities of human society. The early models for career choice, as is well known, are firemen, policemen, and, in my day, streetcar conductors.

The consequence of late career decision is that one cannot insist that all applicants for professional training have completed their preprofessional work on admission — that all M.I.T. students, for example, come with calculus, or all medical students already have molecular biology, biochemistry, and biophysics. The only equitable, and I may add efficient, system of education is to keep all options open as long as possible. In consequence preprofessional cannot be dumped completely onto other training systems — by the technological institutes on to the schools, and by the graduate training programs on to the colleges. Some preprofessional education must be kept side-by-side with the professional, to offer a chance for the later chooser to catch up. This means that professional education must maintain a several-track system.

To keep preprofessional and professional education side-by-side in the same institution presents problems of teaching, as has already been mentioned. The ordinary instructor finds it easy and productive to take on advanced professional students — undergraduates in their senior year, or graduate students who have mastered the fundamentals. They work together, as members of a scholarly team, able to communicate in two directions. Preprofessional teaching, as I have said is less interesting.

There is no good solution for this problem. To divide the university into upper and lower division, as is sometimes done, creates a two-class system with invidious overtones. To separate preprofessional training off into colleges with dedicated teachers, and admit students to the universities only into graduate school from the four-year colleges and into the upper classes from junior colleges would not only violate traditions — which are important in the lives of institutions — but also compound the problem of articulation. The solution we see at M.I.T. is to strengthen the place of preprofessional teaching in the value system of the Institute, to restore it to the high esteem it enjoyed before it slipped under the pressure on staff of research, consulting, professional service and keeping up with the literature. No one contemplates that it is possible to staff a first-rate technological institution completely with instructors who are first-rate at teaching as they are at research and professional service. But the administration, the faculty, and the students can let all instructing staff know that whatever the professional demands on their time, teaching is not the marginal and dispensable activity.

Professional Education

The central issues in professional education have mostly been touched upon already: the extension or the material to be mastered, the difficulties of starting earlier because of late career choice, the downgrading of the bachelor’s and master’s degrees, the development postdoctoral training, the need for a rigorous scientific (instead of rule-of-thumb and seat-of-the-pants) approach in the applied fields because of the rapid rate of obsolescence, and so on. But I would make three points.

First, there is a risk that the revulsion from the empirical approach to engineering and applied social science in favor of science and pure theory can be carried too far. The simplest solution to a problem is not only the most efficient; it is also the most elegant. While it is true that one can stumble on solutions to applied problems as a by-product of pure theory, it is also true that theory is sometimes pursued for its own sake beyond the point of diminishing returns. It is not clear how much biophysics should be known to the gynecologist, how much topology to the student of fiscal policy, how much communication theory to the professor of the French language. I sometimes characterize these problems by a reference to medieval scholasticism and ask how many angels can dance on the rate of interest. Theory and pure mathematics are at the top or the pecking order in the intellectual world, and this is as it should be, just as the theoretical and mathematical requirements for the lowliest professional specialties have been increased. But high power can be overdone.

Second, the question of interdisciplinary education remains complex. The practitioner continues to be trained in a variety of fields — history, law, economics and political science for the foreign service officer; contracts, property, wills, constitution and international law for the lawyer (although the Yale Law School curriculum has been altered to include a year and a half of specialization); finance, statistics, accounting, marketing, and psychology for business; and so on. At the same time, research is increasingly conducted by centers which bring different specialists to bear on a single problem with the vantage point of their own focus: aeronautical, electrical, and mechanical engineers in instrumentation, for example. But the professional teaching which produces these scholars cannot be widely interdisciplinary. A man must master one social or physical science before attempting to integrate two. In my experience, the joint degree which bridges two or more fields in one Ph.D. is satisfactory neither for the student nor the faculty involved, and not only because of jurisdictional jealousies. Each field has an intellectual integrity as a discipline, much as it may lack in providing the complete answer to a complex research problem. The attempt to master them all ends in a mastery of none.

This is a pat answer which does not fully satisfy me. More and more professional practice is becoming the equivalent of research. Architectural design of a building is no longer a simple problem of drawing and construction engineering; as we at M.I.T. are acutely conscious, an architect needs to master the Venturi principle if his skyscraper is not to set up wind currents or micro-meteorology which makes it difficult to open the building’s doors. The designer of a rehousing project has to understand sociological grouping into communities.

Third, the narrowing distinction between research and practice leads me to question the desirability or intermediate degrees between the master’s and the doctorate, which we have developed at M.I.T. in the engineer degrees. These degrees are awarded to students who have completed the course work for the doctorate but who do not write the thesis. Their justification is that the student has undertaken course work beyond the master’s level and should get academic recognition for it. I can understand awarding the intermediate degree as a consolation prize to a student who is not being allowed to go on for the doctorate because of insufficient research creativity, or to a fully competent student who is unable for one reason or another to finish his thesis and who has gone far beyond the master’s level. But these degrees should not become ends in themselves. Teachers should have had exposure to a substantial research experience. and so. if possible, should practitioners.

IF there is an overpowering amount for professionals to learn, not only in the separate fields but in combining one or more of them, there is no need to learn it all at once, in the four, five, six to ten years between high school and professional practice. One of the most interesting developments in professional education today is mid-career schooling. This began in the business schools and is spreading rapidly. At M.I.T. we have the Sloan School of Management programs for junior and senior executives, the new Center for Advanced Engineering Study, and a host of one- and two-week summer courses. The larger companies — General Motors, General Electric, I.B.M., to cite only those I have lectured to — run training programs for their own executives. The American Bar Association has a Committee on Continuing Legal Education which runs week-long, weekend and day seminars on new problems in the law. The medical associations, national, state, and specialty groups, conduct study sessions of varying length in new techniques, medicines, specialties.

Mid-career education presents serious teaching problems. The engineer returning to the Center for Advanced Engineering Study, or the young executive enrolled in the Sloan Fellowship Program at M.I.T., is likely to need preprofessional brushing up before he can handle the material taught in professional subjects. The Sloan Fellows’ beginning experience is a summer term spent in a specially designed course which gets them up to first-year graduate speed for the regular year. The Center for Advanced Engineering has had design and give special subjects in modern calculus and quantum mechanics. This preprofessional teaching, I can say from experience, has its own special rewards for the teacher, because the students have a fresh point of view, a capacity to relate theory to real situations in a way that the undergraduate and regular graduate student cannot do. But here is another special job of teaching, and that is expensive.

Mid-career education is expensive for the university, for the student (who must uproot his family for the time) and for his company, which normally pays both his salary and tuition charges. Its great contribution is not the correction of obsolescence though this has importance. The real point is to give an opportunity in today’s complex world for a man who has worked his way through one field, and demonstrated his capacity, to introduce a slight shift in orientation and train for wider responsibilities. It used to be that only the armed services were wise enough to see its desirability and budget for the expense of training at all stages of a successful career. The State Department has long had program of sending individuals to do a year of graduate work and is now beginning to operate its own foreign Service Institute course of six months. It seems inevitable that government, industry, the learned professions and, above all others, university instructors must count on continuing education and re-education in a world of changing knowledge and maturing people.

This mid-career training need not be undertaken by the universities. The costs of adding to the diversity of the multiversity are high. It is more cheaply done without uprooting families. And yet there is benefit in bringing people from different companies, backgrounds and experience to rub elbows, in plunging the man of affairs back into the scholarly environment. The profit is mutual, so long as mid-career trainees do not overwhelm the academic tradition. There are obvious limits to how far universities can respond to the demand. If mid-career education grows, as is likely, it is reasonable to expect the development of new institutions which provide the specialized preprofessional training and mix students from different backgrounds.

No pat series of answers emerges from a discussion of professional education. I feel confident in rejecting a number of proposals for major reform. Starting professional studies earlier is undesirable insofar as it cuts general education on the one hand and closes off options for late deciders on the other. Eliminating the doctoral dissertation, or converting it to a longish paper representing a couple of months’ work, abolishes the vital test of whether a man can organize and carry through a substantial research project, a test of increasing importance in a world where the distinction between research and practice is narrowing. Dividing the university into divisions for general education and professional training not only misses the point that the same treatment of a subject can be preprofessional, general, or professional education for students with different abilities, backgrounds, and programs, but divides the faculty into elite and non-elite members in a way which subverts morale and harms the teaching mission of the university. How to improve the university’s performance in discharging the mission of general and preprofessional teaching remains an imposing challenge. Social science is a long way from ability to change value systems, and the real solution to the problem of undergraduate teaching is to restore the prestige accorded to non-professional teaching in the value systems or university staffs.

We have come a long way in American education, I believe, when we recognize that we have serious problems of what, when and how to teach and are prepared to modify the traditional system and to experiment with new techniques. The exact character of the new techniques may be less important than the attitude that the subject is important and that present conditions can be improved.

My basic conclusion is the trite one: professional education is a vastly different process than providing a young man with a hatful of formulas and training him to select the right one for the right occasion. The real task is to teach — if it can be taught, or by example to train — the young to attack a problem as a good experimental physicist, biologist, engineer, or economist would; to have a feel for the data and for the limits of standard analytical techniques; to sense, after a time, the distinction between the run-of-the-mill textbook case and that with new and puzzling complications. It is not enough to do what a professional does: one must think the way a professional thinks. And this capacity is communicated in a complex osmotic process which may be independent of or only very loosely connected with prerequisites, examinations, credits, and theses, much less closed-circuit television, teaching machines, computers, and high-powered mathematics. The educational process is an elusive one, but I venture to predict that in the long run it will be found to resemble more the chemistry of slow-cooking on the back of the stove than that of infrared split-second broiling of steaks from the deep freeze.

Source: MIT, Technology Review, 69(1), November 1966.

Image Source: Portrait of Charles Poor Kindleberger at the MIT Museum website. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Berkeley Curriculum Economics Programs

Berkeley. Expansion of economics course offerings announcement. Course offerings 1904-1905.

 

In May 1903 the College of Commerce at the University of California announced a complete reorganization of the economics department’s course offerings for the coming academic year. This was reported in the Berkeley Gazette newspaper which appears to be a slight rearrangment of the University of California’s official Register for 1903-04. The newspaper article is provided in this post followed by the faculty and course announcements for the 1904-05 academic year.

So in the yin and yang of economic theory and application, practical economics received a boost at Berkeley early in the twentieth century with the introduction of  “…a large number of new courses in economics of the most direct practical application to the needs of modern industrial life.”

 

____________________________

Enlarges Economic Courses.
University Offers New Opportunities for Students of Practical Business.
[Announced for 1903-1904]

In response to the needs of the rapidly increasing number of students enrolled in the College of Commerce of the University of California, the work of the Department of Economics has been completely reorganized. Announcement has been made of a large number of new courses in economics of the most direct practical application to the needs of modern industrial life. These courses will be of the greatest interest, however, not only to students who are fitting themselves for banking, insurance, commerce, manufacturing, and exploitation of mineral resources, but also to the theoretical student.

Professor Carl C. Plehn, Dean of the College of Commerce, will offer during the coming year a course in “American Agriculture,” in which he will discuss the development of agriculture in the United States and its present condition from an economical point of view; a new course in “Accounting and Corporation Finance,” setting forth the principles of accounting and credit as illustrated by the methods of large corporations and of the Government, the character of negotiable securities, and the methods exemplified in bank statements and railroad and other corporation and trusts accounts: and courses in “Public Finance,” “Taxation,” and in “Statistics.”

Assistant Professor Wesley C. Mitchell will offer a new course in “Banking,” intended primarily to give men who expect to engage in business such general knowledge of banking as will best prepare them for their professions; a new course in “Hondy” [sic,  very likely a typographical error with “Money” the actual course name, see below] — a study of the economic problems centering around the monetary system; and courses in “Elementary Economic Ideas;” “The Problem of Labor” — a study of the position of wage earners in the economic organization of today; and in “Economic Origins.”

Mr. Lincoln Hutchinson, Instructor in Commercial Geography, will offer a new course in “The Materials of Commerce,” dealing with the principal commodities which enter into commercial affairs, production, sources and markets; a new course on the “Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States,” involving a discussion of the leading commercial problems of the day; a new course entitled the “Economic Position of the Great Powers,” a new course on “The Consular Service,” involving a brief history of the consular service, followed by a technical study of the training and duties of consuls and the practice of the leading commercial nations in consular affairs; and courses in “The History of Commerce,” “Commercial Geography,” and “The Commercial Resources of the Spanish-American Countries.”

Dr. Simon Litman, who recently came to the University as Instructor in Commercial Practice, will offer new courses in “Tariff Policies,” in “Modern Colonial Economics,” a study of the principal commercial and industrial problems which arise in connection with colonial conditions, as illustrated by the experience of the leading colonizing nations, and in “Communication and Transportation,” a study of the Post, the Telegraph, the Telephone, Trade Journals, and facilities for transportation other than railroads; and he will repeat courses already given in “Industrial Processes” and “The Technique of Trade.”

The instruction offered by the Department of Economics will be rounded out by special economic courses offered by professors in other departments. Professor Elwood Mead of the chair of Irrigation will offer a course on “The Organization of the Irrigation Industry,” Professor John C. Moore courses on “The Methods China and Japan,” Professor Ernest C. Moore courses on “The Methods of Modern Charities and Corrections,” and Albert W. Whitney of the Department of Mathematics -a new course in “Insurance,” an account of the history, principles and problems of life, fire, and other forms of insurance, with special study of the mathematical principles involved in actuarial science, and with practice in the computation and use of tables; and Mr. N. M. Hall of the Botany Department a course in “Economic Botany,” dealing with the plant families which furnish important commercial products and agricultural crops.

The work in economics will be completed by the highly important courses offered by the head of the department, Professor Adolph C. Miller of the chair of Political Economy and Commerce. Professor Miller announces a new course in “Railway Transportation,” an examination of the chief financial and economical questions which arise in railway organization and management, embracing such topics as capitalization, speculation, accounting, rate-making, competition, pooling, and consolidation; a new course in “Socialism,” a review of modern socialistic thought with some consideration of its bearing on the proper conception of the problem of social organization; a course in “Modern Industrialism,” dealing with the workings of competition and the tendency toward industrial monopolies; “The Financial History of the United States,” and a course in “Advanced Economics.”

As the culmination of the work of the department, Professor Miller announces a Seminary in Economics. Arrangements will be made for the guidance of individual students or groups of students competent, to engage in economical research. The results will be presented to the Seminary for discussion as occasion may suggest.

Source: The Berkeley Gazette (May 1, 1903), p. 2.

____________________________

Economics Course Offerings
[1904-1905]

Adolph Caspar Miller, M.A., Flood Professor of Political Economy and Commerce.

Carl Copping Plehn, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Finance and Statistics, on the Flood Foundation, and Dean of the Faculty of the College of Commerce.

Henry Rand Hatfield, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Accounting, on the Flood Foundation,

Wesley Clair Mitchell, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Commerce, on the Flood Foundation

Simon Litman, Dr.jur., Instructor in Commercial Practice.

Jessica Blanche Peixotto, Ph.D., Lecturer in Sociology.

Elwood Mead, M.S., C.E., D.Eng., Professor of the Institutions and Practice of Irrigation.

Thomas Walker Page, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mediæval History.

Ernest Carroll Moore, LL.B., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Education.

Albert Wurts Whitney, A.B., Assistant Professor of Mathematics and Insurance Methods.

1. The courses prerequisite to a group (15 units) of Upper Division work in the departments of History, Political Science, Economics, or Jurisprudence are any three of the following five; History 51, 54, 64, Political Science 1 (A and B), and Economics 1. No part of the work in the group of advanced courses is to be undertaken until all the three prerequisite courses shall have been completed.

2. But students who plan to take less than twelve units of Upper Division work in the four departments above mentioned may proceed immediately with the advanced courses for which they have the particular prerequisites.

The above regulations apply to students graduating in or after May, 1907. Other students are requested to observe the rules set forth in the Register for 1903-04, page 143.

A. Lectures on Commerce. Members of the Staff.

1 hr., throughout the year, ½ unit each half-year. M, 4. Prescribed each year for all students in the College of Commerce.

1. Introduction to Economics. Professor Miller.

A study of the elementary laws of economics as illustrated in the growth of industry and commerce in England and the United States.
3 hrs., throughout the year. M W F, 9.

2. Principles of Economics. Professor Miller and Assistant Professor Mitchell.

A critical exposition of the leading principles of economics on the basis of a selected text.
3 hrs., either half-year. First half-year, M W F, 10; second half-year, M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Course 1.
N. B. — This course should be taken by all students who intend to take any considerable amount of Economics.

5. Economics of Industry. Associate Professor Plehn.

An elementary course planned to meet the needs of the students in the Engineering Colleges.
3 hrs., first half-year. MWF, 1.

N.B. — This course will not be accepted as fulfilling any prescribed work in the College of Commerce, nor in the Colleges of General Culture.

3. Introduction to Commercial Geography. Associate Professor Hatfield.

The elements of scientific geography; relation between geographical phenomena and economical development; brief survey of the resources of the leading countries of the world.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: Course 1.

4. The Materials of Commerce. [Not given in 1904-05.]

The principal commodities which enter into commercial dealings; causes promoting their production; effects of climate, soil, and other conditions; detailed study of their sources, and of the markets in which they are sold.
3 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th S, 10. Prerequisite: Course 3.

4A. Geography of International Trade. Associate Professor Hatfield.

Demand and supply in the world markets; exports and imports of the leading countries; sea-ports; commercial and industrial centers; routes and methods of transportation; postal and telegraphic communication, etc.
2 hrs., second-half year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: Course 3.

5a. American Agriculture. Associate Professor Plehn.

Leading factors in the development of agriculture in the United States and a study of its present condition from an economical point of view. This course will be based largely upon the materials furnished by the government reports and the census returns.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 1. Prerequisite: Course 1, except that advanced students in the College of Agriculture may be admitted, with the consent of the instructor, without Course 1B, but a familiarity with the fundamental ideas and terminology of economics is essential.

6. History of Commerce. [Not given in 1904-05.]

Mediaeval commerce and the “Golden Age” of the Italian Republics; Turkish conquests and the “Age of Discovery”; new routes and the shifting of trade centers; the era of colonization and commercial rivalries; mercantilism and its results; nineteenth century commerce; its development and problems.
3 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th S, 10. Prerequisite: Course 3 and one course in English History.

7. Modern Industrialism. Professor Miller. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A descriptive and interpretative account of the rise of the modern industrial system, especially as affected by the Industrial Revolution. The workings of competition in the nineteenth century and the recent tendency toward the formation of industrial monopolies will receive particular attention.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8. Theory and History of Banking. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

A study of banking from the standpoint of its relations to the economic development of society. To show what rôle banks have played in this development and the functions they perform at present, attention will be directed to the origin of banking in Europe and America; the gradual changes in banking methods; governmental policies toward banks; the relations between banking, monetary, and fiscal systems; the effect of banking operations upon price fluctuations; the control of banks over the direction of investment; the special banking requirements of different communities; etc.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 8. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8A. Practical Banking. Associate Professor Hatfield.

The internal organization and administration of a modern bank, the nature of bank investments, the extension of credit, the valuation of an account, methods of keeping records.
3 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th S, 10. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8B. Money. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

A study of the economic problems centering around the monetary system.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 8. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8C. International Exchanges. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

Foreign bills; a study of the various factors that affect their price; international trade in commodities; investments of capital in foreign countries; interest rates in important money-markets; shipments of gold; etc.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 9. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

9. Public Finance-Taxation. Associate Professor Plehn.

The theory and methods of taxation, illustrated by the experience of various nations; the expenditure and administration of public funds; public debts. Especial attention will be paid to taxation in California.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 2. Prerequisite: Course 1.

10. Statistics. Associate Professor Plehn.

The history, theory, and methods of statistics. The collection, analysis, and presentation of statistical data relating to eco nomics and kindred sciences. Practice in the use of mechanical, graphical, and other devices, and apparatus for tabulation, computation and analysis.
3 hrs., throughout the year, including one laboratory period. Tn Th, 11, and a laboratory period to be arranged.
Prerequisite: Course 1; Mathematics 20A must be taken in conjunction with this course. The special consent of the instructor is also necessary.

11. Insurance. Assistant Professor Whitney.

An account of the history, principles and problems of Insurance, particularly of Life-insurance and of Fire-insurance; a special study of the mathematical principles involved in actuarial science, with practice in the computation and use of tables.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Mathematics 20a.

(77) The Economic Factors in American History. Associate Professor Page.

This course is intended to present, in their proper historical perspective, the facts and tendencies in the growth of American commerce, industry, and finance, and to indicate their influence on the constitutional and social development of the nation.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 3. Prerequisite: Course 1 and two courses in American History.
[This course may be recorded as Economics 77 or History 77.]

12. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A study of the economic growth of the United States during the nineteenth century. The object is to give the student an understanding of causes which have brought the country to its present position among the nations of the world, and a basis for discussion of the leading commercial problems of to-day.
3 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th S, 9. Prerequisite: At least Sophomore standing, Course 3, and one course in American History.

12A. History of Economic Science. Professor Miller.

A critical review of the leading systems of economic thought since the sixteenth century.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

13A. Problems of Labor. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

The position of wage-earners in the economic organization of to-day.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

14. Principles of Accounting. Associate Professor Hatfield.

The interpretation of accounts with regard to the need of the business manager rather than those of the accountant. The formation and meaning of the balance sheet. The profit and loss statement. The various accounts appearing in the balance sheet and errors frequently found therein.
3 hrs., throughout the year. Tu Th S, 9. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

14A. The Investment Market. Associate Professor Hatfield.

Investment securities, corporation stocks and bonds, municipal and government bonds, market quotations, operations on the stock exchange, foreign and domestic exchange, the construction and use of exchange, bond and interest tables.
3 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th S, 9. Prerequisite: Course 14.

15. Financial History of the United States. Professor Miller.

A detailed study of the legislation and experience of the United States touching currency, banking, debt, taxation, expenditure, etc. The work will be based, as far as possible, on first-hand examination of sources.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 10. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

16A. Railway Transportation. Associate Professor Plehn.

An examination of the chief financial and economic questions which arise in railway organization and management, embracing such topics as capitalization, speculation, and accounting, rate making, competition, pooling, consolidation, etc.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

18. Methods of Modern Charities and Corrections; Theoretical. Assistant Professor Moore.

Studies in the administration of poor relief, the treatment of delinquents and defectives. Readings and lectures.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Course 1 and Philosophy 2. Class to be limited at the discretion of the instructor.

19. Methods of Modern Charities and Corrections; Investigation. Assistant Professor Moore.

Investigation and field work to be done in part in connection with the Associated Charities of San Francisco and Oakland.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Course 18.

23. Modern Industrial Processes. Dr. Litman.

The development and present condition of leading modern industries with particular reference to such industries as now exist or may be established on the Pacific Coast; emphasis will be laid on the technical processes.
3 hrs., first half-year. MWF, 10. Prerequisite: Course 1.

24. Mechanism and Technique of Trade. Dr. Litman.

Devices used by governments and individuals to promote commerce; exposition of the work performed by Boards of Trade, Commercial Museums, Mercantile Agencies, of transactions on Produce and Stock Exchanges, of modern wholesale and retail trade organizations. The course will include the reading by the student of mercantile publications, such as consular reports, trade and financial journals, etc.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Course 1.

24A. Business Forms and Practice. Dr. Litman.

Detailed study of methods and forms used in connection with the purchase, sale and forwarding of goods; calculations necessitated by the various systems of weights, measures and moneys in different countries; the significance of price quotations in different markets; the meaning and determination of standards and grades as to quality; the forms and functions of invoices, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, consular certificates, and other business documents relating to trade.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Course 1.

30. Economic Position of the Great Powers. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A comparative study of the commercial and industrial position of the leading nations, with particular reference to the countries of Europe.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: Course 3, at least Junior standing, and ability to use French and German statistical publications; consent of instructor must be obtained before enrollment.

31. The Consular Service. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A brief history of the consular service, followed by a technical study of the training and duties of consuls and the practice of the leading commercial nations in regard to appointments, etc.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: At least Junior standing; the consent of the instructor must be obtained before enrollment.

35. Customs Tariffs and Regulations. Dr. Litman.

Tariffs and existing reciprocity treaties and agreements of the leading commercial nations with special reference to the Tariff Law and Customs Regulations of the United States. A short tariff history and a general discussion of the aims and means of tariff policies will precede the practical part of the course, which latter will acquaint the student with the problems confronting the American importer and exporter in connection with duties, bounties, etc.
2 hrs., first-half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Course 1.

36. Modern Colonial Economics. Dr. Litman.

The principal commercial and industrial problems which arise in connection with colonial conditions, as illustrated by the experience of the leading colonizing nations. The object of this course is to acquaint the student with questions confronting a merchant and an investor in different colonies, and to show him how these have been and may be dealt with.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

37. Communication and Transportation. Dr. Litman.

Means and methods of communication and transportation other than railroads, and their utilization in the service of commerce. An exhaustive study of internal, coast, and trans-oceanic shipping, of modern harbor facilities, of the post, the express, the telegraph, the telephone, etc.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 10. Prerequisite: Course 1.

38. Commercial Resources of the Spanish-American Countries. [Not given in 1904-05.]

Detailed study of the geography, natural resources, and possibilities of development of these countries, devoting a year to each. In 1903–04 the Argentine Republic was studied. Particular attention is given to commercial relations with the United States. 1 hr., throughout the year. Hour to be arranged. Open only to graduate students who satisfy the instructor of their preparation for the work.

40. Economic Origins. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

An investigation of the origin and early development of fundamental economic customs and institutions.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 10. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

42. Contemporary Socialism. Dr. Peixotto.

A study of the program and methods of the contemporary socialistic parties; a critical investigation of the theories on which these programs are based.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 3. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

43. History of Socialism. Dr. Peixotto.

An examination of the antecedents of contemporary socialism.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 3. Prerequisite: Course 42.

45. Advanced Economics. Professor Miller.

This course is designed for students who wish to make a more thorough study of economic theory than can be undertaken in Courses 1 and 2. The aim is to work out a tenable system of economics on the basis of an examination of the theories of leading writers, past and present.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Senior standing.

20. History and Theory of Prices. Associate Professor Plehn.

The methods of scientific investigation applicable to a study of prices and the causes of their fluctuations.
The course runs throughout the year and credit will be given according to work done. For graduates only. A good training in economics and mathematics and a reading knowledge of French and German are prerequisite.

26. Seminary in Economics. Professor Miller.

Under this head are included arrangements for the guidance of the work of individual students, or groups of students, competent to engage in economic research. The results will be presented to the seminary for discussion as occasion may suggest. The course runs throughout the year, and credit will be given according to work done.

Oriental Languages 1A. Commerce of China and Japan. Professor Fryer.

A course of lectures on the historical and geographical features of the commerce of China and Japan, adapted for students in general, but particularly for those in the College of Commerce.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 1.
[John Fryer, LL.D., Agassiz Professor of Oriental Languages and Literatures.]

Botany 14. Economic Botany. Mr. H. M. Hall.

Laboratory work on the morphology, relationships, properties, and geographical distribution of the plant families which furnish important commercial products and agricultural crops, accompanied by lectures on the uses, origin, cultivation, collection, and commerce of plant products.
6 hrs., first half-year; 3 units. M W F, 8–10.
[Harvey M Hall, M.S., Instructor in Botany, and Assistant Botanist to the Experiment Station]

Irrigation 1. Irrigation Institutions and Economics. Professor Mead and Mr. Stover.

Present conditions of irrigation in the United States; irrigation legislation; methods of establishing rights to water; interstate problems; conditions necessary to development of the agricultural resources of the arid west; comparisons of irrigation methods and laws of other lands with those of the United States; irrigation in humid sections of the United States; operation of irrigation works, individual, coöperative and corporate enterprises; national irrigation; water right contracts; duty of water. Lectures and recitations.
3 hrs., second half-year. Prescribed, Senior year, in the course in Irrigation Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, and in some courses in the College of Agriculture. Elective to students in Economics.
[Elwood Mead, M.S., C.E., Professor of the Institutions and Practice of Irrigation.
Arthur P. Stover, B.S., Instructor in Irrigation Engineering.]

Source: University of California. Register, 1904-1905, pp. 153-162, 171, 237-238, 264.

Image Source: University of California Buildings, Berkeley California, ca. 1907. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Fin de siècle look at the economics department. 1896

The department of political economy at Harvard University was not even two decades old when a Boston newspaper printed the following report about the expansion in economics course offerings that took place between the single prescribed course taught seniors by Francis (a.k.a. Fanny) Bowen in 1849-50 to the twenty or so courses taught in 1896.

_________________________

1896 Newspaper Report

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

Development of the Department of Economies and the Large Increase in the Number of Students Electing the Study.

The interests aroused during the progress of the recent campaign undoubtedly account to some extent for the unusually large number of men here electing work this year in the department of economics. This increase has been already noted. Courses in finance which have never before numbered above twenty or thirty men have more than doubled, while the course known as economics 1, which last year opened with 370 men, now has 510. [In the President’s Report for 1896-1897 the final number enrolled in Economics 1 was reported as 464] The number of men electing economics 1 has increased from year to year, and now practically every undergraduate takes the course at some time or other during his college career. If he intends to specialise in economics he takes the course usually in his sophomore year; if he does not so intend, he may take it in his junior or senior year.

Within the department of economics are grouped together, with courses purely economic in character, others more properly sociological, political and financial. Those in social ethics are included in the department of philosophy, while those which deal with the forms of government and with the development of social institutions are given in the department of history and government. Within these several departments are minor groups of courses devoted to pretty well-defined lines of social inquiry, and so special and interdependent as to suggest the formation of new departments. The double title of the department of history and government indicates the extent to which the process of bifurcation has gone here, and the lines of separation are unmistakably forming within the department of economics.

A glance at some of the earlier catalogues reveals curious groupings of courses. Professor Francis Bowen, McLean professor of ancient and modern history and instructor in political economy, conducted as early as the year 1849-50 a course in political science, which was prescribed for seniors. In it Professor Bowen used as reference books John Stuart Mill’s “Political Economy,” [1848 ed., Volume I, Volume II] a book which is still used as a basis for the lectures given in the introductory course in economics; and Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution.” After Professor Bowen was created Alford professor of natural religion, moral philosophy and civil polity he continued to give the only instruction in economics which the university offered at that time, and his course in philosophy came eventually to embrace a much wider range of topics than those indicated above, and was extended through the entire year. He lectured upon political economy and upon the English and American constitutions, and upon such a wide range of other topics, moral, ethical and metaphysical, that the ground covered by this single course is now apportioned among four departments.

With some modifications from year to year Professor Bowen continued his instruction along these lines, down through the period of the civil war, to the year 1871, when a professor of political economy was appointed. [It is interesting that the name of Charles F. Dunbar is not mentioned here, perhaps he wrote this article? Possibly Taussig?] In the year following two courses were offered under the heading “Political Science,” Mill’s “Political Economy” [1871, seventh edition. Volume I, Volume II] being reintroduced and used along with Bowen’s “Political Economy” and Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” [e.g., 1869, Rogers’ edition. Volume I,Volume II] as a basis for discussion and criticism.

These courses were soon after absorbed in the department of philosophy, where they continued to be offered until the year 1879-80, when the department of political economy was established. Development since, that date has been characterised by a gradual increase in the number of courses, from three in 1880 to the nineteen or twenty courses and half-courses that are now given. The department in the year 1886 began the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which was the first journal devoted exclusively to the advancement of economic theory that was ever printed in English.

Among the more advanced courses are two devoted to the study of economic history[,] two to the history of economic theory, one to the scope and method of economics, three to subjects distinctly sociological — the principles of sociology, socialism and communism, and the labor question in Europe and America — another to the theory and methods of statistics, and a number of half courses devoted to special subjects in taxation, finance, international payments, tariff legislation, railway transportation and the like.

Another significant step was taken in 1891-92 in the organisation of the Economic Seminary, the importance of which can hardly be overestimated. Prior to the establishment of the seminary there had been no systematic provision made for the conduct of graduate work. Graduate students in the department who were working up their doctor’s theses did so under the guidance of the several instructors, but without any very satisfactory or clearly defined official status. All this has been changed and every provision is now made for graduate work. An advanced student may study entirely in connection with the seminary, and so he is freed from the necessity of registering in a certain number of courses where the work outlined is adapted to students less advanced. The Economic Seminary numbers at the present time some twenty-five men, each of whom is engaged in original work. The seminary meets once a week, and at each meeting some member reports upon the results of his investigations, receiving at the same time the criticism of his fellow students and of the instructors in the department.

Source: Boston Evening Transcript, December 16, 1896, p. 10.