Categories
Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Harvard

Harvard. Economics degree requirements, A.B./A.M./Ph.D., 1921-1922

In addition to Harvard’s requirements for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in economics as of the academic year 1921-22, this post includes the A.B. degree requirements for concentrators in economics. Furthermore information regarding the overlap with a concentration in “social ethics” and the Ph.D. requirements for “business economics” has been included.

Degree Requirements for 1897-98.

Degree Requirements as of 1904-05

Degree Requirements for 1911-12.

Degree Requirements for 1921-22
[This post]

Degree Requirements for 1934-35

Degree Requirements from 1947.

Degree Requirements from 1958.

Degree Regulations from 1968.

_________________________

Degree Requirements
in 1921-22

GENERAL INFORMATION

ORGANIZATION

The Division of History, Government, and Economics comprises three departments: History; Government; and Economics. The Division has charge of the administration of the degree of A.B. in History, in Government, and in Economics, and of the degree of Ph.D. in History, in Political Science, and in Economics. The recommendation of candidates for assistantships, fellowships, and scholarships is in the hands of the respective Departments; and each Department has charge of all matters relating specially to its own instruction.

DEGREES OF A.B. AND S.B.

The degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science are conferred usually after four years of residence, although a student who enters college without serious deficiency may complete the requirements for the degree in three years or three years and a half. At least one year of residence is required. Students of other colleges are admitted to advanced standing in Harvard College, without examination, on presenting testimonials of scholarship and character, and satisfactory evidence of work well performed in the institutions previously attended.

CONCENTRATION IN HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, OR ECONOMICS

The requirement for concentration in a department or field of distinction demands in this Division four courses in one department, either History, Government, or Economics, and two additional courses selected from those offered by the Division. A student concentrating in Economics may select as the two additional courses related courses in Social Ethics. No one may count toward his six courses more than two of the introductory courses, History 1, Government 1, and Economics A. The election of these six courses should be made with a view to the requirements for the final examination described below, and the advice of the student’s Tutor should be sought in selecting these and any further courses in the Division

DIVISION EXAMINATION

Students concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics will, at the close of their college course and as a prerequisite to the degree of A.B. or S.B., be required to pass an examination upon the field of their concentration. This examination will cover the general attainments of each candidate in the field covered by this Division and also his attainments in a specific field of study. Candidates for the Division Examination at mid years must signify their intention of taking it on or before December 15; candidates for the examination at Commencement, on or before April 1. The examination will consist of three parts:

(a) A general written examination, which will be given in two parts: one designed to ascertain the comprehensive attainment of the candidate in the subjects of this Division; the other covering the work of the Department in which the student is concentrating. There will be a large number of alternative questions to allow for differences in preparation.

(b) A special written examination, which will test the student’s grasp of his chosen specific field (see list of fields below). The candidate will be expected to show a thorough understanding of the subject of this field; knowledge of the content of courses only will not suffice. The examination will be upon a subject, not upon a group of courses.

(c) An oral examination, supplementary to either or both of the written examinations, but usually bearing primarily upon the candidate’s specific field.

The specific field should ordinarily be chosen from the following list, which indicates also the courses bearing most directly upon each field. In special cases other fields or combinations of fields may be accepted by the Division. This field should be selected by the end of the Sophomore year. [Course announcement 1921-22]

[…]

Specific field of concentration Courses ordinarily to be elected for concentration Alternative courses for candidates for the degree with distinction Suggested courses in other Departments to be elected for the purpose of concentration or to be taken as free electives
1. Economic Theory Economics A, 7a, 7b, 10, and the equivalent of 1½ full courses from the following: 1a, 1b, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 9a, 9b Economics 11, 12, 14, 15 Philosophy 25a
2. Economic History Economics A, 1b, 2a, 2b, 10 and the equivalent of 1 full course from the following: 3, 4a, 4b, 6a, 9b Economics 23, 24, 33 History 17a, 17b, 32a, 32b, 57
3. Sociology Economics A, 1b, 6a, 7a, 7b, 8, 10 Social Ethics 4, Anthropology 1, 12, Philosophy 25a
Applied Economics
4. Money and Banking Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 10, and either 4a or 4b Economics 37, 38
5. Corporate Organization Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 4a, 4b, 10, and either 2a or 6a Economics 36a, 36b
6. Transportation Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 4a or 4b, 10, and either 2a or 6a Economics 36a, 36b
7. Public Finance Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2b, 5, 10, and either 2a or 9b Economics 31, 36a, 36b Government 9a, 9b, 17a, 17b
8. Labor Problems Economics A, 1b, 2a, 2b, 6a, 7b, 10, and either 7a or 9a Economics 34 Social Ethics 4,6
9. Economics of Agriculture Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 9a, 10, and either 4a or 9b Economics 32
10. International Trade and Tariff Policy Economics A, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 9a, 9b, 10 Economics 33, 39

[…]

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION

The general final examination has been established, not in order to place an additional burden upon candidates for the A.B., but for the purpose of securing better correlation of the student’s work, encouraging better methods of study, and furnishing a more adequate test of real power and attainment. To this end students concentrating in the Division will from the beginning of their Sophomore year have the guidance and assistance of special Tutors. The work of these Tutors will be to guide students in their respective fields of study, to assist them in coördinating the knowledge derived from different courses, and to stimulate in them the reading habit. Students will meet the Tutors in small groups and for individual conferences at intervals depending upon the nature of the student’s work, the rate of his progress, and the number of courses which he may be taking in this Division in any particular year. The work of Tutors will be entirely independent of the conduct of courses, and the Tutors as such will have no control over the work or the grades of any student in any college course. Their guidance and assistance will naturally be of indirect benefit to the student in his work in individual courses, but their main function will be to help the student and guide him in the kind of reading and study which will be most useful toward his general progress in this Division. The attitude of the Tutor will be that of a friend rather than of a taskmaster, and students may consult him freely and informally concerning any phase of their work.

CONCENTRATION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

An undergraduate concentrating in Social Ethics must take four courses in the Department of Social Ethics and two either in the Department of Philosophy and Psychology or in the Department of Economics, the entire programme to be approved by a member of the Department of Social Ethics. A written examination covering the general field of concentration will be required at the end of the Senior year.

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

Students concentrating in Social Ethics will, from the beginning of their Sophomore year, receive the guidance and supervision of a Tutor. The Tutors will aid the students in correlating the work of their courses, and will direct them in special reading bearing upon the work of the Department and upon the students’ special fields of interest. The Tutors will seek especially to aid students in developing habits of profitable reading, in independent thinking, in scholarly method, and in the coördination and application of their knowledge. Students will meet their Tutors individually and in small groups from time to time, the constitution of the group and the frequency of meetings depending upon the nature of the students’ work and their rate of progress. The tutorial instruction is considered a regular part of the work of any student concentrating in the Department, and is reported upon from time to time to the Chairman of the Department. Every effort is made to establish personal and friendly relations between Tutors and students, and to this end the Tutors will always be glad to be consulted informally upon any matter in which they may be of assistance to the students.

[…]

THE DEGREE OF A.B. WITH DISTINCTION IN HISTORY, IN GOVERNMENT, AND IN ECONOMICS

In the opinion of the Faculty every undergraduate of superior ability should look to a considerable amount of advanced work in some subject or related subjects as a natural part of his undergraduate career; but it is not to be imagined that the Faculty intends to call for anything like original research on the part of undergraduates, or for the passing of examinations similar to those required for the higher degrees. The Degree with Distinction, it is believed, is so planned as to be within the reach of every student of good ability.

General Regulations. — The candidate for the degree of A.B. with Distinction in History, Government, and Economics shall make application, not later than November 1 of the year in which he expects to receive the degree, to the Division of History, Government, and Economics; he shall, at the same time, record his name and purpose at the office of the Dean of Harvard College. Students intending to become candidates are urged to put themselves, as early as the beginning of their Sophomore year, under the guidance of the Division.

The requirements for the degree cum laude and magna cum laude are the same. The grade of distinction depends on the excellence of the student’s work, as determined by the Division. If his work be judged unworthy of distinction, but worthy of a degree, the Division may recommend him for a degree without distinction.

Special Regulations. — Not later than November 1 of his final year of preparation, the candidate must present, for approval by the Division, a plan of study, which shall comprise at least seven courses, selected from those offered by the Division, and not including more than two from the three introductory courses, History 1, Government 1, and Economics A. This plan of study may, however, with the approval of the Division, include related courses offered by other Departments of the University, and also, by special vote of the Division, suitable work done outside of regular courses.

If four or more of the seven courses are courses in History, the candidate, if successful, will be recommended for the Degree with Distinction in History; if four or more of them are courses in Economics, he will be recommended for the Degree with Distinction in Economics; if four or more of them are courses in Government, he will be recommended for the Degree with Distinction in Government.

Besides this minimum requirement, the candidate may indicate in his plan of study any additional work done in History, Government, Economics, or in related subjects. The character and range of this work will be taken into account in determining the recommendation for the Degree with Distinction. The winning of a University prize in any of the subjects represented in the Division, such as a Bowdoin, Toppan, or Sumner prize, may, at the Division’s discretion, be accepted as evidence towards establishing a candidate’s qualification for the Degree with Distinction.

Not later than May 1 of his Senior year, the candidate will present to the Chairman of the Division a thesis; and he will be required to pass an examination on his general field, or on such portion of the field as the Division may determine. Successful candidates at this examination will be excused from the final examinations in their Senior year in the courses offered for the Degree with Distinction; and unsuccessful candidates at the examination may be recommended by the Division for the ordinary degree without taking the final examinations in such courses.

In the award of the Dillaway Fellowship preference will be given to the most successful candidate for the Degree with Distinction in History; and the Philip Washburn Prize is offered for the best thesis, of sufficient merit, on an historical subject presented by a successful candidate for the Degree with Distinction in History.

IN SOCIAL ETHICS

Candidates for Distinction must elect eight courses in the Departments of Philosophy and Psychology, Social Ethics, and Economics, of which four must be in the Department of Social Ethics and two in each of the others, and must pass an oral examination in addition to the written.

[…]

IN COMBINATION WITH THE CLASSICS

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences has established a degree with distinction based upon programmes combining studies in the Classics with the studies of the Division of History, Government, and Economics. Three different programmes are offered with the following requirements in each: –

[Classics and History; Classics and Government; Classics and Economics]

[…]

Classics and Economics

  1. Eight courses five in the Department of the Classics (both Greek and Latin) and three in the Department of Economics.
  2. A thesis connecting Ancient and Modern Economic Theory or History.
  3. A general examination, either written or oral, on Greek and Roman Literature, History and Economics, and on the subject matter of certain works which will be determined by a joint committee of the Department of the Classics and the Department of Economics.

DEGREE OF A.M.

The ordinary requirement for the degree of Master of Arts for a graduate of an approved college consists of one year of residence and study devoted to advanced work approved by the Administrative Board of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as affording suitable preparation for the degree, and completed with distinction. Graduates of colleges whose requirements for admission and grad uation are considerably below those of Harvard College, or of colleges whose standing is not well known to the Administrative Board, and graduates of any college who have not sufficient prep aration for advanced work in their particular subject of study, are ordinarily required to devote at least two years to their study for this degree. In special cases this period may be shortened to one year or one year and a half for students whose work in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences shows unusual excellence.

The programme of study for the degree of Master of Arts must form a consistent plan of work pursued with some definite aim, whether it lies wholly in a single department or field of study or in more than one; this work may be done either in, or in con nection with, the regular courses of instruction, or independently of them. Programmes should be submitted early in the academic year, and no programme will ordinarily be approved that is received after January 15 of the academic year in which the degree is to be taken. All applications should be addressed to the Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

All candidates must possess an elementary knowledge of two modern foreign languages, ordinarily French and German.

DEGREE OF PH.D.

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy not less than two years devoted to advanced studies, approved as affording suitable preparation for the degree, are required of graduates of colleges of good standing. This degree is not usually taken in less than three years after the attainment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Harvard College, or an equivalent. A graduate of another college may ascertain by writing to the Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences whether any special conditions will be imposed upon him. In order to be admitted to the degree the candidate must show a general training in the whole field of study, firm grasp of his special subject within the field, and independent research in some portion of that subject. He must present a thesis, showing original treatment or investigation, and must pass such examination or examinations as may be required by the Division. The degree is given on the ground of thorough study and high attainments. Appropriate studies carried on in the graduate school of another university may be recognized as a part of the candidate’s preparation for the degree. The minimum period of residence at Harvard University is one year.

The University confers the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History; in Political Science; in Economics; and in Business Economics. Candidates for the degree under any of these heads are subject to supervision and examination by the Division of History, Government, and Economics. In order to indicate the grounds on which it is prepared to recommend candidates for the degree, the Division has adopted the following statements and suggestions.

All communications relative to the doctorate should be sent to Professor Charles H. Haskins, Chairman of the Division Committee on Graduate Degrees, 23 University Hall, Cambridge.

GENERAL PREPARATION

Every candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is required, at an early stage in his preparation, to submit to the Division, through the Chairman of its Committee on Graduate Degrees, evidence of the extent and quality of his general studies. A command of good English, spoken and written, the ability to make free use of French and German books, and a fair acquaintance with general history are expected in all cases. On the evidence presented, the Division will decide, provisionally, as to the sufficiency of the candidate’s general training. No set examinations will be held at this stage, but before he is admitted to the general examination each candidate must present a certificate from a designated member of the Division stating that he is able to make free use of French and German books. Such a certificate may be given on the basis either of a special test or of the candidate’s use of these languages in connection with the regular courses of instruction. Candidates may be required to make up deficiencies by pursuing specified College courses, or in such other way as the Division may designate. The provisional acceptance of a candidate, as regards this portion of his preparation, does not preclude the Division from rejecting him later, if, in the examination on specific subjects, it shall appear that his general education is insufficient.

Candidates must pass two examinations: the first general, the second (after the acceptance of the thesis) on a special field, defined in each case by vote of the Division.

I. GENERAL EXAMINATION

The first examination will be held not later than the beginning of the last year of study for the degree, and candidates are recommended to present themselves for this examination in the course of the preceding academic year. The object of this test is to ascertain the applicant’s attainments within a considerable range of subjects in the field of History, Political Science, or Economics. He will ordinarily be examined in six subjects in all, chosen from the groups defined below under the respective departments of study, but the ground of his special field will not be covered in the general examination. Candidates are not required, however, to follow the details of these plans. They may present, for the consideration of the Division, reasonable substitutes for any of the topics named, and may offer appropriate combinations of parts of the separate subjects. They are advised, in all cases, to submit their plans of study for approval at an early date, as the Division reserves the right to disapprove any plan which seems to it unsatisfactory, even though the plan meet the formal requirements of distribution in the various groups. In judging of the candidate’s fitness for the degree, regard will be had to the general grasp and maturity shown, as well as to the range and accuracy of his attainments in the specific subjects of examination.

II. THESIS

The thesis must be in the hands of the Chairman of the Division Committee on Graduate Degrees on or before April 1 of the year in which the degree is sought. It must be accepted as satisfactory before the candidate can be admitted to the final examination. It must show an original treatment of the subject, or give evidence of independent research, and must also be in good literary form and suitable for publication.*

*A list of the theses which have been accepted for the Ph.D. in the Division of History, Government, and Economics will be found in the list of Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Science who have received their degree in course from Harvard University, 1873-1916, published by the University in 1916.

Every thesis must be accompanied by a brief summary, not exceeding 1200 words in length, which shall indicate as clearly as possible the methods, material, and results. Each summary must be approved by the Division Committee as adequate and as in suitable form for publication. These summaries will be printed by the University in an annual volume.

III. SPECIAL EXAMINATION

The second examination will be on a single limited subject agreed upon in advance. It is intended that each candidate should have, as far as possible, freedom of choice in selecting his subject, but it is expected that he will submit, for approval, an outline of work to be presented in satisfaction of this requirement. It is desirable that this outline should be submitted a year in advance of the examination. Ordinarily the ground covered by the special examination will not be greater in extent than one of the subjects offered by the candidate at his general examination, and may be identical with one of these subjects. Or the candidate may limit his more special preparation to an approved portion of this field, which will regularly include the period or topic within which the thesis lies. At the final examination, the candidate will be expected to show such a mastery of his special field, and such an acquaintance with the literature, general and special, bearing on it, as would qualify him to give instruction to mature students.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics must meet the general requirements stated [above]. They should also be well grounded in the main outlines of European and American history, and should have had a general view of the nature and growth of political institutions and constitutional law.

GENERAL EXAMINATION

This examination will include six subjects, chosen from the following list. Of the six subjects, Group A must be offered and one subject from Group C. The others will ordinarily be chosen from Group B. In all cases at least one of the subjects chosen must be historical in character, either economic history under Group B or one of the historical fields under Group C.

Group A

  1. Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to the Development of Economic Thought since 1776.

Group B

  1. Economic History before 1750.
  2. Economic History since 1750.
  3. Statistical Method and its Application.
  4. Money, Banking, and Crises.
  5. Transportation
  6. Economics of Corporations.
  7. Public Finance.
  8. International Trade and Tariff Policy.
  9. Economics of Agriculture.
  10. Labor Problems.
  11. Socialism and Social Reform.
  12. Sociology

Group C

  1. Any of the historical fields (Nos. 1 to 16) defined under the requirements for the Ph.D. in History.
  2. Comparative Modern Government.
  3. American Government and Constitutional Law.
  4. Municipal Government.
  5. Jurisprudence (selected topics).
  6. Philosophy (selected topics).
  7. Anthropology
  8. History of Political Theory.
  9. International Law.

In the case of a candidate whose special subject is in the Department of Social Ethics, the six subjects for examination will be chosen from the two following groups. The candidate will be examined in all four of the subjects in Group E, and is expected to be proficient in the history of one of them. He will select two subjects from Group F.

Group E

  1. Ethical Theory.
  2. Economic Theory.
  3. Poor Relief.
  4. Social Reforms.

Group F

  1. Sociology
  2. Statistics
  3. Economic History.
  4. The Labor Question.
  5. Criminology and Penology.
  6. Problems of Municipal Government.
  7. Anthropology

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Economics must meet the general requirements stated [above, pp. 102-204]. They should also be well grounded in the outlines of European and American history. In the course of their preparation they should have had fundamental training in Accounting, Marketing (or Commercial Organization), and the Law of Contracts. Courses in these subjects required for the degree of Master in Business Administration should be taken ordinarily during the first year of graduate study.

GENERAL EXAMINATION

This examination will include six fields chosen from the following list. The subject of Economic Theory is required in all cases, but not more than two subjects may ordinarily be taken from Group A. Preparation for the subjects in Group B should aim, as far as practicable, to combine the more general training in Economics with the technical training in Business courses.

Combinations of examination subjects other than those here stated may be offered. In all cases the programme of study must be approved by the Division. Candidates are urged to seek early in their residence the advice of the Dean of the Graduate School of Business Administration and of the Chairman of the Department of Economics.

Group A

  1. Economic Theory.
  2. Economic History since 1750.
  3. Public Finance and Taxation.
  4. Economics of Agriculture.

Group B

  1. Accounting.
  2. Marketing.
  3. Foreign Trade.
  4. Industrial Management and Labor Problems.
  5. Money and Banking.
  6. Corporate Organization and Finance.
  7. Transportation.
  8. Insurance.
  9. Statistical Method and its Application.
SPECIAL EXAMINATION

The field for the special examination should be chosen in accordance with the requirements stated [above “III. Special Examination”], except that ordinarily the subject should be one of those in group B.

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XVIII, No. 20 (April 21, 1921) Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1921-22.

Image Source:  Harvard Square 1915 from Brookline Public Library’s Photograph Collection at Digital Commonwealth (Non-Commercial, Creative Commons license).

Categories
Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Harvard

Harvard. Economics Graduate Degree Requirements, 1934-1935

Update: within a few minutes of posting the following, I discovered that I had already transcribed and posted the same material over seven years ago. Actually it was my third post. How did I miss it? My Catalogue of Artifacts page had a misprint, instead of the year 1934 the year 1924 was incorrectly entered. My standard procedure is to search through the catalogue for names and dates. But this item, being a departmental document only had a date. I am leaving this here, though it double-counts an artifact. I like the image and I have added the other comparable posts (so some light curation is going on here).

It has been a while since Economics in the Rear-view Mirror added to the collection of the rules and and regulations governing the award of graduate degrees in economics. To date for Harvard the collection now includes today’s post for 1934-35 and the following items:

Degree Requirements for 1897-98.

Degree Requirements as of 1904-05

Degree Requirements for 1911-12.

Degree Requirements for 1921-22

Degree Requirements for 1934-35
[This post]

Degree Requirements for 1935-36

Degree Requirements from 1947.

Degree Requirements from 1951

Changes in Degree Requirements, 1956

Degree Requirements from 1958.

Degree Regulations from 1968.

_________________________

1934-1935
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Requirements for Graduate Degrees:
The more important regulations regarding graduate degrees are stated below.
  1. General Information for Candidates for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees
    1. Programs of study
      1. The program of study for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees must form a consistent plan of work pursued with some definite aim. It should be submitted to Professor Burbank, Chairman of the Department of Economics, 41 Holyoke House, for approval early in the year.
      2. The fields of study are to be chosen from the following:

GROUP A.

        1. Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to the Development of Economic Thought since 1776.
        2. Economic History since 1750, or some other approved field in Economic History
        3. Statistical Method and its Application

GROUP B

        1. Money and Banking
        2. Economic Fluctuations and Forecasting
          e.2 Industrial Organization and Control
        3. Public Utilities (including Transportation)
        4. Economics of Corporations
        5. International Trade and Tariff Policies
        6. Economics of Agriculture
        7. Labor Problems
        8. Socialism and Social Reform
        9. Public Finance
        10. Economic History before 1750
        11. Commodity Distribution and Prices
        12. Economics of Public Utilities
        13. 2Mathematical Economics

GROUP C

        1. Any of the historical fields from Group A or B, defined under the requirements for the Ph.D. in History. [See Division Pamphlet.]
        2. Comparative Modern Government
        3. American Government and Constitutional Law
        4. Municipal Government
        5. Jurisprudence (Selected topics)
        6. Philosophy (Selected topics)
        7. Anthropology
        8. History of Political Theory
        9. International Law
        10. Sociology [Certain fields—see Sociology Pamphlet]
        11. Economics of Forestry
    1. Application for degrees

Candidates for degrees must apply to the Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 24 University Hall, by December 1, for the degree at Midyears; or by January 15, for the degree at Commencement.

  1. Special Requirements for the A.M. degree
    1. Residence

The candidate must take one full year of advance work at Harvard—four courses with a grade of B or higher in each. These courses may be taken in one year or over a period of years. (See new requirement on page 5.)

    1. Languages

An ELEMENTARY knowledge of French and German, and a READING knowledge of the other language is required. This requirement may be met as follows:

      1. For the READING knowledge, by a passing grade in the written examinations given by the Department early in November and March.
      2. For the ELEMENTARY knowledge, by one of the following methods:
        1. A passing grade in an elementary course at Harvard or some other institution
        2. A passing grade in an undergraduate examination at Harvard, which is given three times a year—

French: September 22; January 7; April 22
German: September 22; January 8; April 23

        1. A passing grade in the written examination given by the Department early in November and March.

This requirement may be met at any time prior to application for the Master’s degree.

    1. General Examination

The candidate must pass an oral examination on FOUR fields of study, to be selected from those listed above according to the following distribution:

      1. TWO from Group A, including Economic Theory
      2. TWO from Groups A, B, or C (not more than ONE to be selected from Group C.)

The fields are covered only in part by formal course instruction. Supplementary reading must be undertaken to meet the requirements.

Preparation for this examination normally requires TWO full years of study. A student is advised not to stand for examination until he feels thoroughly prepared.

With Professor Burbank’s consent, a student may offer THREE fields of Study for the Oral Examination, substituting a pro-seminar course for the fourth field.

When the General Examination is passed in the Spring, the candidate is excused with credit from the final course examination in courses relating to fields offered for the General Examination.

In judging the candidate’s fitness for the degree, regard will be had for the general grasp and maturity shown, as well as for the range and accuracy of his knowledge of the special subjects examined.

To secure a date for the General Examination, candidates must make arrangements with the secretary in the Division Office, 15 Little Hall before April 1.

  1. Special Requirements for the Ph.D. degree
    1. Residence

The candidate must take two years of advanced work—eight courses, with grades of B or higher in each (See new requirements on page 5.) One year, or four courses, must be taken at Harvard. Credit for work done at another institution may be substituted for the other year’s work, with Professor Burbank’s approval.

    1. Languages

The candidate must present a READING knowledge of both French and German. This requirement is satisfied ONLY by passing the Department written examination which is given early in November and March. It must be met SIX months before the Special Examination. Examinations in the two languages need not be taken at the same time.
At the time of the Special Examination, candidates must show an acquaintance with the literature in their special fields in two modern lan­guages other than English, ordinarily French and German.

    1. Fields of Study

The candidate must present SIX fields of study to be selected from the groups listed above according to the following distribution:

      1. The THREE fields in Group A are required unless a candidate can show that he has done sufficient advanced work in Economic History or in Statistics to warrant his substituting a field from Group B or Group C.
      2. The remaining THREE fields may be selected from Group B and Group C—though not more than ONE field may be taken from Group C.

Evidence of a knowledge of the SIX fields of study is shown as follows:

    1. General Examination

FOUR fields, including Economic Theory, are presented at an oral examination. [For details regarding this examination, refer to the notes under C. of the requirements for the A.M. degree.]

    1. “Fifth” field

The requirement regarding the “fifth” field may be met by presenting work of distinguished quality in an approved course at Harvard.

    1. Special field

The candidate meets the requirements of the sixth field by standing for oral examination and presenting a thesis which normally lies within the field examined. Ordinarily this field is chosen from Groups A or B. By special arrangements the same subject may be offered for the General and Special Examinations. However, this program is unusual, and arrangements must be made with the Chairman of the Department. In this case, the candidate must show evidence of a thorough knowledge of another field, which might have been-offered for examination.

      1. Candidates for the degree at Midyears should arrange for their Special Examination on or before December 1 in the Division Office, 15 Little Hall; for the degree at Commencement, on or before April 1.
      2. Two copies of the thesis must be in the hands of the Chairman of the Division, 15 Little Hall, by January 3 for the degree at Midyears, and by April 1for the degree at Commencement.

The thesis must be accepted before the candidate may be admitted for the Special Examination. It must show an original treatment of the subject and give evidence of independent research. It must be in good literary form, suitable for publication. Except by special permission from the Chairman of the Division, all theses must be in typewritten or printed form.

Every thesis must be accompanied by a summary not exceeding 1200 words in length, which shall indicate as clearly as possible the methods, material, and results of the investigation. Each summary must be approved by the Division Committee as adequate and in suitable form for publication. These summaries are printed by the University in an annual volume.

At least SIX months must elapse between the General and Special Examinations.

Candidates for the Ph.D. degree must plan on no less than THREE full years of advanced study, and it is only a student with superior training and no outside demands on his time who can attain his degree in that time.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  After September 1, 1934, candidates for the Ph.D. are required to show evidence, in some section of their graduate work, of high distinction — “A” — in formal course instruction, General or Special Examinations, or Dissertation.

Business Economics: For the degree in Business Economics, consult the Division pamphlet.

Miss Stone, in 41 Holyoke House, will be glad to answer any questions arising in connection with these regulations.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics Records (UAV349.11) Box 13 Folder “Graduate Instruction Degree Requirements”.

Image: Harvard Class-Day Book 1934.

Categories
Economics Programs M.I.T. Undergraduate

M.I.T. Economics department committee (re-)organization. 1976-78

During my second year in graduate school at M.I.T. (1975-76), the economics department professors were engaged in a discussion about reforming the administration of their department. At the time I was completely unaware of this discussion that had been provoked by the following memorandum written by then Department Head, Professor E. Cary Brown, based on his experience with the growing overload of administrative chores and responsibilities in a department with the scale of that attained by M.I.T.’s economics department.

Brown’s memo to the faculty is followed by a transcription of a copy of the letter Brown wrote to Robert Solow, who as an administrative reorganization committee member, must have been asked for some further testimony. The entire committee’s (Peter A. Diamond, Stanley Fischer, Jerry Hausman, Paul Joskow, Robert M. Solow) report was completed two months after Brown’s memo. In the same departmental file from the M.I.T. archives, one finds a copy of the actual assignment of administrative responsibilities for the academic year 1977/78.

Many, if not most, of the administrative tasks had been allocated and faithfully executed before this “reorganization”. I know that Evsey Domar had long been covering the placement of new Ph.D.’s and also proudly serving as the departmental representative for library-related affairs. I sense reading these documents that the truly neglected child all along was the undergraduate program for which some arm-twisting was required to achieve equitable burden-sharing among the faculty. But perhaps there were other specific items that had been sore points too. Maybe Brown simply wanted an explicit organization chart to forestall “whataboutism” from the mouths of relatively uncooperative colleagues. But like I wrote above, this was a discussion that was invisible to me (appropriately so) at the time.

Cf. The committee assignments in the Harvard economics department during the 1972-73 academic year

__________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

March 12, 1976

Economics Department Faculty

Dear [blank]

For some time I have become increasingly dismayed at the increase in the administrative burden in the Department, and now find the present job as Head to be a nearly impossible one. If the job is to be made tolerable, it must have substantial additional faculty support in some form to cut it down to a scope manageable either by me or a successor.

There are two basic ways that this can be achieved: (1) by spreading the administrative activities and responsibilities more widely among the faculty; or (2) placing these tasks on essentially an associate departmental head, whose precise title could take various forms Executive Officer, Academic Officer (e.g., Tony French in Physics), or Associate Head. I personally would favor the Associate Head route, but regard it as an open question subject to further discussion and consideration, and to Administration approval. This new structure should be treated as an experiment, to last no longer than until the next Head is chosen, and to be reconsidered at that time.

My own thinking about the administrative tasks of the Department separates them into four major areas: undergraduate programs, graduate programs, research programs, and personnel and budgeting. While these can be headed by an administrator or by faculty, it seems to me that the first two programs should have formal faculty control regardless of the form the administrative reorganization takes. The graduate program nearly has that form now and largely runs itself, with the exception of a few odds and ends that now lie outside the responsibility of the graduate registration officers. The undergraduate program is a long way from this structure and will require a good deal of imagination, initiative and effort to resuscitate the Undergraduate Economics Association and provide more guidance and support for majors. The research programs (student and faculty) focus more or less clearly under the Committee on Economic Research. Personnel and budgeting are an administrative responsibility. They have involved increasing amounts of time as budgets have tightened, space has tightened, and the search for new faculty has expanded.

The administrative structure is an important matter to the Department. Because it involves departmental administration and the role of the Department Head, it concerns the Administration through Dean Hanham. He has asked me to appoint the following committee to consider these questions of reorganization and to make recommendations: Bob Solow, Peter Diamond, Stan Fischer, Paul Joskow, and Jerry Hausman. Please give your views to members of the committee as soon as you can.

Sincerely,
[signed “Cary”]
E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/sc

__________________________

Brown to Solow

March 16, 1976

Professor Robert Solow
E52-383

Dear Bob:

I shrink from making organization charts, but the following diagram is intended to give some idea of the orders of magnitude of faculty involvement in departmental chores.

Chairman, Committee on Undergraduate Studies

  1. Faculty counselors (we have agreed with the UEA to keep members to 10 or less, and let faculty build up expertise by staying adviser for freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior year).

—10 faculty: 2 for each class. 4 for seniors

  1. Faculty adviser for humanities concentration in economics (advises and signs up students); also considers the eligibility of economics subjects, what we consider concentration, etc.
  2. Closely related to (2) is possible membership on the so-called Humanities Committee that approves and reviews the whole Humanities, Arts, and Social Science requirement and program. (We have no one on this year but as the largest concentration will surely need to have a presence.)
  3. Approval of transfer of credits from other schools to M.I.T.
  4. Advising with Undergraduate Economic Association in matters academic, professional, social.
  5. Undergraduate placement, while an Institute responsibility, could be supervised and assisted by a faculty member who would keep up to date on summer placement, interning possibilities, salaries. The experience our students have applying to graduate schools, actual jobs offered and taken.
  6. Design of curriculum, cooperative program, etc.
  7. Various activities, such as providing information to undergraduates in their choice of major (Midway in fall, seminar in spring), Open House activities, Alumni activities, etc.
  8. Relations with other Departments at undergraduate level, such as subject offerings, subject content, etc.
  9. Supervision and staffing of undergraduate subjects with multiple sections — 14.001, 14.002, 14.03, 14.04, 14.06, 14.30, 14.31.
  10. Catalog copy.

Chairman, Committee on Graduate Studies

  1. Graduate Registration Officers, so far one each for first two years, and one for thesis writers. Has been suggested that we have an additional adviser for foreign students and minority and women?
  2. Admissions Committee has, in the past, had three members.
  3. Placement, both summer and permanent.
  4. Supervision of core subjects.
  5. Ph.D. and M.S. requirements, program, size.
  6. Financial aid — coordinating various GRO; Admissions Committee, and Budget limitations.
  7. Graduate School Policy Committee meetings.
  8. Annual revision of brochure.
  9. Graduate Economics Association, Black Graduate Economics Association.
  10. Catalog copy.
  11. Various activities — professional and social that are not contained within a particular class.

Chairman, Committee on Economic Research (I faculty)

  1. Organized list of faculty projects requiring research assistants and the supply of them (both graduate and undergraduate). Assignment of R.A.’s.
  2. Assistance in research proposals.
  3. Inventory of internships and off-campus research.
  4. Supervision of unscheduled subjects, such as UROP, Undergraduate Seminar, and thesis.
  5. Supervision of M.I.T. Working Paper Series.
  6. Allocation of computer funds, developing rules, developing alternative sources.

Personnel and Budgeting (Administrative Officer and a large chunk of my time)

  1. Personnel
    1. Nonfaculty is supervised by the Administrative Officer.
    2. Faculty Personnel

(1) Employment — new Ph.D.’s and senior faculty
(2) Review and promotion
(3) Assignments, leaves, research

    1. Postdoctoral personnel
  1. Space allocations, revisions.
  2. Budget Proposals
  3. a. Proposals
    b. Implementation

Telephone
Xerox & Ditto
Supplies
Equipment

There may be other matters that I am leaving out – routine meetings average probably a day a week, and things like that. Consultations with faculty, students, and other Departments, would probably add a couple more days.

If there are questions, I’ll oblige, of course.

Sincerely,
E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/sc

__________________________

MEMORANDUM

May 10, 1976

TO:       Department Faculty
FROM: Committee on Reorganization (PAD, SF, JH, PJ, RMS) [Peter A. Diamond, Stanley Fischer, Jerry Hausman, Paul Joskow, Robert M. Solow]

SUBJECT:         Reorganization

ECB’s [E. Cary Brown] letter of March 12, which created this committee, starts from the premise that the administrative burden on the Department Head has become essentially impossible. This seems clearly to be the case. It has happened because the department has increased in size and complexity without any corresponding adaptation of its administrative arrangements. Every new function has fallen into the Head’s lap. (Top that, anyone.) Apart from the sheer burden of work thus created, another problem is the difficulty of communications, because that is also time-consuming.

After some palaver and negotiation, we have a reorganizational package to suggest. It rests on two conditions; since it is something of an interconnected web, it will probably unravel if the two conditions can not be met. (1) Since the only way to correct an excessively centralized structure is to decentralize it, we propose to diffuse administrative responsibility more widely through the department; there will be at least one serious administrative post for everyone, or perhaps two minor posts instead, but everyone will have to participate. (2) The administrative load attached to the undergraduate program has increased with the size of the enrollment and the improvement of the curriculum; no one wants to manage an inadequately staffed program. We propose, therefore, that the normal teaching load for everyone in the department be agreed to be half graduate and half undergraduate teaching. This definition should be extended to everyone on the departmental budget: joint appointees, visiting professors, etc. As soon as there are a couple of exceptions to this understanding, there will be more. Then the management of the undergraduate program will break down, and it will revert or default to the Department Head, and that is what we are trying to stave off.

The particular organization we have in mind is as follows.

  1. The central functions (budgeting, space, leaves, relations with the MIT hierarchy, etc.) will be in the hands of the Department Head and an Associate Head namely PAD [Peter A. Diamond]). In addition, one of them (probably ECB [E. Cary Brown]) will be an ex officio member of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies to be proposed below, and the other will be an ex officio member of the Committee on Graduate Studies. The precise division of labor is obviously a matter of taste; for the moment, ECB [E. Cary Brown] will probably do most of the relations with the MIT structure and PAD [Peter A. Diamond] will concentrate on intra-departmental matters.
  2. There will be a Director of Undergraduate Studies (PT [Peter Temin]), who will be chairman of a Committee on Undergraduate Studies (with 2 or 3 additional members, possibly RD [Rudiger Dornbusch], PJ [Paul Joskow] and one other). This committee will be responsible for revisions of the undergraduate curriculum adding and subtracting subjects, staffing them, degree requirements, etc. In recent discussions with the Undergraduate Economics Association, the proposal has merged that there should be a larger number of Undergraduate Advisors (i.e., registration officers) than there is now, with each taking care of at most 10 students. That suggests we would need about 8 such advisors. The members of the Committee might serve as advisors, plus others. Merely serving as registration officer for 10 undergraduates is by itself not an onerous job.
  3. There seems to be no need for change in the organization of graduate studies in the department. We suggest that there be a Director of Graduate Studies (RSE [Richard S. Eckaus]) and a Committee on Graduate Studies which would, as now, consist of the other two Graduate Registration Officers. Things are going very well now with REH [Robert E. Hall] handling the first-year students. MJP [Michael J. Piore] the second-year students and RSE [Richard S. Eckaus] the thesis-writers. REH [Robert E. Hall] is prepared to take on the task or devising a scheme to keep track of post-generals students, and see that they find themselves a reasonable thesis topic in a reasonable amount of time. The scheme may need another person to look after it.
  4. We suggest the creation of Committee on Staffing whose functions would include looking after the hiring of assistant professors, the dovetailing of visiting professors with faculty leaves, and the rationing of visiting scholars. The picture we have is that the members of committee would do the interviewing and preliminary screening of new Ph.D.’s at the annual meetings, and decide which of them to invite to come and give seminars. At that stage and thereafter, the whole department faculty would be in on the act, and final decisions would be made, as they are now, in a department meeting. The main time-consumer for this committee would be the correspondence in connection with hiring. Since that would fall on the Chairman, that post would be a major one. For the other members of the committee, the burden would be relatively light. We suggest REH [Robert E. Hall] as chairman, plus perhaps 3 others.
  5. There seems to be no reason to change the way the Admissions Committee now functions.
  6. We see no need for major change in the Placement process. Our only suggestion are (a) perhaps to provide EDD [Evsey D. Domar] with another person to share the load, and (b) to have a pre-season department meeting, analogous to the post-generals meeting, at which each graduate student entering the market could be discussed by the full facuIty, and information and ideas collected.
  7. There are other details. RLB [Robert L. Bishop] is functioning as advisor to MIT undergraduates thinking about economics as part of their Humanities requirement, and we are happy to preserve that human capital. MAA [Morris A. Adelman] who has been our representative to CGSP is to begin a term on the CEP, which should count as a major administrative burden. We need his successor on CGSP.

One last point: we hope that each committee chairman will promptly send a written notice of each substantive decision to the Head and Associate Head for distribution to the department faculty, so that communications are well looked after. That plus rational expectations should do the trick.

Source: MIT Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records. Box 2, Folder “Department Organization”.

__________________________

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES:
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT 1977-78
  1. UNDERGRADUATE COMMITTEE
Chairman: Peter Temin
Members: Cary Brown Senior Faculty Counsellor, Ex Officio
Jerry Rothenberg Senior Faculty Counsellor
Peter Temin Senior Faculty Counsellor
Rudiger Dornbusch Junior Faculty Counsellor
Jeffrey Harris Junior Faculty Counsellor
Jagdish Bhagwati Sophomore Faculty Counsellor (Fall)
Henry Farber Sophomore Faculty Counsellor (Spring)

Summer Jobs: Jeffrey Harris
Humanities Adviser: Robert Bishop
Transfer of Credits: Cary Brown

  1. GRADUATE COMMITTEE
Chairman: Richard Eckaus Thesis, Graduate Registration Officer
Members: Paul Joskow/Mike Piore Second Year Graduate Registration Officer
Marty Weitzman First Year Graduate Registration Officer
Jerome Rothenberg CGSP Representative
Stan Fischer, Ex Officio

Admissions Committee:

Chairman: Robert Bishop
Members: Frank Fisher and Lance Taylor

Placement: Evsey Domar
Harvard-MIT Theory Seminar: Eric Maskin
Theory Workshop: Kevin Roberts

  1. OTHER DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Staffing Committee: Chairman: Rudiger Dornbusch

(For New Ass’t Profs.) Members:

Paul Joskow
Jerry Hausman
Stan Fischer, Ex Officio
(Added for Temporary Visitors: Robert Solow)

Independent Activity Period: Jeffrey Harris/Marilyn Simon
Unstructured Subjects Committee: Peter Temin, Undergraduate; Richard Eckaus, Graduate
Computer Allocation: Richard Eckaus

ADDENDUM: INSTITUTE COMMITTEES

CEP: Morris Adelman
Associate Chairman of the Faculty: Michael Piore
Visual Arts: Jerry Rothenberg
Library System, Chairman: Evsey Domar

Image Source:  For this portrait of members of the M.I.T. economics department in 1975 see the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror post that provides identifications.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economists Harvard UCLA War and Defense Economics

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. alumnus, Jack Hirshleifer, 1950

 

This UCLA economics department obituary of Jack Hirshleifer is so good that Economics in the Rear-view Mirror keeps a copy for its “Meet an economics Ph.D. alumnus/a” series. Hirschleifer was Brooklyn born and Harvard bred, but his scientific fruit definitely ripened in the California sun.

__________________________

Harvard Ph.D. 1950

Jack Hirshleifer, S.B. [Harvard] 1946 (1945), A.M. [Harvard] 1948.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Labor Problems. Thesis, “Price Flexibility and General Interdependence.”

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1949-50, p. 197.

__________________________

UCLA
Department of Economics

Obituary of Jack Hirshleifer

Education:

Ph.D. Harvard University

Research Areas:

Economic analysis of conflict; bioeconomics with particular reference to sources of cooperative behavior and the nature of evolutionary equilibrium; voluntary provision of public goods.

Biography:

Jack Hirshleifer, professor emeritus of economics, died July 26, 2005, bringing to a close a career marked by wide- ranging interests and brilliant contributions to the subfields of information economics, investment and capital theory, bioeconomics, and the economic theory of conflict.

After active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserve during World War II, Hirshleifer completed his A.B. degree at Harvard, magna cum laude. Five years later he had earned his doctorate in economics, also at Harvard. From 1949 to 1955 he worked as an economist at the Rand Corporation. Before coming to UCLA in 1958, he took a postdoctoral fellowship in statistics and economics at the University of Chicago where he also taught for five years.

His extensive publications included seven books and close to a 100 scholarly articles. From his first study, Water Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy [Chicago, 1960] to The Dark Side of the Force: Economic Foundations of Conflict Theory [Cambridge, 2001], Professor Hirshleifer in his scholarship has demonstrated a clarity of analysis and probing for fundamental assumptions which set him apart as one of the most distinguished economists of his generation.

Elected a fellow of both the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Econometric Society, Professor Hirshleifer also served on the editorial boards of the American Economic Review, the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, and the Journal for Bioeconomics. In 2000 he was elected a Distinguished Fellow of the American Economic Association. He also served as president of the Western Economic Association and as vice- president of the American Economic Association.

Professor Hirshleifer was deeply respected by all his fellow faculty members during his 33 years as a member of the UCLA economics department. His door was always open for any colleague, graduate student or undergraduate who might feel like “popping- in.” While a giant among researchers, Professor Hirshleifer was also deeply committed to the teaching of economics. As a teacher he always strove to give his students a sense of his own deep fascination with the role of competitive markets. This led him to write a revolutionary and best- selling textbook in intermediate microeconomics, Price Theory and Applications. While prior books focused on modeling and theory, the new text added dozens of intriguing real world illustrations of economics forces at work. Through his own text- book and through the many texts that have copied his approach, Professor Hirshleifer continues to influence tens of thousands of undergraduates each year.

Tribute by David Levine

Jack Hirshleifer was an economic theorist with broad-ranging interests. Two areas in economics have especially felt the impact of his work. Early in his career, he was instrumental in the information economics revolution; late in his career, he expanded the domain of economic discourse with his work on evolutionary economics and conflict resolution.

Hirshleifer spanned a broad range of issues in his early work as one of the founding fathers of information economics. He made the abstract ideas of contingent claims concrete through his examples and applications. In the process, he helped develop fundamental tools, such as the covariance of risks, the analysis of gambling and insurance, the Modigliani-Miller Theorem, and the analysis of public investment. He also expanded the range of information economics with two fundamental contributions. His work on the private and social value of information clearly shows that competitive markets need not reflect the social value of information. His example of an inventor who can invest based on the knowledge of the impact of his invention shows that there can be an oversupply of inventive activity. This “race to be first” has its reflection in the current literature on patent races, and represents a fundamental problem in intellectual property law that the profession is only now coming to grips with. His second fundamental contribution showed that differences in taste are not enough to explain speculation. He was the first to analyze speculation in a full general-equilibrium model, with different structures of market completeness carefully considered. Although not generally recognized as such, this is also the first paper to point out the indeterminacy of equilibrium when markets are incomplete.

In addition to his founding contributions in information economics, Hirshleifer had a lifelong interest in conflict, beginning with his earliest work on war damages. Late in his career this area became the focus of his contributions, and he was a leader in extending economic methods to problems more traditionally studied in political science. He wrote broadly on expanding the domain of economic discourse to include the “rational” evolutionary analysis of altruism and spite. His work on conflict showed how “Peace is more likely to the extent that the decisiveness of conflict is low, or … if the stakes are small or the technology favors the defense. More surprisingly, perhaps, increased productive complementarity between the parties does not systematically favor peace…the poorer side is generally motivated to invest more heavily in fighting effort. So conflict can become an income-equalizing process.” Finally, his weakest link/best shot experiment (with Glenn Harrison) demonstrates that economic incentives play a key role in determining how much people will contribute to a public good.

Tribute by Roger Farmer

I was approached last month by Junyao Ying, a UCLA alum who is now working in China. Junyao and his wife Weiyi Qiu have recently translated Jack’s book, Investment Interest and Capital into Chinese. Junyao asked me to write a few words about Jack for the translation. This is what I wrote.

The economics department at UCLA was a very exciting place in the 1980s, not least because of Jack Hirshleifer.  Many of us ate lunch every day in the Faculty Center, and being in Southern California, most days we ate outdoors in the sunshine.  Jack would arrive at 12.00 sharp with an economic question for the day that he would pose to the table. Jack’s questions would be from the news of the day and the analysis he expected would be in the UCLA style.

The department had a unique approach to economics and Jack, along with Harold Demsetz, Armen Alchian, Ben Klein and later, Al Harberger, were a huge part of that. Their economics was intuitive, often verbal, but always incisive.  One story, relayed to me by another UCLA  giant of the era, Axel Leijonhufvud, expresses well the Socratic teaching style that permeated the UCLA curriculum. As Axel relays it, he was sitting in on Armen’s first graduate micro class when the master appeared, paced back and forth for a few minutes, and then boomed loudly: “So why don’t we sell babies anyway?”

Jack had the same approach. Many of our discussions would end up around one of his favorite topics: the economics of disasters. Earthquakes were never far from our minds and Jack was an expert on what today we might call black swan events. LA earthquakes are relatively frequent but they typically register less than 5.0 on the Richter Scale, enough to shake the floor, but usually not to do much damage. Sometimes we see larger quakes and every century or so, an 8.0 magnitude quake brings significant loss of life. Jack pointed out that, if you go far enough back in the fossil record, there have been earthquakes large enough to cause a slippage in the earth’s crust large enough to move two points that were previously next to each other five miles apart!

Jack was an economic imperialist. He believed passionately that the economic method can and should be applied to all of the social sciences. While we may not all share that opinion, in this time of crisis, we can nevertheless benefit from Jack’s insights. He may not be here in person to opine on how to deal with black swan events,  but we can still learn from Jack by reading his written words.

Publications

“War Damage Insurance,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 35, No. 2. (May 1953), pp. 144-153. Argues that vulnerability rated war damage insurance would create private incentives to make property less vulnerable to enemy bombing, and that this would be superior to administrative fiat.

“On the Theory of Optimal Investment Decision,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 66, No. 4. (Aug 1958), pp. 329-352. Examines different internal rate of return and present value rules when there is a divergence between borrowing and lending rates, and shows that while the problem can be solved by careful consideration of the budget constraint,  neither of these rules gives the correct answer all the time.

“Risk, The Discount Rate, and Investment Decisions,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 2(May 1961), pp. 112-120. Discusses how covariance of new risks with the existing portfolio makes it desirable to diversify by adding new risks.

“Investment Decision Under Uncertainty: Choice-Theoretic Approaches,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 79, No. 4. (Nov 1965), pp. 509-536; and “Investment Decision under Uncertainty: Applications of the State-Preference Approach,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 80, No. 2. (May 1966), pp. 252-277. These two paper develop the time-state-preference approach (what we now call the state-contingent model) applied to traditional problems in economics: gambling and insurance; Modigliani-Miller Theorem and evaluation of public projects.

“Urban Water Supply: A Second Look,” (with  J. W. Milliman) The American Economic Review, Vol. 57, No. 2 (May 1967), pp. 169-178. In a famous earlier work with J.C. DeHaven Water Supply: Economics, Technology and Policy(University of Chicago Press, 1960) alternative methods of supplying water to Southern California were subject to cost-benefit analysis. This paper review what actually happened: policy makers ignored the advice, and chose what both prospectively and retrospectively was the worst economic choice. They conclude: “It appears that the agenda for economists, at this point, should place lower priority upon the further refinement of advice for those efficient and selfless administrators who may exist in never-never land. Rather, it should focus on devising institutions whereby fallible and imperfect administrators may be forced to learn from error.”

“The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive Activity,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 61, No. 4. (Sep 1971), pp. 561-574.   Makes the simple yet crucial point that the benefit of receiving information first bears no necessary relationship to the social value of the information. For example, inventive activity may be oversupplied because the inventor can make investments based upon knowledge of the invention. This paper also makes careful use of an infinitesimal deviant individual in a representative individual world.

“Speculation and Equilibrium: Information, Risk, and Markets,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 89, No. 4. (Nov 1975), pp. 519-542. This paper shows that differences in taste are not enough to explain speculation – differences in beliefs are required. Unlike earlier work on speculation that ignores the endogeneity of prices, the setup here is a full general equilibrium model, with different structures of market completeness carefully considered. In particular, market incompleteness alone cannot explain speculation.  Although not generally recognized as such, this is the first paper to point out the indeterminacy of equilibrium in an incomplete market setting.

“Competition, Cooperation, and Conflict in Economics and Biology,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 68, No. 2 (May 1978), pp. 238-243. This paper draws connections between the economics and sociobiology literature, and marks the beginning of Hirshleifer’s interest in sociobiology and conflict.

“The Expanding Domain of Economics,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 6. (Dec 1985), pp. 53-68. This paper is a broad overview of the application of economic logic to a variety of “non-economic” problems. Hirshleifer begins by examining endogeneity of preferences. He identifies the different between altruistic preferences, and what would now be called the “warm-glow” effect of participation. He reviews Becker’s “rotten kid” theorem, which says that an altruistic parent can actually gain from altruism. As an alternative theory of preferences, models of status, such as the rat-race are examined. The underlying point of view is that of “as-if” rationality – altruism must provide some benefit to the altruist. From this perspective, Hirshleifer examines models such as the psychological model of “anger, gratitude, response” and argues that seemingly irrational behavior does indeed benefit the individual. The final topic is once again that of conflict. A narrow range of possible settlements it is argued increases the potential for conflict. Increasing returns followed by diminishing returns explains the monopoly on military force within the state, while also explaining the multiplicity of states.

“An Experimental Evaluation of Weakest Link/Best Shot Models of Public Goods,” (with Glenn W. Harrison) The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, No. 1. (Feb 1989), pp. 201-225. This experimental contribution to the public goods literature explores how the increasing incentives to free ride lead to greater free riding. This paper also introduces the “best-shot” game, a public goods contribution game in which only the largest contribution to the public good matters. In this type of game it is socially and individually optimal for only one player to contribute, and unlike many other types of public goods games, this theoretical prediction is exactly what happens in the laboratory.

“The Technology of Conflict as an Economic Activity,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2  (May 1991), pp. 130-134. “Peace is more likely to the extent that the decisiveness of conflict is low, or … if the stakes are small or the technology favors the defense. More surprisingly, perhaps, increased productive complementarity between the parties does not systematically favor peace…the poorer side is generally motivated to invest more heavily in fighting effort. So conflict can become an income-equalizing process.”

Source: Jack Hirshleifer UCLA page archived by the Wayback Machine.

Image Source: The 1946 Harvard Class Album, p. 153.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

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

 

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

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

______________________

April 17, 1936

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

Appendix to Minutes

To the members of the faculty of Political Science:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 11, 1936

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

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

“For the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction:

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

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

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

The second and third opinions were unanimous.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

Memorandum Concerning Dissertation Examination on Type-script

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 21, 1939

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1946-47 to 1949-50

 

This post adds the Chair’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the early post-WW II years to previously posted reports for 1932-33 through 1945-46. 

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics
.
1932-1941
1941-1946

___________________________

1946-1947

September 29, 1947

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year 1946-47.

This report necessarily follows much the same pattern as the report for last year. Again our work has been dominated by the number of students, undergraduate and graduate, and the lack of a trained junior staff.

The number of undergraduates of course is entirely so beyond our control. In Economies A and in most of our “middle group” courses, the elections taxed our capacity for effective instruction. Under the most propitious conditions the crowded classrooms would have presented many problems but with a dearth of trained teaching fellows and annual instructors the load carried by the senior staff was unduly heavy. Foreseeing this range of problems, the Department voted on February 19, 1946 [sic, 1947 probably correct. In December 1946 departments wereallowed to withdraw from offering tutorials] to suspend tutorial instruction for a period of two years. It may be stated here that this was probably a wise decision. Concentration in Economics appears to have resumed the trend apparent before the war. In the current year the number of concentrators will approach, or perhaps exceed 800. Even should no consideration be given to the expenditure involved, the possibility of finding and training effective tutors even for honors candidates seems somewhat remote.

On the graduate level the problems of instruction were even more difficult. During the year the number of graduate students receiving instruction was approximately 286. Our course offering on this level is large. Nevertheless, the principal graduate courses were crowded to a point where the maintenance of standards was difficult. After the graduate student has completed his preliminary program and has been accepted as a candidate for the Ph.D, degree, the instruction is largely individual. In the last year we were just coming into the situation where a considerable proportion of the students were receiving such instruction. The full impact of this situation will be felt in the current year. Most members of the senior staff will be directing the theses of some 10 to 15 students. Some officers will be responsible for even larger numbers. With the numbers we are attempting to handle on the graduate level the single task of examining candidates in the general and special examinations becomes a major consideration. During the last academic year the staff conducted general and special examinations. Such an amount of examining and of individual instruction on the graduate level has its bearing on tutorial instruction for undergraduates.

The Department voted to accept the large number of graduate students now on our rolls only after considerable investigation and discussion. It is my own personal opinion that we have set our limit altogether too high. However, the pressure upon us for admission has been very strong and our obligations to the Littauer School, where the pressure is hardly less, just be observed.

This matter of the size of the Graduate School in the immediate future is one of our most difficult problems. It will receive our attention in the current year.

In the last two or three years these reports have noted certain experiments in instruction, especially in connection with Economics A. Such experiments are dependent upon the presence of a considerable number of able and mature young men with adequate teaching experience, as well as upon a margin of free time. Both of these factors are lacking to such a degree that substantial and outstanding progress could not be expected but the plans were active and some progress was made.

If full tutorial instruction is not resumed by the Department, experimentation in undergraduate courses is imperative and this we have planned. It is our expectation that a good deal in the way of individual guidance can be accomplished in connection with Economics A and some of our middle group courses. We believe that we can make our instruction more efficient with a much smaller personnel and at much less expense than the tutorial system would involve. However, a definitive decision has not been reached on all of these matters.

It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the heavy instructional demands discussed above affected our research projects. Furthermore, the officers of this Department are severely handicapped by the lack of research funds. This dearth of research funds is a question which has been placed before our Visiting Committee.

In spite of the difficulties involved, the contributions of the members of the Department were substantial. The following books were published:

Teoria de la Competencie Monopolica, by E. H. Chamberlin, Mexico, 1946. (Spanish translation of The Theory of Monopolistic Competition)

Economic Policy and Full Employment, by A. H. Hansen. McGraw-Hill. 1947.

The New Economics, S. B. Harris, editor and contributor Knopf. 1947.

The National Debt and the New Economics, by S. E. Harris. 1947.

Income and Employment, by T. Morgan. Prentice-Hall. 1947.

New enlarged edition of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, by J. A. Schumpeter.

The Challenge of Industrial Relations, by S. H. Slichter, Cornell University Press, 1947.

Postwar Monetary Plans and other Essays, by J. Williams. Knopf, 3rd edition. 1947.

articles were published.

Although we are able to record only one new volume and one republication of an older volume in the Harvard Economic Series for the past year, four other volumes are in the hands of the printer and will appear in the current year.

In the area of distinctions or honors, I believe the only items to be noted concern Dean Edward S. Mason. Last spring he was appointed Economic Advisor to Secretary of State Marshall at the Moscow Conference. In July he was appointed a member of President Truman’s Committee on Foreign Aid.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1947-1948

September 30, 1948

Dear Provost Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year 1947-48.

The report on the work of the Department for the last year can be given in part in the same terms that have been employed in the last three reports. Our major problems have been quantitative and have presented the same difficulties that were emphasized in the other post-war reports. However, we believe that the last year did reach the peak of the load and that the pressure of numbers will abate steadily. The problem of building and maintaining an effective junior staff was hardly less than in the preceding years. Crowded classrooms and insufficiently trained assistants imposed unduly severe burdens upon the senior teachers responsible for course instruction. Some improvement, especially in the middle group courses, is in prospect for the coming year but it is probable that two to three years more will be necessary before these courses will be adequately staffed. In the introductory course which relies heavily upon a large number of young instructors and teaching fellows, the situation is still serious but latterly we have been able to utilize young men with more satisfactory preparation and training. Because of the heavy demands for the services of these young men by other institutions, the turnover is large leaving us each year with a relatively inexperienced staff.

Graduate instruction continues to make unusual demands upon the time and energy of the senior staff. During the past year we conducted 109 general examinations and 26 special examinations. Examining and the related task of directing the research of candidates for the higher degrees undoubtedly have an incidence upon undergraduate instruction which raises questions of fundamental importance. It is encouraging that the number of graduate students is, through the action of the Department, declining.

In spite of the difficulties presented by the numbers of undergraduates and graduates, the Department, perhaps belatedly, has given particular consideration to its commitments in the Areas and in General Education. A report on General Education is enclosed.

Also, the Department has considered at length and in detail various problems of instruction, particularly undergraduate instruction. These considerations will be continued in the current year. By completely revising the content of our basic courses it may be possible to increase the effectiveness of our instruction and reduce somewhat the number of courses offered. A preliminary report on this aspect of our work is included.

A year ago I noted that many of our senior officers were handicapped severely by the lack of research funds. As you know, it can now be recorded with sincere satisfaction that a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and that several projects under the auspices of the Research Marketing Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Charles H. Hood Dairy Foundation, the Ferguson Foundation Fund, and the Carnegie Corporation Fund, meet the situation effectively for some of our officers. The set-up of these projects promises not only to be of great value to the professors in charge of the research but it contributes heavily to the training of our most promising graduate students and younger officers.

The following books were published by members of the Department:

How Shall We Pay for Education? by Seymour Harris. Harpers.

Stabilization Subsidies by Seymour Harris. Historical Report Series, U.S. Gov’t.

Price Control of International Commodities by Seymour Harris. Archives Volume, Historical Records Office.

International Monetary Policies, by Gottfried Haberler (with Lloyd Metzler and Robert Triffin). Postwar Economic Series, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors.

Problemas de Conjuntura e de Politica Economica, by Gottfried Haberler. Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janiero.

Production in the United States, 1866-1914, by Edwin Frickey. Harvard University Press.

Seventy-eight articles have been published. Three books were published in the Harvard Economic Series during the past year. Five volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year.

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin has been appointed to succeed Dr. Arthur B. Monroe as Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Both the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics are well established intellectually and financially. With the demands of instruction and research, the editing of the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as the direction of the Harvard Economic Series, raises questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

 In the area of distinctions or honors, Professor Joseph A. Schumpeter was chosen to be President of the American Economic Association for 1948. Dean Edward S. Mason was awarded an honorary degree, D. Litt, from Williams College, June, 1948.

Very sincerely,
H. H. Burbank

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1948-1949

September 28, 1949

Dear Provost Buck:

The pattern of the report of the Department of Economics on the work of the last year is essentially the same as the other reports for the post-war years. Indeed, not a little of the introduction to the report of a year ago could be utilized in the current report. The quantitative side of our work has been among our major problems. I think I was correct in predicting that the peak of the load would be passed in 1948-49. For the year 1949-50, numbers, particularly on the graduate level, will be approximately less although the total is still beyond the capacities of our senior staff.

Again I can repeat that the problem of building and maintaining a junior staff presents great difficulties. We have strengthened our position on the level of the assistant professor but we are unable to hold our most promising young Ph.D’s for appointment at the instructor level. All of our undergraduate instruction suffers because of this factor, but Economics 1 (the introductory course) is affected particularly. The demand for these young men by other institutions continues at a high level resulting in a high rate of turnover and leaving us sech year with a relatively inexperienced staff. [end of p. 1]

[Note: need to replace unfocussed image of page 2]

[p. 3 begins ] …expectation that we will be able to revise our general examination effectively.

In the post-war years the Department has been striving to meet its obligations to General Education and to the areas. We believe that we have made an excellent beginning in both General Education and in the Russian Area. We are still actively engaged in the attempt to strengthen our position in the Chinese Area. This is exceedingly difficult but I believe that some progress is being made.

Last year we were able to record with great satisfaction that some research projects were being established satisfactorily. These projects under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation and under the auspices of various groups interested in agriculture and marketing are now going forward successfully and up proving to be important for us not only as research projects but also because of their general effect upon a relatively large group of our graduate students. We can now give a type of training to our most promising men which would have been impossible without such projects. It should be emphasized at this point that other areas of interest need research funds.

The following books were published:

Collective Bargaining: Principles and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1949, by John I. Dunlop.

Labor in Norway by Walter Galenson. Harvard University Press, 1949.

Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, by Alvin Hansen McGraw-Hill, 1949.

The European Recovery Program, by Seymour E. Harris. Harvard University Press.

Foreign Economic Policy for the U.S., edited by Seymour E. Harris, Harvard University Press.

Price Control of International Commodities, by Seymour E. Harris. Archives Volume for Historical Records Office.

Saving American Capitalism, edited by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Economic Planning, by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Post-war Monetary Plans and Other Essays, by John H. Williams. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

The American Economy, Its Problems and Prospects, by Sumner H. Slichter. Knopf.

There were 62 articles published by members of the Department during the past year. Five books were published in the Harvard Economic Studies and two volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year. There has been a total of 86 books published in the Harvard Economic Studies to this date.

It should be recorded that both the Quarterly Journal of Economics under the editorship of Professor Chamberlin and the Review of Economics and Statistics have prospered during the year. Again I do feel it necessary to refer to the fact that editing the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics and the carrying forward of the Harvard Economic Studies continues to raise questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions and honors, Professor Slichter was awarded honorary degrees (LL.D.) from the following universities: Lehigh University, Harvard University, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin and Northwestern University. Professor

Haberler was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Economics (“Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaft honoris causa”) from Handelshochschule, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Dr. Galbraith was awarded the President’s Certificate of Merit, Medal of Merit Board, for services in Price Control and Economic Stabilization during the war.

Sincerely
[Harold H. Burbank]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

___________________________

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

In each of the reports for the last three years, emphasis has been placed upon two matters; our efforts to handle the increased numbers incident to the war, particularly on the graduate level, and our attempts to revise and improve our instruction, particularly on the undergraduate level.

With a good deal of satisfaction we are able to report that for the last year substantial progress has been made in each of these areas. Immediately after the war the number of our graduate students increased from approximately 100 to nearly 300. By raising the standards of admission and giving the most careful scrutiny to applications, the numbers on the graduate level are now well under 200, and will be reduced somewhat more for 1950-51.

The work of supervising and directing graduate students falls very unevenly upon the various members of the senior staff. Even with not over 150 graduate students some members of the staff will carry an inordinate part of individual instruction and of examining for the higher degrees. Further, large graduate classes tend to dilute the instruction.

On the undergraduate level the Department has revised its requirements for concentration, including the content of many of our key courses. This plan has been accepted by the Faculty and is now in operation. It is an ambitious scheme that involves not only a change in the content and coverage of our key courses but it also involves the strengthening the staff in these courses and an integration of course work with tutorial work. Undoubtedly it will take some years to complete this plan. Much depends upon our ability to build a strong junior staff, especially on the annual instructor level. When this reorganized instruction is in full operation it is expected that a number of courses now offered for undergraduates may be deleted.

Also it is with a good deal of satisfaction that after a period of suspension tutorial instruction has been reestablished and is developing steadily. The period of suspension was unfortunate but probably inevitable. We are now approaching a position with respect to both graduate and undergraduate instruction that at least approximates a normal situation, with a possibility of a carefully planned and well integrated system of undergraduate instruction. As a part of this plan increased attention has been given to reestablishing the General Examinations on something approximating the level of earlier years. Since we are lacking experienced tutors the establishment of tutorial instruction is a very real task but it is believed it can be done successfully.

We have been fortunate to have been able to attract to the Graduate School a group of unusually able young men. The very top of this group represents ability of the very highest order. Unfortunately only rarely can we retain the services of these young men even on the assistant professor level. However, the Department is keenly aware of the difficulties it faces in recruitment and every effort is being made to follow the progress of the product of other schools as well as the progress of our own young scholars.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1949-1950

January 5, 1951

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

I am now somewhat belatedly submitting the report of the Department of Economics for 1949-50.

I. Undergraduate Instruction

Four hundred eighty-two Harvard and Radcliffe students concentrated in economics in 1949-50 as compared with 608 in the previous year. The enrolment in Economics 1 was 402 as compared with 546 in the previous year. Seventy-seven students graduated with honors; 20 obtaining magna cum laude and 57 cum laude.

The entire senior staff gave courses at the undergraduate level— a practice that distinguishes Harvard sharply from institutions such as Columbia and Chicago which restrict the activities of some of the most talented members of the staff to graduate instruction. Nevertheless, the strength of our undergraduate teaching has depended very largely on the unusually fine group of assistant professors we now have on our staff.

During the past couple of years the Department has been gradually moving toward restoration of the tutorial system and last spring it decided finally to give tutorial instruction to all honors students in their junior and senior years,

II. Graduate Instruction

Two hundred graduate students in economics were in residence last year as compared with 234 the previous year. The Department gave 58 general examinations for the Ph.D. and 47 special examinations.

The number of graduate students is still too large to handle effectively with the present staff. The students themselves justifiably complain that they cannot see enough of the members of the faculty. However if they did see as much of the faculty as they wanted to, the faculty would have little time for reading and research and the quality of instruction would decline. We are planning to deal with this problem as far as possible by making sure that more graduate students attend reasonably small seminars and do have an opportunity to get to know at least one faculty member reasonably well.

I believe that the quality of our graduate work has suffered through overemphasis on course work and preoccupation with grades. We tend to make graduate instruction too much of a prolongation of undergraduate instruction. We also tend too much in the direction of specialization and provide too little encouragement for students to become coordinated in the whole economic field. The remedy for this state of affairs depends more upon the general attitude of the Department rather than any specific measures of reorganization. We shall do whatever is possible to encourage students in the feeling that their main function here is to acquire the maturity that is essential for scholarship rather than to accumulate a collection of pieces of isolated information.

III. Research

Professors Mason, Leontief, Black, Galbraith and Dunlop are all conducting organized research projects within the Department. Apart from their substantive value, these projects give a considerable number of graduate students an opportunity to take part in organized research activity. I believe these projects have an important part to play in the future of the Department as a whole rather than as special interests of individual members. However, I do not share the view that most of our intellectual activities should be directed towards organized research. There is danger that we may become a research bureaucracy and that the merits of individual scholarship may achieve less recognition than they deserve. While the research project is invaluable in training the students in specialized activity, it does little to cultivate the maturity that should be one of the most important products of our graduate training.

IV. The Staff of the Department

Professor Schumpeter’s death has meant a loss to the Department that cannot be covered by any individual that we now have on the staff or could get from the outside. The only way to make up for his absence is for the present members of the faculty to direct part of their attention to the aspects of economic thought in which Schumpeter was particularly interested. This has in part been done. I think it is true to say that since Schumpeter’s death his own work has received more attention in Harvard classrooms than it received while he was alive.

The only new additions to the to the staff at the professorial level in 1949-50 were assistant professors Orcutt and Sawyer. Orcutt is giving a course at the graduate level and the undergraduate level on empirical economies in which he stresses the quantitative aspects of economic theory. He is also a first-class statistician. Since the resignation of Professor Crum we have had only one professional statistician in the Department, and it seems highly desirable to have at least two. Sawyer will add considerable strength to the Department’s work in economic history although he will spend half of his time in the General Education program.

VI. [sic] Distinctions

Members of the Department received the following distinctions:

Professor Edward Chamberlin — An honorary degree (Dr.) awarded by the Universita Catholica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. December 1949.

Professor Sumner Slichter — President, Industrial Relations Research Association.

Professor Gottfried Haberler — President, International Economic Association for 1950 (held by Professor Schumpeter at the time of his death).

I am attaching a bibliography of the writings of the members of the Department. [not included in this folder]

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Smithies

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

Images Source: Burbank (left) from the Harvard Class Album 1946, Smithies (right) from the Harvard Class Album 1952.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Promotion for Harold H. Burbank, Job Offer for Allyn Young 1919

This provides some back-story to the rise of Harold Hitchings Burbank in the Harvard economics department. Coincidentally, some light is cast on the salary negotiations involved in the hire of Allyn Young, as well as the hopes the department of economics held in the prospect of Young joining the economics department.

Chairman Bullock’s characterization of Burbank “He does everything willingly, but we are already in danger of driving the willing horse to death” is not exactly the language a chairman today would use today to justify a promotion for an assistant professorship…I hope.

___________________________

Harvard University
Department of Economics

F.W. Taussig
T.N. Carver
W.Z. Ripley
C.J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W.M. Cole
O.M.W. Sprague
E.E. Day
B.M. Anderson, Jr.
J.S. Davis
H.H. Burbank
E.E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
12 o’clock. January 28, 1919.

Dear Mr. Lovell:

I have failed thus far to get in touch with Dr. Burbank, but will leave word at his house, and he will doubtless come to see you tomorrow.

I wish to express the hope that you will not propose any arrangement to him by which he will have to do any more work or make any more labor-consuming adjustment in connection with his work this year. He does everything willingly, but we are already in danger of driving the willing horse to death. Your suggestion that recent graduates now studying in the Law School be put in to do section work in Economics A. involves, even tho these new men are placed in charge of sections which began work in September, an amount of labor, responsibility, and worry on Burbank’s part which I feel strongly It would be unfair to ask of him.

I have not myself been one of the real sufferers from the war, so far as University work is concerned. Such extra work as I have had to do for the men in Washington has been comparatively limited in amount, and some of my ordinary work has been decreased so that I have not suffered greatly. But the younger men who have stood by us have had a bad time, and I feel so keenly that it is unjust not to give them relief as soon as we can do it that I hate to think of Burbank’s being asked to make any further readjustments in Economics A.

You will recall, if you will review the last two years, that I have not found difficulties in the way of doing the things which it was necessary to ask the Department to do, and have been ready to disorganize, or readjust and adapt, to any necessary extent. I have further found the ways of doing this; and only last fall, in spite of the fact that I felt it was hardly right for Day to be taken from us, I went to a deal of trouble to fix up an arrangement under which he might be released. If I saw any arrangement now, I would surely make it, as I have done in the past. If Burbank can think of any arrangement that I have not been able to think of, I shall be glad to have it put into effect; but I wish to represent to you that it will not only be bad for the course, but very unfair for Burbank to ask him to take young and inexperienced instructors whose heart is in the Law School work anyway, and fit them into section work in Economics A at this time. Moreover, this arrangement involves delay of at least ten days or a fortnight, and our men need relief at the earliest moment. There are certainly no suitable men in the Law School now; and if any register next week, it will take time to find them out, to make arrangement, and to have them get up their work so that they are fit to take charge of a section. should think that under this plan it would be more rather than less than a fortnight before our men would get any relief. If you could know from actual contact with conditions what I have been compelled to know about the work of our young men during the war, I believe you would feel as strongly as I do that what they need now is immediate relief and not a plan by which they will have to spend the next month breaking in green, and possibly inefficient, substitutes. By the time that Burbank gets Economics A running smoothly again, if, indeed, that can be done at all, the term will be most over and the acute need of relief will be almost at an end.

Sincerely yours,
[Signed] Charles J. Bullock

President A. Lawrence Lowell

___________________________

Harvard University
Department of Economics

F.W. Taussig
T.N. Carver
C.J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W.M. Cole
O.M.W. Sprague
E.E. Day
J.S. Davis
H.H. Burbank
E.E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
March 8, 1919.

My dear Mr. Lovell:

Dr Burbank informs me that he has received from Dartmouth College the offer of a full professorship, and this makes it necessary for the Corporation to consider whether it desires to retain him at Harvard. You will recall that two years ago the Department of Economics recommended that Burbank be advanced to an assistant professorship. This was at the time when he received from Chicago University the offer of an assistant professorship with full charge of their instruction in Public Finance. A year ago I brought the matter to your attention, but you desired to postpone action until Burbank’s book had been published. Last June I asked whether you would be willing to waive the question of publication of Burbank’s book, which was nearly, but not quite, completed. in order that he might accept employment from a committee of the American Economic Association, which would both be remunerative and give him an unusual opportunity to investigate a subject in which he is greatly interested, namely, the practical operation of the Federal income and excess profits taxes. You sent me word through Mr. Pierce that you would waive the requirement, and that you would be glad to have Mr. Burbank accept this employment.

Mr. Burbank made a distinct success of his work for the Economic Association, and such success as the Committee achieved was largely due to him. This year he has been conducting Economics A, and has demonstrated his ability to handle that course in a satisfactory manner. It seems to me that he is an invaluable man for the Department, and I hope that the Corporation will be able nor to advance him to an assistant professorship.

You also asked me this morning to write you concerning Allyn A. Young, whom we have had under consideration for a number of years.

In the winter of 1916-17 the full professors of the Department of Economics, after carefully looking over the field, recommended to you that Mr. Young be called to a full professorship at Harvard University.

You authorized me to write to Young and inquire whether he could be secured, and if so, at what salary; and I was able to report to you that Young would come to Harvard if he were offered a full professorship at a salary of $4500. At this juncture the United States entered the war, and the matter was necessarily dropped.

Last December Professors Gay and Haskins called my attention to the fact that Young was likely to receive an offer from Columbia University, and I held a hurried conference with them, and they later conferred with you. Action was postponed, inasmuch as Mr. Young was going to the Peace Conference as exert on economic resources; and it appeared probable that, if we could offer him a professorship at $5000, we could secure him for Harvard, even tho another offer developed elsewhere.

I hope that the Corporation will feel able to extend a call to Professor Young at this time. Since I talked with you this morning, I have met Professors Carver and Ripley, and they both concur in the recommendation which I make. Professor Gay gave you his opinion in December; and since that time I have heard from Taussig, who still is of the opinion that we ought to call Young.

I have no further knowledge as to the amount of salary that it would be necessary to offer. I assume that we should have to offer at least $4500, which was the figure that would have been necessary in 1916; and in view of Young’s increased experience and enhanced reputation, I should think that a salary of $5000 would be justified.

It is, I believe, important for the Department to secure Young at this time. We had in 1917 a Department of Economics which was recognized as one of the strongest in the country; but we needed Young at that time, and shall need him still more now in order to develop our work during the next decade. With him, I believe we should have a department that would be recognized as very clearly the strongest department in the country.

There is one further consideration to be taken into account in connection with extending a call to Young. If our economic research enterprise proves permanent, Young would be absolutely the best man in the country to coöperate with Professor Persons in carrying through the work we have undertaken. With Young and Persons in the economic research undertaking, we should have almost a monopoly of high class statistical brains. Young’s appointment was recommended by the Department in the winter of 1916-17, before the Committee on Economic Research was established, and without any reference to the development of that Committee’s work. The Department recommended him because they thought he was the one man whom the Department needed. The point I am now making is that Young is the one man whom our economic research undertaking needs, so that it seems upon every account desirable to add him to our staff next fall. Under the arrangement that I have in mind, if our economic research enterprise proves permanent, Professor Persons could give two-thirds of his time to the Committee on Economic Research and one-third to teaching, and Professor Young could give two-thirds of his time to teaching and one-third to the Committee on Economic Research. By this arrangement the Department of Economics would gain two teachers of the very highest reputation at an expense amounting only to the salary of one full professor, while the Committee on Economic Research would secure the services of the two minds in the country which are best adapted for the immediate work it has in hand.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Charles J. Bullock

President A. Lawrence Lowell

___________________________

Carbon Copy of Letter from President Lowell to Professor Bullock

March 8, 1919

Dear Mr Bullock:

I understand that Mr Burbank is feeling uneasy about his promotion, and has been made valuable offers from elsewhere. Mr Pierce, at my request, wrote you last May that the completion of his book was not essential to his promotion to an assistant professorship. He is as near as possible the soul of the body of tutors; and I think it is important that we should make it clear that good work as a tutor will receive as much recognition as an equally good conduct of lecture courses. Would it not be well, therefore, if Mr Burbank were appointed an assistant professor now? There is a Corporation meeting on Monday, and I should be very glad if you could communicate with me before it takes place, if you come home in time.

Very truly yours,
[stamp] A. Lawrence Lowell

Professor Charles J. Bullock
6 Channing Street
Cambridge, Mass.

Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers 1917-1919. Box 124. Folder 1689.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Committee Assignments, 1972-73

 

“The Division of Administration is limited by the Extent of the Department” might have been a chapter title in a history of economics written by Adam Smith were he to have lived two centuries after the publication of the Wealth of Nations. I transcribed and now post the following list of administrative committees/tasks and the names of members of the Harvard economics department belonging to each during the 1972-73 academic year.  The list comes from the economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron’s papers at the Harvard Archives. I have paired this artifact with the printed list of economics faculty teaching economics courses in 1972-73 from the annual Harvard course catalogue.

_____________________________

Committee Assignments for 1972-73

  1. Undergraduate Instruction

Otto Eckstein, Chairman
Elisabeth Allison
Abram Bergson
James Duesenberry
Jerry Green
William Raduchel
Martin Spechler
Francois Wilkinson

  1. Examing Committee

Benjamin Friedman, Chairman
Richard Caves
Abram Bergson
Robert Dorfman
Jerry Greene
Martin Spechler

Graduate Instruction

Robert Dorfman, Chairman
Truman Bewley
Hendrik Houthakker
Gregory Ingram
Richard Musgrave
Thomas Schelling
Gail Pierson

Mathematics Examination

Truman Bewley
David Starrett

Theory Examination

Arthur Smithies, Chairman
Zvi Griliches
Glenn Jenkins
John Lintner
Stephen Marglin
Janet Yellen
Tsuneo Ishikawa (Spring)

Quantitative Methods Examination

Lance Taylor, Chairman
Edward Leamer
William Raduchel
Howard Raiffa
T. N. Tideman
Thomas Horst (Spring)

Economic History Examination

Alexander Gerschenkron
Paul David

Ph.D. in Business Economics

John Lintner

Fellowships and Admissions

Zvi Griliches, Chairman
Elisabeth Allison
Hendrik Houthakker
T. N. Tidema
Marcelo Selowsky

Less Developed Countries Recruitment

Richard Mallon

Recruitment of Black Students

T. N. Tideman

  1. Non-Tenure Personnel

John Kain, Chairman
Richard Caves
James Duesenberry
Harvey Leibenstein
Marc Roberts
David Starrett
Janet Yellen

Placement Officer

Dwight Perkins

  1. Publications

Harvard Economic Studies

Richard Caves, Chairman
Edward Leamer

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Richard Musgrave, Editor

Review of Economics & Statistics

Hendrik Houthakker, Editor

  1. Wells Prize

Harvey Leibenstein, Chair
Alexander Geschenkron
Jerry Green

  1. Political Economy Lectures

Wassily Leontief, Chairman
Stephen Marglin

  1. Schumpeter Prize

Arthur Smithies, Chairman
Wassily Leontief

  1. Goldsmith Prize

Gregory Ingram, Chairman
Richard Musgrave

  1. Department Minutes

Martin Spechler

  1. Harvard Computing Center

William Raduchel

  1. Universities-National Bureau Committee

John Lintner

  1. Administrative Committee, Harvard Institute for Economic Research

William Raduchel, Acting Chairman
James Duesenberry
John T. Dunlop
Zvi Griliches
Dale Jorgenson (fall)
Dwight Perkins

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Alexander Gerschenkron, Box 3, Folder “Economics (General) 1973/74, 1 of 2”.

_____________________________

1972-73
Faculty of the Department of Economics

James S. Duesenberry, William Joseph Maier Professor of Money and Banking (Chairman)

Elisabeth S. Allison, Assistant Professor of Economics

Kenneth J. Arrow, Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Abram Bergson, George F. Baker Professor of Economics

Truman F. Bewley, Assistant Professor of Economics and of Mathematics

Samuel S. Bowles, Associate Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Richard E. Caves, Professor of Economics

Hollis B. Chenery, Lecturer on Economics

David C. Cole, Lecturer on Economics

Paul A. David, Visiting Professor of Economics (Stanford University)

Kenneth M. Deitch, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Robert Dorfman, David A. Wells Professor of Economics

John T. Dunlop, Lamont University Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Otto Eckstein, Professor of Economics

Martin S. Feldstein, Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Benjamin M. Friedman, Assistant Professor of Economics

John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics (on leave spring term)

James D. Gavan, Lecturer on Population Sciences (Public Health) Lecturer on Economics (spring term only)

Alexander Gerschenkron, Walter S. Barker Professor of Economics

Richard T. Gill, Lecturer on Economics

Carl H. Gotsch, Lecturer on Economics

Jerry Green, Assistant Professor of Economics

Zvi Griliches, Professor of Economics

Albert O. Hirschman, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Political Economy (on leave 1972-73)

Thomas Horst, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave fall term)

Hendrik S. Houthakker, Professor of Economics

Gregory Ingram, Assistant Professor of Economics

Dale W. Jorgenson, Professor of Economics (on leave spring term)

John F. Kain, Professor of Economics

Leonard Kopelman, Lecturer on Economics

Edward Leamer, Assistant Professor of Economics

Harvey Leibenstein, Andelot Professor of Economics and Population

Wassily W. Leontief, Henry Lee Professor of Economics

John Lintner, George Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration (Business)

Arthur MacEwan, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

George F. Mair, Visiting Professor of Population Economics (Smith College)

Richard D. Mallon, Lecturer on Economics

Stephen A. Marglin, Professor of Economics

Albert J. Meyer, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Lecturer on Economics

Richard A. Musgrave, Harold Hitchings Burbank Professor of Political Economy; Professor of Economics (Law)

Gustav Papanek, Lecturer on Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Dwight H. Perkins, Professor of Modern China Studies and of Economics

Gail Pierson, Assistant Professor of Economics

William J. Raduchel, Assistant Professor of Economics

Howard Raiffa, Frank Plumpton Ramsey Professor of Managerial Economics (Business)

Marc J. Roberts, Associate Professor of Economics

Sherwin Rosen, Visiting Professor of Economics (University of Rochester)

Henry Rosovsky, Frank W. Taussig Research Professor of Economics

Michael Rothschild, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Thomas C. Schelling, Professor of Economics

Marcelo Selowsky, Assistant Professor of Economics

Arthur Smithies, Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy

Martin C. Spechler, Lecturer on Economics and Social Studies

David A. Starrett, Associate Professor of Economics

Joseph J. Stern, Lecturer on Economics

Carl M. Stevens, Visiting Professor of Economics (Reed College)

Lance Taylor, Assistant Professor of Economics

T. Nicolaus Tideman, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave fall term)

Thomas A. Wilson, Visiting Professor of Canadian Studies (University of Toronto)

Janet Yellen, Assistant Professor of Economics

Other Faculty Offering Instruction in the Department of Economics

Francis M. Bator, Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School) (Public Policy, West European Studies)

Ralph E. Berry, Jr., Associate Professor of Economics (Public Health)

William M. Capron, Lecturer on Political Economy (Kennedy School) (Political Economy and Government)

Peter B. Doeringer, Associate Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School)

Rashi Fein, Professor of Economics of Medicine at the Center for Community Health and Medical Care (Medicine)

Sherwood Frey, Assistant Professor of Business Administration (Business)

Herbert M. Gintis, Lecturer on Education (Education)

Joseph J. Harrington, Associate Professor of Environmental Health Engineering (Public Health)

Henry D. Jacoby, Associate Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School)

James R. Kurth, Associate Professor of Government (Government)

Walter J. McCann, Jr., Associate Professor of Education (Education)

Harold A. Thomas, Jr., Gordon McKay Professor of Civil and Sanitary Engineering (Engineering and Applied Physics)

Richard J. Zeckhauser, Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School)

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard & Radcliffe, 1972-73, pp. 183-185.

Image Source: Littauer Center (July 1970). Harvard University Archives.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Visiting Committee Reports. 1895, 1901, 1903, 1906, 1908, 1914

Around the turn of the 20th century visiting committees to the Harvard economic department were supposed to submit reports to the Board of Overseers of Harvard College at least once every three years. When I first saw that at archive.org there were six items listed dealing with Harvard’s visiting committees I was excited, hoping to find a rich mine of material as extensive as Arthur F. Brimmer’s 1974 Report of Economics Department Visiting Committee. As you can see from below, quite the opposite is the case. The early Visiting Committees submitted the nano-reports transcribed and posted below.

Perhaps one indication of the purely formal nature of the reporting system is that the “department of political economy” was renamed the “department of economics” in 1892 but the visiting committee was still referred to the visiting committee “on political economy” as late as 1912-1913.

__________________________________

LII.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO VISIT THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.
May 22, 1895

To the Board of Overseers of Harvard College:

ln the department of Political Economy the Professors feel the pressure of increased numbers of students, the lack of satisfactory space for lecture rooms, and the lack of time for independent work and research.

The difficulty is most serious in Economics 1. The lecture room available is ill-fitted for speaking or hearing, and the great number of students make it impossible, with the present corps of instructors, to divide them into sections small enough for adequate teaching and discussion. The difficulty has been met, as far as practicable, by strenuous and continuous work on the part of the Professors and instructors. This department, like others, feels the want of more books for reference, and of more library space for books and reading.

ARTHUR T. LYMAN, Chairman

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from February 6, 1890 to January 8, 1902. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1902), p. 299.

__________________________________

XCIX.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY.
June 5, 1901.

To the Board of Overseers of Harvard College:––

The Committee on Political Economy has had this year and last year long conferences with the Professors in the Department, and members of the Committee have also corresponded with the head of the Department.

A very large proportion of the students take Political Economy, and many take the more advanced courses. The courses seem to be satisfactorily conducted and the lecture system is supplemented by conferences and teaching in sections.

A course in Accounting has been taken by a considerable number of students, and next year an excellent programme is proposed for a course in business law. It is intended that such special courses should be confined to graduates or to seniors, and it seems best that they should not interfere with the general and broader courses of instruction in this or any other department.

The great loss to the University and to the Department of Political Economy from the death of Professor Charles F. Dunbar has been referred to by the President in his report.

For the Committee,

ARTHUR T. LYMAN,
Chairman

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from February 6, 1890 to January 8, 1902. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1902), p. 621.

__________________________________

CXXXIV.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY.
September 30, 1903.

To the Board of Overseers of Harvard College:—

The Committee on Political Economy met the professors and instructors.

Professor Taussig, who has been absent for a long time on account of illness, will resume a part of his work in October.

There continues to be a very large attendance in the courses of Economics — 519 in Economics 1, which deals with the general outlines of the subject, and one hundred or more in four other courses on banking, economic history of the United States, problems of labor and industrial organization, and currency legislation with recent experience and theory. These large classes involve the usual difficulties in giving interesting and adequate instruction, but they are gratifying evidences of the interest in this important subject. They make necessary many instructors for proper division of large classes, and consequently large expense.

The list of courses in the Catalogue shows the wide range of the instruction.

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, published by the Department, is well worthy of your attention. In recent numbers Professor Taussig has given an interesting and instructive history of the iron industry in this country, and the sugar problem has been fully treated.

Many other articles on important practical and theoretical questions have appeared in this Journal, which, like all publications of this class, needs the increased subscriptions and financial support to which its merits fully entitle it.

For the Committee,

ARTHUR T. LYMAN,
Chairman

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from January 8, 1902 to July 30, 1909. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1909), p. 741.

Visiting Committee Members (1903):

Arthur T. Lyman, Charles S. Fairchild, Horace E. Deming, John E. Thayer, John F. Moors.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from January 8, 1902 to July 30, 1909. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1909),  following p. 708.

__________________________________

CLXXVIII.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY.
May 9, 1906.

To the Board of Overseers of Harvard College:—

The Committee on Political Economy met the Professors in the Department at a long conference. They are able, accomplished, and interesting, and there is, as usual, a very large attendance on their various courses of instruction. These courses deal not only with economic theory, but with transportation, finance, taxation, currency legislation, and banking, economic history, the distribution of wealth, labor, socialism, commercial law, and accounting.

The course on the principles of accounting is taken chiefly by Graduates and Seniors, and it is the purpose of the Department not to sacrifice to it the general and fundamental courses, but to confine it mainly to Seniors or Graduates rather than to follow the plan of some of the Western State Universities in which courses are given throughout the college terms treating in an elaborate way the practical details of business in various branches.

The large attendance in several of the courses in Economics requires subdivisions and conferences, and instructors for such divisions. There is naturally considerable difficulty in securing the desired or desirable instructors, owing to the small salaries that can be afforded and the consequent lack of permanency of employment, and it is much desired that the needed competency and permanency should, if possible, be secured by the assignment of some fellowships to the best of the instructors in the subdivisions and conferences. Much of the time of the Professors might be saved by the addition of various apparatus needed. Some help in this matter has been given by members of the Committee and others.

For the Committee,

ARTHUR T. LYMAN,
Chairman

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from January 8, 1902 to July 30, 1909. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1909), p. 925.

Visiting Committee Members (1906):

Arthur T. Lyman, Charles S. Fairchild, Horace E. Deming, John F. Moors, J. Wells Farley.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from January 8, 1902 to July 30, 1909. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1909), after p. 843.

__________________________________

CCVIII.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY.
April 8, 1908.

To the Board of Overseers of Harvard College:—

The Committee on Political Economy met the Professors of the Department, and considers that the conditions are satisfactory.

There seems to be nothing new to report, except that arrangements have become possible through the generosity of various persons for carrying on for five years advanced business courses, such as have been under consideration for several years past.

More space is needed for conferences and books, and some plans are under consideration for relief in these matters.

For the Committee,

ARTHUR T. LYMAN,
Chairman

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from January 8, 1902 to July 30, 1909. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1909), p. 1128.

Visiting Committee Members (1908):

Arthur T. Lyman, Frederic A. Delano, John F. Moors, Charles S. Fairchild, William Endicott, Jr., J. Wells Farley, Charles G. Washburn.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College from January 8, 1902 to July 30, 1909. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1909), after p. 1118.

__________________________________

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1913-14.
April 13, 1914.

5. Economics. — The enrolment of students in Economics for the first, half of the academic year shows a falling off from 1634 to 1520 students, the most significant loss taking place in the course on Banking. The amount of instruction offered at Harvard in Economics exceeds that offered at any other University except Michigan, while in the amount of money expended Harvard is far in the lead. The Committee notes the continuing eminence and prosperity of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, published by the Department since 1886, which maintains its place as one of the foremost periodicals in the subject in the English Language, and perhaps the foremost. It has the largest circulation of any periodical published by the University, except the Law Review, and there is no more certain way of making a reputation as a writer on Economic subjects than to publish an article in this journal. The most important need of the Department is a fund for the endowment of Economic Research, which will make possible the scientific investigation of pressing economic questions. A very interesting supplemental report is made by Mr. John Wells Morss, one of the members of the Committee, representing the views and experience of a man of business, rather than of a student of education. It should be read as a whole, as it is difficult to give a satisfactory impression of its interest and value by quotations or a summary.

Source: Appended to: Harvard University. Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College for the Academic Year, 1914-15. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1915), three pages after page 260.

Image Source: John Harvard statue, ca. 1904. U.S. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

Categories
Economics Programs Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Mid-year and Year-End Final Exams in Economics and Social Ethics, 1896-1897

 

The collection of transcribed Harvard semester examinations here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is growing slowly. This post adds the exam questions from 1896-1897 for all the economics courses and for Francis Peabody’s philosophy course “The Ethics of the Social Questions”. 

_____________________

From the Preface to the Announcements
for 1896-97

The courses primarily for Undergraduates are open (and in some cases recommended) to Graduate Students, but are not ordinarily counted towards any of the higher degrees. The courses for Graduates and Undergraduates are, under certain limitations, open to any properly qualified student. To the courses primarily for Graduates Undergraduates are admitted only on the recommendation of the Instructor.

No starred (*) course and no course of research can be taken without the previous consent of the Instructor….

By recent action of the Governing Boards, the requirement of two years of residence at this University of a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Doctor of Science has been rescinded. The minimum requirement of residence in now one year, this period being fixed for all degrees by the Statutes. It is not the purpose of the change thus made to lower the standards for these two degrees; but only to reduce the amount of compulsory residence at this University. (April, 1896).

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, pp. iii-iv.

_____________________

Philosophy 5.
The Ethics of the Social Questions.
1896-1897

Course Announcement

[Philosophy] 5. The Ethics of the Social Questions. — The problems of Poor-Relief, the Family, Temperance, and various phases of the Labor Question in the light of ethical theory. — Lectures, special researches, and required reading. Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Professor Peabody.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 26.

Course Enrollment

[Philosophy] 5. Professor Peabody. — The Ethics of the Social Questions. — The problems of Poor-Relief, the Family, Temperance, and various phases of the Labor Question in the light of ethical theory. — Lectures, special researches, and required reading. 3 hours.

Total 56: 1 Graduate, 31 Seniors, 10 Juniors, 3 Sophomores, 11 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1896-1897, p. 66.

*  *  *  *  *
[Mid-year examination,
still to be added]

*  *  *  *  *

Philosophy 5.
THE ETHICS OF THE SOCIAL QUESTIONS.
Year-End Examination,
1896-97

[This paper should be considered as a whole. The time should not be exhausted in answering a few questions, but such limit should be given to each answer as will permit the answering of all the questions in the time assigned.]

  1. Indicate, briefly, the place in the history of the modern Labor Question of:
    Chalmers;
    Von Ketteler;
    Lassalle;
    The Rochdale Pioneers;
    Carlyle;
  2. Ruskin as an Economist.
  3. The anarchist’s criticism of the socialist; the socialist’s criticism of the anarchist, and the communist as he is criticised by both.
  4. What do you understand to be the “quintessence” of socialism, as expounded by Schäffle; and what criticisms on this whole social programme appear to you most serious?
  5. Arbitration and conciliation — their differences, varieties, advantages, and limitations.
  6. The history of co-operation in Great Britain, its fortunes in the United States, and the conditions of its success.
  7. Various types of industrial partnership, — their special advantages and limitations.
  8. The Scandinavian Licensing System compared with the present Massachusetts Liquor Law. (Fanshawe, 187-229.)
  9. Sum up, briefly, the general doctrine of social duty which our study of various social questions is intended to illustrate.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, p. 7.

_____________________

ECONOMICS.
Primarily for Undergraduates.

_____________________

Economics 1.
Outlines of Economics,
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] 1. Outlines of Economics. — Principles of Political Economy. — Lectures on Economic Development, Social Questions, and Financial Legislation. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professors Taussig and Ashley, Asst. Professor Edward Cummings, and Dr. John Cummings.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 33.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 1. Professors Taussig and Ashley, Asst. Professor Edward Cummings, and Dr. John Cummings. Outlines of Economics. — Principles of Political Economy. — Lectures on Economic Development, Social Questions, and Financial Legislation. 3 hours.

Total 464: 1 Graduate, 40 Seniors, 131 Juniors, 235 Sophomores, 12 Freshmen, 45 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1896-1897, p. 65.

Economics 1.
Mid-year Examination,
1896-97

  1. “Productive labor is that which produces utilities fixed and
  2. embodied in material objects. All other labor, however useful, is classed as unproductive.” Why? or why not?
  3. Capital is the result of saving: capital is produced by labor; all capital is consumed. Can you reconcile these propositions?
  4. “Those circumstances of a country, in which population can with impunity increase at its utmost rate, are rare and transitory.” What are they? and why rare? What is the utmost rate?
  5. Give examples of (a) differences in wages arising from different degrees of attractiveness in different employments; (b) differences arising from natural monopolies.
  6. Suppose a tax were imposed on land precisely equal to the economic rent paid for its use; could the owner of the land shift the tax to his tenant by charging a higher rent than before?
  7. What is meant when it is said that rent does not enter into the cost of production?
  8. It is said to be immaterial whether a community has a large or a small stock of money; and it is said to be harmful for a community to resort to inconvertible paper. Can both of these propositions be sound?
  9. “With enormous shortsightedness, the people of the United States send abroad every year over one hundred millions of dollars, with which to pay for sugar which might have been produced at home.” Why, or why not, is there shortsightedness in this operation?
  10. Wherein does a country gain, if other countries demand more of its exports?
  11. In the stationary state. as described by Mill, what determines the rate of interest? the rate of wages?

Source: Harvard University Archives. [Examinations] Scrapbook of F. W. Taussig, p. 58.

Economics 1.
Year-end Examination,
1896-97

[Answer nine questions, selecting at least one from each of the four groups. Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions selected. Give your reasons in all cases.]

I.
  1. Mention a case in which the income received for the use of a piece of real estate is to be regarded as rent; one in which it is to be regarded as interest; and one in which the classification would be doubtful.
  2. Mention a commodity whose value is permanently governed by cost of production; one whose value is permanently governed by the equation of demand and supply; and one whose value is permanently affected by both causes.
  3. Does the gain from foreign trade arise from the sale of exports? from the purchase of imports?
II.
  1. Is the law of Rent stated by Mill applicable either to the German peasant of the early part of the century or to the American farmer of to-day? Give your reasons.
  2. What are the functions of the entrepreneur? Give some account of the origin of the entrepreneur
  3. Illustrate the influence of the feeling of nationality as an economic factor.
III.
  1. How far have English trade unions tried to control (a) the wages of labor? (b) the supply of labor? In what respects have they been most useful?
  2. What do you understand by the rise of the modern factory system? In what sense is this system responsible for what is known as the labor problem?
  3. If all the productive and distributive business of a community were in the hands of cooperative societies would the labor question cease to exist?
IV.
  1. Point out wherein the deposits of a bank resemble its notes, and wherein they differ from its notes; and consider why one or the other should be regarded as part of the circulating medium of the community.
  2. What was the amount outstanding (in round numbers) of legal-tender notes in 1867? in 1877? in 1897? What were the laws under which the notes outstanding at those several dates had been issued, and what was the state of the legislation then in force for their redemption?
  3. Wherein does the Reichsbank of Germany, as to its management of notes and deposits, resemble the Bank of France? Wherein the Bank of England?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, pp. 37-38.

_____________________

ECONOMICS
For Graduates and Undergraduates.

The Courses for Graduates and Undergraduates are open to students who have passed satisfactorily in Course 1. Courses 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are also open to Juniors and Seniors of good rank who take Course 1 at the same time; and Course 11 is open to students who have taken either Economics 1 or History 1.

_____________________

Economics 10.
The Mediaeval Economic History of Europe

[[Economics] *10. The Mediaeval Economic History of Europe. Tu., Th., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 12. Professor Ashley.]

Omitted in 1896-97.
Courses 10 and 11 are usually given
in alternate years.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 33.

_____________________

Economics 11.
The Modern Economic History of Europe and America (from 1600),
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] 11. The Modern Economic History of Europe and America (from 1600). Tu., Th., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 12. Professor Ashley.

Courses 10 and 11 are usually given in alternate years.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 33.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 11. Professor Ashley. The Modern Economic History of Europe and America (from 1600). 2 hours.

Total 29: 16 Graduates, 6 Seniors, 1 Junior, 1 Sophomore, 5 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1896-1897, p. 65.

Economics 11.
Mid-Year Examination,
1896-97

N. B. — Not more than eight questions must be attempted.

  1. Give some account of Asiatic commerce in the middle ages.
  2. Enumerate very briefly some of the reasons for which Genoa deserves attention in economic history.
  3. “The mooste part of the lordes have enclosed their demeyn lands and meadows and kept them in severalties.” (Fitzherbert, c. 1530). Explain the nature and effects of the action here described.
  4. What features, if any, were common to the Peasant Risings in the different countries of Western Europe in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries?
  5. Compare the action of the English government in relation to industry in the sixteenth century with that of the French government.
  6. “Our merchants may do well to provide for the Russians such wares as the Dutch nation doth serve them of.” Explain and comment.
  7. Describe the industrial condition of Norfolk in the time of Defoe.
  8. Explain, with illustrations, what is meant by the “territorial” period in German economic development.
  9. What impressions do you derive from Defoe’s Essay upon Projects as to the constitution, temper and interests of the business circles of London in his time?
  10. Explain the following terms Droit de vaine pâture, Société en commandite, Niederlegung von Hufen, Hausindustrie, Fondaco.
  11. Give a critical account of any really important work (not on the printed list) of which you have read any considerable portion in connection with this course.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97.

Economics 11.
Year-end Examination,
1896-97

N.B. – Not more than eight questions
must be attempted.
  1. “The fifteenth century was the golden age of the English labourer.” What is the evidence for that contention? How is that evidence to be interpreted?
  2. Explain the part played by Hamburg in the economic history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
  3. Give some account of the history, since the massacre of Amboyna, of the Dutch East Indian Empire.
  4. Indicate very briefly the chief points in Schmoller’s account of mercantilist policy. In what directions does it seem open to criticism?
  5. State the causes and criticize the alleged consequences of the drain of specie from the English colonies in the eighteenth century.
    [Not to be taken by those who have written theses on the Navigation Act.]
  6. “English industries could not have advanced so rapidly without protection.” Examine this statement.
  7. Describe the main features of English industrial life in the early part of the eighteenth century.
  8. What changes did the French Revolution make in the position of the rural population of France.
  9. Discuss the application of the Infant Industries argument to the United States during the early decades of the present century.
  10. Give some account of the competition between railroads and canals as means of transportation.
  11. What exactly were the English “Corn Laws,” repealed in 1846? Have the anticipations of Cobden been realized?
  12. “You made me look rather a fool, Arminius,” I began, “by what you primed me with in Germany last year about Stein settling your land question.” “I dare say you looked a fool,” says my Prussian boor, “but what did I tell you?” “Why,” says I, “you told me Stein had settled a land question like the Irish land question, and I said so in the Cornhill Magazine, and now the matter has come up again by Mr. Bright talking at Dublin of what Stein did, and it turns out he settled nothing like the Irish land question at all, but only a sort of title-commutation affair.” “Who says that?” asked Arminius. “A very able writer in the Times,” I replied. — May we have your opinion?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, p. 46.

_____________________

Economics 15.
The History and Literature of Economics to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] *15. The History and Literature of Economics to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. Mon., Wed., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 12. Professor Ashley.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 15. Professor Ashley. — The History and Literature of Economics to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. 2 hours.

Total 14: 10 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 2 Juniors.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1896-1897, p. 65.

Economics 15.
Mid-Year Examination,
1896-97

N.B. — Not more than eight questions
must be attempted.
  1. Explain the influence of the Greek conception of the State upon the economic speculation of Greek philosophers.
  2. “The sacredness of property is a notion far more fixed in modern than in ancient times.” Comment upon this remark
  3. Explain and illustrate the influence of the example of Sparta on Greek social thought.
  4. In what sense is it true that Plato anticipated Adam Smith’s teaching concerning division of labour?
  5. In what sense is it true that Aristotle anticipated the modern distinction between Value in Use and Value in Exchange.
  6. Set forth briefly Aristotle’s doctrine as to Chrematistic.
  7. Discuss the question as to whether Christianity destroyed slavery.
  8. What sanction, if any, has Socialism or Communism in the teaching of the Christian Fathers?
  9. Trace the early history of the doctrine of “interest” in the original sense of that word.
  10. Distinguish between the various senses attached to the term Mercantilism. Which do you think most convenient?
  11. What ideas prominent in modern Protectionist argument are absent from Mercantilism as represented by Mun?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97.

Economics 15.
Year-End Examination,
1896-97

N.B. — Not more than eight questions
must be attempted.
  1. Mention some of the practical questions which called forth economic pamphlets in the period 1650-1700, and give some illustrations.
  2. Illustrate and criticize the attitude of the mercantilist writers towards the regulation of internal industry.
  3. Explain the relation of Locke’s doctrine of price to the immediate purpose of his Considerations.
  4. Describe, as definitely as possible, the relation of the Physiocrats to the other reforming or revolutionary movements of their time.
  5. Criticize Adam Smith’s criticism of Physiocratic doctrine.
  6. What elements in his teaching do you conceive Adam Smith to have derived from Hume?
  7. What does Smith mean by “the component parts of the price of commodities”?
  8. Compare Smith’s definition of capital with that of John Stuart Mill.
  9. What does Smith mean by “the natural rates of wages”?
  10. What bearing has the teaching of Malthus on “Socialism.” Explain in your answer what sort of “Socialism” you have in mind, and mention the sources whence you have derived your impression of it.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, pp. 50-51.

_____________________

Economics 2.
Economic Theory
from the Middle of the Nineteenth Century
to the Present Time,
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] *2. Economic Theory from the Middle of the Nineteenth Century to the Present Time. — English Writers. — The Austrian School. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 2.30. Professor Taussig.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 2. Professor Taussig. — Economic Theory from the Middle of the Nineteenth Century to the Present Time. — English Writers. — The Austrian School. 3 hours.

Total 42: 12 Graduates, 12 Seniors, 13 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 3 Other.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 65.

Economics 2.
Mid-Year Examination,
1896-97

  1. “According to Ricardo, the exchange value of commodities contains neither return to capital nor rent, but simply labor.” Why? or why not?
  2. Sketch concisely the development of the general theory of value at the hands of Ricardo, Mill, Cairnes.
  3. “Skill, as skill, produces no effect on value; in other words, commodities do not under any circumstances exchange for each other in proportion to the degree of skill bestowed on them. Skill, though in itself inoperative on value, nevertheless affects it indirectly in two distinct ways; first, where competition is effective among producers, through the cost which must be undergone in acquiring the skill; . . . and secondly, in the absence of competition, through the principle of monopoly.” — Cairnes.
    Explain and illustrate.
  4. “If there really was a national fund the whole of which must necessarily be applied to the payment of wages, that fund could be no other than an aggregate of smaller similar funds possessed by the several individuals who compose the employing part of the nation. Does, then, any individual employer, possess any such fund? Is there any specific portion of any individual’s capital which the owner must necessarily expend upon labour? . . . May he not spend more or less on his family and himself, according to his fancy, — in the one case having more, in the other less, left for the conduct of his business? And of what is left, does he or can he determine beforehand how much shall be laid out on buildings, how much on materials, how much on labour? . . . Be it observed, fixity of definiteness is the very essence of the supposed wages-fund. No one denies that some amount or other must within any given period be disbursed in the form of wages. The only question is, whether that amount be determinate or indeterminate.” — Thornton, On Labour.
    State carefully, and consider critically, the answers Cairnes made to these questions.
  5. Would you accede to the statement that “President Walker’s theory is, in reality, not a theory of manager’s earnings at all, but a theory of differences in manager’s earnings”?
  6. “For an understanding of the machinery by which distribution is accomplished, the classification of sources of income should thus be different from that to be adopted for an explanation of the fundamental causes.” — Taussig.
    Wherein different?
  7. Explain what is meant by Consumer’s Rent; and consider how its significance is affected by inequalities in wealth.
  8. “As a rule, the poorer soils rise in value relatively to the richer, as the pressure of population increases.” — Marshall. Why?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97.

Economics 2.
Year-end Examination,
1896-97

  1. Do you believe that a permanent gain for the theory of wages has been made by Walker’s discussion of that subject? If so, wherein? if not, why not?
  2. Does Marshall’s analysis of the different grades of labor, and of the barriers between them, differ in essentials from Cairnes’s? from Mill’s?
  3. Explain what “quasi-rent” is, wherein it differs from true rent, wherein resembles true rent; and state whether the conception seems to you a helpful one, deserving to be permanently embodied in economic theory.
  4. What do you conceive the difference to be between what Walker calls “current product,” Marshall “the national dividend,” and the instructor in the course “real income”?
  5. On what grounds does Marshall maintain that “the extra income earned by natural abilities may be regarded as a rent, when we are considering the sources of the income of individuals, but not with reference to the normal earnings of a trade”? What is your own opinion?
  6. “The attribute of normal value implies systematic and continuous production.” Cairnes. Would Böhm-Bawerk accede to this proposition? Why, or why not? Give your own opinion.
  7. Explain what Böhm-Bawerk means by (subjective) “value”; and consider his analysis of the relation between value and cost.
  8. Enumerate the grounds on which Böhm-Bawerk maintains that “present goods have greater value than future goods of like kind and quantity”; consider to which of these grounds he gives most attention; and give your opinion as to the justice of this emphasis.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, p. 38. Previously transcribed: https://www.irwincollier.com/harvard-history-of-economic-theory-final-exam-questions-taussig-1897-1900/

_____________________

Economics 13.
Scope and Method
in Economic Theory
and Investigation

[*13 hf. Scope and Method in Economic Theory and Investigation. Half-course. Professor Taussig.]

Omitted in 1896-97; to be given in 1897-98.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

_____________________

Economics 3.
The Principles of Sociology.
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] *3. The Principles of Sociology. —Development of the Modern State, and of its Social Functions. Mon., Wed., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 1.30. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 3. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings. — The Principles of Sociology. — Development of the Modern State, and of its Social Functions. 2 hours.

Total 47: 6 Graduates, 23 Seniors, 13 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 3 Other.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 65.

Economics 3.
Mid-Year Examination,
1896-97

(It is the purpose of the following questions to elicit first, an intelligent statement of the gist of what has been read or discussed; second, a free statement of an intelligent opinions you may be forming for yourselves.
Arrange your answers in the order in which the questions stand. Limit the discussion of each question to about an hour.)

I.

A critical comparison of Mr. Giddings’ treatise on the principles of Sociology with that of Mr. Spencer:—
(a) In regard to method, arrangement, and terminology :
(b) In regard to fundamental resemblances in the theories presented:
(c) In regard to supposed differences

II.

“Next in order come the problems of the social consciousness, or social mind, including its content of common memories and ideas, its aspirations and its volition.” What explanation of the phenomena in question is offered by (a) Giddings; (b) Spencer; (c) Durkheim; (d) Tarde? What is your opinion of the relative merits and the practical bearing of the several explanations?

IlI.

The significance and the function of the family (a) in the earlier and (b) in the later phases of social evolution.
(c) If you still have time, give some account of the successive theories and of the present state and significance of the controversy in regard to early forms of marriage.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97.

Economics 3.
Year-end Examination,
1896-97]

[Answer the questions in the order in which they stand. Give an hour to each group.]

I.

Discuss the conceptions of progress found in the following authors: Spencer, Comte, Giddings, Kidd, Kelly. Bluntschli. Indicate in each case (a) the nature of progress, (b) the criteria, (c) the chief causes.

What do you mean by progress?

What evidence of progress do you find in the historical sequence of the various forms of political organization which have lead to the modern state? Illustrate carefully.

Name and classify the principal types of political organization. Indicate briefly the social and industrial characteristics of each type.

II.

Give a critical summary of the views of Haycraft in Darwinism and Race Progress.

By what other writers, ancient or modern, have similar views been urged?

What importance do you attach to this school of thought?

What is the practical bearing of such views upon (a) the problems of scientific philanthropy and the treatment of defective and criminal classes? (b Upon socialism?

III.

State and criticise Bluntschli’s theory as to the nature and functions of the State, — the relation of the State to society and to the individual.

Compare Bluntschli’s theory with that of other writers, — Pollock, Spencer, Ritchie, Giddings.

What in your opinion are the merits and the defects of Bluntschli’s treatise?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, p. 39.

_____________________

Economics 14.
Socialism and Communism.

Course Announcement

[Economics] *14. Socialism and Communism. — History and Literature. Tu., Th., (and at the pleasure of the instructor) Sat., at 9. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 14. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings.—Communism and Socialism.—History and Literature. 2 hours.

Total 13: 10 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomore.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 65.

Economics 14.
Mid-Year Examination,
1896-97

(Arrange your answers in the order of the questions. Omit one.)
  1. The different senses in which the word Socialism is used. Where do you intend to draw the line between Socialism proper, and familiar forms of government interference and control – such as factory legislation, municipal water works, and government postal, telegraph or railroad services? Why?
  2. “National communism has been confused with the common ownership of the family; tenure in common has been confused with ownership in common; agrarian communism with village commons.” Discuss the evidence.
  3. “Just as Plato had his Republic, Campanella his City of the Sun, and Sir Thomas More his Utopia, St. Simon his Industrial System, and Fourier his ideal Phalanstery…. But the common criticism of Socialism has not yet noted the change, and continues to deal with the obsolete Utopias of the pre—evolutionary age.” What do you conceive to be the character of the change referred to? How far did earlier Utopias anticipate the ideals of the modern social democracy?
  4. What indication of Socialistic tendencies are to be found in the discipline of the Christian church? Explain the triple contract and its bearing on the doctrine of the usury.
  5. The contributions of Greek writers to the development of economic thought.
  6. To what extent are the theories of Karl Marx indebted to earlier writers in the 19th-century?
  7. How far are the economic series of (a) Lasalle, (b) Marx related to the theories of the so-called orthodox Economists? Explain critically.
  8. How far do you trace the influence of historical conditions in the social philosophies of Plato, More, Bacon, Rousseau, St. Simon, Karl Marx?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97.
Previously transcribed: https://www.irwincollier.com/harvard-exams-and-enrollment-for-economics-of-socialism-and-communism-edward-cummings-1893-1900/

Economics 14.
Year-end Examination,
1896-97

I.
  1. “The figures of Cardinal Manning and Monsignor Bagshawe in England, of De Mun in France, of Decurtins in Switzerland, of Abbé Hitz in Germany, and of Von Vogelsang in Austria, will ever stand apart as State Socialists who, while looking to the Church for moral reform, expected and wished all economic reforms to come from the State alone.”
    Give some account of the leaders mentioned, and discuss the peculiarities of so-called Catholic Socialism in each country.
  2. How far does the programme of “Catholic Socialism” in different countries harmonize with the programme of the German Social Democratic party.
  3. State carefully what has been the attitude of the Vatican towards Socialism? What are the personal views of Leo XIll?
II.
  1. Describe the origin, development, fortunes and present strength of the Social Democratic party in Germany, — with special reference to the Eisenach, Gotha and Erfurt programmes.
  2. State and criticise Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value. Explain carefully the formula

\left( S=P_{n}\times \frac{s\ l\  t}{n\  l\  t} \right)

  1. What are Schäffle’s chief criticisms of the Socialistic State?
III.
[Take one question.]
  1. “Though social conflicts are as old as civilization itself, Socialism as we now understand it is of scientific origin, and essentially modern.” State carefully your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.
  2. What are the characteristics of modern Utopian ideals, as contrasted with the ideals embodied in earlier literature of the kind? Contrast Bellamy, Hertzka, Morris.
  3. Trace in a general way the influence of socialistic doctrines in the establishment of socialistic and communistic societies in the United States. What light has experiment thrown upon socialistic and communistic ideals?
  4. State accurately the reading you have done in this course during the second half-year. Give a careful summary of the views of the author you recently selected for your special reading.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, p. 49-50.

_____________________

Economics 9.
The Labor Question in Europe and the United States

Course Announcement

[Economics] 9. The Labor Question in Europe and the United States. — The Social and Economic Condition of Workingmen. Tu., Th., Sat., at 10. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings and Dr. John Cummings.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 9. Asst. Professor Edward Cummings and Dr. John Cummings. — The Labor Question in Europe and the United States. — The Social and Economic Condition of Workingmen. 3 hours.

Total 50: 5 Graduates, 9 Seniors, 27 Juniors, 7 Sophomores, 2 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 65.

Economics 9.
Mid-Year Examination,
1896-97

Divide your time equally between A and B.
A.
  1. The labor problem and the unity of the labor movement as manifested in trade unionism, co-operation, and socialism.
  2. How, if at all, has the introduction of machinery directly modified methods of industrial remuneration?
    What are the several bases for determining remuneration?
    Explain the unpopularity, (a) with employers and (b) with employees, of certain methods of industrial remuneration, and, if you can, offer some general principle justifying the adoption of one method rather than another.
    Tell in what way, if at all, the amount of remuneration is affected by the method of remuneration.
B.
Take six.
  1. The “Old” and the “New” Trade-Unionism. Give an account of growth of the English Trade Unions.
  2. What social and economic motives have contributed to the growth of modern cities? Explain so far as you are able the migratory movements which have led to the aggregation of population within certain industrial centres.
  3. Define: “nibbling”; “lump system “; “pay-as-you-please” piece work; the “lump of labor” theory; “chasing”; “collective gain-sharing”; the “plus” system; “butty-gangs”; “tut-work”; “working in pocket”; “garret master”: “product-sharing”; “bribe participation.”
  4. How far are the various forms of profit-sharing “sops to Cerberus”? What is the essential difference between a profit-sharing firm and a co-operative association? How far does industrial co-operation enable workmen to become their own employers?
  5. To what extent is the development of modern machine industry dependent upon the location of the world’s coal fields?
  6. What are the economic and social conditions of industrial depressions?
  7. Are the evils of sweating due to underpay, to overwork, or to the method of remuneration? Are they peculiar to some particular method of remuneration?
  8. The methods of estimating the annual revenue of Great Britain and its distribution.
  9. Has the introduction of machinery lessened the demand for labor?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97.

Economics 9.
Year-end Examination,
1896-97

I.
  1. State the subject of your special research during the second half-year. How far were you successful in getting material from (a) newspapers, (b) magazines, (c) books, (d) other sources? What general results did you reach?
  2. Explain the essential difference between a socialistic policy and what Schäffle calls a “positive social policy.” What, according to Schäffle, are legitimate objects of protective legislation? Give some recount of German protective legislation, and the “factory labor” to which this legislation applies.
  3. What according to Mallock, determines the minimum wage in any occupation? How far is this minimum rate subject to legislative or other control? Has the introduction of machinery tended to raise or lower this rate? To increase or to lessen the proportion of wages to product?
  4. What do you understand by the statement that “today the labor contract is perfectly free”? Discuss the legality of (a) strikes; (b) boycots; (c) intimidation; (d) “molesting.”
  5. Describe accurately the German compulsory system of old-age insurance. State the precise arguments which are urged for and against the adoption of some such system in England. How far may the German system be said to be the product of peculiar local conditions?
II.
[Omit two questions.]
  1. Describe some of the chief agencies and methods devised for dealing with the unemployed. How far have they been successful?
  2. Describe the strength, composition and programme of the labor party in Belgium, and its relation to trade-unions, cooperation and socialism. Contrast the situation in Belgium with that in Germany.
  3. Show in what respects the general policy of France towards Associations of workingmen during the present century has differed from that of England. Indicate briefly the effects of this policy upon trade-unions, coöperation, etc.
  4. Discuss, the growth, character, programme and strength of existing labor organizations in the United States, — contrasting the situation in this country with the situation in England and explaining differences.
  5. By what peculiar local conditions in each case do you account for the success or the failure of the coöperative movements in (a) England, (b) France, (c) the United States? What do you predict for the future of coöperation?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, pp. 44-45.

_____________________

Economics 4.
Theory and Methods
of Statistics,
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] *4, Theory and Methods of Statistics. — Applications to Economic and Social Questions. —  Studies in the Movement of Population. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 11. Dr. John Cummings.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

_____________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 4. Dr. John Cummings. — Theory and Methods of Statistics. — Applications to Economic and Social Questions. — Studies in the Movement of Population. 3 hours.

Total 15: 8 Seniors, 7 Juniors.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1896-1897, p. 65.

Economics 4.
Mid-Year Examination,
1896-97

[Divide your time equally between A. and B.]
A.
  1. The development of scientific statistics and the statistical method as employed in the social sciences.
  2. Social and economic causes of the migratory movements which have taken place in the populations of Europe and America during this century, and the laws in accordance with which those migrations have taken place where you can formulate any.
B.
(Take five.)
  1. Rural depopulation and the growth of cities in the United States.
  2. Define: “mean after life,” “expectation of life,” “mean duration of life,” “mean age at death.” What relation does the mean age of those living bear to the mean age at death? To the mean duration of life?
  3. Anthropological tests of race vitality as applied to the American negro?
  4. Explain how the economic value of a population is effected by its age and sex distribution.
  5. The United States census: either (1) an historical account of it, or (2) an account of the work now undertaken by the Census Bureau.
  6. Explain the various methods of calculating the birth rate of a population.
  7. How far are social conditions in a community revealed in the birth rate, the death rate, the marriage rate? Of what are fluctuations in these rates evidence in each case?
  8. What do you understand by the “index of mortality”?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years. 1896-97.

Economics 4.
Year-End Examination,
1896-97

I.
  1. Give an historical account of the United States census, and a general statement of the ground covered in the census of 1890; also show how the census taking is supplemented by work done in the Department of Labor and in the statistical bureaus established in connection with the several administrative departments.
  2. Define Körösi’s “rate of natality,” and state any statistical evidence you know that the rate is affected by the standard of living.
  3. “It must, at all times, be a matter of great interest and utility to ascertain the means by which any community has attained to eminence among nations. To inquire into the progress of circumstances which have given pre-eminence to one’s own country would almost seem to be a duty….The task here pointed out has usually been left to be executed by the historian.” Porter: “The Progress of the Nation.”
    What contribution has statistics to make in the execution of this task? What do you understand to be the nature of the statistical method, and what are the legitimate objects of statistical inquiry?
II.
[Take two.]
  1. What light does statistics throw upon the “natural history of the criminal man”?
    Give Ferri’s classification of the “natural causes” of crime, and comment upon that classification. Of criminals.
    What do you understand by “rate of criminality”? By “criminal saturation”?
  2. To what extent in your opinion is suicide an evidence of degeneration in the family stock?
    Discuss the influence upon the rate of suicide of education, religious creed, race, climate and other facts of physical, political and social environment.
  3. Comment critically upon the tables relating to crime in the last five federal censuses taken in the United States.
  4. What difficulties beset a comparative study of criminality in different countries?
  5. How far is it possible to give a quantitative statement to moral and social facts?
III.
[Take one.]
  1. What are some of the more salient facts concerning the movement of population and wealth in the United States, England, and France during the present century, so far as those facts are evidenced in the production, consumption and distribution of wealth?
  2. Discuss the movement of wages and prices in the United States since 1890.
  3. What do you understand by “index figures,” “average wages,” “average prices,” and “weighted averages”?
IV.
[Take one.]
  1. How do you account for the increase in the proportion of urban to rural population during this century? What statistical evidence is there that the increased density of a population affects the mean duration of life? What importance to you attach to this evidence?
    Explain the effect of migratory movements upon the distribution of a population according to age, sex and conjugal condition, and upon the birth rate, death rate and marriage rate.
  2. Define and distinguish: “mean age at death”; “mean duration of life”; “mean age of those living”; “expectation of life.”
  3. The “law of population” as formulated by Malthus and by subsequent writers.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination papers, 1873-1915. Box 4, Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, Philosophy, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College. June 1897, pp. 39-41.
Previously transcribed: https://www.irwincollier.com/harvard-semester-exams-for-statistics-john-cummings-1896-1900/

_____________________

Economics 51.
Railway Transportation
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] 51 hf. Railway Transportation. — Lectures and written work. Half-course. Tu., Th., Sat., at 1.30 (first half-year). Professor Taussig.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 51. Mr. Virtue. — Railway Transportation. 3 hours.

Total 62: 2 Graduates, 33 Seniors, 20 Juniors, 5 Sophomores, 2 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 65.

Economics 51.
Final Examination,
1896-97

[Omit one.]
  1. Sketch the railway history of Italy.
  2. What light does the internal improvement movement in the United States throw upon the question of the public management of the railway industry?
  3. What is the present position of the courts with regard to the power of State legislatures to fix railway rates? On what ground does the public claim the right to interfere in the fixing of such rates.
  4. Discuss the attempt made by any one of the State governments to control railways by means of a commission.
  5. Describe the Hungarian system of passenger tariffs and its effects.
  6. As a basis of rate making, what is the relative importance of the principle of “charging what the traffic will bear,” and that of charging according to the “cost of service”?
  7. It is said of the railway business that “where combination is possible, competition is impossible.” Why is this true? Is it peculiarly true in the railway business? Give your reasons fully.
  8. Discuss the rate policy set forth in the following passages:
    “In the proposed reform of our transportation taxes it will probably be found advisable, at the beginning, to follow the example of Sir Rowland Hill in his reform of the old English postal system, and adopt, as the uniform rate for each class of service for all distances, the lowest rate now charged for the shortest distance for that class of service.”… “If distances of hundreds of miles, can be safely disregarded in the local transportation of milk and potatoes and grain, then surely there is every reason to believe that a general grouping of all the railway stations in the country with a uniform rate will prove to be the best possible system that can be devised for the common good of all.”
  9. A railroad company subject to the “Interstate Commerce Law” charges a much lower rate from New Orleans to San Francisco, for goods which have been imported than for like goods of domestic manufacture. What is the decision of the courts as to the legality of such a charge? What is the economic justification for the decision?
  10. What do you regard as the greatest defects of the “Interstate Commerce Law,” as at present interpreted, and what legislation should you suggest to remedy such defects?
  11. What is the “railway problem”?

Sources: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97. Copy also in Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination papers, 1873-1915. Box 4, Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, Philosophy, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College. June 1897, pp. 41-42.

_____________________

Economics 61
History of Tariff Legislation in the United States,
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] 62 [sic] hf. History of Tariff Legislation in the United States. Half-course. Tu., Th., at 2.30, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor (second [sic] half-year). Professor Taussig.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 61. Professor Taussig. — History of Tariff Legislation in the United States. Hf. 2 hours. 1st half-year.

Total 74: 7 Graduates, 39 Seniors, 20 Juniors, 3 Sophomores, 5 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 66.

Economics 61.
Final Examination,
1896-97

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions. Answer all the questions.]
  1. How was the course of commercial history between 1789 and 1810 connected with customs legislation and with the state of opinion on the tariff during the same period?
  2. What were the “abominations” of the tariff act of 1828? What became of them?
  3. Was there similarity between the stages in tariff policy reached by England and by the United States in 1846?
  4. “The ultimate reduction of the price of American to that of the British rolled iron can only, and ultimately will, be accomplished in that western region, which abounds with ore, and in which is found the most extensive formation of bituminous coal that has yet been discovered in any part of the globe.” — Gallatin, in 1832.
    What were the conditions as to the production of iron in the United States when Gallatin wrote? When and how was his prediction fulfilled?
  5. When did the argument appear that protective duties serve to maintain a high rate of wages in the United States? Why at that time? How far do you think it sound?
  6. Why is no carpet wool raised in the United States? Why is no flax cultivated for fibre? Are high wages an obstacle to the production of such commodities?
  7. Was Webster a consistent advocate of free trade in 1824? Gallatin in 1832? Secretary Walker in 1846?
  8. Sketch the main features in the history of duties on wool and woollens from 1846 to 1896.
  9. Wool, pig iron, sugar, — on which would you now remit duties first, and on which last? Why? What are the present duties?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination, 1852-1943. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1896-97.

Copy also in Harvard University, Examination papers, 1873-1915. Box 4, Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, Philosophy, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College. June 1897, pp. 42-43.

_____________________

ECONOMICS 81.
History of Financial Legislation in the United States

[81 hf. History of Financial Legislation in the United States. Half-course. Tu., Th., at 2.30, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructor (first half-year). Professor Dunbar.]

Omitted in 1896-97.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

_____________________

ECONOMICS 162.
Selected Topics in the Financial History of the United States,
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] *161 [sic] hf. Selected Topics in the Financial History of the United States. Half-course. Tu., Th., at 2.30(first half-year [sic]). Professor Dunbar.
Course 16 may be taken as a full course by Graduate Students and by candidates for Honors in Political Science.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 34.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 62. Professor Dunbar. — Selected Topics in the Financial History of the United States. Hf. 2 hours. 2dhalf-year.

Total 21: 11 Graduates, 6 Seniors, 4 Juniors.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 66.

Economics 162.
Final Examination,
1896-97

  1. Under the present arrangement of our financial system how far is the original theory of the Independent Treasury Act of 1846 preserved?
  2. What are the considerations for and against the use of banks as government depositaries?
  3. Trace the steps by which the idea that redeemed notes might be reissued became familiar and was finally embodied in the existing law.
  4. How far was the successful resumption in 1879 the result of fortunate circumstances, not to be foreseen in 1875?
  5. What is the legal authority for receiving United States notes in payment of duties on imports?
  6. What would be the probable effect on the Treasury, if Congress were now to adopt a tariff producing ample revenue, without making any change in the currency legislation?
  7. In Secretary Sherman’s Report for 1879 “it is respectfully recommended that by law the resumption-fund be specially defined and set apart for the redemption of United States notes, and that the notes redeemed shall only be issued in exchange for or purchase of coin or bullion.”
    Trace the effect of such a provision in case of large exports of gold. How far would it have served to prevent the difficulties which have actually occurred since 1893?
  8. In his Report for 1889, Secretary Windom recommended the following measure: —
    “Issue Treasury notes against deposits of silver bullion at the market price of silver when deposited, payable on demand in such quantities of silver bullion as will equal in value, at the date of presentation, the number of dollars expressed on the face of the notes at the market price of silver, or in gold, at the option of the Government; or in silver dollars at the option of the holder. Repeal the compulsory feature of the present coinage act.”
    What was this measure expected to accomplish? How would its operation probably have differed from that of the Silver Purchase Act of 1890?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 4. Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers Set for Final Examinations in Philosophy, History, Government, Economics, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College, June 1897, pp. 51-52.

____________________

Economics 72.
The Theory and Methods
of Taxation
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] *72 hf. The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special reference to Local Taxation in the United States. Half-course. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9 (second half-year). Mr. ——.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 35.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 72. Professor Taussig. — The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special reference to Local Taxation in the United States. Hf. 3 hours. 2d half-year.

Total 51: 6 Graduates, 17 Seniors, 18 Juniors, 5 Sophomores, 5 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 66.

Economics 72.
Final Examination,
1896-97

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions.]
  1. Which among the following would you call a “tax,” and why,—
    (a) an assessment for betterment (e.g. for a sidewalk) on real estate;
    (b) a liquor license;
    (c) the charge for a postage stamp;
    (d) the charge for tobacco in France;
    (e) the charge for a ticket on a Prussian railway.
  1. How far is there separation of local taxes on real estate from state taxes on real estate in France? in Prussia? in England? In American states? Which adjustment seems to you the best, and why?
  2. State the points of resemblance and the points of difference between the system of local taxation in England and the usual method of local taxation in the United States.
  3. Is a tax like the French personelle-mobilière adapted for use in American states? one like the Prussian Business Tax?
  4. Do you think progressive taxation to be sound in principle? Why? or why not?
  5. Point out similarities and differences between the methods of taxing the holders of securities in England and in Pennsylvania.
  6. What do you conceive to be the methods and effects of the taxation of mortgage debts in Massachusetts? in California?
  7. On what grounds would you approve or disapprove of taxes on inheritances and successions, levied by the several American states? of income taxes, similarly levied?
  8. “The statute in Massachusetts, which taxes corporations on their capital stock less the value of real estate and machinery, is indefensible. According to the Massachusetts law, corporations are taxable locally only on their real estate and machinery, while they are taxable for commonwealth purposes only on the value of their capital stock deducting the value of the machinery and the real estate, they are therefore taxed only once on their total property. Individuals, on the other hand, pay not only a general tax for state purposes, but also another general property tax for local purposes. Corporations thus are treated more leniently than individuals.” — Seligman.
    Is this an accurate statement of the legislation in Massachusetts? and are corporations more leniently dealt with than individuals?

One of the following questions may be substituted for any one of the preceding.

  1. What distinctions are made, in the process of assessment under the Prussian income tax, between incomes under 3000 marks and those above?
  2. How are state and local control combined in the assessment of income taxes in Prussia? in England?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination papers, 1873-1915. Box 4, Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, Philosophy, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College. June 1897, pp. 43-44.

_____________________

Economics 71.
Financial Administration and Public Debts

[[Economics] *71 hf. Financial Administration and Public Debts. Half-course. Tu., Th., Sat., at 11 (first half-year). Professor Dunbar.]

Omitted in 1896-97.
Courses 71 and 72 are usually given
in alternation with Courses 121 and 122.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 35.

_____________________

Economics 121.
Banking and the History of the Leading Banking Systems

Course Announcement

[Economics] *121 hf. Banking and the History of the leading Banking Systems. Half-course. Tu., Th., Sat., at 11 (first half-year). Professor Dunbar.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 35.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 121. Professor Dunbar. — Banking and the History of the leading Banking Systems. Hf. 3 hours. 1st half-year.

Total 47: 1 Graduate, 18 Seniors, 24 Juniors, 4 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 66.

Economics 121
Final Examination,
1896-97

  1. If, as McLeod says, all modern banks are banks of issue, how is it that discussions and legislation about banking are chiefly taken up with questions as to bank notes?
  2. When can a note currency be said to be elastic, and what is necessary to give it that quality? Illustrate by actual cases.
  3. Name as many banking systems as you can, which
    (a) protect creditors by a stockholders’ liability of any sort; or
    (b) protect notes by a prior lien on assets.
  4. What advantages are derived from the system of branch banks, and where is it used?
  5. Which of the great banks, — the Bank of England, the Bank of France, the Reichsbank, —  appears to have the best title to be called a government bank?
  6. Suppose that, in a country having well developed banks, a large issue of inconvertible legal tender notes should be made; in what way should you expect its inflating effect upon prices and credits to be produced?
  7. How is the unequal distribution of national banks in the United States, during the years when banking under the national act was most profitable, to be explained?
  8. The following items being given, viz. :
Public Deposits £7.7 Other Securities £30.0
Other Deposits £48.0 Notes in circulation £28.1
Government Securities £20.7 Coin and Bullion £40.4
Government Debts £11.0

construct a Bank of England account, with its separate Departments of Issue and Banking.

  1. Why is it that a comparison of the English country bank circulation with the Scotch shows that one is gaining while the other is dying out?
  2. Under the German bank act what are the two requirements as to holding cash? What is counted as cash under these requirements respectively? Under what conditions does a bank find one or the other of these requirements practically inoperative?
  3. The account of the Bank of France may be simplified as follows:—
Cash, Surplus, and Profits fr. 225. Loans and Investments fr. 1.141.
Sundries fr. 72. Government Securities fr. 353.
Deposits fr. 822. Sundries fr. 75.
Notes fr. 3.612 Cash fr. 3.162.
fr. 4.731. fr. 4.731.

How much of its circulation could the bank pay off and yet earn its present profit? State the account as it would appear if such a change were made?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination papers, 1873-1915. Box 4, Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, Philosophy, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College. June 1897, pp. 47-48.

_____________________

Economics 122.
International Payments and the Flow of the Precious Metals,
1896-97

Course Announcement

[Economics] *122 hf. International Payments and the Flow of the Precious Metals. Half-course. Tu., Th., Sat., at 11(second half-year). Professor Dunbar and Mr. Meyer.
Courses 121 and 122 are usually given in alternation with Courses 71 and 72.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 35.

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 122. Professor Dunbar and Mr. Meyer. — International Payments and the Flow of the Precious Metals. Hf. 3 hours. 2d half-year.

Total 20: 9  Graduates, 2 Seniors, 6 Juniors, 3 Others.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 66.

Economics 122.
Final Examination,
1896-97

It is expected that one-half of the time of this examination will be required for the questions in division A of this paper.

A.
  1. It is often said that the resumption of specie payments by France and by the United States and the adoption of the gold standard by Germany made nearly simultaneous demands upon the world’s stock of gold. Discuss this statement at length.
  2. The transfer of international securities,
    (a) during the funding operations of the United States, 1872-79;
    (b) as a consequence of the French Indemnity payments.
    Take one of these two cases.
  3. The conditions which led to the flow of gold to the United States,
    (a) in 1896;
    (b) in the fiscal years 1880 and 1881.
    Take one of these two cases.
B.
  1. What were the contributions of Ricardo, Mill and Cairnes, respectively, to the discussion of the laws determining the exchange of commodities between nations?
  2. To what extent are the principles involved in exchanges of goods and services between nations also applicable in domestic exchanges?
  3. Describe the” triangular” operation in exchange between three countries, whereby an export of specie may take place from one of them before the price of exchange has fallen to the shipping point. Illustrate by an actual case.
  4. Explain the difference in rates for long exchange as compared with short, and show the conditions under which an unusual divergence of rates may exist. Illustrate by an actual case.
  5. Why is it that in the dealings between England and other countries bills of exchange are chiefly drawn upon England and few are drawn by her upon others? How are the transactions between England and the United States adjusted, when the bills are for the most part drawn by us upon England?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination papers, 1873-1915. Box 4, Bound volume: Examination Papers 1896-97. Papers set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, Philosophy, Fine Arts, Architecture, and Music in Harvard College. June 1897, pp. 48-49.

_____________________

 

Primarily for Graduates.

Economics Seminary Announcement

[Economics] 20. Seminary in Economics. Mon., at 4.30.
Professors Dunbar, Taussig, and Ashley and Asst. Professor Edward Cummings will guide competent students in research on topics assigned after consultation. The Seminary will hold weekly meetings; and in addition each student will confer once a week, with the instructor under whose guidance he carries on his investigations.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1896-1897, p. 35.

Economics Seminary Enrollment

[Economics] 20. Professors Dunbar, Taussig, and Ashley and Asst. Professor Edward Cummings. — Seminary in Economics.

Total 20: 17 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Other.

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1896-97, p. 66.

Image Source: Memorial Hall, Harvard University. From Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.