Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. President of Harvard responding to Economics Dept Visiting Committee Report, 1952

In can hardly be surprising that the relationship between a visiting committe dominated by business people and an academic department of economics might suffer from incompatible visions of what constitutes “good” economic research, teaching and policy.

The Harvard’s visiting committee in 1950 thought the secret sauce missing from a proper economics department was a professorial advocate of business enterprise to counterbalance an alleged dominance of Keynesian and socialist positions. This was the principal criticism of the committee. Other shortcomings claimed were inadequate planning/coordination between graduate and undergraduate programs, too few professorial heavyweights teaching in the undergraduate program, and a tendency for professors’ policy consulting activities to crowd out their expected instructional and research duties.

The chairman of the economics department’s visiting committee at mid-century was the Chicago businessman, Clarence B. Randall (Harvard A.B., 1912).

Harvard President’s James B. Conant’s conclusion in his 1952 response:

Over the last fifteen years the Department of Economics has been at fault in not attempting to meet the Visiting Committee in a spirit of wholehearted cooperation. The Board of Overseers has been at fault, I venture to suggest, by not widening the membership of the Visiting Committee to include more professional economists and more businessmen who have been working closely with university economists.

___________________________

For private circulation NOT for publication

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY TO THE TWO GOVERNING BOARDS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

(Accepted by President and Fellows of Harvard College on January 7, 1952, and by the Board of Overseers on January 14, 1952)

TO THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE:
TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARD COLLEGE:

On November 27, 1950, the Chairman of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics reported in writing to the Board of Overseers. The report, which is attached, raises serious questions about future appointments to the permanent staff. As the President of Harvard is responsible for presenting to the two Governing Boards the names of those who he is persuaded should be the future professors, such questions concern him directly. I have, therefore, felt obliged to examine personally the validity of the “most pressing criticism” in the report of November 27, 1950. My findings and recommendations are contained in this confidential report which I hope may be accepted by formal vote of each of the Governing Boards in January.

For a number of months now I have been studying the teaching of economics at the university level. In so doing, I have talked with academic economists on three continents, with those employed by business and by government, and with members of the business community. I am convinced that the Harvard Department of Economics is a distinguished department. As far as the types of economic theory and analysis presented to the students are concerned, it is typical of departments of economics in the leading universities of the English-speaking world. The educational problems discussed in the first seven paragraphs of the Visiting Committee’s report are likewise typical. Indeed, they are not confined to teachers of economics. Difficulties in reconciling the needs of the undergraduate and the graduate student with the scholarly pursuits of a professor and calls for expert services are to be found in the majority of the departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. It is the constant aim of the administration to hold the balance even between the various types of teaching and research. To this end, the informed criticisms of visiting committees are helpful. But important as these questions are, they do not warrant a special written report from the President of the University. Therefore, I shall state here only that I am satisfied that the department is taking steps to improve the teaching of undergraduates and will take further steps in this direction, particularly as regards the introductory course.

My examination of the status of economics in American universities today has revealed the fact that in at least fourteen major universities questions are being raised by persons who are not economists about the teaching of economics. It is a curious fact that at the same period of history in which there is a certain degree of national unrest about academic economists, one group of businessmen (the Committee for Economic Development) is closely associated with professors of economics in a series of investigations of vital problems. It seems a pity that the confidence that part of the business community has in at least some university economists does not receive as much publicity as do the attacks by others who claim our schools and colleges are teaching “collectivism.” Not that any such charge is made by the Overseers Committee here at Harvard. What is criticized is only “that the Department as presently constituted lacks balance with respect to the viewpoint of its members.” This is a reasonable criticism and warrants a careful investigation. The Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers are both special pleaders for and critics of the departments or faculties which they visit. That doubts and questions should be raised by them from time to time on any or all matters is obviously of great advantage to the University.

At the outset of my inquiry the difficulties of formulating criteria for cataloguing the viewpoints of economists became evident. I tried the test of Keynesian and anti-Keynesian but soon discovered I was using a totally inadequate analytic tool; I became convinced that Keynes himself was an anti-Keynesian before he died. The Overseers report states categorically that there are “one or more socialists” in the Department. With this statement I must respectfully but firmly disagree and in so doing point out both the difficulties and the necessity of defining terms in the social sciences. The term “socialist” as used in countries where socialism is a live political issue means one who advocates by democratic political action “the nationalization of the means of exchange, production and distribution.” It might be a good thing to have a socialist on the staff of a department of economics, but as a matter of fact there are no socialist professors of economics at Harvard today.

One could classify economists, at least theoretically, in terms of their political beliefs, but except for communists and socialists this is a very difficult matter in the present flux of political opinion. Furthermore, people’s political convictions, like their religious beliefs, are often subject to violent change. Everyone speaks of the dangers of introducing political criteria into the consideration of academic appointments. If analyzed, I believe these dangers stem largely from the fact that political views do not represent a bias relevant to an academic intellectual discipline as does a philosopher’s adherence to a philosophic doctrine such as idealism or logical empiricism. Political opinions are temporary, emotional, and subject to change under social duress; it is to avoid such duress that politics and religion are considered “out of bounds” in judging persons for academic posts in the United States in the mid-twentieth century.

The Chairman of the Visiting Committee in his report speaks of a “social spectrum.” I have attempted to use this concept to classify present-day economists as radical or conservative without getting into the political quagmire to which I have just referred. I have had little success except that in a vague sort of way a number of informed observers have expressed the view that the leading universities of the nation were about equally radical or conservative as regards their departments of economics. But if the President is to direct a department or an ad hoc committee as to future appointments, he must have some more definite criteria as to a man’s position in the social spectrum, and these I have failed to find. For example, I find it difficult to decide whether advocacy of strengthening the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is radical or conservative. I ask myself was the Harvard Department a generation ago radical or conservative? In retrospect it seems conservative to many; forty years ago it was considered radical, as the free-trade point of view predominated. When I first took office, some discussion in the Board of Overseers indicated that there were those who used a man’s attitude towards organized labor as the touchstone of his radical or conservative outlook. This is no longer so. As a consultant to the Government, an economist may take a strong position as to need for immediate drastic action to offset a depression or control an inflation. In recent years such rather technical economic opinions have bulked large in some people’s minds in classifying economists as being to the left or right. For example, if you confine your attention to fiscal policy in the immediate past, you could find two professors in the Harvard Department today to place in opposition to one another. But I have become convinced that no criteria of lasting value in terms of a social spectrum can be devised for the guidance of any body charged with responsibility for nominating candidates for appointment in a department of economies.

Balance in a department of economics today, I have concluded. should be first, balance between special fields, and second, balance between types of methods employed by the professors. As to fields such as labor, agriculture, money and banking, the Committee has raised no issue; there is no problem special to economics here. The question arises in chemistry, in history, in biology, to name but three instances. As far as I can, I insist that for the permanent appointments a balance of fields be a secondary consideration since an adequate coverage of all subjects can be taken care of through appointing assistant professors. Rigid insistence on having each field represented by a permanent appointment limits the number of candidates and tends to encourage the appointment of “good” rather than “excellent” men. The same is true as regards methods. Yet, as in the case of special fields, I must admit that there should be some effort made to achieve a balance among the permanent members of the staff, provided that in so doing there is no sacrifice of the quality of the appointments.

From my studies I have concluded that a layman may well classify economists in three groups according to the methods they employ: (1) theorists using models and the logical deductive approach; (2) investigators concerned with statistical aggregate analysis; (3) an empirical approach to specific problems as illustrated by the ad hoc case study of business problems. I have the impression that, in general, college departments of economies are relatively weak as regards the third of these methodological classes. In contrast, the Harvard School of Business Administration is strong here and until recently has been less concerned with the other two methodological approaches. The Harvard Department of Economies, if I understand the Chairman correctly, has felt for some time that this relative methodological weakness needed correction. Two professors of the Business School faculty are now giving a course in the Department. Further, in a letter replying to the criticism of the Visiting Committee, the Chairman, speaking for the Department, writes:

“As a result of your letter and our discussions with you, we have carefully considered the question of balance of fields of interest in the Department. While we are not prepared to concede that we are more unbalanced than other departments of economics, we agree that our balance could be improved. In particular, our Department, like most others, could be improved if we had at least one member whose major interest was what we might call the economics of enterprise. We believe that this is a field of growing importance, but it is one that has not been widely cultivated in economics departments. An additional member of the Department who could give an undergraduate course in the Economics of Enterprise and a graduate seminar on the same lines would contribute to a better balance of the Department. We suggest that the Corporation consider allocating an additional permanent position to the Department at the full professor level.”

To follow this suggestion would lead to no end of difficulties in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; other departments would be quick to press for an increase in their quota of permanent places. But I am glad to report that much the same end can be accomplished because the Dean of the Business School has expressed his interest in a joint appointment. With his consent and with the concurrence of the Provost I therefore recommend that the Corporation agree to appoint one full professor of economics over and above the quota allowed by the schedule of appointments for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences established a decade or so ago. I further recommend that this professor hold an appointment in three faculties, namely, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business Administration, and the School of Public Administration, and that his salary be charged to the three faculties in such amounts as the President shall determine. Further, that the nomination for the new chair be made by the permanent members of the Department of Economics of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and six members of the Faculty of the School of Business Administration appointed by the President after consultation with the Dean, the two groups to sit together as a nominating committee, and the name or names thus nominated to be passed on by an ad hoccommittee as is usual in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The directive to the nominating committee would be as follows: to submit one or more names of men of character, high scholarly distinction and first-rate teaching ability who have an understanding of business as it is actually operated. To that end, the man in question should have had contact as a scholarly investigator or consultant with the operations of industry and commerce; he should have an awareness of the positive role of business enterprise in a changing and developing economy. His teaching would be directed towards presenting to Harvard College students a realistic view of business management and its relation to the total economy. If this report is accepted by the two Governing Boards, I shall proceed with this appointment.

The last paragraph of the report of the Visiting Committee requires special comment. It is stated that “This problem of balance within the Department will not be solved by the ad hoc committees. There only the qualifications of the particular man are under consideration. It is not the function of such a committee to determine whether the man’s appointment will restore balance or add to lack of balance.” I must beg leave to take exception to this exposition of the role of the ad hoc committees, and in so doing call the attention of the new members of the Board of Overseers to the Report of the Special Committee to Review the Operation of the “Ad Hoc” Committees in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The ad hoc committees determine nothing definitely, that is true. But they advise the President and through him the two Governing Boards as to whether or not the appointment suggested by the department is the best possible appointment that can be made all things considered; and among the considerations are the needs of the department for teachers and scholars in this or that subdivision of the field and with this or that scholarly technique at their disposal.

An ad hoc committee does far more than pass on “the qualifications of the particular man under consideration”; an ad hoc committee often recommends that someone other than the candidate nominated by the department should be considered. And such recommendations have more than once resulted in the appointment of a person who had not even been on the list considered by the department. As presiding officer of these ad hoc committees, I can certify from experience as to their effectiveness; I can assure the members of the two Governing Boards that in the field of economies, as elsewhere, I shall endeavor to see to it that the names I present are in my opinion the names of the best people to appoint. For the temporary appointments at the assistant professor and instructor level, the Dean of the Faculty performs the same function as the ad hoc committee.

The acceptance of this report by the two Governing Boards will mean that they agree with me that the issue of an individual’s radicalism or conservatism or a man’s political attitude is inadmissible in connection with his appointment. (I have made it clear elsewhere that I would not be a party to the appointment of a member of the Communist Party, for reasons I need not here repeat.) Balance between special fields and different methodological approaches in economics we shall strive for, and I recognize that it is a proper function of the Governing Boards from time to time to see that this is done, though not with respect to a particular appointment. There will be no directives to the nominating group or the ad hoc committee in terms of a man’s political views or his position on what has been referred to as a social spectrum. Since that will be the case in economics as in other fields, only the validity of the evidence I present as to a man’s character and competence as a scholar and teacher will be relevant to the decision about an individual in either the Corporation or the Board of Overseers. Once the ground rules are determined by the two Boards, the responsible officials must be trusted to operate within them. On no other basis, in my opinion, can this University function satisfactorily.

In conclusion I wish to express my deep appreciation for the spirit in which the report of the Visiting Committee is written. The Chairman states that it is not his intention “to initiate controversy or to suggest that we view with extreme alarm any phase of the Department’s work.” And later in the report he states, “No friend of academic freedom need fear the purpose which underlies our comment on this matter. . . We would be the first to insist that a professor must teach that which he honestly believes and we know that the fact that this differs from viewpoints which we may hold as individuals is altogether immaterial.”

I feel sure that the Chairman speaks not only for his Committee but for the whole Board of Overseers when he makes these statements, which are by no means universally accepted today in the United States. I need hardly state that even questions concerning the criteria to be employed in judging candidates for appointment in controversial areas — questions that touch sensitive nerve centers in a university today — are quite within the province of the visiting committees. Indeed, no one can have the slightest objection to the critical discussion of these matters in a university, provided, as in this case, the discussion is initiated by duly constituted committees within a constitutional framework.

Unfortunately, the public criticisms of professors in these days do not all conform to the restrained pattern set by this report. Rather the demands for “firing” or “muzzling” professors or censoring textbooks have increased in number and intensity in the last few years. I suppose all members of the two Boards are familiar with such irresponsible attacks as those of Zoll in his “Reducators” and the rather violent statements about the teaching of economics emanating from more reputable sources. I mention these matters for they have a certain relation to the problem that a president of a university faces today when he must recommend action in a controversial area such as economics. The analogy with his distant predecessors’ problems in theology comes to mind.

The existence of hostile critics and extremists makes it imperative for fair-minded men concerned with the future of education to thrash out their differences of opinion around a table. Over the last fifteen years the Department of Economics has been at fault in not attempting to meet the Visiting Committee in a spirit of wholehearted cooperation. The Board of Overseers has been at fault, I venture to suggest, by not widening the membership of the Visiting Committee to include more professional economists and more businessmen who have been working closely with university economists. But the situation is better in both respects than it was a few years past; in my opinion it can be still further improved.

In these critical days when economic decisions play so vital a part in determining national and international policies, it is unfortunate that an atmosphere of hostility exists to some degree throughout the country between the management of industry and academic economists. Whatever can be done here at Harvard to increase the understanding between men of good will within and without the University cannot fail to be of service to the nation.

Respectfully submitted,
JAMES B. CONANT

January 3, 1952

___________________________

No. 2 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO VISIT THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARD COLLEGE:

Some three years have elapsed since a written report has been submitted to the Board of Overseers on behalf of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics.

Once each year since that last report the Committee has met socially at dinner with the members of the Department, has met privately with the Provost to discuss the problems of the Department, and then has met in executive session. In addition to these annual meetings, the individual members of the Committee have endeavored conscientiously to inform themselves privately about the organization of the Department and the program of instruction.

It is not our purpose in making a report at this time to initiate controversy or to suggest that we view with extreme alarm any phase of the Department’s work. We do have apprehensions, but our viewpoints have been fully expressed to the President and the Provost, both of whom have encouraged us at all times to be frank in such criticisms as we have had to present.

The particular points which we have to make may be rather briefly stated.

It will be recalled that in the last previous report attention was drawn to the fact that the Department seems to lack over-all planning. We still think that a sound criticism. The Department contains brilliant individuals who are passionately devoted to their particular approach to the subject matter. But it could hardly be fairly said that their efforts are coordinated into a comprehensive plan, whether it be furnishing undergraduates a well-rounded training in economies or carrying on research at the graduate level.

Another criticism which has been made by others is that the members of the Department seem to emphasize the importance of their work with graduate students to the prejudice of undergraduate instruction. Few, if any, of the distinguished members of the Department are ever seen or heard by undergraduates, and we think this a great loss. We believe it to be important that Harvard give her best to those undergraduates who for the first time in their lives are approaching this highly significant subject, in order that their minds may be stimulated and broadened by the inspiration of great teaching.

Another criticism which has been made is that too many members of the Department absent themselves for extensive periods from their University duties. We recognize the demands that Government properly makes upon the University for the loan of Harvard economists. We also believe that a Harvard professor can benefit through working on projects for business managements or labor organizations. There must, however, be reasonable balance between such occasional outside employment and the first duty of the professor to the University. We believe there is ground for this criticism of the Economics Department and that the matter warrants careful study by the Provost and the Department Chairman.

The most pressing criticism, however, which we have to offer is that the Department as presently constituted lacks balance with respect to the viewpoints of its members. It is particularly the trend toward lack of balance which disturbs us.

No friend of academic freedom need fear the purpose which underlies our comment on this matter. We would be the first to insist that a professor must teach that which he honestly believes and we know that the fact that this differs from viewpoints which we may hold as individuals is altogether immaterial. This is too obviously right to need discussion.

But that is a totally different question from that of believing that all viewpoints should be ably represented within the Department. The most determined champion of academic freedom would join us we believe in urging the importance of balance in a controversial field. This is an old and familiar problem at universities; for example, in the departments of philosophy. There we believe that sound university administration always seeks such balance. We suggest that comparable balance is not presently to be found within the Department.

We have in the Department, for example, one or more Socialists, some zealous followers of British economist, John Maynard Keynes, and some who advocate the extension of economic controls by Government. Some of these men are nationally known for their views and are both active and zealous in promoting Them. But on the other side of the social spectrum, the Department seems to lack men of equal ability and zeal who hold opposing views and are prepared to teach them.

This problem of balance within the Department will not be solved by the ad hoc committees. There only the qualifications of the particular man are under consideration. It is not the function of such a committee to determine whether the man’s appointment will restore balance or add to the lack of balance. That delicate question can be solved only through leadership by the President, the Provost, and the Chairman. We have confidence that they share our concern and we hope that this statement of our apprehensions will be helpful to them.

CLARENCE B. RANDALL

November 27, 1950

Source: Harvard University Archives. Confidential Report of the President of the University to the Two Governing Boards of the Department of Economics of The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1952 January 3 (Archives Stacks UAI.20.962.5)

___________________________

Members of Visiting Committee,
Department of Economics
1950-1952

Chairman:

Clarence B. Randall
President, Inland Steel Company

Vice-Chairman:

David Rockefeller
Foreign Department, Chase National Bank

Members:

Henry W. Clark
Maritime Associates

Jack I. Straus (1951-52)
President, H. H. Macy Company

Sinclair Weeks
United Carr Fasteners Corp., Reed and Barton Corp.

Frederick C. Crawford
President, Thompson Products, Inc.

David F. Edwards
President, Saco-Lowell Shops

Devereux C. Josephs
Carnegie Corporation

Walter Lichtenstein
First National Bank of Chicago

Thomas S. Lamont (1950-51)
New York

David E. Lilienthal
formerly Head of Atomic Energy Commission

Edward R. Mitton (1951-52)
Jordan Marsh Company

Gilbert H. Montague
New York Lawyer

Edwin G. Nourse
formerly with Council of Economic Advisers

Ralph Robey
National Association of Manufacturers

Charles F. Rowley
Peabody, Brown, Rowley and Storey

Hermon Dunlop Smith
Marsh and McLennon, Insurance, Chicago

George Terborgh
Allied Machinery

Leo Wolman
Professor, Columbia University

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and papers (UAV 349.11), Box 25, Folder “Visiting Committee, 1950-52”.

Images Sources:

(Left)  James B. Conant PageAtomic Heritage Foundation website.
(Right) Portrait of Trustee of the University of Chicago, Clarence B. Randall, from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03000-082, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard

Harvard. The Data Resources Inc. connection. Galbraith asks Eckstein, Feldstein, Jorgenson. 1972

 

“As Ed Mason tactfully hints, I’ve had enough lost causes for one year.”–Galbraith

In the following exchange of letters initiated by John Kenneth Galbraith in December 1972 we find multiple instances of seething rage barely concealed under veneers of formal academic politeness. Critical hiring and firing decisions regarding the subtraction of radical voices from the economics department faculty went overwhelmingly for the consolidation of mainstream economics earlier that month and Galbraith appears to have sought a vulnerability of this counterrevolution in its potential for conflicts of interest as he imagined coming from Otto Eckstein’s start-up, Data Resources, Inc. Eckstein’s response provides us with some interesting backstory to DRI. Feldstein and Jorgenson offered their witness testimony regarding this early episode in what would ultimately result in the so-called empirical turn in economics

But even after suffering this tactical defeat, Galbraith’s strategic point was to be confirmed by history:

“I do have one final thought. In accordance with the well-known tendencies of free enterprise at this level, one day one of these corporations is going to go down with a ghastly smash. It will then be found, in its days of desperation or before, to have engaged in some very greasy legal operations. The Department and the University will be held by the papers to have a contingent liability. It will be hard to preserve reticence then. It would have been better to have taken preventative action now.”

The conflict of interest cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000 against economics professor Andrei Shleifer and the Harvard Institute for International Development resulted in a settlement that required Harvard to pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government.

_____________________________

On behalf of the Department,
Galbraith wants to know more about DRI

JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS

December 20, 1972

Professor Otto Eckstein
Littauer Center

Professor Martin S. Feldstein
1737 Cambridge Street

Professor Dale W. Jorgenson
1737 Cambridge Street

Dear Otto, Marty and Dale:

It will hardly be news that I have been deeply concerned over the several recent actions of the Department of Economics on appointments as well as the academically less consequential problem of the less than gracious response to those of us who have expressed alarm.

There is an impression, of which you will undoubtedly be sensitive, that the positions of some of those favoring the recent action could reflect, however subjectively and innocently, their corporate involvement in conflict with their academic responsibilities. I do not wish in any way to prejudge this matter or even to be a source of embarrassment. The problem does seem to me sufficiently somber so that in the interest of everyone you no less than the rest of us the circumstances should be clearly known. In this spirit I raise the following questions:

  1. Could you indicate the nature of Data Resources, Inc? I have reference to assets, sales, employees, services rendered, identity of corporate clients and charges.
  2. I believe it can fairly be assumed from general knowledge that the Corporation owes part of its prestige and esteem to association with members of the Harvard Department of Economics. The foregoing being so and reputation being a common property of the Department and Harvard University, could I ask as to your ownership or other interest or other participation of whatever sort and return?
  3. Has the Corporation employed students and nontenured members of the Department of Economics and would you indicate the names?
  4. Could I ask if you have participated in the past in the consideration of Harvard promotion of any such employees, consultants or people otherwise associated with the Corporation and in what cases?
  5. Could past service or inferior service or present or potential utility to the Corporation or extraneous judgment based on business as distinct from academic performance create, again perhaps subjectively, the possibility of a conflict of interest in your passing on Harvard promotions? How have you handled this conflict in the cases in which people with an association, past or present, with the Corporation have been up for Harvard promotion, always assuming that there have been such cases?
  6. In the recruiting of clients for the Corporation, what of the danger that they will be affected by the close relation between the Corporation and the Department? Specifically could there be effort, however subjective, to quell their fears? The radical economists come obviously to mind. But, as you are perhaps aware, even I am not a totally reassuring figure to many businessmen department with too many people of my viewpoint might also evoke alarm. Does safety here suggest that one with major corporate interest disqualify himself on all appointments?
  7. Is there a possibility — I by no means press the point that the kind of economics that serves corporate interest will take on an exaggerated importance when some of our ablest faculty members, and students are working on such problems?

Let me repeat that I ask these questions only for a clarification in which we share a common interest. I do not of course raise the more general question of outside activity. This would come with very poor grace from me — it is indeed the reason why I have sought not to be a charge on university resources,

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

CC: Professor James S. Duesenberry

Dean John T. Dunlop

JKG:mih

_____________________________

Eckstein provides his answers to Galbraith’s “interesting questions”

Otto Eckstein
24 Barberry Road
Lexington, Mass. 02173
January 8, 1973

Professor J. Kenneth Galbraith
Department of Economics
Harvard University
207 Littauer Center
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Dear Ken:

Pursuing the habits of a lifetime, you raise interesting questions in your letter of December 20th. Let me answer them by giving you an account of the origins and development of Data Resources, Inc., and of its relations to Harvard. I believe this will respond to all of your questions.

(1) Origins of DRI

As you know, my professional career has largely been devoted to the application of the techniques of economics to actual problems of the U.S. economy. After my most recent period of full -time government service in 1966, my views on the economy were sought by business and financial organizations. I quickly discovered that they made little use of macro economics or econometrics. The gap between macro and micro was unbridged. They typically ignored the overall situation. Econometrics, which always looked to me to be a very practical way to establish quantitative relationships, received little use and remained an academic plaything. I had already discovered in the government that even macro-decisions were made on the basis of very crude quantitative work, without the benefit of the thirty years of methodological development of econometrics.

In mid-1967, I had the idea that the technology of the time-sharing computer provided the missing link that would make it possible to use the modern techniques to improve private and public planning on a day-to-day basis. The time-sharing technology had the potential of overcoming the mechanical hurdles of programming, data punching, batch runs, etc. which had made econometrics a slow process open only to economists of exceptional mechanical aptitude. The time-sharing technology had the potential of bringing high quality data bases to researchers of providing them with the programs that would allow them to develop individual equations and to combine these equations into simulation models, and to evaluate their “satellite” models for historical analysis, contingency analysis and micro-forecasting. Such satellite models might encompass revenues and costs of their own industries or products, the detailed composition of unemployment, regional incomes, and the tax collections of governments.

These satellite models are constructed by users, at their own remote locations, combining their own data with the national data banks on the central computers. The programs allow the construction of the models and their on-line linkage to the centrally managed national models. Once the models are built, the particular company or government can quantitatively assess its own demand, costs, production, etc., assuming a particular macro-situation. It can see its own revenue and cost outlook assuming the central forecast, or alternatively what would happen if the economy should do better or worse. The micro-implications of changes in fiscal or monetary policy are also made apparent.

Besides making the tools that are our main stock-in-trade widely useable in the actual economy, the existence of such a system could accomplish these goals:

(1) There would be a rationally decentralized structure of information flows. The national data banks would be large and accessible, but local private information would remain where it belonged — in the confidential hands of the local analysts best equipped to use it.

(2) Analysis itself would be rationally decentralized. National forecasting could be done centrally with the use of lots of resources and with the benefit of an enormous data base and model collection. Micro forecasting would be done by the user organization itself.

(3) Micro-analysis would consider macro-environments as quantitative inputs. If the macro-forecasts are better than the crude assumptions previously made, the errors in micro-decisions should be reduced.

(4) As a result, the stability of the economy should be enhanced. There should be fewer and smaller mistakes in private and public economic decisions. Some of the benefits of indicative planning are realized without the political risks.

Once the basic ideas were clear, how was it to be done? The obvious possibilities were (1) a foundation financed project at Harvard; (2) persuade the government to undertake this work; (3) go to a large company  such as a computer manufacturer or bank; or (4) organize a new, small private enterprise. After some reflection, I decided that the new, small private enterprise form was the only suitable one. A Harvard project was ruled out immediately because of the poor experience with the Harvard Economic Barometers of the late 1920’s, an episode with which I was familiar from reading the archives of The Review of Economics and Statistics. Also, the system would require considerable operating staff for the computers, data banking, service and marketing. A university is not a good employer for such a staff nor a good working environment for these functions. I knew from my government experience that such a project was beyond the capacities of public agencies, at least in the United States, and budget stringency would have made federal funding unlikely, The large company would have posed difficult personal and political questions. Further, I felt that if the scheme were successful — and I had a good deal of faith in it — it could grow and reach its full potential by generating its own revenues. Finally, the idea of ultimately supporting my family from my main activities rather than “moonlighting” was attractive.

In 1968, Mitchell, Hutchins and Company, an investment firm with whom I was consulting, found the venture capital, an amount in seven figures. Donald Marron, its President, and I then co-founded DRI. The largest fraction of the capital was provided by First Security Corporation, an asset management group under the leadership of Mr. Robert Denison, a summa graduate of Harvard College and the Business School. The Board of Directors of the company are Mr. Marron, Mr. Denison, myself, and Mr. Stanton Armour, the Chairman of the Operating Committee of Mitchell, Hutchins.

The project required managers, econometricians, programmers, and computer experts. Mitchell, Hutchins managed the organization of the company, provided the initial business background and management, recruited personnel, etc. Dr. Charles Warden, previously special assistant to several chairmen of the CEA joined the company and took on many of its managerial burdens. Later on the company was organized into three divisions, each headed by a Vice-President.

Given the complexity and ambition of the scheme, I recognized that I needed the collaboration of the very best econometricians in terms of ideas, review and quality control. Mr. Marron and I, therefore, put together a founding consulting group, consisting of Jorgenson, Nerlove, Fromm, Feldstein, Hall and Thurow. This group made major contributions in the design stage. Today, the academic consultants mainly direct policy studies that DRI has been asked to undertake by government agencies and foundations. At all stages, the largest part of the work of developing and operating the DRI system and forecast was done by full-time professional employees of the company.

To help assure the widest application of the new techniques and to be able to offer alternative model forecasts, DRI entered into an agreement with the Wharton model group directed by Lawrence Klein. We continue to collaborate with them, and the Wharton model and its forecasts are maintained on the DRI computers. Subsequently, we have entered into arrangements with the model building group at the University of Toronto and with Nikkei, the sponsors of the Japan Economic Research Center.

As for the distribution of ownership, about half of the equity is in the hands of the institutions who provided the capital. Professional employees have ownership or options on another substantial fraction of shares, and my children and I own about a fifth of the shares. The academic consulting group has about 5% of the shares, received at the time of the founding of the company. All of the stock is restricted; it is not registered with the SEC and hence not saleable. The academic consultants are paid on a per diem basis as they actually spend time. In order to give the company a better start, I did not take any pay in the first three years; last year I began to receive a modest compensation.

(2) The Status of DRI Today

On the whole, my hopes and aspirations for DRI have been realized The economic data bases are the most comprehensive in existence and their accuracy is unquestioned. The econometric models have advanced that art in certain respects. The forecasts have been good and are now followed and reported quite widely. The people — management, research economists, service consultants, data processing and programming experts, and marketing — are capable and the organization is strong. While it inevitably takes time for new concepts and techniques to gain acceptance and be widely adopted, more than half of the fifty largest industrial companies and a large fraction of the financial institutions utilize the DRI system. Every major government agency involved in macro economic policy as well as every major data producing government agency is a user of the DRI system. The research environment created by the DRI data banks, software, models and computers has proved so attractive that even organizations with considerable internal facilities find it useful to have access. DRI as an organization has no political views, though individuals associated with the company can take any position they wish.

Our system has also been used by ten universities and colleges and we have just begun to develop special services for the state governments. As DRI is becoming better known and our communications network to our computers spreads to cover a far greater number of communities, we expect that more colleges and universities will find it possible to take advantage of these research facilities.

The company reached the break-even point in the twentieth month of operation after expending the larger part of the venture capital to create the initial version of the DRI system. It is now moderately profitable and earnings are advancing rapidly. Thus far, the capitalists have earned no return of dividends or interest. They have been extraordinarily forbearing in not pressing for quick returns, preferring to let the company use all of the resources in these early years to bring the DRI concept to full fruition. The probabilities are good that the investors will be handsomely rewarded over the next few years. Having taken the risk and waited, they will have earned their return.

(3) The Relation of DRI to Harvard University

Recognizing the sensitivity of this issue from the beginning, I have made sure that Data Resources produced a flow of benefits to Harvard and that Harvard would not provide resources to DRI. The Board of Directors, heavy with Harvard alumni, formally instructed me early in our development to provide free use of the DRI system to Harvard students. Quite a few have done so, including students on my small NSF project on prices and wages. This Fall, for the first time, I have a graduate working seminar in econometric model building. Each of the seven students enrolled is building his own model, simulating it, and writing a paper. The projects include the first econometric model of Ghana, a small scale two-country model of Canada and the United States, an exercise in policy optimization using the DRI model, a study to use macro models to estimate the changing distribution of income, a study of tax incidence using translog production functions, and a model of Venezuela. If this experimental seminar is successful, a lot more can be done, of course.

In terms of relations with professors, Feldstein and Jorgenson were members of the original academic consulting group, along with professors at MIT, Chicago, Brookings and Wharton. I direct and take responsibility for the DRI forecasts, working with full -time employees. The others have focussed on policy studies, including three major studies for the Joint Economic Committee which received considerable attention. They have also done studies for the U.S. Treasury, the Ford Foundation, etc. These studies have not been a significant source of profit to the company, but they surely help to build Data Resources as an authoritative source of economic analysis and serve the public interest.

DRI has had very limited relations with the non-tenured faculty in the Harvard Economics Department. We cooperated with the Department in January 1969 to make it possible for Barry Bosworth to assume his appointment a semester early when he wished to leave the Council of Economic Advisers. He did some useful research that spring and summer, most of which reached fruition in his subsequent papers at The Brookings Institution. His half-time support was transferred to a project at Harvard after one semester. Mel Fuss collaborated in the early stages of our analysis of automobile demand sponsored by General Motors. Bill Raduchel has done some consulting in the programming area with us, but this was always was a very minor part of his activities. While it would be improper to recount the precise role of myself or Feldstein and Jorgenson in the promotion considerations of these three men, it is perfectly obvious and easily documented that there is no substantive historical issue of DRI considerations entering into Harvard appointments. Bosworth went to Brookings before his appointment came up; Fuss and Raduchel were not promoted.

Perhaps this is the point to digress on my philosophy on Harvard promotions. I believe that assistant professors should be selected on the basis of professional promise, their potential contribution to the undergraduate teaching program and whatever publication record they already possess. Promotion to associate professor should mainly be based on research accomplishments as well as teaching performance, with both prerequisites. I have always strongly felt that collaboration in the research projects of senior professors should be given no weight in non-tenured appointments because of the considerable risk that the Harvard appointment thereby becomes a recruiting device for the personnel of these projects. In my years at Harvard, I have never asked the Department to appoint anyone whose presence would be useful to me, and I never will make such a request. To the best of my knowledge, Feldstein and Jorgenson have pursued the same policy. I recommend adoption of procedures that would assure that all of us avoid such appointments.

There are more intangible relations between DRI and Harvard which are hard to assess and easy to exaggerate. If I did not possess a professional reputation which has been enhanced by my professorship here my career would have been different, and I might not have received my extraordinary opportunities of public service. As far as the development of DRI is concerned, my greatest institutional indebtedness is to the Council of Economic Advisers. It was this experience which made me appreciate the importance of accurate and quick information and of the tremendous potential of using econometrics to bridge the gap between macro- and micro-economics. As far as the relations with our private and public clients are concerned, a sophisticated group containing numerous Harvard graduates, they understand perfectly well the tremendous diversity of people and ideas present at Harvard. They know that Harvard has no institutional position on political questions or on the merits or demerits of the existing social, political or economic system. It is also clear to them that Data Resources is a totally distinct entity. I am not responsible for your views and you will not be tainted by mine.

Your final question, whether “the kind of economics that serves corporate interest will take on an exaggerated importance when some of our ablest faculty members and students are working on such problems” is a deep philosophical one which I can only attempt to answer in this way. The Harvard Economics Department has always contained individuals with widely varying concepts of their role in life and preferences in their professional activities. Compared to its historical position, the Department at this time is exceptionally heavy in abstract theory and methodology, and in social philosophy and criticism of the existing order. I represent a different point of view that has always been common in our department. It is my aim to apply economics to the country’s problems in the belief that the existing system can be made to meet the needs of the good society. The development of Data Resources is my current personal expression of this philosophy.

Sincerely yours
[signed] Otto
Otto Eckstein

OE/gc

_____________________________

Feldstein reports being a satisfied user of DRI services

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

MARTIN S. FELDSTEIN
Professor of Economics

1737 CAMBRIDGE STREET, 617
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02128

January 9, 1973

Professor J. K. Galbraith
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Littauer 207

Dear Ken:

Although I was surprised by your letter, I am happy to describe my relations with Data Resources. I have been an “economic consultant” to DRI since it was organized. I would describe both the amount of work that I have done and my financial interest as very limited. Last year, my only DRI work was a study of the problem of unemployment that I did for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. The Committee contracted with DRI for the study. DRI provided the use of the DRI model and data bank and the special computing facilities. Professor Robert Hall of MIT, another DRI consultant, worked on the study for a few days. The study, Lowering the Permanent Rate of Unemployment, was used as the background for hearings in October and will be published by the Committee this year. I am enclosing a copy for your interest. I might also note that although the work on this for DRI is now complete, I am planning to continue on my own to do research on some of the problems that I examined in this study. A graduate student who helped me during the summer became so interested in some of the questions of labor force participation that he is considering doing his thesis on that subject.

Before last year I worked on developing the financial sector of the Data Resources model. The basic work here was building a bridge between the usual Keynesian analysis and the Fisherian theory with its emphasis on the expected rate of inflation. My work here started as direct collaboration with Otto Eckstein; we published a joint paper, “The Fundamental Determinants of the Interest Rate,” in the 1970 Review of Economics and Statistics. This research led me to consider the importance of expected inflation in all studies of the impact of interest rates; I described my work on this in “Inflation, Specification Bias, and the Impact of Interest Rates” (Journal of Political Economy, 1970). Although further work on the financial sector is now done primarily by members of the DRI full-time staff, I did some work in 1971 on extending the analysis of expectations and testing alternative econometric models of expectations. This work is described in a recent paper, “Multimarket Expectations and the Rate of Interest” with Gary Chamberlain, that has been submitted for publication.

I have described my DRI studies in such detail to give you a sense of both the substance and nature of the work. It has been scientific research on substantively and technically interesting questions of macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy. I have also found the access to the DRI facilities, particularly the macroeconomic model system and data bank, to be useful in my other research and teaching.

I cannot believe that my association with DRI could create any of the problems that you indicate in your questions 5, 6 and 7. I believe that Otto is writing to you about the specific points that you raised about DRI in your questions 1 through 4. I hope that all of this material reassures you about the relations between DRI and members of our department.

Please call me if you have any further questions,

Sincerely,
[signed] Marty
Martin S. Feldstein

MSF:JT

Enclosure

_____________________________

Galbraith to Feldstein: You did not address my concern about “problems of conflict of interest”

January 19, 1973

Professor Martin S. Feldstein
Room 617
1737 Cambridge Street

Dear Marty:

Many thanks for your detailed — and good-humored — response. I’m grateful also for the JEC Study of which Otto spoke and which I am taking to Europe for my own reading. I have taken the liberty of giving a copy of your letter to Ed Mason who, as you perhaps know, is making a study of this whole problem.

As you can guess, I am untroubled by work done directly or through DRI for the government. I am concerned about the problems of conflict of interest that seem to me to arise when a corporation which owes its esteem to members of our Department markets profit-making services to other corporations. But this is something on which I should like to reserve comment until Ed Mason has come up with his conclusions.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:mjh

_____________________________

Jorgenson: I think you are barking up the wrong tree

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

January 22, 1973

DALE W. JORGENSON
Professor of Economics

1737 CAMBRIDGE STREET, ROOM 510
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138
(617) 495-4661

Temporary Address until 6/30/73:
Department of Economics
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Professor John Kenneth Galbraith
Littauer 207
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Ken:

Many thanks for your letter of December 20 and your note of December 21. Let me take this occasion to thank you for the copy of your AEA Presidential Address you sent to members of the Department. It was a masterpiece of the genre and will be long remembered by its readers. I am very sorry that I was unable to attend your oral presentation at Toronto.

I share your deep concern over recent actions of the Department of Economics on non-tenure personnel, even though our views on these matters do not always coincide. In view of the strong feelings involved I found the discussion to be remarkably free of personal considerations. I hope that I have not been a party to what you describe as a less than gracious response to vour own views. If I have, I hope that you will accept my apologies.

Since your letter is addressed to Otto Eckstein, Martin Feldstein and myself, I will limit this response to my own role in DRI. I am a stockholder and consultant to DRI and have been for almost four years. In my work for DRI, I have acted as a consultant to several U.S. government agencies and to the Ford Foundation. I have had only one corporate client for my services. My main current activity for DRI is a study of energy policy for the Ford Foundation.

DRI provides a unique environment for certain types of research in applied econometrics. My current work on energy policy would be infeasible without the DRI system. The computer software, computerized data bank, and econometric forecasting system have been indispensable in modeling the energy sector and in studying the effects of economic policies related to energy. The facilities available at DRI have reduced the burden of data processing and computation for econometric model-building by several orders of magnitude.

To my mind the two most important features of the DRI system are its high quality from the scientific point of view and its ability to assimilate the results of research and to make them available for routine application. The data bank is unparalleled in scope and reliability and is constantly expanding as new sources of data are made available. The computer software package is highly sophisticated and is under continuous development as new econometric methods are designed. The forecasting system is the core of DRI’s operations and has undergone a process of improvement and extension that has continued up to the present.

The performance of the DRI system is the main source of attraction for DRI’s clients. This is certainly the case for my study of energy policy. You raise a general question about the concerns of DRI’s clients and the views of members of Harvard’s Department of Economics. In my experience there is no connection, either positive or negative. The clients of DRI are buying the services of DRI. As I have already indicated, this is a rather unusual product, unavailable at any university economics department, including Harvard’s.

On the issue of non-tenured members of the Department of Economics who are also employee-consultants of DRI, I have not employed any non-tenured members of the Department in my work for DRI, as I indicated in our telephone conversation. I find it difficult to envision circumstances in which any conflict of interest related to junior appointments could arise from my DRI association. There have been no such circumstances in the past.

I hope that these observations help to clarify the issues you raise

Yours sincerely,
[signed] Dale
Dale W. Jorgenson

DWJ: cg

cc: E. Mason, J. Dunlop, H. Rosovsky, R. Caves, J. Duesenberry, O. Eckstein, M. Feldstein

_____________________________

Galbraith back to Jorgenson: we need to avoid even the appearance of a  “conflict of interest”

Gstaad. Switzerland
February 13, 1973

Professor Dale W. Jorgenson
Department of Economies
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Dear Dale:

Many thanks for your letter and for your nice comments. I hope life goes well for you at Stanford. I am writing this from Switzerland where I am on the final pages of what I intend shall be my last major effort on economics. When I get tired I propel myself across the snow and think how good the mountains in the winter would be in a world where one did not feel obliged to take exercise.

I must say that my attention after writing was shifted to yet another of our corporations of which, to my annoyance, I was unaware. It functions currently, I gather, as a subsidiary of the antitrust problems of IBM.

I do feel that there are serious problems here. Participation in the management of the Department, especially in the selection and recruitment of personnel, and in the management of a profit-making enterprise are bound to involve if not the reality of conflict of interest then the appearance of conflict. Appointments, it will be held, are influenced by what influences corporate customers or needs. This must be avoided. It is especially clear if the corporation sells such services as antitrust defense. But it is also the case if the corporation becomes large and successful —, as I would judge, DRI is certain and deservedly to be.

The proper course, as I have suggested to Ed Mason and informally to Otto, is not to deny any professor the right to participation in a profit-making enterprise. Rather it is to separate the two management roles. A man should be free to have an active ownership role in a corporation or an active position in Department management. He should not do both. This would obviate problems of conflict or seeming conflict and protect the positions of all concerned. Needless to say, I would have the same rule apply to all.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:mjh

cc: E. Mason, J. Duesenberry, O. Eckstein, M. Feldstein, R. Caves, H. Rosovsky, F. Ford

_____________________________

“Economics Dept. Reports On Faculty’s Outside Ties”
by Fran R. Schumer. Harvard Crimson, March 20, 1973

A committee in the Economics Department reported yesterday that business connections between Economics professors and outside corporations do not interfere with hiring decisions and teaching practices.

James S. Duesenberry, chairman of the three-man committee, said yesterday that business ties do not impose a conservative bias on the Department’s hiring practices and do not limit the faculty’s teaching time.

Complaints

The committee’s investigation was prompted by complaints raised last term by John Kenneth Galbraith, Warburg Professor of Economics.

Galbraith attributed the Department’s “conservative hiring practices” to faculty members’ ties with business firms. “The fact that the Department sells its services to American business firms biases its administrative decisions,” Galbraith said.

Despite the committee’s negative findings, Otto Eckstein, professor of Economics and president of Data Resources Inc., a consulting firm, has requested to go on half-time status at Harvard, effective September 1.

Eckstein said yesterday that his decision resulted from Galbraith’s complaints and a new rule prohibiting professors from spending more than one day a week consulting. The rule, previously implicit, was formally written into University law this year.

Galbraith voiced objections to faculty members’ business ties several weeks after the Department’s decision last December not to rehire two radical economists.

At that time, Galbraith told Duesenberry that “business ties necessarily impair the faculty’s ability to impartially judge economists, especially radical economists.”

Galbraith also complained that the Department’s decision last December not to promote William J. Raduchel, assistant professor of Economics, was based on the quality of Raduchel’s work for an outside Resources had little influence on the consulting firm and not on his research and teaching abilities in the Department.

Raduchel is a consultant for Data Resources Inc. and is also a sectionman for Galbraith’s course, Social Science 134, “The Modern Society.”

The committee, composed of Duesenberry, Arthur Smithies, Ropes Professor of Political Economy, and Richard E. Caves, Stone Professor of International Trade, reported last January that Raduchel’s work for Data Resources had no influence on the Department’s decision.

The committee also reported that outside ties do not prejudice the Department’s hiring decisions and do not interfere with normal administrative functioning.

The committee reported its findings only to Duesenberry, the chairman of the Economics Department. Committee members refused to comment on how they investigated the problem.

Duesenberry attributed Galbraith’s objections to the Department’s decision not to promote Raduchel. “Galbraith is annoyed because his boy didn’t get promoted,” he said.

Raduchel told The Crimson last month that he was satisfied with the Department’s decision not to promote him. He said that the decision had “nothing to do with my connection to Data Resources, and was based on my academic work.”

Eckstein agreed with Duesenberry’s conclusion that Raduchel’s work at Data Resources had little influence on the Department’s decision.

Explaining his own position at Data Resources Inc. Eckstein said that his case is no different than that of other faculty members who do consulting work.

Currently, at least three senior faculty members and one junior faculty members do consulting work at Data Resources.

Eckstein described consulting work an inevitable product of Harvard’s hiring policies. “Harvard naturally attracts people who get involved in the outside world,” he explained.

He said that he has a “clear conscience” about the work he is doing at Harvard.

_____________________________

Galbraith to Chairman Duesenberry:

Gstaad, Switzerland
March 27, 1973

Professor James S. Duesenberry
Littauer M-8

Dear Jim:

Herewith some good-humored thoughts on our final talk the other day about our corporate affiliates. As you request, I will now leave the problem to the President, Steiner and whomever.

  1. Although both you and Henry Rosovsky had earlier expressed discomfort about our corporation and some action now seems in prospect, you say I’m severely viewed for raising the issue. Isn’t this a little hard? The important thing, I suggest, is to get things right. However, although given my sensitive soul it has been difficult, I have steeled myself over the years to the idea of not being universally loved.
  2. You say that the bias from combining business entrepreneurship with professorial activities in the eye of some of our colleagues is not greater than that deriving from my (or Marc Roberts’) support of George McGovern. I somehow doubt that the faculty would agree. There is indication of difference, I think, in the way one reacts. I do not find myself shrinking especially from identification even with anything now so widely condemned as the McGovern campaign. I detect a certain desire to avoid public discussion of our corporations.
  3. In keeping with the desire for reticence, I told Ed Mason I wouldn’t talk with the press. The Crimson tells me that you have explained that I raised the issue only out of pique over the non-promotion of Raduchel. Isn’t this a bit one-sided? However, beyond denying any such deeply unworthy motive, I’ll stick to my agreement, always reserving the right of self-defense.
  4. As to my motives, so far as I can judge them, I did feel that Raduchel got judged on his corporate work, while — as Smithies and I both complained — there was no consultation with those who best knew about his teaching. His teaching has been very good. I suggest that we are always in favor of improving undergraduate teaching in principle but not in practice. Also I do not agree that he was unpromotable. He has a lively, resourceful mind and has worked hard for the University and the students. I think him far, far better than the dull technicians we do carry to the top of our nontenured ranks, possibly even beyond.
  5. But, as I probe my soul for the purest available motive, it was not Raduchel. I simply think that, when a professor speaks or acts on a promotion, we should know that he is doing it as a professor and not as a businessman.
  6. I had thought that the separation of our business arrangements from the Department management might be a solution, with the proposed withdrawal of voting rights from the aged as a precedent. This, I gather, will not wash, so I subside. As Ed Mason tactfully hints, I’ve had enough lost causes for one year.

I do have one final thought. In accordance with the well-known tendencies of free enterprise at this level, one day one of these corporations is going to go down with a ghastly smash. It will then be found, in its days of desperation or before, to have engaged in some very greasy legal operations. The Department and the University will be held by the papers to have a contingent liability. It will be hard to preserve reticence then. It would have been better to have taken preventative action now.

Conforming to your wish that I restrict communications on this subject, I’m not circulating this letter. But would it trouble you If I added it discreetly to the file in the President’s office? Do let me know.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:mjh

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5 Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics. Discussion of appointments, outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

Image Sources: John Kenneth Galbraith (1978), Harvard University Archives; Otto Eckstein (April 1969), Harvard University Archives; Martin Feldstein (ca. 1974), Newton Free Library, Digital Commonwealth, Massachusetts Collections Online; Dale Jorgenson. (1968). John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Economics Programs Harvard Yale

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

 

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

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

__________________________

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

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

__________________________

COLUMBIA COLLEGE

GRADUATE INSTRUCTION, AND THE EXTENSION OF
THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENLARGEMENT OF THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM FOR UNDERGRADUATES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREPARATION OF YOUNG MEN FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE.

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

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

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

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

All which is respectfully submitted,

F. A. P. BARNARD, President.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, February 25, 1880.

__________________________

LETTER OF PROFESSOR BURGESS TO THE PRESIDENT.

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

My Dear Dr. Barnard:

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

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

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

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

I

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

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

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

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

II.

The requirements for admission to this department shall be:

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

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

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

III.

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

IV.

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

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

Trusting that these suggestions may meet your favor and support,

I am, as ever, your most obedient servant,

JOHN W. BURGESS.

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

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

(A.)

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

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

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

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

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

DEGREES.

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

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

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

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

INSTRUCTION TO GRADUATES

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

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

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

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

(B.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(C.)

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

I.—EXPENDITURE.

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

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

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

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

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

II.—REVENUE.

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

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

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

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

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

I.—EXPENDITURE.

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

 

II. REVENUE.

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

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

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

(D.)

COURSES OF STUDY.

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

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF LATIN.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICS AND ASTRONOMY.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LITERATURE.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE MODERN LANGUAGES.

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

 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.

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

School of Civil Service.

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

 

ROMAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

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

School of Civil Service.

 

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY.

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

 

NATURAL HISTORY.

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

 

LAW.

1.— Outlines of British Common Law Ten lectures.

 

SEMITIC AND ORIENTAL LANGUAGES.

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

 

 

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

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

 

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching

Harvard. Haberler and Chamberlin fight over last-minute course changes, 1942-43

Exogenous shocks are really useful for finding out how the economy works. They also help dear colleagues reveal themselves when their private interests conflict with those of other colleagues in particular or with departmental needs in general. The U.S. entry into the Second World War forced several adjustments in the graduate and undergraduate instructional staffing at the Harvard economics department.

This post provides some light on the time Gottfried Haberler was asked to teach the first of the two term graduate economic theory sequence for the academic year 1942-43. The course was a direct descendent of Frank Taussig’s Economics 11 (the expansion of course offerings over the decades required moving into 3 digits for some course numbers and a zero was dropped into the middle of “Economics 11” to obtain “Economics 101”). At the last minute Chairman Edward Chamberlin decided that he wanted “his” course back for both semesters but Gottfried Haberler was clearly not one to go quietly. And so we witness the performance of an academic drama before colleagues, of Professor X and Professor Y claiming conflicting rights to a particular course.

The record presented here is incomplete. I have been unable to find Haberler’s written plea on his own behalf. Reading the material one might think that Chamberlin got his way and Haberler was left to find another course to satisfy his annual teaching obligation. However, a look into the annual report of the President of Harvard College for 1942-43 finds that as far as the staffing of Economics 101 in 1942-43 goes, ex ante equals ex post. The course was ultimately divided that year between Messrs. Haberler and Chamberlin.

___________________________

Economics 101: syllabi (with links to most readings) and examinations for fall and spring terms 1941-42 taught by Edward Chamberlin.

___________________________

Who ended up teaching what 1942-43

Edward Chamberlin

Economics 1a. First term, undergraduate course “Economic Theory”.

Economics 102b. Second term, graduate course “Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Gottfried Haberler. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

Gottfried Haberler

Economics 18b. Second term, undergraduate course on the Economic Aspects of War,

Co-taught Economics 45a with Alvin Hansen. First term, undergraduate course  “Business Cycles”.

Economics 144. Graduate School of Public Administration Seminar “International Economic Relations”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Edward Chamberlin. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

___________________________

Ex Ante Course Announcement

Economics 101. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructors) Fri., at 12. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler.

Source: Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1942-43. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX, No. 53 (September 23, 1942), p. 55.

___________________________

Ex Post Course Enrollment and Staffing

[Economics] 101. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler. — Economic Theory.

Total 24: 16 Graduates, 4 School of Public Administration, 1 Graduate Business School, 3 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1942-1943, p. 47.

___________________________

Presumably the statement prepared by Edward Chamberlin (referring to himself in the third person)

October 9, 1942

Course Economics 101 was announced in the catalogue for 1942-3 to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. This arrangement was never considered as final but was subject to adjustment at the beginning of the college year in view of the general uncertainty as to the status of such of the graduate instruction until enrolments in various courses were known. (In particular, it seemed likely that either 102b or 163 or both might be bracketed, thus freeing either one half or one full course of Mr. Chamberlin’s time). It was, however, agreed between Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin that, in case the course were given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin the second. Several times prior to the opening of college Mr. Haberler asked Mr. Chamberlin about the status of the course and was told that unfortunately nothing final could be decided until enrolments were known; it was agreed, however, that Mr. Haberler would take the first meeting, or meetings, of the course until a decision was reached. The matter was mentioned on Friday morning, October 2, at a casual meeting between classes at which time, since no final decision had been taken, Mr. Chamberlin said that it was still possible that the arrangement might stand. On Saturday, October 3, a final decision to take back the course was communicated to Mr. Haberler after considering a number of factors, among which were the following:

  1. The enrolment in Economics 102b was only two, plus five auditors. This course had always been given in the second semester, thereby opening it to the first year students who had had the first semester of 101. The bracketing of 163 made it possible to revert to this disposition of 102b, (or to bracketing it later on if this seemed necessary). The chief obstacle to Mr. Chamberlin’s giving the first half and therefore all of 101 was thereby removed.
  2. The class list of 101, received Friday afternoon, revealed that of 16 [or 18?] student then enrolled in the course all but two were foreigners. Many of these would have serious problems of adaptation to academic work in a new language and in a new country, and it seemed for the reason especially desirable to unify the introductory course in theory under one direction during the current year.
  3. During the past, two years the course had, for better or worse, been split both vertically and horizontally, not by action of the department but on the initiative of Mr. Chamberlin. This was done in part to open greater possibilities for discussion through smaller sections, and in part to share the course with others who wanted very much to teach theory. At no time during that period had Mr. Chamberlin given less than a full year of the course, and its outline and organization had always been his. It was his sincere belief that now that the course was again of manageable size the department would wish it to be given as it had directed earlier, and that he was fully competent to make the decision. At that time the work of the year had not really begun.

However, Mr. Haberler objected so strongly to the change that in order to settle the matter amicably, Mr. Chamberlin proposed on Sunday afternoon, and Mr. Haberler agreed, that the matter be left to a committee composed of Professor Crum as Chairman and other members to be chosen by Professor Crum. As this Committee could not possibly be assembled and give a decision before the Monday meeting of the course it was agreed that Mr. Haberler would take that meeting and that the Committee shouId render a decision before the Wednesday meeting. The decision was in fact rendered Tuesday afternoon and was unanimous that Mr. ChamberIin should give the course, When apprized of this decision, Mr. Haberler said he would like time to consider whether or not he was willing to accept it. From this point on Mr. Chamberlin became a passive duopolist, leaving all initiative to Mr. Haberler, who proposed that he take the Wednesday meeting of the course, finishing matters which he had begun on Monday, give a cut on Friday (there was a holiday the following Monday), and decide sone time before the Department meeting whether or not he would like to bring the matter before the Department. Meanwhile, the Committee had decided that certain questions which it had discussed apart from the immediate issue should be brought before the Department at its meeting October 13th. Mr. Haberler’s final decision on Thursday was that if the Department is going into the whole theory question anyway, they should also decide on the present status of Economics 101.

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin announces his attention to return statement with statement

October 10, 1942

Dear Leonard [Crum]:

It has occurred to me that, since Haberler has given you in writing a statement of the facts as he sees them, I might, even at this late date do the same. My own statement will add some details and perhaps present a different emphasis at one or two points It may be used at your discretion in whatever way you think best, (including, of course, the possibility of no use at all beyond your own reading). I am sending a copy to Haberler.

Sincerely,

E. H. Chamberlin

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin makes his written statement available to the department

October 17, 1942

To Members of the Department of Economics:

In view of the fact that Professor Haberler’s statement with respect to Economics 101 had some circulation prior to last Tuesday’s meeting and was also read in the meeting, whereas my own statement has to this moment been seen only by Professor Crum and one other member of the Department, I should like now to make both equally available to any who may wish to consult them. Accordingly, they will both be found in the blue folder in Mrs. Arnold’s office. Also in the blue folder are: (1) The minutes of the last three meetings, and 2) The report of the Chairman to the Dean of the Faculty covering the work or the Department for the past year.

Chairman [Chamberlin]

___________________________

Special Committee sides with Chamberlin

CONFIDENTIAL

(for use of Department
of Economics officers
only)

Report of a Special Committee
on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

13 October, 1942

On Monday, October 5, the Chairman of the Department brought to my notice a personal disagreement between himself and Mr. Haberler concerning the assignment for teaching Economics 101, and asked that I serve as Chairman of a Special Committee to “arbitrate” in the case, and report before the meeting of Economics 101 on Wednesday the 7th. I was instructed to associate with myself such members of the Department as I saw fit in making up the Committee. I asked Mr. Burbank, formerly Chairmen of the Department, to be a member, and also four other members of the Department who have at present no active part in the teaching of economic theory and whose views on the matter at issue were unknown to me. One of these individuals was unable to serve because of his inability to meet with the Committee at any time available for meeting within the interval during which action had to be taken. The Committee, therefore, was made up as follows: Crum, Chairman, Black, Burbank, Dunlop, and Usher.

The Committee met and considered to the best of its ability all aspects of the case, and herewith reports certain recommendations to the Department for such action as it wishes to take. The Chairman of the Committee reported on Tuesday afternoon the 6th to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler the findings of the Committee in outline form because the Chairman thought that the two individuals concerned might have agreed to abide by the finding of the “arbitration” and might be willing to put the findings into effect immediately. The Chairman of the Committee did, however, report to both participants in the controversy that he did not regard the Committee as being clothed with any conclusive authority and that unless the participants in the controversy both accepted the findings of the Committee those findings would have to go to the Department as recommendations and would be subject to such action as the Department saw fit to take.

Statement of the issues.

Course Economics 101 is announced in the spring issue of the current Courses of Instruction pamphlet as to be given jointly Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler, and I am informed that they had during the summer agreed among themselves that, in case the course was given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the course during the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin during the second. Late in the week in which instruction of the present half year began Mr. Chamberlin indicated to Mr. Haberler that he thought the entire course should be given by Mr. Chamberlin. Mr. Haberler objected to any such change and insisted that he continue to give the course during the first half year. The issue, accordingly, was whether the conduct of the course should go forward on the basis of joint responsibility of Mr. Haberler in the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin in the second half year, or should be restored to the basis prevailing for several years in which Chamberlin gave the full course.

History of the case.

After the retirement of Professor Taussig, Course 101 (formerly called Course 11) was given for several years by Mr. Schumpeter by an arrangement which was understood to be provisional and subject to later change. At the end of this interim, after extended consideration of the needs and purposes of the Department with respect to the teaching of the several courses in economic theory, the Department took specific action directing Mr. Chamberlin to teach Course 101. At the same time arrangements were agreed upon by which several other specialists in economic theory in the staff of the Department participated in the instruction in economic theory. Presently the enrolmont in Course 101 became so large that its conduct as a single course by the discussion method became difficult; and, without specific vote of the Department, the course was divided into two sections, with one conducted by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Taylor in 1940-41 and by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Leontief in 1941-42, the other by Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin in both years.

With the decline in enrolment which has occurred, no occasion for such splitting of the course persists, and it has long been forseen that Economics 101 would be conducted as a single section during the present year. In recognition of this, an arrangement was made, without specific action by Department vote, to announce Economics 101 for the present year as to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. At the time this arrangement was made the expectation was that Mr. Chamberlin would be giving during the first half year Economics 1a and Economics 102b and that he should not be called upon to carry the additional instruction involved in teaching Economics 101 during the first term.

The initial enrolment in Economics 102b was so small that the course has been withdrawn from the first term offering, and although it is announced for the second term doubt remains whether the enrolment will be sufficient even then to warrant giving it. In recent months, various changes in personnel of the Department and the necessity of distributing the teaching and other load in all branches of the Department work as fairly and efficiently as possible have resulted in various changes in the assignments of particular officers to particular duties. In these circumstances it became possible for Mr. Chamberlin to resume during the first term instruction in Economics 101 without making his course load excessive.

In connection with the controversy, the Chairman of the Committee had a conversation with Mr. Chamberlin in which the latter presented his own views concerning the history of the case and the points at issue. Mr. Haberler submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee setting forth his ideas on the matter. Those items were brought to the attention of the Committee by its Chairman. Following the meeting of the Committee, Mr. Chamberlin also submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee. Either or both of the written statements will be laid before the Department on request.

Meeting of the Committee.

The Committee met on Tuesday, October 6. The Chairman gave the Committee a history of the case and a summary of the information available bearing upon the point at issue. The Chairman also informed the Committee that he did not understand that the Committee had any conclusive powers and would be obliged to report its findings in the form of recommendations to the Department.

The Chairmen specifically urged the Committee, therefore, in proceeding toward its findings to consider the wisdom of bringing in findings which, in its opinion, would probably be supported by the Department. The Chairman reminded the Committee that adequate treatment of the particular matter at issue might well involve (a) recommendations by the Committee concerning certain related matters affecting other courses; and (b) recommendations by the committee concerning certain longer run matters relating to the general question of our offering in economic theory. The Chairman discussed with the Committee certain basic principles bearing upon the case, and received the concurrence of all the members of the Committee in these principles. They are outlined below.

The Committee then proceeded to discuss the matter at issue and various related matters. Discussion by the members of the Committee was free and active and the Chairman made a special effort to call forth the views of each member of the Committee. After this discussion the Committee agreed upon a set of recommendations to be made to the Department, and to be reported to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler in the hope they would accept the findings. The agreement of the Committee was unanimous. Those recommendations are presented below.

Basic principles.

In approaching a set of findings with respect to the issues raised the Committee had in mind a series of basic principles in which members of the Committee concurred. Those are as follows:

(a) Because of its compressed personnel in wartime and because of the extraordinary wartime adjustments needed in its work: the Department has a peculiarly difficult task of assigning functions to its various officers with a view to getting the essential work of the Department done with such distribution of the burden as will be primarily efficient from the point of view of the Department and secondarily fair from the point of view of the individuals.

(b) Even in peacetime the needs of the Department and the objective of securing maximum efficiency in the performance of Department work transcend the interests and preferences of individual officers. Although in peacetime many concessions can be made with a view to accommodating the preferences and interests of individual officers and with a view to protecting the rights or supposed rights of individual officers, the Department would in general not recognize that such individual interests can overrule the general interest of the Department. In wartime this condition is even more emphatically true, and in such time the individual preferences and interests may be obliged to give way to the general interest of the Department more frequently and more extensively than in normal times. Throughout the duration of the war many if not all of the officers of this Department will be doing work which they prefer not to do and will be denied the opportunity to do work which they would like to do. Without such sacrifices the essential work of the University cannot be effectively handled in wartime.

(c) The Department and the University cannot afford to allow the general interest to be sacrificed because of informal commitments or quasi agreements made among individual officers when such agreements fail to take adequate account of the general interest of the Department, even though those who made the agreements acted in good faith. That agreements thus made may from time to time have to be set aside in the interest of the Department, and that such setting aside may involve some sacrifice by one or more individuals involved must be accepted as one of the costs of giving primary importance to the general interest of the Department. Ordinarily it is to be expected that individuals will refrain from making arrangements for which they have no power under the law of the Department; but ever if such arrangements are entered into under a grant of power, the individuals concerned must recognize that the Department itself has a clear right to final determination at one of its meetings.

(d) To the best knowledge of the Committee, the purpose of the Department with respect to the assignment of instruction in Course 101 remains as it was last officially determined by Department vote several years ago, namely, that Course 101 should be given by Mr. Chamberlin.

(e) Under the stress of war the Department may be obliged to sacrifice in part some branches of its work, and the Committee believes that graduate instruction will probably need to be sacrificed before instruction in undergraduate courses, tutorial instruction, and other Department work directed toward the teaching of undergraduates. A policy which exposes graduate instruction to the principal sacrifices is also likely to result in the most frequent disregard of personal preferences and even of supposed rights of individual officers; but presumably the Department would nevertheless feel that such a policy must be adopted and maintained.

Recommendations to the Department.

After considering the facts laid before it in connection with the matters at issue and in the light of its own agreement on basic principles, the Committee agreed unanimously to present the following recommendations to the Department at its meeting on Tuesday, October 13, and to report these recommendations at once to the parties in the controversy:

(a) That during the present year Mr. Chamberlin be assigned to conduct the entire Course 101.

(b) That, in view of chancing conditions which may mean that the Department’s present total offering in economic theory covering the entire range of courses in that field does not most satisfactorily meet the needs of instruction in that field, the Department promptly and earnestly reconsider the total offering with a view to making such changes as may be necessary in the next announcement of courses. The Committee makes no recommendation as to how the reconsideration should be conducted, whether by the appointment of a committee or by general Department discussion or by a combination. It also makes no specific recommendation as to any changes in the present offerings of courses, but merely notices that such a general reconsideration may well cover the possibility that Mr. Haberler might be asked to give work in economic theory.

(c) The Committee recommends that the Department consider asking Mr. Haberler to take charge of an additional half course during the present academic year, with a view to replacing the first half of Course 101 in rounding out his teaching assignment. The Committee specifically recommends that Course 18b be considered as one of the possibilities for additional instruction by Mr. Haberler; and makes this recommendation because on the one hand the Committee feels that the hurried arrangement by which that course was assigned jointly to four officers won Mr. Harris withdrew may have been ill-advised in that use of too numerous instructors in such a course may damage the continuity from the point of view of the student; and on the other hand the Committee believes that Mr. Haberler’s areas of specialization would enable him to handle this particular course very effectively.

(d) The Committee recommends that the Department consider carefully the question whether in determining that the enrolment in a course is so small that the course should be withdraw only those enrolled for credit should be counted, or whether in addition the auditors should be counted (this question was raised before the Committee in connection with Course 102b in which the first term enrolment was two members for credit plus five others. Course 102b has been withdrawn from the first term offering, but will be announced again for the second term, and the question posed above may at that time again be raised).

W. L. Crumm

___________________________

Thus spake the Dean

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Paul Herman Buck, Dean
Henry Chauncey, Assistant to the Dean
Jeffries Wyman, Jr. Assistant Dean

5 University Hall

January 12, 1943

To the Senior Members of the Department of Economics:

After considerable contemplation of the issue which has arisen between Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and which I have undertaken to arbitrate, I find I am in complete accord with the Report of a Special Committee on the assignment for teaching Economics 101, dated October 13, 1942. I commend especially as sound, the basic principles outlined on page 3 of that report and I accept as my official decision the recommendations to the Department given on page 4 of that report.

Frankly, it seems to me most unfortunate that the issue should have descended into personalities. The department should be prepared to face the large problems of policy which I have outlined in a letter to your Chairman which, I trust, will be read at your meeting tonight. Obviously those problems will not be solved intelligently and equitably if they are not approached with a vision directed to the loyalties of one’s subject and university rather than to self. Is it asking too much to relegate the personal aspects of this issue to oblivion?

It seems to me very important so to do. I have taken a great deal of pride in the distinction of the Department of Economics at Harvard and I have spoken in many circles boastfully of having what seems to me one of the very few remaining great departments of economics in the world. Certainly the responsibility of keeping that department great and of enabling it to develop continuing leadership should be the major loyalty to which every other consideration is subordinate. The awareness of this responsibility and the opportunities it presents will preoccupy your time and energies. Let me conclude by saying that I have always had and retain confidence in the intelligence, initiative, devotion. and cooperative spirit of your membership. I write this with all the more assurance because I know so many of you intimately and appreciate from personal friendship the qualities I have mentioned.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Buck

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 25. Folder “Graduate Instruction in Theory. Economics 101. 1942-43.

Categories
Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Harvard Michigan Popular Economics Yale

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

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

________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1860.

1870.

1884.

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

Cornell University.

[Institution not founded]

One third of Junior Year

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

University of Michigan.

Not in the Course of Study.

One Term of Senior Year.

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

Columbia College.

Elective in one part of Senior Year.

One Term of Senior Year.

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

Harvard University.

One half of Senior Year.

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

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

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

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

________________________________

COLLEGE PROFESSORS AS ECONOMISTS.

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

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

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

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

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

SourceThe Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) April 15, 1885, p. 4.

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

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Economics Programs Economists

Chicago. The Education of Zvi Griliches. Through Ph.D. 1957

 

The two documents transcribed for this post provide wonderful detail about the economics training received by Zvi Griliches whose academic career passed from Hebrew University, through the University of California, Berkeley, and ultimately through the University of Chicago to Harvard.

Griliches was responsible for graduate admissions in the Harvard economics department back when I was applying to graduate school (1974). When I went to Cambridge to visit the Harvard and M.I.T. departments, I pressed Griliches (the only professor at Harvard with whom I could get an appointment) for him to tell me what in his opinion the difference between Harvard and M.I.T. was. He smiled (hopefully amused by my naive presumption) and replied that M.I.T. provided more of a “bootcamp training” than Harvard would. He did make that sound like a bad thing. In any event, M.I.T. was better at recruiting, able on short notice to line up appointments to talk with Evsey Domar and Charles Kindlberger plus a handful of graduate students. Still I have to admit that Griliches did warn me what I was getting myself into.

Zvi Griliches was awarded a Social Science Research Council Research Training Fellowship in 1955-56, and from information in the supplementary statements below, it is clear that the application was written sometime in the early months of 1955 (Chicago’s Winter Quarter 1955). So while it is possible that he was applying for more than this single fellowship, there is no indication of any other fellowship at that time being considered in Griliches’ papers in the files at the Harvard Archive that I consulted.

Questions for the Price Theory prelim exam for the Winter Quarter 1955 have been posted earlier. From Milton Friedman’s papers, we know that Griliches got the top grade (by a long shot) on that particular exam.

Griliches received a two year appointment at Chicago beginning Oct 1, 1956— “to give service for the National Science Foundation Econometric Model Research Project on a ninety per cent time basis and for the Department of Economics on a ten per cent time basis with total salary of $5,000 per annum”. So it was certainly reasonable for him at the start of the second year of his contract to put his academic record on file with the University of Chicago Vocational Service and Employment Office. That is the second document transcribed below.

Economic in the Rear-view Mirror’s “Believe it or not!”

Graduates listing themselves with the University of Chicago’s Vocational Service and Employment Office were asked even as late as the Autumn Quarter of 1957:

Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer to teach?
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer not to teach?

Easy to believe, and the documentary record indeed shows, that Zvi Griliches answered “No” to both questions.

___________________________________

Supplementary Statements from Winter Quarter 1955 in Griliches’ fellowship application for 1955-56

 Zvi Griliches

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “C”:

For attainment of the objectives outlined above I think that the following knowledge and training is desirable:  1) economic theory including mathematical economics; 2) statistics and econometrics including all the modern developments and also experience with efficient computational procedures; 3) agricultural economics; and 4) some knowledge of historical methods.

  1. Economic theory and mathematical economics will be very important in my future work because they provide the framework for the actual quantitative work. They suggest which are the important variables in different problems and indicate something about the form of their interrelationships. They also provide a check on the internal consistency of our models and are the source of most of our hypotheses. I believe that I have a good knowledge of basic economic theory and a reasonable familiarity with mathematical economics. My major graduate courses in this field were:

R.G. Bressler Jr. — Production Economics — In this course I was introduced to the pure theory of production and to the interrelationships of cost and supply curves.

R.G. Bressler Jr. — Seminar in Agricultural Marketing Organization — This course, in spite of its name, dealt primarily with problems of cost measurement, location theory, and general equilibrium.

Robert Dorfman — Advanced Economic Theory A-B1 — This was the major graduate course in Economic Theory at the University of California, covering Price Theory, Distribution Theory, and introducing us to Income and Employment Theory.

Robert Dorfman — Mathematical Methods in Economics — This was my introduction the Mathematical Economics proper. It dealt with general maximization problems, the pure theory of consumers’ choice, and in particular with dynamic difference equations models. The last topic will be very important in the construction of my model.

A.C. Harberger — Price Theory A — Covered more advanced topics in price theory and problems of definition and measurement of utility.

D. Gale Johnson — Price Theory B3 — This course covers distribution theory and related topics.

            I have also taken in the past and intend to take in the future a series of courses in Monetary and Fiscal Theory which I shall not list here.

            I also intend to participate in the Seminar in Mathematical Economics to be given in the spring quarter of 1955 by G. Debreu at the University of Chicago. In spite of all the above, I shall still lack adequate knowledge of Mathematical Economics. I need especially a better knowledge of growth models and of stochastic difference equations. I think, however, that I shall be able to acquire this necessary knowledge through individual study, as my work progresses.

            I am aided in my knowledge of mathematical economics and also of statistics and econometrics by a good undergraduate training in calculus and an individually acquired knowledge of matrix and vector algebra. Nevertheless, this is not enough. As it forms a basis for most of the other fields, I should learn more mathematics. I intend to do so after I have completed the preliminary Ph.D requirements both through intensive studying on my own and also by auditing some courses at the university.

 

  1. A good knowledge of statistics and econometrics is indispensable for quantitative work in agricultural economics. Though this is a field where there is always more to learn, nevertheless, I think that I have a basic knowledge of the most important techniques. My major courses in this field were:

George Kuznets — Analytical Methods A — This was my introduction to the theory and methods of multiple regression, weighted regression, testing hypotheses, and non-parametric tests. Within the framework of this course I wrote a paper “Demand for Clingstone Peaches on the Grower Level” which introduced me to modern computational procedures and the use of modern computational equipment.

Ivan Lee — Analytical Methods B — In this course I was introduced to simultaneous equations, the identification problem, maximum likelihood estimates, analysis of variance, and sampling theory. Within the framework of this course I wrote a paper “Clingstone Peaches: Demand and Supply Relationships on the Grower Level” applying both least squares and limited information techniques.

Roy Radner — Statistical Problems of Model Construction1 — Introduced me to decision theory, covered in greater detail the Markov Theorem and maximum likelihood estimates.

Martin Beckman — Allocation of Resources in Production3 — This course is introducing me to the valuable new technique of activity analysis (linear programing).

W.H. Kruskal —  Mathematical Statistics I2 — The principal topics of this course are: point and set estimation; hypothesis testing; elements of multivariate analysis; elements of linear hypothesis theory; typical nonparametric procedures.

            In the addition to the above I profited greatly from work with Professors Varden Fuller and Ivan Lee (Summer 1953), which made me familiar with census data, BAE publications, and other major sources of data in agriculture: and from my work with Professor Sidney Hoos (Summer 1954), which provided practical experience in the application of modern econometric techniques. I also have participated and shall continue to participate in the Seminar in Econometrics conducted by members of the Cowles Commission at the University of Chicago.

            All this of course is not enough. I shall have to learn much more. Some of it I shall still get at the university, but the greater part I shall have to learn on my own as my work progresses.

 

  1. A thorough knowledge of agricultural economics is important as it will provide both the framework and background of my work. I believe that I possess a reasonably good knowledge of this field. I have received both the B.S. and M.S. degrees in agricultural economics and have read widely in the field. Some of my courses in this field were:

George Mehren — Seminar in Agricultural Marketing — Introduced me to the practical and theoretical problems arising in the administration of agricultural marketing and adjustment programs.

Murray Benedict — Agricultural Production Economics — Dealt with the theoretical issues underlying policy problems in agriculture.

Varden Fuller — Seminar in Agricultural Policy1— Dealt with current policy issues and their economic implications.

C.M. Hardin — Seminar in Agricultural Policy2 — This course is introducing me to the consideration of current agricultural policy issues from the point of view of Political Science.

T.W. Schultz — Choice and Possibilities in Economic Organization — Dealt primarily with economic development and its impact on agriculture.

D. Gale Johnson — Incomes Welfare, and Policy3 — This course is introducing me to more advanced topics in agricultural economics and policy.

            I have gained also from participation in departmental meetings and seminars, both at the University of California and at the University of Chicago. Three years of my life spent working on farms (1947-50) and a summer (1952) as a research assistant with the California Packing Corporation collecting yield data have enriched my understanding of agriculture and its problems.

 

  1. As time series are used to a great extent in quantitative work, some knowledge of historical methods is quite important. I am fortunate in this respect to have had a very intensive and profitable year of undergraduate study in History at the Hebrew University, and in particular a course in “Introduction to historical literature and methods” by Professor Richard Koebner

            The only way one really becomes adept in quantitative work is by doing quantitative work. In a sense, this is the purpose of my project. As a result of work on my project I should gain experience and facility in using both theory and quantitative methods.

I have a good knowledge of Russian, German and Hebrew.

—————————————–

1 I audited this course
2 I am auditing this course
3  am currently taking this course

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “D”:

I shall have completed all the required course work by June 1955. I intend to take the Ph.D. preliminary examination in Winter 1955, and the preliminary examinations in Money and Banking, and Agricultural Economics in Summer 1955. I have already taken and passed a reading examination in German, and I shall take the examination in Russian in February of 1955. Hence, I hope to have completed all the requirements toward the Ph.D. degree, except the dissertation and final oral examination, by August 1955, and before the fellowship goes into effect.

The preliminary title of my thesis is “A study of the factors determining the development, distribution, and acceptance of new technology”.

The faculty adviser is Professor D. Gale Johnson,

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “E” :

1950-51. A student at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

1951-54. Student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Summer 1952. Research Assistant with the California Packing Corporation. Collection of yield data. $1.10 per hour.

Fall 1952. Awarded the D. Solis Cohen Scholarship. This scholarship was awarded to me during the following two semesters.

May 1953. Election to Phi Beta Kappa.

June 1953. Awarded the degree of Bachelor of Science with highest honors in Agriculture.

Summer 1953. Research Assistant with the John Haynes Foundation, working under the direction of Prof. Varden Fuller, at the University of California. Salary: $325/month

1953-54. Jesse D. Carr Fellow in Agriculture at the University of California.

Summer 1954. Research Assistant at the Gianini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California; working under the direction of Professor Sidney Hoos. Salary —$290 a month.

September 1954. Awarded a Master of Science degree in Agricultural Economics by the University of California.

1954-55. A University Fellow and full time student at the University of Chicago.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “F”:

  1. “Demand for Clingstone Peaches on the Grower Level”, Berkeley,  January 1954, Typewritten manuscript,
  2. “Clingstone Peaches for Canning: Demand and Supply Interrelationships on the Grower Level”, Berkeley, June 1954,
  3. “The Differential Spread of Hybrid Corn: A Research Proposal”, Chicago, December 1954, pp. 1-20.

All three papers are available on loan from me. All are unpublished typewritten manuscripts.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder: “Correspondence, 1954-1959.”

_______________________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND PLACEMENT

EDUCATIONAL REGISTRATION FORM

Date: September 30, 1957
Name in Full: Hirsch Zvi Griliches
Current Address: 6011 Kimbark, Chicago 37, Ill.
Telephone: Bu 8-1975
Permanent Address: ditto

 

PERSONAL DATA

Date of birth: 9/12/1930. Place: Kaunas, Lithuania
Are you a U.S. citizen? No
If through naturalization give date. If not, explain status: Permanent resident (immigrant), expect. naturalizt. in 2 yrs.
Height: 5’11
Weight: 160
Marital status: Married
Number and ages of children: 1 daughter, 9 months.
Are you a veteran? Of the Israeli Army.
Physical handicaps: None
Church (if you wish to indicate): Jewish
Scholastic honors: S.B. with Highest Honors in Agriculture (U of Calif., 1953), Phi Beta Kappa
Scholarships (give dates and schools): Solis D. Cohen Scholarship, Univ. of Calif., 1952-53
Fellowships (give dates and schools): Jesse D. Carr (Univ of Calif., 1953-54), University (U of Chicago, 1954-55), Social Science Res. Council Research Training Fell. 55-56
Certificates held: None

 

EDUCATIONAL AND RELATED EXPERIENCE

List chronologically all work experience (including teaching, government, business, practice teaching, and experience in armed services)

June 1953 to Sept 1953. John Hanes Foundation, Berkeley, Calif., Research Assistant

June 1954 to Sept. 1954. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Research Assistant, Price Analysis.

Oct. 1954 to Sept 1955. Office of Agricult. Economic Research, Chicago, Research Assistant.

Oct. 1956 to date, U of Chicago, Assistant. Prof., Ag. Economics, Gen. Econ. Theory.

 

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

(If this space is insufficient, attach another sheet)

UNDERGRADUATE COURSES: (List title, not catalogue number, and follow with the number of semester hours; e.g. Shakespeare, 3. One full course in the College of the University of Chicago equals 3 semester hours.)

First Year

Second Year Third Year

Fourth Year

Hebrew 10 Geology 6 Botany 3
English 8 Introd. Econ 6 Calculus 6
Latin 8 Intern. Trade 3 Ag Econ Theory 6
Russian 4 Statistics 3 Ag. Marketing 3
Westr. Civil. 6 Agric Policy 3 Ag Policy 3
Polit. Theories 8 Range Mangmnt 3 Hist. of Ec. Thght 3
Medieval History 8 Zoology 3 Irrigation Econ. 3
Sociology 8 Agronomy 3
Intnat.Econ. 3

 

GRADUATE COURSES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (List Course Title.) (One full course in the Divisions of the University of Chicago equals 3½ semester hours)

Instructor

Title of Course Instructor

Title of Course

Harberger Price Theory A Hamilton Banking and Monetary Policy
Monetary and Fiscal Policy Metzler Monetary Asp. of Inter’l Trade
Recent Dev. in Economics Beckman Alloc’n of Res. in Prod.
Schultz Choice & Possib. in Econ. Org. Audited:
Econ. Org. for Stability Savage Introd. To Probability Theo.
Regression & Anal. of Varian.
Johnson Price Theory B Theil Math. Economics
Income, Welfare, & Policy Radner Econometrics
Friedman Price Theory A & B
Tolley Money

 

GRADUATE COURSES TAKEN ELSEWHERE (University of California, Berkeley)

Instructor

Title of Course Instructor

Title of Course

Clark Agric Marketing 3 Kuznets Analytical Methods A 3
Mehren Agric Marketing. Sem. 3 Lee Analytical Methods B 3
Bressler Ag Market Organ. Sem. 3 Dorfman Math Methods of Econ 3.
Bressler Ag Production Theory A 3 Audited:
Benedict Ag Production Theory B 3 Dorfman Econ Theory A & B 6

 

SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AS OF Oct. 1, 1957

MAJORS SEMESTER HOURS MINORS
(OR RELATED FIELDS)

SEMESTER HOURS

Undergraduate

Agric Econ 15 History 22
Economics 15 Math and Statistics

9

Graduate

Agric Econ 24 Econometrics & Stat 6 + 9 aud.
Econ Theory & Math Econ 15 +15 aud Money

12

Thesis field and preliminary fields: Agricultural Economics, Economic Theory, Monetary Theory.
Education Courses:  None

 

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

List all schools attended. Begin with high school from which you graduated. Include work in progress at the University of Chicago and Foreign [Universities]

Dates of Attendance

Institutions—Location Major Subject Minor Subject

Degree and Date Awarded

6/50 Dept. of Education, State of Israel External Matriculation exams passed 1950
9/50 to 6/51 Hebrew University, Jerusalem History Sociology
10/51 to 6/54 University of California, Berkeley Agric. Econ Agric. Market. S.B. 1953
S.M. 1954
10/54 to 8/57 University of Chicago, Chicago Economics Agric. Econ. A.M. 1955
Ph.D. 1957

Title of Master’s thesis: no thesis

Title of Doctor’s thesis: Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in Economics of Technological Change.
Thesis adviser: T.W. Schultz

 

EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Single check activities in which you have participated. Double check those which you can direct [coach/play].

Assemblies, Athletics, Audio-Visual, Band, Camping, Chorus, Civic Organizations, Crafts, Curriculum Planning, Debate, Dramatics, Gymnasium Activities, Orchestra, Parent-Teachers activities, Piano, Playground, Public Addresses, Pupil Participation in Government, Reading, Rhythms-Dances, School Clubs, School Publications, School Publicity, Speech, Vocational Guidance.

[Note:  Only School Clubs was checked (single checked) from the list. It was the Political Economy Club in college]

What foreign languages do you speak? Hebrew, Russian, German, Lithuanian, Yiddish.

Can you type? Poorly. Take dictation? No. Bookkeeping knowledge? No.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(For our use only—not included in credentials mailed to employers.)

PUBLICATIONS:

“Specification bias in estimates of production functions,” Journal of Farm Economics, February 1957.

“Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change,”Econometrica, October 1957.

Book reviews in the Journal of Political Economy

MEMBERSHIPS:

American Economic Association
American Farm Economics Association
Econometric Society
Fellow of Royal Economic Society

 

REFERENCES
Instructors at the University of Chicago

List at least two University of Chicago instructors who are able to evaluate your course work.

T.W. Shultz
A.C. Harberger
D.G. Johnson
Carl Christ

 

INSTRUCTORS AT OTHER COLLEGIATE INSTITUTIONS

List instructors at other schools from whom you would like to have letters of recommendation.

R.G. Bressler. Dept. of Agric. Economics, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.
Sidney Hoos.  Ditto.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

If you have had teaching or administrative experience, list administrative officers who can report on your work (one for each position you have held).

D.G. Johnson, Univ. of Chicago. Act. Chairman
H.G. Lewis, Univ. of Chicago. Director of Research Center.

 

At what other university or college placement office are your letters of recommendation on file?   None.

 

OCCUPATIONAL CHOICES

List three position choices. Be very specific as to (1) courses you can teach within your own department (e.g., if Sociology-Social Psychology, Marriage and Family, Theory); (2) kinds of institutions (University, Liberal Arts College, State Teachers College, Junior College, High School, Junior High School, or grades); (3) other types of positions (Registrar Dean, Superintendent, Business Manager, Critic, Supervisor, etc.).

University, Land Grant or Liberal Arts College, teaching position with opportunities for research. Economic Theory, Agricultural Econ., Econometrics, Money.

Date available (month and year) September 1, 1958
Locality preferred East or West Coast.
Are you limited to that area? No.
Would you apply for positions in foreign countries? Yes
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer to teach? No
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer not to teach? No
Present or last salary $6500 (Confidential) for 11 months.
Minimum salary you would consider $7000 (Confidential) for 11 months.

Your registration is incomplete without six photographs (not larger than 2 ½ by 3 ½ inches).
Pictures are important.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder: “Correspondence, 1954-1959.”

Image Source:  Zvi Griliches from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06565, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Language Requirements for PhD Report, 1951

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

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

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

___________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

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

Summary

Findings of Fact:

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

Conclusions:

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

Recommendations:

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

A minority of the Special Committee recommends:

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

 

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

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

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

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

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

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

The Findings of Fact

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

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

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

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

Chap. II. The University Council

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

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

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

Chap. III. Faculties and Administrative Boards

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

Chap. XIV. Faculty of Political Science

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

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

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

The finding is supported by the following evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Admission to Candidacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Considerations Underlying Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

The minority of the Special Committee recommends:

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

Action by the Faculty Alone

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted

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

November 5, 1951

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

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

Categories
Cambridge Columbia Cornell Curriculum Economics Programs Germany Harvard Oxford Teaching

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

 

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

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

Chicago, Columbia, Harvard 1893-94

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

____________________________

Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries.

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

APPENDIX

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

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

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

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

      1. England
      2. Scotland
      3. Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUSTRIA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUNGARY.

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

1Budapest, Klausenburg (Kalorsvar).

GERMANY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOLLAND.

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

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

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

BELGIUM.

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

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

ART. 5.

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

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

ART. 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITALY.

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

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

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

RUSSIA.

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

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

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

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

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

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

Full courses

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

Half-courses

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

At Columbia College the courses are as follows:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

APPENDIX II.

On Economic Studies in France.
By Henry Higgs.

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

(i.) The Collège de France, Paris;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGLAND.

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

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

Part I.—Three papers.

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

Part II.—Three papers.

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTLAND.

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

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

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

IRELAND.

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

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

—————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Meeting of the Visiting Committee with the Economics Department. January 1944

 

Maybe attending to the routine business of the Harvard economics department was seen as a welcome respite amidst the Sturm und Drang of the Second World War. Maybe the consensus was simply shared that the transistory shock of the war would soon be over and it was time to worry again about the core missions of Harvard and its economics department. In any event, the following report outlines a “Research Program for the Department of Economics” presented to the visiting committee by the chair of the department’s Committee on Research Program, Professor John D. Black. 

____________________________

Visiting Committee Reports available at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror

Visiting Committee Report 1915

Visiting Committee Report 1974

____________________________

Meeting of the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics with the Department, on Monday, January 10, 1944.

The Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics met with the Department at seven o’clock on Monday, January 10, 1944, at the Harvard Club in Boston. There were present for the Visiting Committee: Roger N. Baldwin, Albert F. Bigelow, Paul M. Herzog, George Rublee (chairman), Charles E. Spencer, and Orrin G. Wood. For the Department: John D. Black, H. H. Burbank, W. L. Crum, John T. Dunlop, Edwin Frickey, Seymour E. Harris, Arthur E. Monroe, Wassily Leontief, Abbott P. Usher, John H. Williams, and Edwin B. Wilson. Mr. Rublee presided.

 

Mr. Rublee called on Professor Burbank, the chairman of the Department of Economics, to make an opening statement.

Professor Burbank said that in previous years we had at these dinners talked about our teaching difficulties, especially those connected with the junior staff. Last year we discussed Professor Slichter’s experiment with the labor-union representatives. This year the Department had suggested to Mr. Rublee that we consider our most pressing problem of the present, as well as the immediate and long-run future. Fundamentally, this problem is concerned with the Department’s research. We must have a vigorous and effective program of research if we are to have a dominant Department of Economic in the University or, indeed, if the University itself is to maintain its high standing. The Department of Economics has recently appointed a Committee on Research Program. Professor Black is the chairman of this committee.

Professor Black then presented the following report:

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A department of economics in a large university has three functions to perform:

  1. To teach and train students,
  2. To contribute to an understanding of the current problems of private enterprise and public affairs,
  3. To help develop the science of economics.

In a small college a good job of teaching is about all that can be expected of a department of economics. In a great university the second and third functions are as important as the first.

Fortunately those three functions not only need not interfere with each other, but in a large university can be performed in such a way that each strengthens the other. This does not mean that all can be performed in the same time, but rather that each is better done if the other two are also being strongly carried. As a matter of fact, however, much time and energy is saved if all three are combined. Thus what is learned from the study of current problems can be used very effectively in the classroom and at the same time furnishes needed and valuable inductive material for the development of economic science. One’s teaching, in turn, especially one’s graduate instruction, is a constant source of ideas and suggestions to be developed in research. Only, therefore, if the staff of a department of economics is large enough and well enough financed so that it can work along all three of these lines, is it able to yield a large return upon the investment in it. Only if thus set up and thus functioning is it able to realize the possible economies of combination of these functions.

The Department of Economics of Harvard University has been performing on all of these fronts ever since it was organized. But in the period while the members of this committee have been associated with it, it has by no means measured up to its opportunities on the last two of them, and what is more important, unless some action is taken in the near future, it will miss out still more on its opportunities after the war. It will not only do less well the job it has been trying to do, for reasons to be indicated presently, but also will not reach out and encompass the larger needs of the years ahead. Needless to state, society and the nation are going to be faced with major tasks of adjustment in the years just ahead and over the next decade or two and likewise breath-taking possibilities for social advancement. So important is the role of economies in these developments that if the Department of Economies of Harvard University does not contribute its part to them, this alone will almost be enough to shrink Harvard University in toto into a second- rate institution. This, therefore, is a moment for stock-taking and laying out plans.

It is not part of the assignment of this committee to consider the teaching function of the Department. But some reference must be made to it for the reasons just given. the present course offerings and methods of instruction are not well fitted to the present and the impending future. The function of teaching in a field like ours is primarily to train students to apply economics, and the methods of economic analysis, to the situations which confront them after they leave college. For Harvard undergraduates, most of these situations are situations in private enterprise, although having important public relations. A limited proportion are assignments in the public service itself. The program of teaching needs to be organized in anticipation of the kinds of jobs, mostly private, that the graduates of Harvard University get to do. The graduate teaching program needs to envisage e wide range of working assignments, a large fraction of them in the public service. Training teachers of economics is only one of the functions of graduate teaching. Because the teaching is not organized as needed, there are some large gaps in the present program, and these gaps, it will appear presently, coincide with gaps in the research activities of the department.

The other two functions, contributing directly to an understanding of current situations, and developing economic science, are orginarily considered as research. There is considerably more to the first of these than just research, but since good research is basic to it, we will here consider them both as research and treat them under one head from this point on.

The deficiencies in the research activities of the Department of Economics, considered especially from the standpoint of the postwar can be designated under the following heads:

  1. Not enough research is being done
  2. There are gaps in it
  3. Some of it is not of enough significance.

The reasons for these deficiencies are as follows:

  1. Lack of resources to carry on the needed volume of research.
  2. This includes resources in research personnel as well as in the expenses of clerical assistants, field study, publication, and the like.
  3. Inadequate staff, or none at all, in some important fields.
  4. Very little in the way of leadership. Staff not organized in such a way as to promote research.

Let us now consider briefly these four reasons. When an economist does not have financial resources with which to do significant research, he may put in his spare energy on library work on the writings of his predecessors, the Congressional Record, and the like. For this he needs only someone to type his manuscript. If in addition, he has a little money to hire a computer, he may go to work on the census records and other official statistics. Those two descriptions about cover all the research now being done by the Harvard Department of Economics as such.

Lacking funds for anything more, two developments have followed. First, a goodly number of the staff members have taken on research or related assignments with other agencies. Merely to list these agencies tells the story. (We are purposely omitting the wartime agencies), the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Resources Planning Board, the Food and Nutrition Board, the Bureau of Economic Research, the League of Nations, the Twentieth Century Fund, the National Planning Association, the National Industrial Conference Board, etc. While most of those assignments are important, to have as many of them disorganizes the research and teaching of the Department. Also the Department as such does not get adequate recognition for work done under other auspices. Finally, there is great need for having research done that is largely independent of government agencies. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The second development has been that several members of the Department have started projects that they have not been able to complete thus far. They have learned by sad experience that they cannot swing ambitious projects without the help of trained younger associates who can direct the detail of the analysis and help with the writing. As a result, a number of important projects are now left suspended.

If the Department is to have a vigorous research program of its own, there must be funds with which to employ a dozen or two of these younger research associates, as well as funds for computers, clerical help, drafting, travel and field study.

The Committee is also disposed to think that a clearer recognition should be given to research duties in the total program of the Department. It would suggest that consideration be given to a plan which would differentiate teaching loads according to research carried. Staff members who do very little research, because not inclined that way, or having small capacity for it, would handle more classes under such a plan.

The nature of the gaps in the present program may be judged from a following incomplete survey of fields of research and teaching and the needs of each.

  1. Money and credit. Staff ample, but research associates, clerical and other help much needed. High time that a research showing be made.
  2. Business cycles. Staff ample. Funds to continue the program that was under way before the war.
  3. International economic relationship. Staff probably not entirely adequate and great need of developing a well-rounded research program suited to the postwar world. This program should include work on Inter-American relationships, development of resources of Latin America, international food supply and distribution and related population problems. Research associates and other financial help.
  4. Public finance. Staff ample. Research associates and other help needed.
  5. Economic history. A teaching as well as research associate needed. One professor now working alone in the field.
  6. Labor and industrial relations. The principle problem is to develop a workable program for using the research funds now available.
  7. Agriculture. A teaching associate needed, and probably two research associates with necessary supplementary funds.
  8. Commodity distribution. Needs complete staffing. An undergraduate and a graduate course are now being given on a makeshift basis. No research under way.
  9. Production economics. Courses now bracketed. Needs complete staffing.
  10. Forestry economies. A slight beginning has been made on a program in this field in collaboration with the Harvard Forest. An opportunity for an important contribution here. Needs a man to develop teaching and research with such financial support as required.
  11. Concerning the several other present fields of teaching and research in the Department, no statement is being made at this time.

The present research funds available for the Department are:

  1. A share with three other departments in the remnants of grant that will expire in June 1946. (About $40,000 left, most of which must be reserved for publication expenses.)
  2. Remnants of three other small grants, totaling about $6000, for special projects.
  3. The Wertheim fund, yielding about $3000 a year, for research in industrial relations, to be shared with other divisions of the University.

The committee suggests as a method of approach to the situation outlined that the Department set up a committee to draft a research program for the Department, and another one to develop a procedure for securing the necessary support for the program.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor Black added that in the natural sciences the idea of large laboratories is well established. In Economics also we need extensive laboratories and personnel therefor. Further, we need funds for field workers and for traveling expenses.

Mr. Bigelow asked whether there were any project being worked on in the School of Public Administration which could be coordinated with the research of the Economics Department. Professor Black answered that the idea of combining has already been carried as far as possible. The School of Public Administration funds are sufficient only to take care of the assembling of materials and other routine connected with the seminars.

Mr. Baldwin asked what the Department did with its research funds in the past when such funds were available. Professor Black answered that we made small grants to individual professors to help them finish projects in which they were engaged. These grants covered such activities as preliminary research, computing, and typing, but in general not much was available for field work or for traveling. Some eight or ten books have been published as a result of these projects. The publication of these books, as well as the research behind them, depended largely on research grants. Our research funds are now almost exhausted; we have very little money available for the future.

Professor Usher pointed out that in these earlier grants the modes and procedures were laid down by the donors. The Department did not have a free hand in organizing and planning research.

Mr. Baldwin asked whether the Economics Department today has a claim for research funds superior to that of other departments. Professor Burbank urged that a very strong case can be made out for such a position.

Professor Wilson observed that in days gone by great emphasis was laid on “inter-disciplinary” research. A second-rate “interdisciplinary” project would be given preference over a first-rate piece of restricted research. Professor Wilson further remarked that the research programs of the natural sciences were well set up thirty or forty years ago. Our social sciences, on the other hand, were for a long time treated as mere teaching departments. The movement away from this stand received a great impetus from an article by the late Professor Charles J. Bullock, in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for June 1915. This article called attention to the need of more generous and systematic provision for economic research. Our research program for Economics needs to be extended to a scale comparable with that of the natural sciences—unless, indeed, the United States government is to handle all the economic research in this country!

There was some discussion regarding the relation of university research in Economics to governmental research. Professor Usher pointed out that university research can be the basis for developing techniques of analysis which government bureaus can later put into “mass production.” Mr. Bigelow suggested that the development of techniques is more difficult in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. Professor Leontief predicted that the Economies Department’s research will set the direction for larger-scale governmental or “foundation” research, and emphasized that independent research, especially in its earlier stages, can never be reproduced in the “rough and tumble” conditions of governmental work. Dean Williams supported this view: a situation has been developing for some time—not just in connection with the War emergency—in which men are pulled out of university work to become mere administrators, to “run” projects; furthermore, working under governmental supervision may mean a certain loss of independence of thought, for consciously or unconsciously a men may be affected by considerations of “official policy.” Dr. Dunlop declared that you simply cannot do fundamental research under governmental auspices, there are always too many pressing current problems.

Mr. Herzog urged that the Department’s next step is to present cogent arguments to support its contentions regarding research needs. In this connection, it will be quite important to show people what contributions the Department has made in the past with the research grants allotted to it—what, for example, has resulted for practical use of the Government. Professor Burbank responded that we might take as an example the history of the statistical work on the Balance of International Payments. At the end of the last war the government and business men were vitally interested in this subject. Dean Williams was a pioneer in the field. Dean Williams briefly outlined the record. He began with an examination of the balance of payments for Argentina. Then, under the auspices of the Harvard Economics Society he, together with Professor Bullock and Mr. Tucker, made and presented a historical study of the Balance of Payments of the United States from 1789 to 1920. He kept this study up to date for several years and then turned it over to the Department of Commerce, working with them for a transition period of one year. The Department of Commerce has subsequently carried on the study currently.

As a suggestion regarding further possibilities of this sort, Professor Burbank referred to the problems connected with the incidence of taxation; these are most certainly current issues of the utmost importance. The country needs evidence for the formulation of governmental policy. We have in the Department a young man of high ability who has made a start on the investigation of these problems. We have no funds to help him, not even money for clerical and mechanical assistance.

Professor Burbank indicated that the Department would work a report along the lines of Mr. Herzog’s suggestion.

Mr. Wood urged that the Department visualize its projects and lay them out fully, with an indication of minimum and maximum amounts of money needed. Very little will be gained by talking in generalizations; the program must be concrete. Incidentally, with the Federal tax situation as it is, the present is a propitious time to obtain money for research—with reference both to individuals and to corporations.

Mr. Rublee raised question as to the exact significance of the title “Research Associate.” Professor Black answered that we have something in mind beyond a mere statistical clerk. Between the man in charge of a project and those doing the mechanical work, we need trained young economists who can assume the burden of direct supervision and also can help in writing up the results. Other Research Associates are needed to do traveling and field work. Professor Leontief suggested that the appointment of Research Associates is important for still another reason. Many of the young men thus appointed will become leaders in the economic developments of the future. The experience gained on our projects will be extremely valuable to them.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Mr. Rublee asked Dr. Dunlop to say a few words about the progress of the trade-union experiment which was described by Professor Slichter in this meeting last year. Dr. Dunlop said that this year we have gone ahead with the program, although of necessity on a reduced scale because of man power shortage in the various unions. We have six union representatives who, on the whole, are superior to the group we had last year. We have continued the development of techniques of instruction and we have widened our range of contacts with the unions. The unions are supporting the program and we are establishing new connections with certain important unions. In spite of the fact that the teaching staff has been somewhat depleted and we have had to furnish instruction on the basis of special arrangements, we feel that the year has been decidedly profitable and worth while, both for the union representatives and for us.

Mr. Herzog urged that by all means the work should continue, even though it had to be on a reduced scale. It is much easier to keep on with a going concern than to start afresh. He confirmed Dr. Dunlop’s impressions as to the high quality of the union personnel. He also reported the sincere testimony of a leading member of the labor-union group that the work at Harvard was felt to be highly worth while—to be a vital and crucial experience.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The meeting closed with general expressions of appreciation for Mr. Rublee’s work as chairman of the visiting Committee during the past few years and of the deep indebtedness which the Department feels to him for this work.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 25. Folder: “Visiting Committee Correspondence, 1943-45.”

Image Source: Cropped image of  John D. Black (1938). Harvard Library, Digital Collections.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland,  “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).