Categories
Economics Programs Economist Market Economists Johns Hopkins Kansas Sociology

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

 

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

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

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

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

___________________________

Frank Wilson Blackmar

1854. Born November 3 in West Springfield, Pennsylvania.

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

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

1875-78. Taught in California public schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1889-1929. University of Kansas.

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

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

1919. Ninth president of the American Sociological Society

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

Books, monographs, reports

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

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

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

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

The Story of Human Progress, 1896.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

Newspaper accounts regarding Blackmar’s appointment

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

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

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

 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Baltimore, Md.

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

Very truly,
H. B. Adams.

 

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

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

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The New Chairs.

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

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

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

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

The second chair will be History and Sociology.

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

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

LATER.

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Prof. F. W. Blackmar.

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

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

To the Trustees of Kansas State University—Gentlemen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Prof. Blackmar Elected.

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

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Baltimore, Md.

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

Very truly,
H.B. Adams.

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

FRANK W. BLACKMAR

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

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

___________________________

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

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

HISTORY, POLITICS AND SOCIOLOGY.

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

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

AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVICS. — JAMES H. CANFIELD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY.
— FRANK W. BLACKMAR.

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

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

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

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

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

The second term’s work includes the following courses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

Seminary of Historical and Political Science.

Announcing the new Seminary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

Blackmar on place of political economy 

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

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

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

THE STUDY OF ECONOMICS.

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

CLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMICS.

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

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

METHODS OF STUDY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

SELECTED REFERENCES.

[History]

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

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

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

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

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

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

BERNHEIM, ERNST. — Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode.

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

CALDWELL, H. W. — American History Studies.

DIESTERWEG, G. — Instruction in History.

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

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

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

FLINT, ROBERT. — The Philosophy of History.

FLING, CHARLES MORROW. — Studies in European History.

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

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

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

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL. American History told by Contemporaries.

LORENZ, OTTOKER. — Geschichtswissenschaft.

MACE, WILLIAM H. — Method in History.

MAURENBRECHER, WILHELM. — Geschichte und Politik.

[Sociology]

BLUNTSCHLI, J. K. — The Modern State.

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

DE GREEF, GUILLAUME. — Introduction a la Sociologie.

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

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

COMTE, AUGUST. — The Positive Philosophy.

KELLY, EDMOND. — Government, or Human Evolution.

LOTZE, HERMANN. — Microcosmus.

SEELYE, JULIUS H. — Citizenship.

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

SMALL, ALBION W. — Methodology in Sociology.

SMITH, R. M. — Statistics and Sociology.

SPENCER, HERBERT. — Principles of Sociology.

SPENCER, HERBERT. — The Study of Sociology.

WARNER, AMOS G. — American Charities.

WARD, LESTER F. — Dynamic Sociology.

WARD, LESTER F. — Outlines of Sociology.

WILSON, WOODROW. — The State.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D. — Statistics in Colleges.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D. — Practical Sociology.

[Economics]

BLACKMAR, F. W. — Economics.

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

ELY, R. T. — Outlines of Economics.

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

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

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

SMITH, R. M. — Statistics and Economics.

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

___________________________

New Staff, New Names
Rebranding

The New Professors.

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

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

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

New name: Department of History and Sociology (1891)

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

Categories
Economist Market Exam Questions Harvard Methodology

Harvard. Final exam questions for economic methods course. Carver, 1903-04

This semester-long course on methods of economic investigation taught by Thomas Nixon Carver was listed as one being “primarily for graduates”. Only the introductory course of the department was considered “primarily for undergraduates” while the bulk of course offerings were deemed appropriate for both graduate and undergraduate students. Judging from the questions, this course appears to have been little more than a leisurely trot through John Neville Keynes, The Scope and Method of Economics (1897, 2nd ed.) along with Cairnes’ Logical Method of Political Economy (1875, 2nd ed.).

___________________________

Related previous posts

___________________________

Course Enrollment

Economics 13 1hf. Professor Carver. Methods of Economic Investigation.

Total 11: 5 Graduates, 3 Seniors, 3 Radcliffe

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1903-1904, p. 67.

___________________________

ECONOMICS 13
Mid-Year Examination. 1903-04

Discuss the following topics.

  1. The relation of economics and ethics.
  2. The departments of political economy.
  3. The fields for the observation of economic phenomena.
  4. The nature of an economic law.
  5. The use of hypotheses in economics.
  6. The relation of theoretical analysis to historical investigation.
  7. The place of diagrams and mathematical formulae in economics.
  8. The methods of investigating the causes of poverty.
  9. The methods of determining the effects of immigration on the population of the United States.
  10. The place of direct observation in economic study.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Mid-year examinations 1852-1943. Box 7, Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years, 1903-04.

Image SourceHarvard Classbook 1906. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Salaries

Chicago. Suggestions to make University of Chicago professorships more attractive. Leland, 1945

 

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics – A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

In earlier posts I have provided (1) a list of visiting professors who taught economics at the University of Chicago up through 1944 (excluding those visitors who were to receive permanent appointments); (2) supporting tables with enrollment trends and faculty data (ages and educational backgrounds); (3) three lists of names for economists who in 1945 could be taken into consideration for either permanent economics, joint appointments with other department or visiting appointments at the University of Chicago.

The excerpt transcribed for this post deals with the employment conditions and prospects of University of Chicago faculty. The basic message was that Chicago had lost its position as highest-bidder in the academic market and that relative attractiveness was a function of salary to be sure, but also other conditions (teaching loads, research support, clerical support, burden of special (extra) examinations, housing, medical benefits, etc.) should be improved as well.

Leland’s laundry list of suggestions seems pretty familiar to early 21st century academics. Would love to have an analogous memo for the present to see which additional items are now included.

_________________________

POSTWAR PLANS
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions
All Intended To Be Helpful
in Improving the State
of the
University

by Simeon E. Leland, Chairman
(on his own behalf and for the Department)

1945

[…]

Making University of Chicago Professorships More Attractive

The following suggestions are, in large part, the result of actual experiences in negotiating with “outsiders” over appointments to our faculty, or are reactions observed in dealing with present faculty members with respect to appointments or promotions within the Department. Some of them undoubtedly represent aspirations of the staff. They are offered, not as criticisms of present conditions, but as suggestions for improvements for realization in the future.

1. Distinguished Professorships

At the inception of the University, President Harper established a salary scale for full professors which was the highest in the country. He literally bought his faculty, outbidding all competitors for the services of distinguished men. The University of Chicago at once gained a reputation for the payment of attractive salaries. With the passage of time this situation has changed. Although the University of Chicago is still a “high-salary” institution, the emoluments it offers are by no means the most attractive in the United States.

The enhanced salaries paid (on an individual competitive bargaining arrangement) to present staff members on the 4E contracts render utterly inadequate the $10,000 salaries paid to the holders of University Distinguished Service Professorships. When these Professorships were established the salary differentials between the Distinguished Professorships and other professorships were quite large. They are far narrower today due to the liberal treatment by the University of the “ordinary” professors. Rising costs of living have also lowered the real wages paid to our Distinguished colleagues, and others as well.

If the Distinguished Professorships are to mean much to the holders over the years to come, the stipends should be increased; otherwise, the recognition bestowed will be rewarded only by a name or possibly by a degree of freedom not possessed by colleagues — both of which by that time may be empty honors. The times seem to call for $12,000 salaries as a minimum rather than $10,000 for these Professorships.

2. Divisional Professorships

If the Divisional Professorships, such as the Social Sciences Professorships, are to carry any real distinction they should be made to rank in terms of prestige and desirability next to the Distinguished Service Professorships. At present all they have to offer is some relief from fixed teaching (which is illusory for men with real scholarly interests who always talk about problems of their intellectual world with students) and the right to teach what they wish, irrespective of departmental lines. Both of these freedoms in greater or lesser degree are accorded every member of the staff, especially the freedom to teach.

In the Social Sciences Division, a Social Sciences Professorship is supposed to signify a recognition of competence or achievement. The breadth of knowledge, the spread of intellectual interest and the true humanity of the holder (or holders) indicate a degree of competence beyond that of the ordinary professor and that of many of the University’s most distinguished appointees, yet, in last analysis, all that a Social Sciences Professorship confers upon the holder is a title with, perhaps, a scintilla of freedom. Such a chair should be made into something tangible for the holder — into something to be sought after by other members of the staff — into something to attract men from abroad. The minimum salary should be $10,000 at least. The working conditions should be far above those for ordinary men.

3. A New Type of Professorship

It is believed that named professorships with research stipends attached would attract outstanding scholars to the University. Such an appointment would not only carry an adequate salary for the incumbent but also a fund to assure him of a definite research budget so long as he occupied the designated chair. The University is probably not rich enough to afford many such appointments, but certainly it should seek to establish one in at least every division and school — granted that willing donors could be found. In any case, if the University believes its own statements concerning the importance of research and has faith in its appointees, it might well combine the two, in a few instances, to provide University Research Professorships which carry with them definite research grants to be spent as the incumbent elects. The Thomas W. Lamont Professorship at Harvard is of this type. It is held at the moment by Mr. Sumner H. Slichter, a Ph.D. of the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago.

4. Research, Clerical and Library Assistance

The climate for research around the University is not as favorable as speeches and propaganda would indicate. The professorial staff — the highest-priced talent along with administrators in the University — is required and expected to do all manner of chores that should be done for them if research output is to be maximized. Adequate stenographic service is often lacking or, at most, is not always immediately available to members of the Department. The stenographic pool in the Dean’s office is inadequate, a reflection, of course, of the present labor situation. But it is operated on the basis of bookkeeping arrangements which seem to make it freely available to all staff members only on the basis of antecedent budgets. Stenographic service should be available freely to all members of the staff for University business, for correspondence arising in connection with their work (in order to save valuable time) and for all research needs, including the copying of materials. Courses also could be improved if professors could make more materials available to students, perhaps on a nominal fee basis operated through departmental offices.

Similarly, a reasonable amount of clerical and library service should be available to staff members. Now such service is extended only as given research projects are approved, as special deals are made with individual faculty members, or as special services are given as a favor or in recognition of something or other. So long as these services are not generally available or can be had only upon request, there is a tendency that they will go first to the most vocal groups. In any case, the Department has too few people available to do the odd jobs to lighten the work and increase the research output of the faculty. Arrangements might be made whereby a clerical or service pool could meet the needs of many staff members.

5. Reduction in Examinations

The emphasis on examinations other than course examinations makes such tests too arduous a task to be well performed by the University staff. Everywhere there is objection! The time given to special terminal, qualifying and other examinations is grudgingly provided. It is given at the expense of research, creative thinking, or writing. And when the work is turned over to hired examiners who know examination techniques, but who are untrained in the fields involved, the examinations themselves become an intellectual travesty. (Actual illustrations can be supplied on request.)

It is recognized that many examinations are required and that there is a place for trained examiners; but the emphasis on examinations at the University is out of proportion to their worth. At the graduate level these examinations have operated to lower scholastic standards. Part of this is due to the efforts to deprecate courses and to offer illusory means for speeding up the educational process, hardly appropriate in the graduate and professional schools. Students are told they can visit courses (registering for R’s) and as long as they can pass final examinations they can qualify for degrees. The result is that special examinations have to be prepared; that students are rated on too limited a sample of their work; that recommendations of the University count for less than they once did. Another result of the examination emphasis is that students bone up for examinations, try their luck on this or that test and if they pass (by good fortune or otherwise), they are advanced or awarded the appropriate degrees.

From every point of view, too much faculty time is spent on examinations of various kinds; too large a fraction of the student’s record is based upon them.

6. Teaching Loads

In the matter of teaching loads, the Department, on the basis of University of Chicago conditions, has little cause for complaint. The Department has been well treated. Nevertheless, for the greatest good of the University it would like to indicate that teaching loads, even in the Department, are too high for the attainment of the best standards of graduate instruction and research.

Differentiations in teaching loads are appropriate. The load in the College may well be higher than in the Division, but in graduate and professional schools the teaching load should be low if the scholarship and research of the faculty are to be maximized. It may also be appropriate to have different teaching loads, on the average, for the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor and professor. It is the load of the productive scholars which really counts. Harvard and Columbia both have a teaching load of four hours a week for professors of Economics. This is also a factor of importance in the competition with these universities for staff members. It is a factor also affecting the quality of graduate instruction.

The reduction of teaching loads should be made a matter of University policy.

7. Salary Schedules

Salaries of members of the Department are believed to compare favorably with other salaries paid in the University. The general level of salaries paid at the University of Chicago places it among the high-salaried institutions, but it no longer ranks at the top. Harvard has recently raised its minimum professorial salary to in excess of $9,000, with commensurate increases along the line. The level of payments at Columbia, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and California Institute of Technology, for example, exceeds the level prevailing at Chicago.

Nor is it certain that the new salary plan will help attract eminent scholars to the University of Chicago. The experience of the Department to date has not been favorable to the new plan. Regardless of sentiments for and against the 4E Contract, its operation should be watched with care lest it adversely affect the quality of new appointments. In order to correct one evil, a greater one — the refusal of offers of appointment — may have been created. Many features of the 4E Contract make such terms unattractive to men who have been well treated by other institutions of high repute. If an outstanding scholar will not accept the 4E Contract, another type of contract should be offered. It is more important to secure the right scholars than to preserve a unique salary plan.

Changes in living costs have greatly decreased the value of payments here. Among the items on the postwar agenda should be new salary scales.

8. Faculty Housing

The Department was much gratified to see that the question of adequate housing for the faculty is again being considered. During the past year, more than one person who was being approached as a potential faulty member declined to consider an offer from the University as long as housing facilities are what they are in Chicago, and especially in Hyde Park. These facilities will remain unattractive until the University improves them. Princeton and Stanford, for example, have made notable contributions to the development of faculty housing. Appropriate housing should also be a good investment. If the Trustees should be unwilling to invest endowment funds in a faculty housing venture, a private company, or even a public housing corporation, should be organized in the neighborhood to meet this vital need.

Attention should also be given to the improvement of the University neighborhood. Its deterioration is a matter of great concern, affecting far more than the value of adjacent properties.

9. Miscellaneous Suggestions

There has always been much talk about improving the lot of younger men. Greater equality could be provided if faculty perquisites were increased. Former tuition differentials to faculty children and wives could be restored, or even increased with the number of children in each family. Hospital rates could be reduced. Out-patient medical service could be provided for University families at small cost. The present shortage of practicing physicians would make such a service a real boon. The University in its own interest, too, could afford to provide free medical examinations for faculty members and employees with increased public health services available at nominal cost. It might thus decrease illness among staff members or even add to their span of life (a thing in which it may not be interested under the rigid enforcement of retirement at age 65). Even the retirement policy might be examined in connection with the state of health and mental ability of emeriti over the last decade. It may be that the University is losing the services of distinguished men a few years too soon. All of these things could be done on a group basis with returns far in excess of cash outlays. To the members of the staff they would constitute significant increases in real wages.

[…]

Source: University of Chicago Library. Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box73, Folder “Economics Department, ‘Post-war Plans,’ Simeon E. Leland, 1945” pp. 30-36.

Image Source: Portrait of Simeon E. Leland. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03716, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Image colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Fields

Harvard. Economics department professors plan review of junior staff. 1932

 

Within the faculty of the Department of Economics at Harvard University, there was a Committee of Professors. From the following memo it appears that within the Committee of Professors there was an Executive Committee. The memo is interesting to read as an announcement of a pending review of the junior staff that will be stratified into five layers: “unusually able men”, “capable and useful” (hold), “capable and useful” (encourage to seek elsewhere), “not as useful here” (push to seek elsewhere), “capable young” (hold). Somewhat surprised that the strata assignments were identified ex ante. 

[I have added the full names and plus the dates and names of the institutions where undergraduate and graduate degrees had been awarded.]

Also worth noting are hopes for attracting Gottfried Haberler to continue and explicit mention of Wassily Leontief as someone to consider for hiring.

_______________________________________

[Handwritten note: Presented at Meeting Exec Cte Jan 21, 1932]

VERY CONFIDENTIAL

A. Among other matters the Committee of Professors will be asked to consider the status and work of certain members of the Junior Staff.

I. The men in this group have passed their Generals and are at work on their dissertations. They are unusually able men deserving special consideration.

Sweezy
[Alan Richardson Sweezy. A.B. (Harvard) 1929; A.M. (Harvard) 1932; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Walsh
[John Raymond Walsh. A.B. (Beloit College) 1921; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Smith
[Dan Throop Smith. A.B. (Stanford) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Abbott
[Charles Cortez Abbott. A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

II. The men in this group either have their degrees or will have them shortly. They are capable and useful, perhaps more. It may be to their advantage and ours to encourage them to remain here for some time longer. For the coming year, at least, promotion to faculty instructorship is not involved.

Anderson
[Karl Leopold Anderson. S.B. (Mt. Allison University) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Goldstein
[Aaron Goldstein. A.B. (Johns Hopkins) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Hoover
[Edgar Malone Hoover, Jr.] A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Hunt
[Bishop Carleton Hunt. B.B.A. (Boston University) 1920; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

Shaffner
[Felix Ira Shaffner, Rhodes Scholar (Oxford) 1924; A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Litt.B. (University of Oxford, England) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933)]

Wallace
[Donald Holmes Wallace. A.B. (Harvard) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Wernette
[John Philip Wernette. A.B. (University of California) 1924; A.M. (University of Southern California) 1926; A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

III. The men in this group, all Ph.Ds, have reached or are nearing the point when they can be placed elsewhere most advantageously. They are capable and very useful here. They should be encouraged to take acceptable offers.

Currie
[Lauchlin Bernard Currie. S.B. (University of London, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ellsworth
[Paul Theodore Ellsworth. A.B. (University of Washington) 1920; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Gilbert
[Donald Wood Gilbert. A.B. (University of Rochester) 1921; A.M. (University of Rochester) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1924; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

White
[Harry Dexter White. A.B. (Stanford) 1924; A.M. (Stanford) 1925; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

IV. The men in this group have their Ph.Ds or will have them shortly. They are useful here, but less so than group III. They should be moved at the first opportunity.

Ratzlaff
[Carl Johann Ratzlaff. S.B. (University of Minnesota) 1922; A.M. University of Minnesota) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930].

Crane
[John Bever Crane. A.B. (Northwestern University) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Danielian
[Noobar Réthéos Danielian. A.B. (Harvard) 1928); A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Eaton
[Albert Kenneth Eaton. A.B. (Acadia University) 1922; S.B. (London School of Economics) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1929, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Fields
[Morris Joseph Fields. S.B. (Tufts College) 1921; M.B.A. (Harvard) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Phinney
[Josiah Thompson Phinney. A.B. (Yale) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ross
[James Alexander Ross, Jr. S.B. (Princeton) 1922; B.A. (University of Oxford, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1933; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Towle
[Lawrence William Towle. A.B. (Bowdoin College) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

V. The men in this group are capable young men and will probably remain here for some time longer.

Baker
[George Pierce Baker, Jr. A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Cassels
[John MacIntyre Cassels. B.A. (University of Alberta) 1924; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Krost
[Martin Max Krost. Senior Economist, Division of Research an Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (October 1940) ]

Wendzel
[Julius Tugendreich Wenzel. A.B. (Kalamazoo College) 1928; A.M. (Tufts College) 1930, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

B. The Committee should also consider our instruction in International Trade. At present Associate Professor Cole is giving Economics 9a, the undergraduate course in International Trade. The Department has voted that when possible this course is to become part of a full course—International Economic Problems. Our graduate course—Economics 39—will be given by Dr. Haberler during the second half of this year. Dr. Haberler may be available for another year or two if the Department cares to invite him.
Professor Cole is interested in the undergraduate instruction in International Trade and International Economic Problems, but not particularly in the graduate instruction.
A.E. Monroe is interested in the graduate instruction in International trade. Although he is on one-half time appointment, probably an arrangement could be made for him to give the graduate course.

C. There is a possibility—if some of our non-faculty instructors accept positions elsewhere—that we may be able to make a few new appointments. The following men should be considered.

Leontieff (if Haberler is not reappointed) (One of his articles is available in Mrs. Gilboy’s office).

Gardner (sic) Means
[Gardiner Coit Means. A.B. (Harvard) 1918; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Schmidt (California Ph.D. Credentials may be had from Miss Rogers).

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Department of Economics general office files.  (UAV349.11) Box 11, Folder “Full Professors Meetings of Department of Economics.”

Image Source: Detail from cover of the Harvard Class Album 1946.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists

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

 

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

_______________________________

Columbia University Press Release
August 28, 1947

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Economist Market Economists Johns Hopkins Yale

Yale. Evsey Domar’s Letter of Support for Promotion of Thomas Schelling to Full Professorship, 1957

For anyone whose experience in academic hiring and promotions has only been acquired over the past several decades, it might come as a shock that outside letters to support a department’s vote to offer a full professorship back in the 1950s would hardly exceed the length of a very modest thread of tweets today. To be honest, a thumbs-up emoji would have been an adequate response to Yale’s request for Evsey Domar’s opinion on the work of Thomas C. Schelling. 

Since the two letters transcribed for this post are so short, I figure that this is as good an opportunity as any to add a brief bio written for the 1962 Radcliffe Yearbook. The poor quality of the yearbook image is a pity, but at least we have a classic Harvard professorial pose complete with a bow-tie and a cigarette held à la Madmen.

_____________________________

From the 1962 Radcliffe Yearbook

THOMAS C. SCHELLING, Professor of Economics, graduated from high school just after the Great Depression. Upon entering the University of California in Berkeley, he decided to major in economics: “Somehow I felt that the social conflicts, the severe poverty, even the problems of war, were partly solvable by a knowledge of economics.” He graduated with an A.B. in 1944 and got his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1951.

Professor Schelling’s varied career background includes two years with the Marshall Plan (in Copenhagen and in Paris, 1948-50); Associate Economic Adviser to the Special Assistant to the President (1950-51); Officer-in-charge, European Program Affairs, Office of the Director for Mutual Security, Executive Office of the President (1951-53); Yale University (1953-58); the RAND Corporation (1958-59). He has been at Harvard since 1959, on the faculty and says, “Harvard students are more interesting to teach than those at Yale.”

Primarily interested in the relationship between economics and national security, Professor Shelling recently collaborated on Strategy and Arms Control, published in 1961. Other works include National Economic Behavior, International Economics, and numerous articles in various periodicals.

Although teaching and consultation in foreign policy (he is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board, U.S. Air Force) take up most of his time, Professor Shelling is now turning his research interests to the problems of bargaining and conflict management, particularly as these problems affect foreign affairs.) Professor Schelling feels that, although a nuclear test moratorium would be a good thing, test bans without some system of control or inspection are unworkable. Furthermore, he feels that cessation of tests alone is not a potent form of disarmament. As for the testing itself, we don’t really know whether testing is necessarily harmful.

Source: The 1962 Radcliffe Yearbook, p. 91.

_____________________________

Yale Requests Domar’s Opinion of Schelling

Yale University
Department of Economics
New Haven, Connecticut

Lloyd G. Reynolds, Chairman

February 18, 1957

Professor Evsey Domar
Department of Political Economy
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore 15, Maryland

Dear Evsey:

The Department here has voted to promote Thomas C. Schelling to the rank of Professor of Economics. We are now about to begin putting the appointment through the regular committee procedures. It is customary at this stage to invite a number of leading scholars in other institutions to appraise the qualifications of the candidate. I should be grateful if you could take time to write me your impression of Schelling—the quality of his thinking and scholarship, his probably contribution to economics over the long run, his professional standing in comparison with other men of about his own age, and his general suitability for a professorship here.

We shall value your judgment and I am sure will find it helpful in putting the matter before our faculty for action.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Lloyd

LGR/shd

_____________________________

Copy of Domar’s Response

25 February 1957

Professor Lloyd G. Reynolds
Chairman
Department of Economics
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

Dear Lloyd:

This is in response to your letter of February 18 regarding the qualifications of Thomas C. Schelling.

I have known him approximately since 1944 or 1945 and have read most of his writings. He is an exceptionally capable young man, endowed with creative intelligence and with common sense. I have the highest opinion of him as an economist and great hopes regarding his contribution to economics.

In comparison with other men of his age he stands out very close to the top. I would support his promotion most wholeheartedly.

Sincerely yours,

Evsey D. Domar
Professor of Political Economy
The Johns Hopkins University
(on leave, spring term, 1956-57)

EDD:am

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers, Box 8, Folder “Yale University (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Thomas Schelling portrait, 1964. Harvard University. Office of News and Public Affairs. Hollis Images olvwork369281.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Memo to Provost supporting Galbraith appointment. Black, 1947

 

As surprising as it might sound, the Harvard economics department couldn’t always get whom they wanted (Theodore Schultz). As a consequence we are able to observe an aggressive strategy employed by a member of one side in the departmental hiring dispute.  Professor John D. Black attempted to play the rebound in re-pleading his case for John Kenneth Galbraith’s appointment to a newly established professorship. Indeed by writing directly to the Provost, Black could have been charged with at least an additional count of “working the ref”. The episode is well summarized in Richard Parker’s biography of Galbraith (John Kenneth Galbraith: his life, his politics, his economics, pp. 226-227). Still, there is nothing quite like the pleasure of watching sharp elbows at work in the service of intradepartmental politics as revealed in the complete letter posted below.  Black was not afraid to push nativist buttons in referring to anti-Galbrathians among his colleagues: “European clique” (cf. Haberler in 1948 on Galbraith vs Samuelson), “the monetary-fiscal policy axis” and “gaudy Keynesian trappings”.

A cynical nose can detect more than a whiff of a self-serving plea to strengthen the prospects of Black’s own field and style of research. 

Archival note: Parker refers to a copy of the letter in Black’s papers with the Wisconsin Historical Society, this post is based on a copy of the letter I found in Galbraith’s papers at the JFK Presidential Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides the outlines and exams for Black’s courses on the marketing of agricultural commodities from 1947-48).

____________________

December 22, 1947

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

As you are no doubt aware, it was I who last year nominated Galbraith for the joint professorship to the School of Public Administration and in the Department of Economics. It was my judgment at that time that in view of his experience in public affairs and acknowledged great ability he surely should be considered for this position. The voting last year confirmed my judgment surprisingly. Excluding Schultz, to whom the appointment was offered, and Tinbergen from the Netherlands, he ran neck and neck with Yntema for top place in all of the balloting, with Samuelson next, and Smithies in seventh place. Tinbergen owed his strength to the European clique in the Department of Economics (by no means all European born), who have a European idea of the function of a university, und would have been a misfit in this appointment.

The voting of course reflected in large measure the conceptions of the voting members as to the needs of the appointment. A majority of my colleagues in the Department of Economics thought of it in terms simply of getting another high-grade technical economist, with little thought for the needs of the School of Public Administration. To meet this situation, I prepared and read at one of last year’s joint meetings on the appointment, the following statement, which I now I now submit anew, as still describing the conditions of the appointment:

The decision as to an appointment in economics at this time raises the whole question of the future of the Graduate School of Public Administration and its meaning for the Departments of Economics and Government.

The first point to make under this head is that the two departments named, without the Graduate School of Public Administration, are destined to become conventional departments in these fields, not distinguishable from similar departments in other universities, except for probably having better faculties than most of them. Even the latter distinction could easily fade in the next decade or two. With the Graduate School of Public Administration working with them, they both have possibilities of becoming super-graduate departments, by building on top of the usual graduate offerings in these fields a type of advanced graduate instruction that deals with problems of the sort that arise in the higher levels of policy-making in government. The seminars now given are well worth while from this point of view, but they fell much sort of realizing their possibilities. The two departments therefore very much need the Graduate School of Public Administration. It offers them a real opportunity to achieve greatness and become important influences in our national life. On the other hand, the School can get nowhere without the regular graduate work of the two departments as a foundation. The School and the two departments should therefore work closely together, each helping the others at each step in their advancement.

This means looking at a problem, such as that of the new appointment, as a common problem, and asking the question what kind of an appointment now will promote best the progress of the departments and the School?

Before answering this question, we need to go back and consider the basis on which the School was conceived. Those who formulated the program for the School finally settled down on training in policy-making as the great opportunity for a school of public administration at a university like Harvard. They exhibited a kind of prescience and inner wisdom in so doing that would almost seem like a miracle except for the fact that it did grow almost inevitably out of the situation.

In the two or three years following the founding of the School, much actual headway was made in realizing the objective of training for policy-making. The program of the School and it method made a strong impression in government circles and in the world of education. Since then, the School has lost considerable of the advantage of such a splendid start. If it does not take hold with vigor again and press forward along the lines laid out, it will lose it entirely in five or ten more years and become nothing more than a minor adjunct of the two conventional departments of the University. This the departments themselves cannot afford to let happen. Neither can Harvard University.

Looking at the present problem in this light, there can be no doubt that the great weakness in our present situation is in persons qualified to train advanced graduate students in policy-making, who have the aptitude for it as well as the background. The interests of the departments are in such an appointment at this time. The training in policy-making, comparatively speaking, is not suffering now, and will not suffer for several years, because of deficiencies in the preliminary graduate training needed as a foundation for it.

Also needing to be considered are important and somewhat similar relations to other departments of Harvard University, particularly to the Graduate School of Business Administration, to the Law School, and to the new Department of Social Relations. The School can add something of high importance to each of these if its seminars in the policy-making function are adequately developed; and in turn its contribution will be much enriched by what workers in these fields have to offer.

An appointment at this time of one new professor qualified as indicated will not of course take us far alone the way we need to go. But it will make a good start. We shall need mainly two things in addition: A. Additional research funds for the different seminars — to be used in employing research associates, financing field work, statistical laboratory work, etc., B. Some appointments wholly on the faculty of the School. Funds for both of these, especially the first, can be obtained if sought in earnest.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the School has made a start exactly along the right lines. It does not need in the least to back up and take a fresh start, but instead only to pick up what it has and go forward with it.

You, Provost Buck, do not need to be told that since I made this statement, the School has done exactly what I was hoping for. Almost certainly now at least three of the major seminars of the School will have research projects combined with them, each with small staffs of research associates. Steps are being taken to bring the School into effective working relations with the Law school and the Department of Social Relations. The need for an appointment that will strengthen its instruction in the policy-making function has in consequence become even more urgent then it was a year ago.

When it came time to offer nominations again this year, I felt that in view of the strong vote for Galbraith last year, surely he should be considered again. The third men in the top three this year, Smithies, has been substituted for Samuelson by those who supported Samuelson last year, apparently for two reasons: one, they now admit Samuelson’s shortcomings in the policy role, and consider Smithies a better candidate from this point of view; two, they expect to have Samuelson appointed to the full professorship now vacant in the Department of Economics. There seems to be more general acceptance than year ago of my conception of the needs of the appointment.

It has been necessary for me to make this last statement because it is the basis for the most important factor in the whole situation as it now develops, namely, that to appoint both Smithies and Samuelson at this time would further unbalance the work in economics at Harvard in the direction of the monetary-fiscal policy axis, since both of these men work mainly along these lines. The simple fact of the matter is that the men working in money and banking, fiscal policy and international trade, plus a few (in theory mostly) who vote with them on appointments, already constitute a voting majority in the Department of Economics. (You will remember that they did their utmost to prevent Dunlop’s appointment two years ago.) To add one more to this axis at this time would be highly unfortunate. It is, of course, not their voting which is most important — it is the narrowing effect which they have on the teaching and research in economics at Harvard. Those two appointments would contribute more than usual to such narrowing, since they are Keynesians in addition.

Of course none of these in this axis considers that he is narrow. In their discussions, to be sure, they draw in all phases of the economy. But they organize it all in terms of a single framework of reference. They pour it all, as it were, through one narrow funnel, and do some sieving in the process. As to how much they may mislead themselves in so doing, — and unfortunately some of the policy-makers of the nation; we have had abundant evidence in the past two years.

We can be reasonably certain that within ten or fifteen years, the Keynesian system of economic thinking will have been pretty well taken in stride. It would be unfortunate if at that time Harvard found itself with a faculty in economics too largely clothed in outworn habiliments. The economies of that day will have a different cast then the pre-Keynesian; but it will have lost much of its gaudy Keynesian trappings.

One of the first stories told me about Harvard when I arrived in 1927 was of President Eliot’s having been asked why Harvard University’s Department of Psychology had never developed a “school” of thought in that field, as had the Departments of Cornell and Columbia, and of his having answered that if he had discovered that his Department of Psychology was becoming dominated by one school of thought he would have hastened to appoint the strongest man he could find of an opposing school.

Of course this last point is no argument for the appointment of Galbraith. It is merely an argument against appointing Smithies if Samuelson is going to be appointed to the Department of Economics — and the pressure for Samuelson’s appointment is very strong in the Department of Economics.

I do not propose to present any strong affirmative arguments in support of Galbraith’s appointment. I nominated him because I believed that he should at least be considered. It has been the votes of my colleagues that has put him in the running, and I prefer that they tell you their reasons. I would not want him appointed if in their judgment, and that of the ad hoc committee, he is not the strongest man for this joint appointment.

I say this even though I would hope that if Galbraith were appointed he could spare a small fraction of his time to helping me give the two year courses which I now give in Commodity Distribution and Prices (ordinarily called Marketing.) Even though I am now giving these two courses, with the help of one-fifth of the time of an annual instructor, in addition to three full year courses in the Economies of Agricultura (with help of part of the time of one visiting lecturer) besides supervising a score of doctor’s theses, I shall manage somehow if I can get some other regular help with the three courses in the Economics of Agriculture.1

____________

  1. The undergraduate course in marketing had 90 students in the fall term, and the graduate course had 12 plus 8 auditors. This course was offered to Harvard undergraduate in 1946-47 for the first time, except for sone special instruction in food marketing given to armed service prospects during the war. The graduate course has been given since 1933.

    ____________

It may also be of interest that 12 of the 120 Ph.D’s reported as conferred in Economics in the United States in 1946-47 (12 months) were to candidates writing theses under my direction. (See September 1947 American Economic Review.)

There have, however, been some statements made about Galbraith in faculty discussions that must be commented upon in the interest of truth and sound decision. It has been said of him that he is “not a highly competent technical economist.” All this means is that he has published no articles in which he has applied methods of statistical and mathematical analysis, to the development of refinements of economic and monetary theory. I have no doubt of Galbraith’s ability to do this when this is the important thing for him to do. The simple truth is that a man of his breadth of comprehension is likely to find himself mainly absorbed in dealing with broad fundamental economic relationships; and this is especially true in times as disturbed as those in which he has been doing his writing. When asked, in the summer of 1947, to read a paper on the current economic situation, I entitled this paper “Fundamental Elements in the Current Agricultural Situation,” and I wrote as follows:

“The day and the hour seem to call for analysis in terms of broad fundamentals. This is no occasion for the refinements of theory and their application; but rather for over-simplification and over-emphasis on a few vital elements. Something of accuracy is lost in consequence; but this is not relatively important in the emergency that confronts us. There are wild horses loose in the world and the first task is to bring them to leash. Later we can break them to the plow and the cart.”

This statement is truer today than it was in 1942. If any economist of today is turning out articles or books presenting analysis of refinements, he is doing it because he lacks real power of analysis of the larger issues of the day, or as a by-product of such analysis, or as relaxation from the steady grind of his regular job. No doubt some of Smithies’ articles fit into these latter descriptions. Galbraith’s writings of the past ten years have covered the larger aspects of a very broad range of subjects.

Another criticism has been that he is not a good speaker. It is true that he often speaks haltingly when extemporizing. He needs time to find the exact word he wants. But he writes excellent papers, and reads them very effectively. (John Williams reported at a recent faculty meeting that his paper and Ed Mason’s were the outstanding papers at a full meeting in Philadelphia. His paper at the Atlantic City meeting in December 1946 was an outstanding performance.) In fact, he has become a very effective writer. To have a man in the Graduate School of Public Administration who can write as effectively as Galbraith on public questions of the day will be a highly valuable asset.

It needs to be added that he is effective in the classroom in spite of halting for a word now and then. The secret of this is that he has an uncanny sense for the vital points in a classroom discussion the same in analyzing public issues, and for putting these in their proper perspective. He is also a very stimulating influence among students in private discussion.

Rating higher in my scale of values than in those of many other academicians is capacity. Some of my colleagues do twice as much teaching, research and writing as some others, and do it fully as well or better. Galbraith has demonstrated a high order of capacity.

The other adverse report concerning Galbraith is not so easy to analyze. It is that he does not handle public relations well, nor even his relations with colleagues and subordinates. Surely a man of Galbraith’s type needed a man of different sort to work alongside him and handle the difficult public relations of OPA. And surely Leon Henderson was not that man. He was less apt at it even than Galbraith. The public relations man for OPA had to say “No” very often; and Galbraith does not have the ease of manner for such an assignment. Given time enough to plan for it in advance, he is able to differ with his colleagues and associates in a pleasant and gracious manner; but not in haste and under pressure, and especially when some body is trying to “put something over”.

No doubt a factor in his relations with others has been his urge to get on with the job and not waste too much time talking about it. I must confess a kinship with him in this respect. He no more than I should be assigned task a with many administrative decisions.

On this point, I am ready to predict without any hesitancy that Galbraith’s relations with his colleagues in the School and in the Department of Economics, should he receive this appointment, would be more congenial by a wide margin then those now generally prevailing in these departments; also that in the role of a Harvard professor, his relations with the public and with government officials would be unusually cooperative and friendly.

Perhaps a word is in order as to why I did not vote for Yntema. Most of all, I do not want to take a chance on either of two things (1) that he will prefer to continue with his present job, thus postponing our filling this appointment for another year: (2) that he will accept the appointment, but will want to continue a tie-us with CED that will remain his main interest. We cannot afford any more such tie-ups. Second, he seems to be so well fitted to his present assignment that I do not believe he would fit ours.

Very truly yours,

John D. Black

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 519. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Correspondence Re: Appointment of JKG as Professor of Economics. 12/22/47—3/22/50”.

Image Source:  Professor John D. Black in Harvard Class Album 1945.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economist Market Economists

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

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

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

____________________________

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

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

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

____________________________

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

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

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

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

____________________________

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

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

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

[…]

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

____________________________

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

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

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

[…]

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

____________________________

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

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

[…]

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

____________________________

Requesting unpaid leave for a Twentieth Century Fund project

March 1, 1939

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

Dear President Butler:

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

Very sincerely yours,

Executive Officer
Department of Economics

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

____________________________

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

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

[…]

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

____________________________

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

MEMORANDUM
Department of Economics
October 27, 1941

[…]

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

[…]

 

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

____________________________

Arthur R. Burns demands promotion to the rank of professor

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

November 1st 1941.

Dear Professor Haig,

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

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

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

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

Very sincerely yours,

[signed]

Arthur R. Burns

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

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

____________________________

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

November 22, 1941

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

Dear Professor Burns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faithfully yours,

R.M. HAIG

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

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

____________________________

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

[…]

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

[…]

Annex C

ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS

Academic Record

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

Teaching

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

Published Work

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

Unpublished Studies

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

Other Work

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

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

___________________________

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

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

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Economists

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

May 20, 1964

To: Al Harberger, Zvi Griliches

From: Al Rees

Re: Gary Becker

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

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

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

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

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

[signed] Al

_____________________

 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date May 19, 1964

CONFIDENTIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

June 15, 1964

Professor Zvi Griliches

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

Dear Zvi:

I have your letter of June 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

[signed] Gregg

H.G. Lewis

HGL/agm

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

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

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Economist Market Economists Harvard M.I.T.

Chicago. Three casual letters from Cambridge, Mass. regarding young talent, 1957-59

 

In the three letters to Theodore W. Schultz transcribed for this post we witness the old-boy network at work in Chicago’s search for young talent.  Mason and Harris from Harvard share the enormous respect that Harvard Junior Fellow Frank Fisher had won from the senior professors there.  Evsey Domar hedges somewhat in his assessment of Robert L. Slighton but more or less places him in a spectrum running between Marc Nerlove and Martin Bailey closer to the latter. Other now familiar (and less familiar) names are tossed in for good measure.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Office of the Dean

Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

December 27, 1957

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Ted:

In addition to [John] Meyer, [James] Henderson and [Otto] Eckstein, I would also name Franklin Fisher and Daniel Ellsberg as among our really promising young men. Fisher and Ellsberg are, at present, both junior fellows. Fisher is something of a wunderkind, having graduated summa cum laude from Harvard at the age of 18. He published a mathematical article on Welfare Economics when he was a senior, and those who can understand it say it’s good. He is only 20 now, and, of course, it is difficult to say how he is going to turn out. He may be another Paul Samuelson, and on the other hand he may not. Ellsberg is another one of our summas and a very good man, indeed. I don’t think he measures up to John Meyer, but is probably in the Henderson and Eckstein category. Since I promised you six names, I will add that of [???] Miller who came to us this year from California. I have really seen nothing of him, and consequently, can no give you a first-hand judgement. My colleagues, however, think he is very good.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Ed
Edward S. Mason
Dean

ESM:rrl

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

January 5, 1959

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

It was good to see you even though it was for a very short period. As you know, we include on our list of available men only those who have requested to be put on the list or who have given us their permission to have their name included in the list. It represents men who are either already Ph.D.’s or will receive their Ph.D. within the year, and who are actually available for the coming year.

[Daniel] Ellsberg will be getting his Ph.D. this year, but he is going to Rand at a salary of about $10,000. [Franklin] Fisher will not have his Ph.D. until June 1960. He is just out of college three years and has been offered an assistant professorship at Carnegie Tech. We have now promised him a similar appointment, and in fact he said he would prefer to be at Harvard.

Among other young men of talent who are now here but are not on our permanent roster are the following: Leon Moses who teaches half time in the department and does research with the [Wassily] Leontief project half time. There is a good chance that Moses will go to Pittsburgh, particularly in order to work on the metropolitan project with [Edgar M.] Hoover. Moses is an excellent man in every way and certainly of permanent quality: the same holds for Alfred Conrad who is in somewhat the same position as Moses. Incidentally, both of them have a leave for next year: There is also André Daniere who will be an assistant professor next year and who works primarily with Leontief. Daniere is another good man, though probably not quite as good as the others.

Then there are Otto Eckstein, James Henderson, Jaroslav Vanek and Louis Lefeber. They are all excellent men and in the running for a permanent appointment. Actually, during the next few years we will have but one or two openings and obviously we cannot keep all these men. There is little to choose among them and we will have a tough time making a decision. Please keep this in the highest confidence.

With kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SHE/jw

____________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

January 14, 1959

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

Your letter of January 6, regarding [Robert L.] Slighton is not quite easy to answer. I do not know [Daniel] Elsberg [sic] or [Franklin] Fisher well enough to make comparisons, but I will try to compare Slighton with [Martin J.] Bailey and [Marc] Nerlove. From the point of view of statistical and mathematical ability, Nerlove stands in a class all by himself, and I do not think that Slighton’s comparative advantage is in those fields. As far as Bailey is concerned, he may have flashes of ideas at times superior to Slighton’s. On the other hand, I would credit Slighton with greater solidity, more common sense and better judgment. As far as long-run contributions are concerned, I don’t know on whom of the two I would bet at the moment, but Slighton would be a serious contender in any such betting.

Lloyd [Metzler]’s session went quite well. He was greeted by the audience most warmly and was pleased about the whole works very much. I am very happy that that meeting was arranged and that I could participate in it.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Evsey D
Evsey D. Domar

EDD:jr

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 9.