Category: Education

Categories
Economics Programs Education England Oxford

Oxford. Studying Political and Social Science. Ritchie, 1890-1891

Francis Ysidro Edgeworth

In 1891 Francis Ysidro Edgeworth was appointed Drummond Professor of Political Economy at Oxford. In the following essay written by the philosopher David George Ritchie we have a snapshot of how instruction in political and social science (where political economy was to be found) was organized at Oxford towards the end of the 19th century. 

__________________________

David George Ritchie (1853-1903)

[David George RITCHIE] born at Jedburgh on 26 Oct. 1853, was only son of three children of George Ritchie, D. D,, minister of the parish and a man of scholarship and culture, who was elected to the office of moderator of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1870. His mother was Elizabeth Bradfute Dudgeon. He matriculated in 1869 at Edinburgh University, where he made a special study of classics under Professors W. Y. Sellar and J. S. Blackie, while he began to study philosophy under Prof. Campbell Fraser, in whose class and in that of Prof. Henry Calderwood (on moral philosophy) he gained the highest prizes. After graduating M.A. at Edinburgh in 1875 with first-class honours in classics, Ritchie gained a classical exhibition at Balliol College, Oxford, and won a first-class both in classical moderations (Michaelmas 1875) and in the final classical school (Trinity term, 1878). In 1878 he became a fellow of Jesus College and in 1881 a tutor. From 1882 to 1886 he was also a tutor at Balliol College…In 1894 Ritchie left Oxford on being appointed professor of logic and meta-physics at St. Andrews University. …He remained at St. Andrews until his death on 3 Feb. 1903, and was buried there. Ritchie was made hon. LL.D. of Edinburgh in 1898, and was president of the Aristotelian Society in 1898-9…Both at Oxford and at St. Andrews Ritchie wrote much on ethics and political philosophy.

Source: Haldane, Elizabeth Sanderson. “Ritchie, David George” in Dictionary of National Biography, 1912 supplement, Volume 3, pp. 208-209.

__________________________

The teaching of political science
at Oxford

David George Ritchie

                  I HAVE been asked to give an account of the Teaching of Political and Social Science at Oxford, but in order to do this in a way which will not be unintelligible or misleading, it is necessary to give some preliminary explanations as to the relation between the Universities and the colleges, and as to the system of examination for the degree of B.А.

                  Professor Bryce has helped English readers to understand the relations between the States and the Nation in the American Union, by the analogy of the relation between the colleges and the University in Oxford and in Cambridge; and American readers may profitably reverse the analogy in order to understand roughly an academical system that exists in no country except England. The analogy is, indeed, only a rough one: the University existed before there were any colleges, and there are at the present time collegiate students whom we might perhaps compare to citizens of the United States living in a Territory. But just as every citizen of a State is also a citizen of the United States, so every member of a college is also a member of the University, and is thus subject to two different sets of institutions and rules. The University alone confers degrees and regulates the examinations for them. Instruction is, however, provided by both the University, through its “professors” and “readers” (the latter may be compared with the “extra-ordinary professors” of a German university), and by the colleges, through their tutors and lecturers. University lectures are open to all members of the University. College lectures are intended primarily for the members of particular colleges, but of late years, through the system of combined lectures, college lectures have become in many cases as much “open” as University lectures. Most of the teaching, especially in some subjects, is done by the colleges. The University provides more of the instruction, relatively to what is done by the colleges, in natural science and in law than in other subjects.

                  As a general rule every undergraduate member of the University, except the “selected candidates” for the Indian Civil Service, who under present regulations cannot stay long enough, is supposed to be studying for the degree of B.A. But, as a matter of fact, the course of study is very different according as the student merely wishes to “pass” and obtain the degree, or aspires to “honours.” The degree cannot be obtained in less than three years, and candidates who wish to take “honours” must not be of more than four years’ standing when they come up for their final examination. The higher degree of M.A. follows upon the B.A. simply “through the progress of time and the payment of fees.” Every candidate must pass “responsions” before or soon after the outset of his academical career. This examination practically takes the place of an entrance examination, which as such does not exist in the University. Every college in Oxford requires intending students to pass an entrance (matriculation) examination, the standard of which is in some places considerably higher than “responsions.” “Responsions” is an examination in school work (Latin and Greek, arithmetic, elementary geometry and algebra). The student must next pass or obtain “honours” in the “first public examination” (commonly known as “moderations”), an examination mainly in Greek and Latin, taken during the second academical year. The student who is going to take “honours jurisprudence” or “honours modern history” as his final school, may, under certain conditions, substitute for the classical moderations what is known as the “preliminary examination in jurisprudence.” It is only in the “trial” or “second public examination” that subjects connected with political science come in. In this second public examination, a candidate may either take a “pass” in certain subjects, in which he has a limited range of choice, or he may seek to obtain “honours” (1st, 2d, 3d, or 4th class) in one of the seven “honour schools.” These are (1) Literæ Humaniores (an examination mainly in certain Greek and Latin philosophical and historical books, and in kindred subjects), (2) Mathematics, (3) Natural Science, (4) Jurisprudence, (5) Modern History, (6) Theology, and (7) Oriental Studies. There is no special “school” of political and social science, but political philosophy (including political economy) is one of the subjects prescribed for the school of Literæ Humaniores. The questions set on this subject form only half of one paper in the examination, being combined either with moral philosophy, or with a general paper on ancient history. Candidates may offer “political economy” or “theories of the State” with a special study of one or more treatises selected by them as “special subjects” in addition to the ordinary work; but special subjects do not flourish much in this school, the ordinary work being sufficiently varied and arduous for even the best students. In the school of jurisprudence (and in the kindred examination for the degree of B.C.L.), jurisprudence, English constitutional law, and international law form a part of the prescribed course. The school of jurisprudence, as already said, is one of the avenues to the degree of B.A. No one can obtain the degree of B.C.L. without having previously obtained the degree of B.A. This degree he need not, however, have obtained through the school of jurisprudence. Certain books are “recommended” for special study. It should be added that this work in law is not in the strict sense a training for the legal profession, the qualifying examinations for which have in England no connection with the University examinations or degrees. In the school of modern history, political science and political economy are prescribed and constitute an important element in the examination. A knowledge of certain books is required, viz.: Aristotle’s Politics (subject matter), part of Hobbes’ Leviathan, Bluntschli’s Theory of the State, Maine’s Ancient Laws, and Mill’s Political Economy. One of the subjects very commonly taken up for the final pass examination is the “Elements of Political Economy,” read in Walker’s Political Economy, and parts of Adam Smith. The candidate for the Indian Civil Service, studying at Oxford under the regulations in force (until 1892), is occupied to a considerable extent with Indian law, Roman law, English law, jurisprudence and political economy, as well as with Oriental languages.¹

1 At present candidates, not above nineteen years of age, selected by government after a competitive examination, have to spend two years at an approved university, if they wish to receive the government allowance. By the regulations which will come into force in 1892, no candidate must be under twenty-one years nor over twenty four, and the subjects have been so altered that candidates who have studied for an “honour school” at Oxford will have a fair chance of success without further preparation. The time of special professional study after selection will, under the new system, be only one year, which will have to be devoted almost entirely to the vernacular languages of the presidency to which the civilian is going, and to Indian laws. My friend, Mr. F.C. Montague, of Oriel College (the editor of Bentham’s Fragment on Government), who has had much to do with the instruction of Indian civilian students in Oxford, summarizes the intentions of the present and of the future systems somewhat as follows: “The present system is a good general school education, followed by two years of professional education, obtained in the intellectual atmosphere of Universities, where general rather than professional education is the rule; the future system is intended to be the best University education with a minimum of professional training.” I have thought it worth while to refer to the Indian Civil Service because it offers the only example in Great Britain of an attempt to regulate systematically the preparation for an administrative career.

                  In what precedes, we have described the place of political and social science in the Oxford examinations, and it now remains to show the actual provision for their instruction. This is given, as already explained, in part by the University and in part by the colleges. Annexed to this article will be found lecture lists of subjects connected with political and social science for 1890-1891 (extracted from its official lecture lists) which will serve as average specimens. As there is no special school of political science there is no regular course in the subject, and some departments of it are often not represented on the lecture lists at all. The professors, readers, and lecturers in the faculty of law deal largely with political science; and the well-known names of Professors Dicey, Holland, Bryce, Sir F. Pollock, Sir William Anson, Sir William Markby, are all to be found in the lecture lists of the school of jurisprudence. There is a professorship of political economy in the University, recently vacant by the death of Professor Thorold Rogers, and now filled by the election of F. Y. Edgeworth. Lectures on political science, political economy, and economic history are given also by college tutors and lecturers in connection with the modern history school; and lectures on political philosophy (which does not differ much, if at all from political science, except in name) by college tutors and lecturers in connection with the school of literæ humaniores. The professor of moral philosophy, Prof. W. Wallace, who succeeded the late T. H. Green, occasionally lectures on social institutions or some such subject as a part of his course on ethics. It must be remembered that the giving of a formal course of lectures represents only a small part of a college tutors teaching work, and that some professors are also college tutors.

                  The University prescribes or recommends certain textbooks. Lectures are to a great extent supplementary to the study of these. Work which corresponds to the American recitation, in which students are called upon to answer questions and invited to ask them, is not very usual, except where only members of the lecturer’s own college are present. We should designate such a mode of teaching as a “catechetical lecture” or “informal instruction.” It is more frequent in “pass” than in “honour” subjects. The large combined lecture has, as yet, proven less suitable for the more elementary teaching. It should be added that lectures occur, as a rule, twice or three times a week, and last nominally one hour, but as many undergraduates have to come from one college to another, most lectures do not begin until about ten minutes after the hour.

                  This is the formal instruction which has been described. There is another side to instruction at Oxford. The chief part of a college tutors work consists in hearing and criticising the essays and papers which he prescribes to his pupils. The essay writing is the most characteristic feature of Oxford education. As a rule, every undergraduate reading for an “honours” final school, such as literæ humaniores, jurisprudence or modern history,2 brings at least one essay to his tutor every week. Lecturers ocсаsionally set papers to those attending the lecture, and most colleges have college examinations at the end of the terms to test the term work.

2 Of course, I am not speaking of subjects such as mathematics, physics, natural science, etc., where the work is necessarily of a different kind.

                  The instruction, as before stated, is given partially by the University and partially by the colleges. It goes without saying that all the students of Oxford have equal privileges with regard to University instruction. On the contrary the instruction of the colleges is intended primarily for the members of each particular college. In most “honour” subjects, however, the colleges are now combined on a principle of reciprocity, i. e., every college which provides a lecture in any school is entitled to send its men to other lectures in the same school, without any special fee. In some cases a small fee is charged to those coming from another college than that of the lecturer.

                  The advantages of Oxford education are in a certain measure open to others than students of the University. Some professors  lectures are “public lectures,” and anyone who likes may attend. Indeed, cases have been known where professors who deal with subjects that have no examination value have lectured entirely or mainly to a non-academical audience. But this is, of course, an abnormal phenomenon. Students of the Oxford Association for the Higher Education of Women obtain leave to attend a large number of professional and college lectures along with the men. They pay a small fee. It is quite exceptional and contrary to custom for any college lecture to be attended by anyone not a member of the University (except in the case of the women students just mentioned, who can go in for most of the same examinations as the men, though the University gives them only a certificate and no degree). Neither the University nor the colleges give any recognition to members of other universities, simply as such. Thus a member of a German or an American university, even if a graduate, can only obtain the privileges of the University of Oxford by fulfilling the same conditions as if he had just come from school. Members of Cambridge and of Trinity College, Dublin, may become members of Oxford on easier terms, and a few English local colleges and Colonial universities are now “affiliated” to Oxford, so that students coming from them may count some portion of their previous academical course. The educational inhospitality of the English universities is on every ground much to be regretted. It is a falling away from the international character of the mediæval universities, and arose out of the peculiarity of the English Reformation, which cut off the Church of England alike from the Catholicism and from the Protestantism of the rest of Europe. In the English universities, ecclesiastical “tests” are now abolished (except for theological professorships and degrees in divinity), but the tradition of exclusiveness survives, though the original reason for it has disappeared.

                  The academical year consists nominally of four, practically of three terms, viz.: Michaelmas Term, from about the middle of October to the middle of December; Hilary, or Lent Term, from about the middle of January to the middle of March; Easter and Trinity, counting as one term for all educational purposes, from some time in April (earlier or later according to the date of Easter) to some time in June. College lectures are given during eight weeks of each term, professional lectures generally for six weeks only. As a rule, at combined college lectures, attendance is ascertained at least occasionally and a report is made from time to time to the various colleges from which undergraduates come. It is less common for professors to ascertain attendance, and the audience fluctuates more. It is the business of the college tutor to advise his pupils what lectures to attend, what books to read, etc., and it is he who also endeavors to secure their regular attendance at lectures, whether his own or those of other lecturers. If necessary, college discipline can be brought to bear upon frequent defaulters, i. e., the undergraduate who “cuts” lectures does it at his own risk; needless to say, it is sometimes done.

                  Every undergraduate, in residence, pays his college each term seven pounds sterling or more, i. e., annually twenty-one pounds sterling or more, as tuition fee. This, as a rule, covers all expense of his tuition, unless he chooses to go to a private “coach” in addition. Whether he attends many or few lectures makes no difference. As a rule, an undergraduate is advised not to have more than about eight lectures to hear each week, exclusive of the time he spends with his tutor with essays, etc., or for informal instruction. But, of course, the number of lectures he attends will vary according to the stage at which he has arrived in his work, the lectures that happen to be available for the term, his need of help, or his power of working by himself, and so on. As to expense, it may be noted that tuition is a small part of the expenses of an Oxford or Cambridge undergraduate. One hundred and fifty pounds sterling per annum may be set down as the minimum at which a fairly careful man, at an average college, can get through his academical terms without depriving himself of many of the social advantages of the place. At some colleges the average expense would be lower, at others higher. A really able man who has been well taught at school can make pretty sure of obtaining a scholarship, generally of eighty pounds sterling per annum.

                  As to work done in political science apart from professional and combined college lectures, it is impossible to give any precise information. It may be said that nearly every college tutor who has to do with preparing pupils for the final schools of literæ humaniores, modern history, or jurisprudence, is at some time or to some extent engaged in such teaching. Every tutor in these schools is assumed to have some general acquaintance with political and social science, and no undergraduate can read for any of these schools without having the subject brought before him. When it is understood that what in Oxford is called a “classical” education, includes, e. g., political economy (though in most cases not very much of it), the liberal character of our educational system may be estimated. Whether a great University should not likewise do more for the advancement of learning in special studies, is a question that may very well be asked. At present, we have to a very large degree “the defects of our qualities.” What is known as the “college system,” i. e., the system according to which education is chiefly cared for by the college instead of by the University, has its ardent admirers; but one result of it is that, for many purposes, where there might be one magnificent University, we have twenty small ones existing side by side.

                  I have annexed a list of the lectures on political and social science, open to all students of the University during the academic year of 1890-1891.3

D. G. RITCHIE.

Oxford University.

3 For a brief but careful account of many of the most puzzling peculiarities of the two ancient English universities, I would refer the American reader to Baedeker’s Great Britain (pp. 224-227, of 2d ed.). I have said nothing about Cambridge, as there are many differences from Oxford, both as to the examination system, and as to the arrangement for tuition. The system of study in Oxford is described in detail in a semi-official publication called The Students Handbook to the University and Colleges of Oxford, which will be found less unintelligible than the official Examination Statutes; both are published at the Clarendon Press, Oxford.

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

LECTURES IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE:
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, 1890-91.

[Lectures marked * are open to all by special arrangement. The numbers after each lecture indicate the number of hours each week.]

FACULTY OF LAW.

Michaelmas Term, 1890.

T. Raleigh, M.A., Reader in English Law: Constitutional Law, Executive Government, etc. 2.

Sir William Anson, D.C.L., Warden of All Souls: Constitutional Law, The Courts. 2.

T. E. Holland, D.C.L., Chichele Professor of International Law and Diplomacy: International Law, The Rights of Nations in Time of Peace. 2.

Hilary Term, 1891.

T. Raleigh: Constitutional Law, Parliament, etc. 2.

T. E. Holland: International Law, Treaties and Embassy, Belligerency. 2.

Easter Term, 1891.

J. Williams, B.C.L.: The Law of the Constitution. 2.

A. Grant, B.A.: Questions in International Law. 2.

E. A. Whittuck, B.C.L.: Jurisprudence, Public and Private Law. 2.

FACULTY OF ARTS.

Michaelmas Term, 1890. — Honour Lectures: Literæ Humaniores.

W. Wallace, M.A., Whyte’s Professor of Moral Philosophy: Social Institutions, chiefly in their Ethical Aspects. 2.

W. G. Smith, M.A.: Political Philosophy. 2.

D. G. Ritchie, M.A.: Political Philosophy. 2.

H. Rashdall, M.A.: Political Philosophy. 2.

Modern History.

D. J. Medley, M.A.: English Economic History. 2.

W. A. Spooner, M.A.: Political Philosophy. 1.

D. G. Ritchie: see above.

A. L. Smith, M.A.: Political and Social Questions. 3.

C. H. Roberts, B.A.: Political Science. 2.

Pass Lectures: Literæ Humaniores.

C. N. Jackson, M.A.: Political Economy. 3.

* W. Hawker Hughes, M.A.: Political Economy. 3.

* F. York Powell, M.A.: Political Economy. 3.

* E. M. Walker, M.A.: Political Economy. 3.

* J. A. R. Marriott, M.A.: Political Economy (with papers on Walker). 2.

Hilary Term, 1891. — Honour Lectures: Literæ Humaniores.

W. Wallace: Social Institutions, continued. 1.

H. D. Leigh, M.A.: Greek Political Ideas. 1.

W. G. Smith: Political Philosophy, continued. 2.

D. G. Ritchie: Political Philosophy, continued. 2.

C. H. Roberts: Political Philosophy. 2.

Modern History.

D. G. Ritchie: see above.

C. H. Roberts: Political Science. 2.

L. R. Phelps, M.A.: Political Economy, General Course. 3.

Pass Lectures: Literæ Humaniores.

S. Ball, M.A.: Political Economy. 3.

L. R. Phelps: Political Economy (Adam Smith). 3

* F. York Powell: Political Economy. 3.

* J. A. R. Marriott: Political Economy. 2.

* W. Hawker Hughes: Political Economy. 3.

Easter Term, 1891. — Honour Lectures: Literæ Humaniores.

A. Robinson: Aristotle’s Politics (selected portions). 2.

D. G. Ritchie: Aristotle’s Politics (subject matter). 2.

Modern History.

F. Edgeworth, Professor of Political Economy: Informal Instruction.

S. Ball: Political Economy (questions and papers). Fee £ 1 2s.

Pass Lectures: Literæ Humaniores.

J. R. Marriot: Political Economy. 2.

S. Ball: Political Economy. 3.

F. York Powell: Political Economy. 3.

W. Hawker Hughes: Political Economy. 3.

Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. II (July 1891), p. 85-95. Copy at archive.org.

Categories
Berkeley Economists Education Labor

Berkeley. UC President, former economics professor, Clark Kerr dismissed in 1971.

Perhaps it is because I am an economist that I have been particularly sensitive regarding those of our discipline who have gone on to head colleges and universities. Or perhaps economists have indeed constituted a disproportionate share of such presidents/chancellors/deans. In either case, I feel sufficiently motivated to begin a new series “Economists gone university leaders” with this post dedicated to Clark Kerr, a Berkeley economics Ph.D. (1939). The title of his thesis was “Productive enterprises of the unemployed, 1931-1938”. He was the founding director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations and later became the first chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley and the twelfth president of the University of California.

Fun fact: Not only did then Governor Ronald Reagan vote to dismiss Clark Kerr but so too did the chairman of the UCLA Alumni Association and member of the University of California Board of Regents, Harry R. (Bob) Haldeman of Watergate infamy. 

There are two morsels of Clark Kerr’s wit to be enjoyed near the end of the post as a reward for reading two newspaper reports from 1967.

But first we begin with an inspirational thought from Clark Kerr’s early presidential years and an insight by the columnist James Reston as to how it was even conceivable that Clark Kerr could be fired. “As usual, the articulate and activist extremes have prevailed over the moderate and indifferent middle.” A lesson for our political times?

________________________

The duties of a great university

“A great university has a duty to the future as great as its duty to the present. It must do more than serve the immediate society which provides its support: it must preserve the heritage of the past; it must try to open new doors. Intellectually it must be both more conservative of established values and more bold in trying innovations than may be fashionable at any given moment. It must maintain scholars in studies which a layman might consider archaic. It must support novel explorations which most people consider speculative. In the interests of future generations it must take the long view and may often have to defend the unpopular.”

Source: Office of the President, University of California. Unity and Diversity. The Academic Plan of the University of California, 1965-1975, p. 2.

When the Center could not hold

“The feeling against Governor Reagan and the Regents for their clumsiness, insensitivity, and even brutality in dismissing Kerr like an incompetent janitor is very strong here [in Berkeley]. Faculty and students, who were remarkably silent when he really needed them, are now all rallying to his support, but it is too late. As usual, the articulate and activist extremes have prevailed over the moderate and indifferent middle.”

Source: James Reston, “Berkeley: The Dismissal of Clark Kerr,” The New York Times, January 27, 1967, p. 44.

________________________

Hail the New Chancellor!

CHANCELLOR AT BERKELEY

A civic dinner in honor of Clark Kerr, new Chancellor at Berkeley, has been planned the evening of Dec. 10 in the Peacock Court of San Francisco’s Mark Hopkins Hotel by a special Committee of the Regents in co-operation with President Robert G. Sproul.

Chancellor Kerr will be the principal speaker on the program, which will also include remarks by Governor Earl Warren and President Sproul, and music by the Glee Club, under the direction of Robert Commanday.

Approximately 450 civic, faculty, student, and alumni leaders are being invited to the affair which will introduce Chancellor Kerr to the Bay Area in his new capacity.

Chancellor Kerr was born in Pennsylvania and holds the bachelor degree from Swarthmore College, the M.A. degree from Stanford University, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of California. He completed his studies in 1939 and has since been an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Washington, from which post he came to the Berkeley campus in 1945.

That was the year in which the Institute of Industrial Relations was established by the State Legislature, at the Governor’s request, and in recognition of the fact that labor-management relations had come to be a crucial problem in the life of California and the nation. Chancellor Kerr organized the Institute, recruited a well-qualified staff, and directed a program of teaching, research, and public service, the success of which is attested by the co-operation of both management and labor.

In addition to his academic achievements Chancellor Kerr has a record of public service both local and national, including service as a member of the Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security, U. S. Department of Labor; public member and vice-chairman of the National Wage Stabilization Board; consultant on industrial relations,

Atomic Energy Commission; chairman of the Labor-Management Advisory Committee, United States Conciliation Service; vice-chairman of the Twelfth Regional War Labor Board; and member of Federal Fact Finding Boards in important labor-management disputes.

Upon assuming the chancellorship at Berkeley Kerr relinquished his position as Director of the Institute of Industrial Relations, a position which was assumed by E. T. Grether, Flood Professor of Economics and Dean, School of Business Administration. Chancellor Kerr retained his title as Professor of Industrial Relations, School of Business Administration, and in addition is serving as Research Associate, Institute of Industrial Relations.

Source: University Bulletin, A Weekly Bulletin for the Staff of the University of California. Vol. 1, No. 17 (December 8, 1952), p. 89.

________________________

The Backstory to Clark Kerr’s Dismissal as President of the University of California

1964 Turmoil Caught Kerr in Ironic Web
UC President, Skillful Negotiator, Unable to Settle Campus Strife Leading to Ouster

By William Trombley, Times Education Writer
The Los Angeles Times, (January 21, 1967), p. 15

Clark Kerr earned an international reputation as a negotiator of labor disputes.

But ironically it was his failure to settle campus conflict which set off the train of events leading to his being fired as president of the University of California Friday.

When Kerr returned to Berkeley from an Asian trip in September, 1964, he found the campus in an uproar.

Edward W. Strong, then chancellor, had ordered a halt to student political activity in an area outside Sather Gate where it always had been allowed.

Kerr thought the Strong order a mistake but also thought it would be awkward to reverse the decision.

Instead, he proposed that students be permitted use of Sproul Hall steps, instead of the banned Sather Gate area. He also recommended certain other concessions.

Sought Discussion

He did so, he said in later interview, because “I thought we could get things back into channels of discussion if we showed reasonableness. But it didn’t work.”

Instead, the Free Speech Movement exploded across the campus and onto the nation’s front pages and television screens.

From that time Kerr has led a troubled life.

Conservative members of the Board of Regents, who had never been happy about Kerr’s selection as president in 1958, solidified their opposition.

They were especially angry because Kerr opposed then Gov. Edmund G. Brown’s decision to call in police to arrest demonstrators during the Sproul Hall sit-in at the height of the FSM protest.

Strategy Has Worked

Kerr thought the demonstrators would leave the building eventually if the police were not called, a strategy that has been followed successfully in dealing with demonstrations on other campuses since then.

When a few students and nonstudents displayed four-letter words on signs and shouted four-letter words on the campus in the spring of 1965, some regents demanded that Kerr and Martin Meyerson, who had replaced Strong as Berkeley chancellor, dismiss the offenders.

However, Kerr and Meyerson thought that to punish the students without due process would revive all the bitterness of the fall and destroy the tenuous peace which prevailed on the campus.

The two officials announced their intention to resign, but later agreed to stay when the regents decided to permit them to settle the “filthy speech” incidents themselves.

Ouster Move

Regental opposition to Kerr reached a high point at the June, 1965, meeting of the board in San Francisco, when regents Edwin W. Pauley and John E. Canaday led a move to oust the president.

However, a coalition of “liberal” and “moderate” regents formed behind Gov. Brown to prevent the ouster.

The newly formed coalition of regents insisted, however, that Kerr carry out recommendations for decentralization of university administration which had been included in the Byrne Report.

This report, prepared for a regents’ committee by a staff headed by Beverly Hills attorney Jerome C. Byrne, found that the mammoth university was too highly centralized. It recommended that substantial administrative authority be delegated from the regents to Kerr and from him to the chancellors of the nine campuses.

More Power

Kerr moved immediately to grant more power to the chancellors. The regents also agreed to pass on some of their powers, and for about a year talk of Kerr leaving his post faded away.

The Berkeley campus was troubled by demonstrations against U.S. policy in Vietnam during 1965-66, but Kerr remained in the background, permitting Roger W. Heyns, the third Berkeley chancellor in three years, to work out the problems.

However, speculation that Kerr might quit or be fired was revived during the Brown-Reagan race for the governorship. Kerr made strenuous efforts to avoid involvement in the campaign, but there was little question that his administration in Berkeley was linked with Brown’s administration in Sacramento.

Doubt Remained

Even after Reagan’s overwhelming victory, however, there was doubt that Kerr would go.

The addition of Reagan, Lt. Gov. Robert H. Finch and Allan Grant, newly named president of the State Board of Agriculture, clearly gave the anti-Kerr forces a majority on the Board of Regents. But many observers thought the new governor might be reluctant to be identified with an educational purge.

When a new student protest led to further disorder, including a strike, at Berkeley in December, most regents supported Kerr in his determination to permit Chancellor Heyns to handle the trouble without regental interference.

However, the current controversy over the university’s budget evidently solidified the anti-Kerr votes on the board and persuaded them that this was the time to move against the president.

Kerr probably saw the end coming, however. A few weeks ago he concluded an interview with this reporter with the observation:

 “I had six good years in which to plan for the future of the university . . . then things went wrong in the fall of ’64, and I haven’t had that kind of support (among the regents) since.”

[…]

________________________

Clark Kerr’s Dismissal

Reagan Sides With Majority in 14 to 8 Decision

By Daryl E. Lembke, Times Staff Writer
The Los Angeles Times (January 21, 1967), p. 1.

BERKELEY – President Clark Kerr of the University of California was fired Friday in a surprise move by the Board of Regents. The vote was 14-8.

Gov. Reagan was present at the two-hour, closed-door discussion of Kerr’s fate and voted with the majority to dismiss the president from his $45,000-a-year post.

The dismissal was effective immediately. University Vice President Harry R. Wellman, 67, was named acting president pending selection of Kerr’s successor.

Theodore R. Meyer, chairman of the Board of Regents, said at a news conference that the subject of a successor was not discussed during the session at which Kerr was dismissed.

Reports of Dissatisfaction

Although there have been frequent reports for two years or more that the regents were about to fire Kerr, the move came as a surprise. The two-day meeting ostensibly had been called to discuss Reagan’s proposals for slashing the university budget and charging tuition for the first time.

Asked the reason for the dismissal, Meyer commented:

“We felt the state of uncertainty prevailing for many months should be resolved without further delay.”

 He added:

“President Kerr, being human, has strengths and weaknesses even as you and I. His strengths are obvious to all. His weaknesses I don’t intend to discuss for obvious reasons.”

Talked with Governor

Asked if Reagan requested the regents to fire Kerr, Meyer replied:

“The governor discussed the subject with me and others. I regard that conversation as confidential.” In response to another question, Meyer said: “Mr. Reagan didn’t fire Dr. Kerr and he won’t pick his successor.”

Voting with the governor for dismissal were these regents: Lt. Gov. Robert H. Finch, Meyer, Allan Grant, H. R. Haldeman, Edwin W. Pauley, Edward W. Carter, Mrs. Dorothy B. Chandler, Mrs. Randolph A. Hearst, John E. Canaday, Philip L. Boyd, William E. Forbes, Laurence J. Kennedy. Jr, and DeWitt A. Higgs.

Opposing the action were Assembly Speaker Jesse M. Unruh (D-Inglewood), Samuel B. Mosher, Norton Simon, William M. Roth, Mrs. Edward H. Heller, Frederick G. Dutton, William K. Coblentz and Einar Mohn.

At another news conference, Unruh describe Kerr’s dismissal as most

“unfortunate coming on the heels of an attempt (by the new Reagan administration) to depart from a 76-year tradition of no tuition for higher education in California and coming in a year of an attempted cut in the university budget.”
“Regardless of whether this was a partisan move, that will be its effect,” Unruh said. “It will be interpreted as a political move.”

Unruh Comment

Unruh maintained that although he and Kerr had their differences, Kerr was “no more culpable for the things for which the university was brought to task than the entire board of regents.”

“It is a bad precedent to fire a university president concomitant with a change of political party in the state administration.”

Kerr, 55, has been president of the university eight-and-a-half years.

[…]

Factor in Election

Reagan’s criticism of the university administration was credited as one of the principal factors in his defeat of Democrat Brown in November.

Kerr took the dismissal philosophically.

He said he was asked by chairman Meyer to leave during the regents’ discussion of a “personnel matter.” As the university president, Kerr also served as a regent.

Kerr and Dr. Max Rafferty, who as state superintendent of public instruction is also a regent, were the only members of the board absent during discussion and the vote on dismissal.

“Rumors have been around,” Kerr said at his own press conference following his removal. “I have felt like being in the ‘Perils of Pauline.’ Pauline always got saved, until to-day.”

He said it is not his nature to be “bitter or vindictive” and that he has no rancor over the regents’ action.

Reviews Policies

Kerr reviewed at his press conference policies under his administration which he said he hoped would be continued.

They include:

The “open-door” policy for qualified students who apply for admission; no tuition; dispersal of campuses rather than concentration of students in two or three mammoth institutions; decentralization of administration and striving to “make size acceptable to the individual student; achieving balance among teaching, research and service functions; stressing quality in choosing the faculty, and providing adequate facilities such as student unions and places for cultural attractions for students when they are out of classes.

Kerr also said he has fought hard for freedom on the campus.

He suggested that efforts be continued in seeking ways to give students a greater voice in governing the university or at least in advising the administration.

“Along with freedom goes respect for law,” he said. “I regret the occasions when there hasn’t been respect for law but in the totality of the university, those occasions have been minor.
A university can’t be run as a police state.”

Criticizes Regents

He criticized the regents for what he termed “yielding to the political winds in the state,” contending that the board members are appointed for 16-year terms to guard against political influence in the university administration.

“I don’t believe in the principle that because there is a new governor, there should be a new president of the university,” he said.
“Now this has happened. This is not done in the good universities of the nation and it is even out of fashion in the mediocre and poor ones.”

Kerr said he has received a number of job offers, including some made after his dismissal but has made no decision on his future.

He joined the Berkeley faculty in 1945 as director of the Institute of Industrial Relations and still retains the title of professor of industrial relations, a position to which he could return at a salary of more than $20,000 annually.

Recent Appointee

Unruh revealed that Allan Grant, recent Reagan appointee as president of the State Board of Agriculture and in that office automatically a regent, brought up the subject of dismissing Kerr at Friday’s meeting.

Unruh said that Grant, because he is new on the board, withdrew his motion to dismiss Kerr to allow Laurence Kennedy to initiate the action.

Unruh said the reasons given for the dismissal during debate on Kennedy’s motion were that Kerr “had lost the confidence of the regents and the people and that he was no longer useful.”

Executive Session

The regents met in executive session on Kerr’s status from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m.

At 3 p.m., Thomas C. Sorensen, vice president for university relations, made the announcement of the president’s removal.

Mrs. Hearst said she voted to remove Kerr “because he was inadequate as an administrator.”

William Coblentz attended Chairman Meyer’s press conference and, upon its conclusion, issued a statement charging that “the errors, mistakes and much of the blame of the majority (of the regents) have been foisted upon one man—Clark Kerr.”

Coblentz said that Kerr has been an outstanding administrator and that “the problems of unrest at Berkeley, the restlessness of students cannot be cured by the termination of employment of one man.”

The regents are expected to take up the question of a successor at their next meeting, Feb. 16 and 17 in Santa Barbara.

________________________

Two Samples of Clark Kerr’s Wit

“The chancellor’s job had come to be defined as providing parking for the faculty, sex for the students, and athletics for the alumni.”

— 1957 remark picked up by Time & Playboy

“The university president in the United States is expected to be a friend of the students, a colleague of the faculty, a good fellow with the alumni, a sound administrator with the trustees, a good speaker with the public, an astute bargainer with the foundations and the federal agencies, a politician with the state legislature, a friend of industry, labor, and agriculture, a persuasive diplomat with the donors, a champion of education generally, a supporter of the professions (particularly law and medicine), a spokesman to the press, a scholar in his own right, a public servant at the state and national levels, a devotee of opera and football equally, a decent human being, a good husband and father, an active member of a church. Above all he must enjoy traveling in airplanes, eating his meals in public, and attending public ceremonies. No one can be all of these things. Some succeed at being none.”

— The Uses of the University, 1995

Source: UC Berkeley News: Press Release (December 2, 2003).

________________________

IN MEMORIAM

Clark Kerr
Professor of Business Administration, Emeritus, UC Berkeley
Chancellor, Emeritus, UC Berkeley
University of California President, Emeritus
1911 – 2003

Clark Kerr died on December 1, 2003, at his El Cerrito home overlooking the San Francisco Bay Area and the University of California, Berkeley campus. As Sheldon Rothblatt wrote shortly after, “He had always appeared indestructible, his intellectual powers invariably on automatic pilot. He survived nasty attacks from the political left and right, and overcame the humiliation of an abrupt dismissal from office by the Board of Regents. At his death, his renown was never greater.” (“Crosstalk” [National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education], 12(1), Winter 2004, p. 2.)

Kerr’s professional interests were mainly in three areas. His academic fields were economics and industrial relations; he had a second career as a skilled labor management negotiator and arbitrator; his worldwide reputation, however, was largely based on his work as an academic administrator whose final years were mostly devoted to research and writing on higher education in its American and worldwide contexts.

Kerr received his bachelor’s degree from Swarthmore College in 1932, where he also joined the Society of Friends, a lifelong commitment. After receiving his master’s degree at Stanford University in 1933 and his doctorate (all in economics) in 1939 from the University of California, Berkeley, he taught at the University of Washington for five years and was heavily engaged in ensuring industrial peace during World War II as vice chairman of the 12th Regional War Labor Board.

He was one of the founders of the professional association in his chosen academic field, the Industrial Relations Research Association. He was also a major contributor, perhaps the major contributor, to two major streams of industrial relations research and theory: (a) the so-called “California School” or “neo-classical revisionist” approach, which tried to bridge the two major then-current economics camps, the neoclassical and the institutional; and (b) “Industrialism and Industrial Man,” probably the first theoretically oriented study in what is now known as comparative international industrial relations. He continued to pursue this theme throughout his life (see, e.g., The Future of Industrial Societies: Convergence or Continuing Diversity? [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983]).

In 1945, he returned to Berkeley as director of its newly-founded Institute for Industrial Relations. When the infamous loyalty oath controversy arose in 1949, Kerr was a member of a relatively unimportant Academic Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure, a committee that rapidly became central in the dispute. As a result of his efforts during that heated time, Kerr became well-known as a voice of reason, a calm negotiator and an able conciliator. When, in 1952, the Regents established the new position of chancellor at Berkeley, Kerr appeared the best choice to the Berkeley faculty, to then-President Robert Sproul, and to the Board of Regents.

During his six-year term as Berkeley’s first chancellor, Kerr set to work to repair the damage done by the oath controversy. As described in the first volume of his memoirs, Chancellor Kerr concentrated on building faculty excellence and planning for the academic and physical growth of the campus that would be needed shortly as the “tidal wave” of students—the first of the “baby boomers”—was expected to inundate higher education beginning in the early 1960s.

In 1958, Robert Gordon Sproul, UC’s president since 1930, retired and Clark Kerr was selected to replace him. As president, Kerr led the development of the California Master Plan for Higher Education (enacted in 1960) which provided for orderly growth among the state’s three public segments of higher education and also included the private sector in planning for the oncoming surge of students. He oversaw the administrative decentralization of the University of California, turning over most day-to-day decision-making to the campuses, under general university-wide policies. The staff of the Office of the President was reduced by 750 persons whose positions were returned to the campuses.

Developments during Kerr’s presidency included building, staffing, and opening three new UC university campuses, at Santa Cruz, San Diego, and Irvine. The existing units at Davis, Santa Barbara, and Riverside became “general” campuses, offering them equal opportunities with other campuses to engage in graduate work and research. Unlike many state systems, there would be no “flagship” campus within the University of California; similar faculty structures, admissions requirements, and expectations for excellence would be provided for all. In that vein, the University of California, Los Angeles, was given what Kerr referred to as “a place in the sun,” receiving equal resources with Berkeley in most areas.

Among other innovations, Kerr sponsored a university-wide library plan, increased the number of UC medical schools from two to five (and turned the University of California, San Francisco, from a local medical school into a leading medical research facility), enhanced facilities for student engagement in social and athletic life, established an Education Abroad Program, developed a Natural Reserve Program, and encouraged programs for arts and culture on the campuses.

While Kerr concentrated on improvements that would lead the American Council on Education, in its 1964 ranking of American research universities, to declare Berkeley to be both the most “distinguished” and the “best balanced” in the nation, political developments in the state and nation brought that campus the more dubious distinction of being the first to suffer major student disruptions.

Throughout his tenure as chancellor and president, Kerr had been under more or less constant attack from the political right wing in California and its legislature, led by State Senator Hugh Burns, chair of the senate’s Un-American Activities committee. Burns’s views were echoed by those of J. Edgar Hoover, longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who once wrote at the bottom of a memo, “I know Kerr is no good….”

But in the fall of 1964 the attacks on Kerr and the university’s administration came from the political left in the guise of the so-called Free Speech Movement. Throughout the remainder of his service as UC’s president, Kerr would contend with forces from both the left and the right, many actively engaged in attempts to oust him from his position. After the election in fall 1966 which brought Ronald Reagan to California’s governorship, membership on the Board of Regents shifted to the right, and on January 20, 1967, Kerr was abruptly dismissed. Later he stated that he left the presidency of the university as he had entered it, “fired with enthusiasm.”

Kerr was not long unemployed, almost immediately becoming the chair and research director for the newly established Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. In 1973 that organization was transformed into the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, again chaired by Kerr. During the 13 years of the Commission and Council, over 140 volumes of research and commentary on higher education were produced, many written or drafted by Kerr himself, comprising the most complete examination of higher education ever produced.

After the Carnegie series was completed in late 1979, Kerr continued to write both on industrial relations and higher education, including studies of university administration and governance for the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, and culminating in his two-volume memoir of his life as a UC faculty member and administrator, completed shortly before his final illness (The Gold and the Blue: A Personal Memoir of the University of California 1949-1967. Volume I: Academic Triumphs (2001); Volume II: Political Turmoil (2003); University of California Press).

Perhaps Kerr’s best known book is The Uses of the University (Harvard University Press), based on his 1963 Godkin Lectures at Harvard and updated with additional chapters and republication every decade (1963, 1972, 1982, 1995, and 2001). In it he popularized the term “the multiversity” to characterize the modern research university. Other important publications included Industrialism and Industrial Man (1960, 1973 [Pelican revised ed.]), 1975 [Industrialism and Industrial Man Reconsidered]), written with others of the team that made up the Inter-University Study of Labor Problems in Economic Development; and Marshall, Marx, and Modern Times (1969).

Kerr served not only the university but also his country, as a member of numerous committees (among others, President Eisenhower’s Commission on National Goals, President Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Labor Management Policy) and as chair of the National Committee for a Political Settlement in Vietnam. He was a member of the board of trustees/directors of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Swarthmore College, the American Council on Education, and the Work in America Institute (again—among others).

In 1964 he received the Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Contributions to Academic Freedom, awarded by the American Association of University Professors, and in 1968 he was the first recipient of the Clark Kerr Award for extraordinary and distinguished contributions to the advancement of higher education, presented by the Berkeley Division of UC’s Academic Senate. He received numerous honorary degrees from universities in the United States and abroad.

Kerr was an avid gardener, taking special interest in cultivating an array of flowers for his wife to enjoy, and apple trees. He claimed that, as a boy on his family’s Pennsylvania farm, he could recognize 50 species of apple trees by sight—even in the winter, after they had lost their leaves. Pennsylvania State University named its antique apple orchard in his honor, a tribute he especially treasured. He is also memorialized by buildings on UC’s campuses named for him, but the living tribute pleased him more. Kerr was the quintessential “egg-head,” both physically and intellectually, but possessed a strong sense of humor that enlivened both his conversation and his writings. He claimed, for example, that during his university presidency, he would take out his frustrations on the weeds in his garden, naming a small weed after a student who was giving him trouble; a larger weed would be called by the name of an annoying faculty member; and as he yanked it out, he would name the largest weed for a recalcitrant regent.

He was devoted to his family, and when one of his sons moved to western Australia, he visited every year to help with constructing farm structures and bringing in the crops.

Clark Kerr is survived by his wife, the former Catherine Spaulding, whom he met at Stanford, and his three children and their spouses, as well as seven grandchildren and a great-grandchild.

Marian L. Gade
George Strauss

Source: University of California Senate website.

Image Source: University of California, Berkeley. The Bancroft Library website. Fiat Lux Redux: Ansel Adams and Clark Kerr Exhibits. Detail from a portrait of Clark Kerr ca. 1966

Categories
Education Harvard Labor Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Reading list for economics of education and technology. Bowles, 1967-68

The following reading list comes from a Harvard course on the economics of education and technology offered by assistant professor Samuel S. Bowles in the spring semester of the 1967-68 academic year. Bowles was 28 years young then. Here is a link to his Santa Fe Institute webpage.

Only the pages of the syllabus with the reading lists were submitted to the Harvard library for the purpose of putting books on reserve. Not included were the couple of paragraphs of motivation/description for each of the seven sections of the course. I had to insert approximate titles for sections IV and VII and have put those words between square brackets.

__________________________

Most likely spot to find more course content

Samuel Bowles, Planning Educational Systems for Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, 1969.

[When you get an account with archive.org, it is like having an old fashioned library card and you will have access to this book for an hour at a time when it is not being borrowed by another user.]

__________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 151 (formerly Economics 177). Economics of Education and Technology (Offered jointly with the Graduate School of Education)
Half course (spring term). M., W., F., at 9. Assistant Professor S. S. Bowles

Attention will be given to the economics of the education process, the theory and implications of innovation, the effects of education and technological change on the distribution of income and the role of education and technological change in economic growth. Relevant case studies and current policy issues related to the United States and underdeveloped countries will be considered.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction, Harvard and Radcliffe, 1967-68, p. 124.

__________________________

Reading list
Ec. 151
Sam Bowles

I. THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME — RECENT U.S. EXPERIENCE

A. Batchelder, “Decline in the Relative Income of Negro Men,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November, 1964, pp. 525-48.

*H. Miller, Rich Man, Poor Man, chapters 1, 2, 4-6, pp. 54-134.

I. Kravis, “Relative Income Shares in Fact and Theory,” American Economic Review, 1959, pp. 917-947.

R. Lampman, The Share of Top Wealth-Holders in National Wealth, chapter 1, pp. 1-26; also Table 97, p. 209.

(Supplementary)

*G. Kolko, Wealth and Power in America.

H. Miller, Distribution of Income in the United States.

II. EDUCATION AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
  1. Education and Earnings

*H. Miller, Rich Man, Poor Man, Chapters 8 and 9, pp. 148-194.

  1. Education as Investment

I. Fisher, The Theory of Interest, Chapters 4, 7, 10, and 11, pp. 61-98, 159-177, and 231-287.

T. Ribich, Poverty and Education, Chapter I, pp. 1-17 and 23-32, mimeo.

G. Becker, Human Capital, Chapters 1-5; 7 and 8, pp. 1-123; 136-159.

  1. Equality of Educational Opportunity

J. Coleman, “Equal Schools or Equal Students,” in The Public Interest, Summer, 1966, pp. 70-75.

*P. Sexton, Education and Income, pp. 58-69.

(Supplementary)

*Harlem Youth Opportunities Unlimited (HARYOU), Youth in the Ghetto: A Study in the Consequences of Powerlessness, Chapter 7.

*J. Conant, Slums and Suburbs, Chapters 1, 2, and 3.

*P.  Sexton, “City Schools,” in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1964, reprinted in L. Ferman, et al., eds., Poverty in America.

  1. A Model of Education and the Distribution of Earnings

G. Becker, “Human Capital and the Personal Distribution of Income: An Analytical Approach,” mimeo, 59 pp.

  1. Education and the War on Poverty

B. Weisbrod, “Preventing High School Dropouts,” in R. Dorfman, (*) Measuring the Benefits of Government Investments, pp. 117-148.

J. K. Folger and C. B. Nam, Education of the American Population (U.S. Department of Commerce).

(Supplementary)

O. Lewis, “The Culture of Poverty,” Scientific American, October, 1966, pp. 19-25.

*Haryou, Youth in the Ghetto, Chapter 12.

C. A. Anderson, “A Skeptical Note on Education and Mobility,” in H. Halsey, J. Floud, C. Anderson, (*) Education Economy and Society.

III. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
  1. The Theory of Production and Distribution

M. Brown, On the Theory and Measurement of Technological Change, chapter 2, pp. 9-28.

*J. Meade, Efficiency, Equality and the Ownership of Property, Chapter 1, pp. 11-26.

J. Hicks, Theory of Wages, Chapter VI, pp. 112-135.

  1. Commentaries, Past and Present

A. Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 1.

D. Ricardo, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Chapter 31, “On Machinery.”

K. Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter XV, sections 3, 5 and 6, pp. 430-456; 466-488. (Pages refer to Modern Library edition.)

P. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development, Chapter 5, pp. 75-95.

R. Solow, “Technology and Unemployment,” The Public Interest, Fall, 1965, pp. 17-26.

(Supplementary)

R. Eckaus, “The Factor Proportions Problem in Underdeveloped Areas.” American Economic Review, September, 1955, reprinted in A. Agarwala and S. P. Singh; (*) The Economics of Underdevelopment, pp. 348-78.

  1. Making the Most Out of Technological Change

*J. Meade, Efficiency, Equality and the Ownership of Property, Chapters 2-7, pp. 27-77.

*National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress, Technology and the American Economy, Vol. 1, chapters 1-4, pp. 1-58.

IV. [ECONOMIC GROWTH: MEASUREMENT, THEORY, PRODUCTIVITY]
  1. The Measurement and Characteristics of Economic Growth

S. Kuznets, Postwar Economic Growth, Lecture II, “Characteristics of Modern Economic Growth,” pp. 36-68.

*C. Cipolla, The Economic History of World Population, Chapters 1 and 2, pp. 15-58.

*E. Denison, The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States, Chapters 1, 2, and 3, pp. 3-22.

(Supplementary)

M. Abramovitz, “The Welfare Interpretation of Secular Trends in National Income and Product,” Abramovitz, et al. (*) The Allocation of Economic Resources, pp. 1-22.

*S. Kuznets, Modern Economic Growth.

*O. Morgenstern, On the Accuracy of Economic Observations, Chapters 1 and 2.

  1. Theories of Economic Growth

G. Winston, “The Power Growth Model,” mimeo, 18 pp.

*J. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, Chapters 1 to 4, pp. 3-156.

*J. Meade, A Neoclassical Theory of Economic Growth, Chapters 1 and 2, pp. 1-18.

  1. The Advance of Productivity in the U.S. Economy

J. Kendrick, Productivity Trends in the United States, pp. 3-12, 59-77.

(Supplementary)

M. Abramovitz, “Resource and Output Trends in the U.S. Since 1870,” American Economic Review, 1956.

R. Solow, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957.

V. EDUCATION AND GROWTH

T. Schultz, The Economic Value of Education, pp. 1-70.

S. Strumilin, “The Economic Significance of National Education,” in J. Vaizey and E. A. G. Robinson, The Economics of Education, pp. 276-323.

B. Weisbrod, “Education and Investment in Human Capital,” Journal of Political Economy Supplement, October, 1962, pp. 106-123.

W. Bowen, Economic Aspects of Education, Essay I, “Assessing the Economic Contribution of Education,” pp. 3-38.

*E. Denison, The Sources of Economic Growth in the U.S. and the Alternatives Before Us, pp. 23-46; 66-80; 84-87.

T. Schultz, “Investing in Farm People,” in T. Schultz, (*) Transforming Traditional Agriculture, pp. 175-206.

(Supplementary)

T. Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital,” American Economic Review, December, 1961.

W. Bowman, “The Human Investment Revolution in Economic Thought,” Sociology of Education, Vol. 39, No. 2, Spring, 1966, pp. 112-137.

*B. Weisbrod, The External Benefits of Public Education.

A. Harberger, “Investment in Men vs. Investment in Machines: The Case of India,” in M. Bowman and C. A. Anderson, Education and Economic Development, pp. 11-33.

Carl Shoup, et al., The Fiscal System of Venezuela, pp. 406-409.

M. Bowman and C. Anderson, “Concerning the Role of Education in Development,” in C. Geertz, Old Societies and New States, pp. 247-279.

S. Bowles, “Sources of Growth in the Greek Economy,” mimeo.

VI. TECHNOLOGY AND GROWTH
  1. The Production of New Technologies

J. Enos, “Invention and Innovation in the Petroleum Industry,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, pp. 299-322.

H. Dickenson, “The Steam-Engine to 1830,” in Charles Singer et al. A History of Technology, Volume IV, pp. 168-198.

(Supplementary)

Articles by Peck, Mueller and Nelson, in National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity.

R. Nelson, “The Economics of Invention: A Survey of the Literature,” in Journal of Business, April, 1959, pp. 101-127.

J. Schmookler, Invention and Economic Growth, Chapters 6 and 7.

  1. The Spread of New Technologies

W. E. G. Salter, Productivity and Technical Change, Chapters 4, 5, 6 and appendix to Chapter 7, pp. 48-82, 95-99.

Z. Griliches, “Hybrid Corn and the Economics of Innovation,” Science, July 29, 1960, Vol. 132, pp. 275-280.

(Supplementary)

J. Habakkuk, American and British Technology.

  1. Technology and Growth

E. Denison, The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States, pp. 154-255.

Z. Griliches, “Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations,” Journal of Political Economy, October, 1958, pp. 419-431.

  1. Efficiency of Resource Allocation in Research and Development

R. Nelson, “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research,” in Journal of Political Economy, June, 1959, pp. 297-306.

(Supplementary)

K. Arrow, “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, pp. 609-625.

VII. [ECONOMICS OF EDUCATION]
  1. The Concept of Efficiency in Education

H. Johnson, “Economics and Education,” in School Review, Autumn, 1957, pp. 260-269.

(Supplementary)

Project Talent, Studies of the American High School, Cooperative Research Project 226, U.S. Office of Education. Chapters 6, 9, and 10.

J. Coleman, Equality of Educational Opportunity, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education.

  1. The Market for Educated Labor

H. Leibenstein, “Shortages and Surpluses in Education in Underdeveloped Countries,” in M. J. Bowman and C A. Anderson, Education and Economic Development, pp. 51-62.

K. Arrow and W. Capron, “Dynamic Shortages and Price Rises, The Engineer-Scientist Case,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1959, pp. 292-308.

  1. Market Solutions to the Problem of Efficient Resource Allocation in Education

M. Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education,” in R. Solo, Economics and the Public Interest, pp. 123-144.

A. Daniere, Higher Education in the American Economy, chapters 2 and 4-5 pp. 13-19, 33-55.

(Supplementary)

C. Jencks, “Is the Public School Obsolete?” in The Public Interest.

  1. Educational Planning

M. Blaug, “Conflicting Approaches to Educational Planning,” mimeo, 34 pp.

H. Johnson, “The Economics of the Brain Drain,” Minerva, 1965.

A. Daniere, “Rate of Return and Manpower Approach in Educational Planning” in Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration, Public Policy, 1965, pp. 162-200.

(Supplementary)

F. Harbison and C. Myers, Education, Manpower and Economic Growth.

J. Tinbergen, et al., Econometric Models of Education, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1965; An Experiment in Planning by Six Countries, 1966.

H. Parnés, Forecasting Education Needs for Economic and Social Development, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1962.

R. Hollister, A Technical Evaluation of the First Stage of the Mediterranean Regional Project, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1966.

R. Eckaus, “Economic Criteria for Education and Training,” Review of Economics and Statistics, (May, 1964), pp. 181-190.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1967-1968, Box 9. Folder “Economics, 1967-68”.

Image Source: The Boston Globe (December 5, 1969), p. 15.

Categories
Business School Education Gender Race Undergraduate

Useful links. The Monographs on Education in the U.S. edited by Nicholas Murray Butler for the St. Louis World Fair. 1904

 

The institution of “World Expositions”, where newest developments in science and technology, industry and the arts are celebrated and showcased in specially built halls in fairgrounds that include activities for young and old, gardens, parks and fountains, etc., lacks salience in the public mind today. Looking at a list of world expos in Wikipedia, I confess that several decades have gone by without a single Expo having even caught my attention for a moment. In comparison the World Expositions used to be a huge deal at least up through the middle of the twentieth century.

No less a light than the President of Columbia University commissioned some twenty monographs for the national U.S. contribution to the Education department of the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exhibition (a.k.a. the St. Louis World’s Fair).  Economics in the Rear-view Mirror posts links to these twenty monographs on aspects of education in the United States as of 1904. About half of the titles provide interesting context for the artifacts gathered here dedicated to economics education. I have added the group assignments for the monographs from the attached outline of the education exhibits featured in the Palace of Education and Social Economy at the St. Louis exposition. 

Meet me in St. Louis, Louis (1904) performed by Billy Murry.

_______________________________

Monographs on Education in the United States
edited by
Nicholas Murray Butler

Department of Education, Universal Exposition
St. Louis, 1904.
  1. Educational Organization and Administration. Andrew Sloan Draper, President of the University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc01butluoft
  2. Kindergarten Education. Susan E. Blow, Cazenovia, New York. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc02butluoft
  3. Elementary Education. William T. Harris, United States Commissioner of Education, Washington, D. C. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc03butluoft
  4. Secondary Education. Elmer Ellsworth Brown, Professor of Education in the University of California, Berkeley, California. [Group 2] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc04butluoft
  5. The American College. Andrew Fleming West, Professor of Latin in Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc05butluoft
  6. The American University. Edward Delavan Perry, Jay Professor of Greek in Columbia University, New York. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc06butluoft
  7. Education of Women. M. Carey Thomas, President of Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc07butluoft
  8. Training of Teachers. B. A. Hinsdale, Professor of the Science and Art of Teaching in the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc08butluoft
  9. School Architecture and Hygiene. Gilbert B. Morrison, Principal of the Manual Training High School, Kansas City, Missouri. [Group 1] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc09butluoft/mode/2up
  10. Professional Education. James Russell Parsons, Director of the College and High School Departments, University of the State of New York, Albany, New York. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc10butluoft/mode/2up
  11. Scientific, Technical and Engineering Education. T. Mendenhall, President of the Technological Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts. [Group 3] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc11butluoft
  12. Agricultural Education. Charles W. Dabney, President of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. [Group 5] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc12butluoft
  13. Commercial Education. Edmund J. James, Professor of Public Administration in the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. [Group 6] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc13butluoft
  14. Art and Industrial Education. Isaac Edwards Clarke, Bureau of Education, Washington, D. C. [Group 4] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc14butluoft
  15. Education of Defectives. Edward Ellis Allen, Principal of the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind, Overbrook, Pennsylvania. [Group 7] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc15butluoft/mode/2up
  16. Summer Schools and University Extension. George E. Vincent, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago; Principal of Chautauqua. [Group 8] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc16butluoft/mode/2up
  17. Scientific Societies and Associations. James Mckeen Cattell, Professor of Psychology in Columbia University, New York. [Group 8] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc17butluoft
  18. Education of the Negro. Booker T. Washington, Principal of the Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama. [Group 6] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc18butluoft
  19. Education of the Indian. William N. Hailmann, Superintendent of Schools, Dayton, Ohio. [Group 6] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc19butluoft
  20. Education Through the Agency of the Several Religious Organizations. Dr. W. H. Larrabee, Plainfield, N.J. [Group 8] https://archive.org/details/monographsoneduc20butluoft

_______________________________

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
Classification of Exhibits.

GROUP I.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

Class 1. Kindergarten.

Class 2. Elementary grades.

Class 3. Training and certification of teachers.

Class 4. Continuation schools, including evening schools, vacation schools and schools for special training.

Legislation, organization, general statistics.
School supervision and school management.
Buildings: plans, models; school hygiene.
Methods of instruction; results obtained.

GROUP 2.
SECONDARY EDUCATION

Class 5. High schools and academies; manual training high schools, commercial high schools.

Class 6. Training and certification of teachers.

Legislation, organization, statistics.
Buildings: plans and models.
Supervision, management, methods of instruction; results obtained.

GROUP 3.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Class 7. Colleges and universities.

Class 8. Scientific, technical and engineering schools and institutions.

Class 9. Professional schools.

Class 10. Libraries.

Class 11. Museums.

Legislation, organization, statistics.
Buildings: plans and models.
Curriculums, regulations, methods, administration, investigations, etc.

GROUP 4.
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN FINE ARTS

(Institutions for teaching drawing,
painting and music.)

Class 12. Art schools and institutes.

Class 13. Schools and departments of music; conservatories of music.

Methods of instruction; results obtained. Legislation, organization, general statistics.

GROUP 5.
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURE

Class 14. Agricultural colleges and departments; experiment stations; instruction in forestry. (See Department H, Group 83.)

Curriculums; experiments and investigations; results. Methods of transportation and shipment. Legislation, organization, general statistics. Buildings: plans and models.

GROUP 6.
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

Class 15. Industrial and trade schools; evening industrial schools.

Class 16. (a) Business and commercial schools; (b) Higher instruction in commerce.

Class 17. Education of the Indian.

Class 18. Education of the Negro.

Legislation, organization, statistics. Buildings: plans and models. Methods of instruction; results.

GROUP 7.
EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVES

Class 19. Institutions for the blind; publications for the blind.

Class 20. Institutions for the deaf and dumb.

Class 21. Institutions for the feeble minded.

Management, methods, courses of study; results. Special appliances for instruction. Legislation, organization, statistics. Buildings: plans and models.

GROUP 8.
SPECIAL FORMS OF EDUCATION
— TEXT BOOKS—
SCHOOL FURNITURE AND SCHOOL APPLIANCES

Class 22. Summer schools.
Class 23. Extension courses; popular lectures and people’s institutes; correspondence schools.
Class 24. Scientific societies and associations; scientific expeditions and investigations.
Class 25. Educational publications, text books, etc.
Class 36. School furniture, school appliances.

Source: Official catalogue of exhibitors. Universal exposition. St. Louis, U.S.A. 1904, pp. 11-12.

Image Source: Palace of Education and Social Economy from the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Snapshots. The State Historical Society of Missouri.