Category: Faculty Regulations

Harvard. President Lowell’s motivation for undergraduate divisional general exams. 1915

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-07-20

In an earlier post a shorter excerpt from Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report for the academic year 1914-1915 was included along with the first set of divisional exams for History, Government and Economics from 1915. In the following extended excerpt one finds such gems as:

“…it is still possible for a student to elect six courses in the outlying parts of the field which have little connection with one another and do not form a systematic whole. This possibility is attractive to undergraduates seeking easy courses, whose object is not so much to obtain as to evade an education. Of late years, indeed, many easy courses have been made more serious, whereby the minimum work which shirkers must do for a degree has been sensibly raised, to the great benefit of the college as an educational institution, and incidentally with the result of increasing the respect for high achievement in college scholarship. As the requirements in various subjects are stiffened it is interesting to observe the flocking of students from one department to another.”

Some things apparently never change. By the way you can now add the German expression for such students, “geistiger Tiefflieger” (=intellectual low-flyers), to your working pejorative vocabulary.

______________________________

From President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report on the academic year 1914-15.

…But in fact, the single course is not, and cannot be, the true unit in education. The real unit is the student. He is the only thing in education that is an end in itself. To send him forth as nearly a perfected product as possible is the aim of instruction, and anything else, the single course, the curriculum, the discipline, the influences surrounding him, are merely means to the end, which are to be judged by the way they contribute and fit into the ultimate purpose. To treat the single course as a self-sufficient unit, complete in itself, is to run a danger of losing sight of the end in the means thereto. In no other part of the University, in the requirements for no other degree, is the course, as a unit, complete in itself. In the Law School, where the freedom of election is the greatest, many courses are required, and the rest all aim at a definite and narrowly circumscribed object, preparation for practice at the bar. In the Medical and Divinity Schools general examinations on specific fields of knowledge have been established — of which more will be said later. The same thing has always been true of the doctorate of philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences; and for the Master of Arts, which was formerly attained by a sufficiently high grade in any four courses, it has now been the rule for many years that the courses must form a consistent whole, approved by some department of the Faculty.

In the College the problem of making the student, instead of the course, the unit in education is more difficult than in the other parts of the University, because general education is more intangible, more vague, less capable of precise analysis and definition, than training for a profession. Nevertheless, in the College, some significant steps have been taken which tend in this direction. The first was the requirement that every student must concentrate six of his seventeen courses in some definite field, must distribute six more among the other subjects of knowledge, and must do so after consulting an instructor appointed to advise him. The exact prescriptions may not be perfect, nor in their final form. Experience may well lead to changes, but the intent is good, to develop and expand the mind of the student as an individual, as in himself the object of education. So far as the rule affects the care with which the student selects his courses, there has certainly been a gain, for there is no doubt that the requirement has made his choice more thoughtful and serious than before. The Committee on the Choice of Electives makes exceptions freely in the case of earnest students, and it is a significant fact that although the members of the Committee hold very divergent views upon the principles involved, they are almost invariably unanimous on the question of allowing an exception in any particular case.

The rule of concentration, coupled with the provision that not more than two of the six courses shall be of an elementary character, is intended to compel every man to study some subject with thoroughness, and acquire a systematic knowledge thereof. Certain departments have so arranged their sequence of courses that this result is fairly well attained; but in others where the offering is large, and the nature of the subject is not (as it is in mathematics, for example, or the physical sciences) such that a mastery of one thing is indispensable for the study of another, it is still possible for a student to elect six courses in the outlying parts of the field which have little connection with one another and do not form a systematic whole. This possibility is attractive to undergraduates seeking easy courses, whose object is not so much to obtain as to evade an education. Of late years, indeed, many easy courses have been made more serious, whereby the minimum work which shirkers must do for a degree has been sensibly raised, to the great benefit of the college as an educational institution, and incidentally with the result of increasing the respect for high achievement in college scholarship. As the requirements in various subjects are stiffened it is interesting to observe the flocking of students from one department to another.

The second step in treating the student, instead of the course, as the unit in education, was taken by the Division of History, Government, and Economics, when, and with the approval of the Faculty, it set up the requirement of a general examination at graduation for students concentrating in that division. The examination, which is entrusted to a committee representing the three departments within the division, is to be distinct from that in the courses elected, and is to include not only the ground covered in them, but also the general field with which they have dealt, and the knowledge needed to connect them. This is a marked departure from the plan of earning a degree by scoring courses; and it will take time to adjust men’s conceptions of education to a basis new to the American college, though familiar in every European university. To assist the students in preparing themselves for the general examination each of them at the beginning of his Sophomore year is assigned to the charge of a tutor who confers with him about his work and guides his reading outside of that required in the courses. As the plan could be applied only to men entering after it was established, the first examinations will be held next spring, and then only for men who graduate in three years. In the Divinity School, where the course for the Master’s and Doctor’s degrees is shorter, a general examination has already been put into operation with gratifying results.

A third step has been taken this autumn by a vote of the Faculty providing that the courses elected by a student for concentration in History and Literature must be approved by the Committee on Degrees with Distinction in that field. This has always been true of candidates for distinction under this committee, and in fact the field is one that would present little unity if the courses chosen were unrelated. But that the combination of courses by other students should require approval is an innovation which shows that in a subject where the liberty of choice is peculiarly liable to abuse, the Faculty is prepared to require a consistent programme of study, with a view to giving students an education rational as a whole. Moreover, departments and committees, which do not wish to limit the choice of the students concentrating in their field to combinations of courses approved by them beforehand, sometimes take charge of his work in the subject and really oversee it at every stage. They do in fact act as his advisers, and can often do so better than the instructor specially appointed to advise him. The adviser so appointed frequently takes a very careful interest in the development of a man’s work throughout his college course, and whenever a man shows on entering college any strong special interest, Professor Parker always tries to appoint for him an adviser who will sympathize with that interest. Nevertheless, the departments and committees which pay close attention to the choice of courses by each man concentrating in their field add much to the thoroughness of his education, and have adopted a principle that might with profit be more widely extended. It would be well if every department insisted on having a list, not merely of candidates for distinction, but of all students concentrating in its special field.

Another departure from the practice of counting by courses is the requirement that every student shall be able to read ordinary French or German at sight, and show it by doing so orally. This has proved to be a very different thing from taking and passing a course. It is a test of capacity acquired, not of tasks performed. It is in this one subject a measure of the man and of his education, not a unit of credit accumulated. Not less important is the Committee on the Use of English by Students, appointed in consequence of a request from the Board of Overseers. The investigation by that body showed that students who had done their required English composition often could not or would not express themselves creditably in their later written work. A man who cannot write his mother tongue grammatically, lucidly, and with a reasonably fair style, or who does not think it worth while to do so, is not an educated man, no matter how many courses he may have scored, or how proficient he may be in a special field. In this connection it may be noted that the supervision of the use of English applies to the Graduate School as well as to the College.

All these changes are in a direction away from the mechanical view of education which is the bane of the American system. We see that view displayed everywhere, prominently at the present day in efforts to raise the standard of pre-medical training. This is commonly expressed in terms of courses taken and credits obtained, not of knowledge acquired. If a young man has passed a course and learned little or nothing, or forgotten all he knew, he fulfils the requirement; but if he has mastered the subject in any other way, and can prove it by examination, it avails him nothing. Counting the credits scored in courses is, no doubt, the easiest way to apply a requirement, but it is not a sound system of education. What a man is, what knowledge he possesses, and what use he can make of it, is the real measure of his education. All persons who desire to improve the American system from the common school upward ought to strive not to lose sight of the end in the means, not to let the machinery divert attention from the product….

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1914-1915, pp. 8-11.

______________________________

Harvard. Observations on the organization of academic life at Harvard. Ashley, 1897

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-06-05

The economic historian William J. Ashley taught at Harvard from 1892 to 1901. His observations regarding the tension between professors and junior staff’s desire to work for the advancement of science and scholarship and the core educational mission of universities have not lost their relevance 125 years after he shared his Harvard experience.

But there are many wonderful obiter dicta you will want to savor.

________________________

C.V. from Harvard’s records

William James Ashley, B.A. Oxford 1881; M.A. Oxford 1885; M.Com. Birmingham (Eng.) 1902; Ph.D. Berlin 1910; Fellow Lincoln Coll. Oxford 1885; Prof. of Political Economy and Constitutional History, Toronto 1888-1892; Prof. of Economic History 1892-1901; Prof. of Commerce, Birmingham; Dean (Faculty of Commerce) Birmingham 1901-1902; Cor. Memb. Mass. Hist. Soc; Cor. Memb. Am. Acad.

Harvard University. Quinquennial catalogue of the officers and graduates 1636-1930, p. 42.
________________________

Prof. William J. Ashley on academic administration and procedures at Harvard (1897)

[…] The peculiarity in the position of Harvard is that while the professorial ideal has definitely triumphed among the teaching body, the tutorial ideal is still cherished by the ‘constituency.’ Most of the professors care first of all for the advancement of science and scholarship; they prefer lectures to large audiences to the catechetical instruction of multiplied ‘sections,’ and they would leave students free to attend lectures or neglect them, at their own peril; they would pick out the abler men, and initiate them into the processes of investigation in small ‘research courses’ or ‘seminaries;’ and, to be perfectly frank, they are not greatly interested in the ordinary undergraduate. On the other hand the university constituency — represented, as I am told, by the Overseers — insists that the ordinary undergraduate shall be ‘looked after;’ that he shall not be allowed to ‘waste his time;’ that he shall be ‘pulled up’ by frequent examinations, and forced to do a certain minimum of work, whether he wants to or not. The result of this pressure has been the establishment of an elaborate machinery of periodical examination, the carrying on of a vaster bookkeeping for the registration of attendance and of grades than was ever before seen at any university, and the appointment of a legion of junior ‘instructors’ and assistants, to whom is assigned the drudgery of reading examination — books and conducting ‘conferences.’

So far as the professors are concerned, the arrangement is as favourable as can reasonably be expected. Of course they are all bound to lecture, and to lecture several times a week; they exercise a general supervision over the labours of their assistants; they guide the studies of advanced students; they conduct the examinations for honours and for higher degrees; they carry on a ceaseless correspondence; and each of them sits upon a couple of committees. But they are not absolutely compelled to undertake much drudging work in the way of instruction, and if they are careful of their time they can manage to find leisure for their own researches. As soon as a ‘course’ gets large, a benevolent Corporation will provide an assistant. The day is past when they were obliged, in the phrase of Lowell, ‘to double the parts of professor and tutor.’

But the soil of America is not as propitious as one could wish for the plant of academic leisure. It is a bustling atmosphere; and a professor needs some strength of mind to resist the temptation to be everlastingly doing something obvious. The sacred reserves of time and energy need to be jealously guarded, and there is more than one direction from which they are threatened. University administration occupies what would seem an unduly large number of men and an unduly large amount of time; it is worth while considering whether more executive authority should not be given to the deans. Then there is the never — ending stream of legislation, or rather of legislative discussion. I must confess that when I have listened, week after week, to Faculty debates, the phrase of Mark Pattison about Oxford has some times rung in my ears: ‘the tone as of a lively municipal borough.’ It would be unjust to apply it; for, after all, the measures under debate have been of far-reaching importance. Yet if any means could be devised to hasten the progress of business, it would be a welcome saving of time. Still another danger is the pecuniary temptation — hardly resistible by weak human nature — to repeat college lectures to the women students of Radcliffe. That some amount of repetition will do no harm to teachers of certain temperaments and in certain subjects may well be allowed, but that it is sometimes likely to exhaust the nervous energy which might better be devoted to other things can hardly be denied. The present Radcliffe system, to be sure, is but a makeshift, and an unsatisfactory one.

The ‘instructors’ and assistants, on their part, have little to grumble at, if they, in their turn, are wise in the use of their time. It is with them, usually, but a few years of drudgery, on the way to higher positions in Harvard or elsewhere; and it is well that a man should bear the yoke in his youth. Let him remember that his promotion will depend largely upon his showing the ability to do independent work; let him take care not to be so absorbed in the duties of his temporary position as to fail to produce some little bit of scholarly or scientific achievement for himself. I have occasionally thought that the university accepts the labours of men in the lower grades of the service with a rather step-motherly disregard for their futures.

Come now to the ‘students,’ or whose sake, certainly, Harvard College was founded, whatever may have been the case with English colleges, and whose presence casts upon those responsible for academic policy duties which they cannot escape, if they would. Grant that education and education as Jowett understood it, the training of character as well as mere instruction — is the main business of a university, what is to be said of the situation of affairs? That we do as much here for the average man as the Oxford tutorial system accomplishes, it would be idle to affirm. The introduction of the tutorial system, however, is out of the question: it needs the small college for its basis; it requires that the tutor should enjoy a prestige which we cannot give him; and it is still further shut out by ‘elective’ studies. Yet in its way the Harvard practice suffers from the same defects as the Oxford; it does too much for the men. Take the matter of examinations, for instance. Surely it would be better to relax the continuous pressure — which after all is not in any worthy sense effective — and to reinforce it instead at special points. It was the conviction, we are told, of Professor Freeman that ‘if examinations were necessary evils, they should be few, searching, and complete, not many and piecemeal.’ At present, there are so many ‘tests,’ of one sort or another, that no one examination sufficiently impresses the undergraduate mind. The kind of work done by a student who is so persistently held up by hour-examinations and conferences that he must be an abnormal fool to ‘fail’ at the end, cannot be regarded as really educational in any high sense of the word. By a great many men, the help showered upon them is regarded merely as the means of discovering just how little they can do, and still scrape through. To sweep away all examinations except the final annual one; to leave the student more to himself; to set a higher standard for passing, and ruthlessly reject those who do not reach it, would undoubtedly, in the long run, encourage a more manly spirit on the part of undergraduates, and a deeper respect for the university. This I say with the fuller confidence because, when I left Oxford, now (1900) some twelve years ago, I could see nothing but the evils of the examination system as it there affects students of promise. I am convinced that it would be possible and salutary in Harvard to add greatly to the awfulness of examination; and that much could be done in this direction without approaching within measurable distance of any results that need be feared.

From a natural distrust of examinations and a desire to encourage independent thought, it has of late become the practice to prescribe two or more theses during the progress of a ‘course.’ The result is that many a man has half a dozen or more theses to write during the year, for two or three different teachers. This undoubtedly ‘gets some work out of the men.’ But the too frequent consequence, with students who take their work seriously, especially with graduates, is that they have no time for anything but to get up their lectures and prepare their theses. Any parallel reading by the side of their lectures they find impracticable. But one of the best things a student can do is just to read intelligently. Certainly the graduate students, if not the undergraduates, would sometimes be the better for being left more to themselves.

These are, however, relatively minor matters. A good deal could be said about that cornerstone of Harvard academic policy, the ‘elective’ system. I must confess that I have hitherto failed to see the advantage of the completely elective plan (for any but exceptional students) over the plan of ‘groups,’ or ‘triposes,’ or ‘schools,’ with some degree of internal elasticity to suit particular tastes. That the elective system is an improvement on the old compulsory curriculum is likely enough; but I do not know that any great American university has ever yet fairly tried the group arrangement. Of all the educational agencies at Oxford, Oxford itself is the most potent.

That sweet city, with her dreaming spires;
She needs not June for beauty’s heightening.

Harvard, indeed, is truly ‘fair’ at Commencement, and in the evening lights the Yard has always a sober dignity. But Harvard in the daytime sadly needs May or October for beauty’s heightening. The disadvantages of youth and climate may not be altogether surmountable; yet Cambridge surroundings could doubtless be made more comely and restful with comparatively little trouble. There must be a certain atrophy of the æsthetic sense when luxuriously furnished dormitories have no difficulty in securing tenants though they face rubbish dumps, when rowing-men can practise with equanimity beneath a coal-dealer’s mammoth advertisement, and when the crash and jangle of street-cars are permitted to destroy what little remains of the quiet of the Yard. What is to be desired for every student — most of all for those from homes of little cultivation — is that he should live in the presence of grace and beauty and stateliness. The lesson of good taste cannot be learnt from lectures, and is imbibed unconsciously. Here we must turn to our masters, the Corporation, and to the worshipful benefactors to come. Is all the thought taken that might be taken, all the pressure used that might be exerted, to increase the amenity of the neighbourhood? And, further, is it utopian to imagine that some benefactor will yet arise who will enable Harvard to imitate the noble example of Yale, and erect dormitories that shall delight the eye? Is it too much to hope that the university may soon be enriched with at least one more building such as Memorial Hall? For many a Harvard student his daily meals in Memorial Hall, in that ample space, beneath the glowing colours of the windows and surrounded by the pictures of the Harvard worthies of the past, constitute the most educative part of his university career, though he may not know it. Only half the students can now be brought within this silent influence. A second dining-hall, of like dignity, is perhaps the most urgent educational need of Harvard, and the need most easily supplied.[*]

[*I leave this sentence, for obvious reasons, in spite of the recent erection of Randall Hall. The desirability of a large infusion of other than immediately utilitarian elements in the policy of the Corporation is emphasised, I think, by the increasingly evident tendency towards social segregation in the student body. The English reader who desires to know more of the atmosphere of the greater American universities may be referred to Mr. Bliss Perry’s article on ‘The Life of a College Professor’ in Scribner’s Magazine for October 1897; while the American reader who is interested in Oxford may with advantage consult Mr. F. C. S. Schiller on ‘Philosophy at Oxford’ in the Educational Review for October 1899. ]

Source: W. J. Ashley, “Jowett and the University Ideal” in Surveys, Historic and Economics 1900, pp. 445-463. Originally published in Atlantic Monthly, July 1897.

Tags Ashley

Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Harvard

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

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-06-05

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

Degree Requirements for 1897-98.

Degree Requirements as of 1904-05

Degree Requirements for 1911-12.

Degree Requirements for 1921-22
[This post]

Degree Requirements for 1934-35

Degree Requirements from 1947.

Degree Requirements from 1958.

Degree Regulations from 1968.

_________________________

Degree Requirements
in 1921-22

GENERAL INFORMATION

ORGANIZATION

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

DEGREES OF A.B. AND S.B.

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

CONCENTRATION IN HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, OR ECONOMICS

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

DIVISION EXAMINATION

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION

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

CONCENTRATION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

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

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN SOCIAL ETHICS

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

[…]

IN COMBINATION WITH THE CLASSICS

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

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

[…]

Classics and Economics

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

DEGREE OF A.M.

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

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

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

DEGREE OF PH.D.

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

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

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

GENERAL PREPARATION

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

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

I. GENERAL EXAMINATION

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

II. THESIS

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

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

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

III. SPECIAL EXAMINATION

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

* * * * * * * * *

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

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

GENERAL EXAMINATION

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

Group A

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

Group B

Economic History before 1750.
Economic History since 1750.
Statistical Method and its Application.
Money, Banking, and Crises.
Transportation
Economics of Corporations.
Public Finance.
International Trade and Tariff Policy.
Economics of Agriculture.
Labor Problems.
Socialism and Social Reform.
Sociology

Group C

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

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

Group E

Ethical Theory.
Economic Theory.
Poor Relief.
Social Reforms.

Group F

Sociology
Statistics
Economic History.
The Labor Question.
Criminology and Penology.
Problems of Municipal Government.
Anthropology

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

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

GENERAL EXAMINATION

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

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

Group A

Economic Theory.
Economic History since 1750.
Public Finance and Taxation.
Economics of Agriculture.

Group B

Accounting.
Marketing.
Foreign Trade.
Industrial Management and Labor Problems.
Money and Banking.
Corporate Organization and Finance.
Transportation.
Insurance.
Statistical Method and its Application.

SPECIAL EXAMINATION

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

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

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

Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Harvard

Harvard. Economics Graduate Degree Requirements, 1934-1935

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-06-02

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

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

Degree Requirements for 1897-98.

Degree Requirements as of 1904-05

Degree Requirements for 1911-12.

Degree Requirements for 1921-22

Degree Requirements for 1934-35
[This post]

Degree Requirements for 1935-36

Degree Requirements from 1947.

Degree Requirements from 1951

Changes in Degree Requirements, 1956

Degree Requirements from 1958.

Degree Regulations from 1968.

_________________________

1934-1935
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Requirements for Graduate Degrees:
The more important regulations regarding graduate degrees are stated below.

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

GROUP A.

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

GROUP B

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

GROUP C

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

1. Application for degrees

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

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

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

1. Languages

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

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

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

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

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

1. General Examination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Languages

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

1. Fields of Study

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

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

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

1. General Examination

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

1. “Fifth” field

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

1. Special field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: Harvard Class-Day Book 1934.

Tags Burbank

Chicago Economics Programs Economists Faculty Regulations Graduate Student Support

Chicago. H. Gregg Lewis proposes a “labor laboratory”. Ca. early 1950s.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-05-25

Thanks to a prompt from Beatrice Cherrier (a.k.a. Twitter’s undercoverhist), I have transcribed the following documents found together in the economics department records in the University of Chicago archives. We catch a glimpse of H. Gregg Lewis’ early vision of a “labor laboratory” for the training of budding labor economists in the craft of empirical economic research. Serendipitously we also discover the deep self-doubt plaguing Lewis that he shared with the chair of his department at the time, T. W. Schultz.

For much more on Chicago’s workshop system, see:

Ross Emmett.” Sharpening Tools in the Workshop: The Workshop System and the Chicago School’s Success” in Building Chicago Economics: New Perspectives on the History of America’s Most Powerful Economics Program, pp. 93-115, Robert van Horn, Philip Mirowski and Thomas Stapleford, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2011. There may be slight differences between the published version of the paper and the one on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014015

In preparing this post I found the following testimony of a former student of Lewis who went on to a most distinguished career in labor economics (who also happens to have taught my daughter an honors undergraduate class in statistics at the University of Texas).

Daniel S. Hamermesh. H. Gregg Lewis: Perhaps the Father of Modern Labor Economics. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13551, July 2020.

__________________________

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz
(undated, early 1950s)

PRIVATE

To: T. W. Schultz
From: H. G. Lewis

Some time before the end of this quarter I’d like to sit down with you for an unrushed hour or so to discuss some problems, personal ones, and to receive your counsel.

What has brought the discussion “to a head” is my wish to experiment teaching labor economics along the “laboratory” lines I sketched in an earlier memorandum. (I submit a proposal to that end below.) However, I think there is little virtue and, perhaps, much painful effort in conducting such an experiment unless I have reasonable prospects of continuing the experiment beyond next year. And that has raised the whole question of my future at the University. The problem is not mainly my lack of tenure or the recent freeze on tenure appointments, though these are not irrelevant. Indeed, the purpose of this discussion is not to raise the issue of the Department’s assessment of my work, but my own assessment of myself and what is good for me.

It is difficult to convey to you what the nature of my problem is, since I’m not sure of it myself. In substance it is in [illegible word] aspects loss of self-confidence, demoralization and high tension.

Prior to 1945, I was full of confidence, though I think never very cocky or very self-assured. But in the post-war years my confidence has been continuously slipping. In the last two years particularly, I have felt demoralized, incompetent as an economist, unprepared to say or to write anything that I felt could stand the test of critical examination. Altogether it seems up to an estimate that I’m really [new page] [first word lost/truncated through stapling] … the Department. (My colleagues have been generous to me in attributing my low productivity to Departmental “busy” work. Though I sometimes feel “burdened” by that “busy” work, it’s not the real reason for my low output.)

The demoralization has not been [illegible word] intervals [illegible word] confidence returned. Indeed I do not really feel that I am a shame to the profession, though, I’m not ready to belong in the company of my Chicago colleagues.

I do not know quite what it is that has put me in this unproductive state of mind. Part of it is surely a better realization of my own worth. And sometimes, I attribute much of the trouble to an environment of colleagues who are, on my view, my own superiors. I have learned much from them and stand to learn more if, I should stay. Furthermore, I’m not at all certain that my morale would be improved by a change of environment.

If, I were to stay, I should like to begin an experiment next year (Winter and Spring quarters) with a “laboratory in labor economics.” Although, I’m less enthusiastic about the idea than I was several weeks ago, I still want to give the experiment a good try. (My loss of enthusiasm stems from the fairly cool reception the idea has had from several of my colleagues. They fear[?] that though the laboratory may be unctuous[?] for students, it will prevent its supervisor from doing his own productive research.)

In its negative aspect the proposal involves releasing me from my present duties. Given somewhat smaller enrollment next year, the dropping of a section of Econ 209 and one of Soc. Sci. 200A would not require funds for replacement teaching. Relieving me of an assortment of busy work distractions is [new page] another matter. I am not confident that I could give the laboratory a fair trial while carrying on these busy activities. At the same time I do not want these activities added to those my colleagues already carry. Some replacement funds — from the Ford grant — appear to be necessary therefore.

On the positive side, I would replace these duties with full-time devotion intimate teaching of a few (a half-dozen or so) students who have reached the A.M. level and beyond. I would plan to be engaged with the students, heavily in research. The students admitted to the laboratory would commit themselves to full-time work in it for at least two consecutive quarters. (They would receive their instruction by example, by reading and research and by intimate conferences with their fellows including their supervisor. Progress would be tested by oral and written examinations, papers, and reports. The laboratory would be open to students who had “completed” their theory training and who [illegible word] to do supervised reading and research in labor economics.

The laboratory would make positive demands for resources at the very minimum for desk and conference space for the students and some clerical aid. It seems desirable to me also to provide subsidies of at least tuition to the student members in order to provide an incentive for them to remain in school while doing research. In addition, I should like to bring to the laboratory at least one more mature[?] young economist for a year of research.

In summary the following are the resource demands of the laboratory:

[new page]

Some replacement funds to provide for the services from which I would be released
Desk and conference space for the laboratory and some typing assistance from Social Science typing resources
Six tuition scholarships
A research assistant for three quarters at a negotiated salary of some $4000 to $5,000

I have not made a request for funds for this purpose from the [illegible word, beginning with “D”] since these are matters that go beyond my own private[?] interest.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

__________________________

Typed memo regarding training graduate students as “scientific craftsmen”

[Penciled note] From Gregg Lewis

I have been discomfited for some time by the belief that graduate faculties of economics generally are neglecting their responsibilities for making economics an effective science and for training their students as scientific craftsmen. I think we do as well as can be expected as moral philosophers and teachers of moral philosophy. Some of us—Knight is our shining example—do exceedingly well indeed. But most of us and most of our students are not made of the stuff that makes for good moral philosophers. Nevertheless, we expend a large part of our energies in that direction and encourage our students to imitate us. This is clearly a misfortune for economic science, and probably also for moral philosophy, if the Knight-Gresham Law of Talk is correct.

Meanwhile, economics as a science languishes. Most of us cultivate the whole field of economic ideas indiscriminately, the useless and misleading along with the useful. And we plant new ideas with the same nice regard for the weeds among them. Thus, each new generation of economists faces a more and more formidable task of weeding. The weeds become more abundant, their roots deeper.

We are not in want of good reasons for making a science of economics. True, the problems of economic planning that are surely the central ones for economic science do have moral content. And, unfortunately it is easy to make practically every controversy on economic policy sound as though it turned solely on a question of morals. The plain fact of the matter, however, is that the really hard core of our disagreements is not in the differences of moral beliefs but in differences of beliefs about economic facts.

That many of us have no real capacity for moral philosophy of course does not mean that we are prepared to be good scientists. Most of us, even if your spirits are willing, will have to struggle hard to overcome our slatternly research habits and to learn scientific skills and “instincts of workmanship.” But that is no excuse for making the effort. For unless we do, our students will be as ill-prepared as we are.

The problem of building a science, of course will not be solved merely by a formal reorganization of graduate instruction. But I think reorganization will help. The example which has guided the proposed reorganization I set forth below is the experimental laboratory of the natural sciences.

“Each professor—whether of money and banking, business cycles, public finance, or what not—will have his own laboratory. He will have one or two assistants who would share responsibility for the laboratory, and other assistants needed. The students (doctoral candidates) in a certain subject will get their training in the laboratory, by working on some project. The individual assignments will be of limited scope, but will be the function of the professor in charge to see that they fit together. The projects will grow out of the research program of the laboratory and will be supervised closely.
There would be no regimentation of the laboratory directors, any more than there is of professors in a well-run university.*
[footnote] *From a letter written by Arthur F. Burns who suggested the idea to me.

It would not be mandatory for any professor to direct such a laboratory, but if he chose to do so, he would be relieved largely from other duties and would be responsible for conducting the affairs of the laboratory continuously and full time. Nor would graduate students in all fields be required (for the Ph.D. degree) to participate in a laboratory project. Those who elected to do so, however, would commit themselves full-time for a period of something like an academic year.

Establishment of such laboratories by a considerable proportion of our faculty would call for a reduction of our student load per faculty member. This can be accomplished in substantial part I think by drastically reducing the number of students who plan to have the A.M. their terminal degree. And this is something I favor, reorganization or not.

Space problems are sure to arise but I do not think they need to be nor will prove to be insoluble.

THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposed program of graduate study, I believe, does not conflict in any way with Divisional degree requirements and hence would require no special dispensation by Divisional authorities.
All candidates for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees normally would obtain the Master’s Degree, after three or four quarters (beyond the four-year A.B.) of full-time participation in lecture courses, and by a route fairly similar to that of our present “Alternative” Master’s degree. The Master’s thesis would be dispensed with, the Master’s degree treated as an undergraduate or non-research degree, and students interested only in the A.M. degree discouraged from applying for admission.
The obtaining of the Master’s degree would be the principle requirement for admission to graduate study.
Faculty members would be given the free choice of devoting their scholastic energies as most of them do now or of conducting the kind of laboratory described above.
Students admitted to graduate study for the Ph.D. degree would have two alternatives open to them.
1. Taking graduate courses as they do now principally in “non-laboratory” fields, leading to a preliminary examination or examinations and the satisfaction of “distribution” requirements.
2. Participating full-time for three quarters in a laboratory leading to the preparation of a paper or papers which would be a prerequisite for admission to Ph.D. candidacy.
The recently passed procedure for admission, writing of thesis, and final Ph.D. examination would not be changed.

THE PROPOSED DEGREE REQUIREMENTS:

For the A.M. Degree:
1. The Divisional requirements
2. The qualifying examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 or Social Science 200A, 220 or 222, 230.
3. The Field Examinations: (Required of all candidates)
  1. Economic Principles: (Required of all candidates)
    This examination would be essentially the same as the present Ph.D. “Theory” prelim, including monetary theory. In terms of present courses, preparation for the examination normally would mean taking the following courses: 300A, 300B, 302, 330, 335.
  2. Statistics: (Required of all candidates)
    Essentially the present prelim covering 311, 312, 313 or 316 or equivalents.
4. Economics electives: Course credit or examination in a balance of courses sufficient to bring the total registration in Economics to 15 courses. Normally the balance would amount to four courses.
For Admission to Graduate Study:
1. The A.M. degree above or its equivalent.
2. Satisfaction of the high level language requirement
Program of Graduate Study
1. Three quarters of full-time residence in an economics laboratory leading to a paper or papers approved by the laboratory director or
2. Passing a preliminary examination in a third field (a field other than Principles or Statistics) and satisfaction of the distribution requirement. Normally this would require a full academic year.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

Images: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags LewisHG, SchultzTW

Chicago Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics A.M. requirements amended to become “Consolation Prize”. Lewis and Schultz, 1950

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-05-02

In 1950 the Chicago economics department voted to convert its master’s degree into an award for the successful partial completion of its Ph.D. program. It was to serve as a “consolation prize” for good graduate students but those found not to have the right “Ph.D. stuff” (H. Gregg Lewis’ words in his memo of Sept. 29, 1950 to chairman T. W. Schultz, transcribed below). I have also included the relevant portion of the distributional and examination requirements for the Ph.D. that had already formed part of the so-called “alternate departmental master’s degree”. H. Gregg Lewis’ proposal was largely accepted by the department (minutes from the meeting of November 2, 1950 transcribed below), thereby eliminating distinct tracks for its A.M. and Ph.D. degree programs, respectively.

_______________________

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

Upon request the Department will consider recommending for the Master’s degree candidates who have satisfied the distribution requirement for the Ph.D. degree and have passed with satisfactory standing the three written field examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One modern foreign language is required. In place of a thesis such candidates may present an acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department.

[…]

Distributional requirement [Ph.D.]. The candidate is expected to have familiarity with the subject matter equivalent to that covered in at least one course (200 or 300 level of reasonable comprehensivenss in each of ten fields (five required and five elected), satisfactory evidence of which can be provided by course credit or by passing a special examination. The required fields are: (a) economic theory, (b) accounting, (c) statistics, (d) economic history, and (e) money, banking, and monetary policy. The fields from which five may be elected are: (f) consumption economics, (g) industrial relations, (h) monopoly and public utilities, (i) agricultural economics, (j) government finance, (k) international economic relations, and (l) substitute fields, but not in excess of two, proposed by the candidate and approved by the Departmental counselor or the Department. One or both of these substitute fields may be outside the Department of Economics, and in general some work outside the Department is recommended with a view to rounding out a program appropriate for the individual student. In case of students transferring from other institutions, adequate training in general history may be substituted for economic history upon the written recommendation of the Departmental counselor.

Preliminary written field examinations [Ph.D.]. In each of three fields of specialization, in addition to presenting course credit or special examinations to show satisfactory preparation, the candidate will be required to pass a written examination.

The candidate is expected to select the three fields of specialization—a primary field and two secondary fields—for intensive graduate work. The primary field is that in which the [Ph.D.] thesis will be written. One of the three fields (primary or secondary) must be that of economic theory, including monetary theory. The fields from which selection is to be made are listed above under the heading “Distributional Requirement,” except that accounting may not be chosen as a field without approval of the Department. One secondary field of specialization may be a field named by the candidate outside the list above, and this may be in a department other than Economics. A secondary field may also be developed under one of the interdepartmental committees of specialization International Relations, Human Development, Planning or Social Thought. The program of work proposed, which ordinarily will include four to five courses, must be approved by the Department. No other secondary field may replace the required field in economic theory.* Students should consult with the Departmental counselor with respect to appropriate programs of work in preparation for the field examinations. The field examinations are given by the Department in the sixth and seventh weeks of the Winter and summer quarters. Application for any field examination should be made not later than the end of the first week of the quarter in which the examination is to be taken.

*Students who take the field examination in money, banking, and monetary policy will not be required to write the monetary theory part of the economic theory examination.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 25-26.

_______________________

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

209. Intermediate Economic Theory. (Procter Thomson/Harold Gregg Lewis) Designed for students majoring in economics. Deals with factors controlling production, value and relative prices, and distribution.

211. Introduction to Statistics. (Harold Gregg Lewis) Elementary principles of statistics. Main topics: frequency distributions, averages, dispersion, index numbers, elements of the theory of statistical inference.

220. Economic History of the United States. (Earl J. Hamilton) Facts and factors in American’s economic growth from the Colonial period to World War II, including the development of agriculture, industry, commerce, finance, and transportation; economic effects of wars; role of the entrepreneur; rise in living standards; unrest and utopias in periods of stagnation; commercial crises and economic basis of cultural progress.

222. The Rise of Industrial Civilization in Europe. (John Ulrich Nef) Economic development in its relation to religious, political, intellectual and artistic history since the seventeenth century.

230. Introduction to Money and Banking. (Milton Friedman/Lloyd Wynn Mints) Factors which determine the value of money in the short and in the long run; and operation of the commercial banking system and in relation to the price level and general business activity.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. (Albert E. Rees) The nature of the labor market; government regulation of wages; social security; the history, structure, and functions of American labor unions; and collective bargaining. Special attention is given to current problems of public policy.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. (D. Gale Johnson). Nature of resources used in agriculture. Prices, production, resource allocation, and income distribution. Analysis of government programs, subsidies, storages, crop control, soil conservation, food-stamp plan.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. (Richard B. Goode) Survey of institutions and theories of government finance. Effects of public expenditures; functions of public revenue; forms of taxation; tax criteria; determination of tax policy; public borrowing; debt management; fiscal policy.

270. International Economics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) The nature of international payments and receipts; foreign trade and banking system. The gold standard in the interwar period. The breakdown of the gold standard and the period of fluctuating exchange rates. Exchange controls, clearing agreements and payments agreements. The second world war and the foreign exchange markets. The position of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the present world economy.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) An introductory survey, with particular reference to the United States, of the economic policies and activities of governments. Topics: international specialization of production and the distribution of world resources, structure of international exchanges and the mechanism of international transfer of goods and services; tariffs and other regulatory measures; trade agreements and the most-favored nation clause; international flow of capital and investment; the position of the ITO, the IMF, the ECA and other official agencies in international trade and exchange.

300A, 300B. Price Theory. (W. Allen Wallis 300A/Lloyd A. Metzler 300B/Milton Friedman 300B) A systematic study of the pricing of final products and factors of production under essentially stationary conditions. Covers both perfect competition and such imperfectly competitive conditions as monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 300A deals primarily with the pricing of final products; 300B, with the pricing of factors of production.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 27-28.

_______________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

September 29, 1950

To T. W. Schultz

From H.G. Lewis

In Re: Requirements for the Master’s Degree

This is an elaboration of comments made to you this summer concerning the Master’s degree.

I should like to recommend the following changes in our requirements for the A.M. degree:

That the distinction between the “regular” A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. be abolished.
That the departmental requirements for the A.M degree consist of the following alteration of the present alternative A.M. requirements:
1. A distribution requirement covering five (rather than the present eight) fields of economics of which theory, statistics, and money and banking shall be mandatory. Students who do not hold the traditional A.B. degree must meet the requirement by passing satisfactorily a qualifying examination coving the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination), 230, and two courses chose from 220, 222, 240, 255, 260, 270, 271.¹^/ Students holding the traditional A.B. may meet the requirement by showing equivalent course credit.
2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory exam counting as a full exam) at a satisfactory level (that is, at either the Ph.D. level or at a level somewhat lower but not so low as not to warrant blessing the candidate with a Master’s degree).²^/
3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by passing (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or course examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.

I would recommend that the changes in requirements become effective as of the beginning of the Summer Quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

1/ This qualifying examination is now offered every quarter. This is an extravagant use of faculty. I should like to see the exam offered only once a year. Furthermore, I should like to permit students to substitute course grades for all or part of the exam provided the course grades are for courses taken here and provided they are not at a level lower than B.

2/ There would be therefore no special examinations for A.M.’s, but the examinations would be graded into three levels: passing for the Ph.D. and A.M. degrees, passing for the A.M. degree but not for the Ph.D., failing for both.

I would urge students to give requirement (b) high priority in preparing their programs of study.

Since the ends sought by these changes can be reached in other ways, I specify below what these ends are.

I view our principal instructional purpose as that of training high-level (Ph.D. and beyond) professional economists. I think we ought to view our training of “junior” economists and the awarding of the A.M. degree only as an incident arising from the fact that at the time a student applies for admission to the department, we cannot predict accurately either his calibre as a student or his academic goals.

It seems to me that the requirements for the Master’s degree should meet these tests:

They should include no requirements which the Department would not make for the Ph.D. degree. Otherwise both student and faculty time will be spent in activities extraneous to the training of high-level economists. The present alternative A.M. meets this test but the regular A.M. does not.
The requirements should be at a level high enough to be respected by the academic world. Both present degrees meet this test, I believe.
But the standards for the degree should not be so high that potentially able Ph.D. candidates will be deterred from entering because of the considerable risk that if they fail to meet Ph.D. standards they will also fail to meet A.M. standards. If we set standards for the A.M. that are almost as likely not to be met as the Ph.D. standards we hold out no “consolation prize” to those good students who are fearful of not being able to meet Ph.D. standards. The present alternative A.M. requirements do not meet this test.

One of the ways by which we can raise the calibre of our Ph.D. candidates without reducing our enrollment is to increase the number of students who are given an opportunity to show at close hand their potentialities to us and to screen out at an earlier date those who are not of Ph.D. stuff. I am confident that quite accurate screening can take place ordinarily by the end of the first year of graduate residence. I contemplate our using the A.M. requirements as a screening device; the present alternative A.M. is not satisfactory from that point of view since it postpones too long the screening decision.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

_______________________

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department

Time and Place: Thursday, November 2, 1950, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 424, Social Science Research Building.

Present: T. W. Schultz (chairman), H. G. Lewis, A. Rees, R. Goode, G. Tolley, D. G. Johnson, F. H. Harbison, J. Marschak, C. Hildreth, F. Knight, L. Metzler.

Handling of Student Business
It was agreed that all bona fide applications for admission to candidacy filed this quarter would be considered as falling under present degree requirements even though Departmental action does not take place until Winter quarter.
Ford Foundation
Schultz stated that as a Department we have an obligation to ourselves, to the University, and to the community more largely to think through carefully the problem of making the best use of the Ford Foundation’s present grant of $300,000 to the University as well as possible later grants. There was a brief general discussion of the problem.
Departmental Rules Governing Residence and Availability to Students
Schultz pointed out that in the current year we have been able for the first time to reduce direct teaching loads for most of our members to four courses per year or less. This reduction, he pointed out, makes it desirable that the Department impose upon itself rules governing residence and availability to students and others in the university community lest they be imposed upon us from outside. The problem of rules for residence involves not only a rule stipulating in some way minimum residence, but also the question of whether “free” quarters out of residence should be considered a matter of a right accruing to an individual from his residence or a privilege dependent upon ad hoc decisions made by the Department chairman and the Dean. Schultz expressed himself as being in favor of a rule somewhat similar to the rules for accumulating sabbatical leave under a 3Q contract. In addition there is the problem of insuring, perhaps by rule, “availability” when in residence. The formulation of appropriate rules is to come before the Department for its consideration in the Winter quarter.
The Department considered Lewis’ recommendations for changes in the A.M. requirements. (See attached memo. [above]) the following amendment of Lewis’ recommendation was passed:
1. That the distinction between the regular A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. degrees be abolished.
2. That the Departmental requirements for the A.M. degree consist of the following:
  1. A distribution requirement to be met by passing a “Qualifying” examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination) 220 or 222, 230 and two courses chosen from 240, 255, 260, 270, and 271. Students holding the traditional A.B. may satisfy the requirement by equivalent course credit.
  2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory examination counting as an examination) at a satisfactory level of A.M. candidates.
  3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.
  4. An acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department. The paper will be read by two members of the Department of which the course instructor will be one in the event the student submits a term paper prepared for a course.

The above changes in requirements are to become effective as of the beginning of the Summer quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

It was understood that the above motion in no way changes present preliminary examinations or other requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Professor Knight asked the minutes to show his objection to dropping Economics 210 (Accounting) from the requirements for the A.M. degree.

Student Business
1. Petitions

Lawrence Bostow’s petition for approval of French and Russian as languages for the Ph.D. was approved.

Mr. H. M. Herlihy’s petition for the field of “Social Organization” (Sociology Department) as his third field for the Ph.D. degree was approved.

Mr. John Holsen’s petition for a third Ph.D. field in Planning (Planning Department) was approved. Mr. Johnson, his counselor, was asked to inform Mr. Holsen, however, that this approval does not entitle Holsen to shorten his total program in Economics for the Ph.D.

Mr. Edward Mishan’s petition for approval of Spanish as a Ph.D. language was denied.

1. Admission to Candidacy

Mr. Howard Ammerman’s application for admission and for approval of a thesis topic was moved to the bottom of the list of applications.

Mr. Rondo E. Cameron’s application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent upon his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950) and his proposed thesis topic, “French Foreign Investment, 1815-1870,” was approved. Thesis committee: E. J. Hamilton, chairman, L. Metzler, P. Thomson.

After some discussion, Mr. Clifford Clark’s application was moved down the list. Lewis was instructed to advise Clark to consult with Hamilton concerning the latter’s misgivings about the proposed thesis topic, and in addition to confer with Hayek, Knight, and other members of the Department concerning the thesis topic.

Mr. George P. Coutsoumaris’ application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent on his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950), and his proposed thesis topic, “Possibilities of Increasing Economic Efficiency in Greek Agriculture,” was given qualified approval, the Department suggesting that he limit the topic somewhat preferably to a topic approximately the same as that covered in the sections (VII and VIII) of his outline dealing with capital in Greek agriculture. Thesis committee: D. G. Johnson, chairman, C. Harris, J. Margolis (planning).

Mr. David Fand’s proposed thesis topic, “Monetary Theory of the Federal Reserve Board,” was discussed. It was agreed to come back to it at the next meeting after several more of the members of the Department had an opportunity to discuss the topic with Fand.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

Tags Cameron, Friedman, Goode, Hamilton, Harbison, Hildreth, Hoselitz, JohnsonDG, Knight, LewisHG, Marschak, Metzler, Mints, Nef, Rees, SchultzTW, ThomsonP, Tolley, Wallis

Computing Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Fields Harvard

Harvard. Discussed at Faculty Meeting. Computer Access and “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as Optional Field, 1959

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2020-12-12

Notes from a faculty meeting in my experience are more often a list of items, resolutions, motions, and votes than a narrative of the actual discussion. The transcribed notes in this post come from a 1959 Harvard economics faculty meeting that had two items on the agenda. The first was John R. Meyer’s report on how to manage graduate student computing needs if the department were to lose access to IBM-650 services. The second discussion was a continuation of a debate in the department whether a new Ph.D. oral examination field “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” should be introduced (plot spoiler: the resolution was tabled, at least for the time being).

_____________________

Economics Faculty Meeting Minutes
December 8, 1959

The Department of Economics met on Tuesday evening, December 8 [1959] at the Faculty Club. Those present: Messrs. Bergson, Chamberlin, Dorfman, Dunlop, Gerschenkron, Leontief, Mason, J. R. Meyer, Smithies (Chairman), Taylor, Black, McKie, Artle, Erbe, Daniere, Gill, Lefeber, Anderson, Baer, Gustafson, Hughes, Jones, Kauffman, Wilkinson, Mrs. Gilboy, and Miss Berman.

Abandonment of IBM-650

Professor John Meyer explained that with cheaper time available on newer computers within and outside the University the market for IBM-650 services is waning. A deficit on operations can be expected within a few months, and it will, therefore, be impossible to retain the machine. The problem the Department now faces is that of making available to students a computer training device comparable to the 650. The Harvard Univac can serve this purpose well although it is likely to disappear in the near future through the competition of better machines.

Professor Smithies called the attention of the meeting to two further effects of withdrawing the IBM-650:

(a) Students without outside financing will not, as in the past, be able to solve their problems by making use of free 650 time.

(b) It will no longer be possible to handle problems requiring a succession for short programs with some elements of trial and error; every program will have to be handed to an operator and the results, good or bad, will not be available until days later.

Both Professor Dorfman and Meyer vouched that, even under these impediments, the cost of most computations would be far lower through such a machine as the 704 than with the 650.

With respect to student training and student problem financing, Professor Leontief expressed the opinion that if scientific departments at Harvard can receive funds for the purchase of materials and equipment needed in the training of their students the Administration should certainly be ready to offer similar help in the social sciences. After hearing from Professor Meyer that the Dean’s offices had not been particularly responsive to this suggestion, Professor Leontief suggested than an arrangement could be entered with IBM by which we could contract at a discount for a large block of 705 time at their Cambridge Street laboratory with the understanding that we would sell some of the time to financially able Harvard users and utilize the remainder for training and computing students’ problems.

Professor Meyer agreed that this might become feasible in the near future when, with the appearance of an IBM-709 at the Smithsonian Institute and other 704’s in the neighborhood, IBM may face a buyers’ market. His proposal for the time being was to turn to Univac while it is still on our premises and to divert some of the departmental contributions now going to the support of the Littauer Laboratory to subsidize student training and to some extent student problems on the 704.

Introduction of a field labeled “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as an optional field for the oral Ph.D. examination

Professor Dorfman reintroduced his motion that “a field called ‘Mathematical Economics and Econometrics’ be one of the optional fields for the Ph.D. examination.” He recalled his previous arguments, i.e., that both Mathematical Economics and Econometrics become legitimate specialties in the general field of economics with a literature sufficiently abundant and specialized that a student well versed in economic theory and statistics will not generally know the former fields and that no student can become thoroughly familiar with them in his two years of graduate work unless his load is otherwise reduced. The substance of the proposed examination would be the literature in which relatively advanced methods of mathematical analysis are applied to economic theory and advanced methods of statistical analysis are applied to the processing of data relevant to economic problems.

The discussion centered around two objections: (1) to the extent that proficiency in economic theory is a prerequisite to mathematical economics and that an advance knowledge of statistics is required in econometrics, students who are examined in both the new field and one or both of the older fields of theory and statistics will obtain double credit for what is a single specialization and (2) an essential requirement of our Ph.D. is breadth of preparation in economics. As it is, nothing under the motion would prevent a student from presenting the following five fields: theory, statistics, mathematical economics and econometrics, mathematics and history. This clearly represents a narrow preparation and cannot be acceptable under our standards. The second objection, voiced most effectively by Professor Dunlop, was immediately recognized as valid, and Professor Dorfman amended his motion to include the condition that mathematics could not be presented jointly with the new field. He insisted, however, that students offering mathematical economics and econometrics are of such a type that, even without the amendment, they would not have taken advantage of the mathematics loophole. Their insistence on a mathematics examination is based entirely on the recognition that they cannot become proficient in their specialty while carrying in addition the same load as their colleagues.

Three different suggestions were offered as alternatives to the proposed motion.

(1) Professor Dunlop accepted the introduction of the new field as long as examinations in any or all of the three fields of theory, statistics, and mathematical economics and econometrics would not count toward more than two of the five fields required.

(2) Professor Chamberlin did not change the present field listing but proposed that a student could by previous arrangement ask to be examined in theory with emphasis on mathematical analysis, the requirements be correspondingly milder with respect to traditional theory and history of thought.

(3) Professor Bergson offered a variation of Professor Chamberlin’s proposal pointing out that, even without the introduction of mathematical analysis, economic theory is now a broad and somewhat ill-defined field so that, in order to better test the students’ analytical scale, fields of concentration should perhaps be agreed upon before the Ph.D. examination. He also emphasized that students do not after all stop learning after their oral examination and that since a student proficient in mathematics can be expected to make use of mathematical techniques in his thesis work the special examination might be the best time to test him on his ability in this field.

Professor Leontief injected a fatalistic note indicating that the problem will solve itself in the future as more and more students join the graduate school with a mathematical preparation such that the theory courses can make use of mathematical tools. For the present it would be unfortunate to have students neglect economic theory for the purpose of acquiring mathematical proficiency. We should, however, provide adequate training facilities for those who because of superior ability or previous preparation can benefit from courses in mathematical economics and, to the extent that recognition may be helpful, include a mention of their special skill in their records.

In view of the lack of agreement evidenced by the meeting, Professor Dunlop asked that the motion be tabled. All were in favor.

Andre Daniere
Secretary

Dictated 12/14/59

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961 and some earlier. (UAV349.11), Box 13.

Image Source: Harvard Faculty Club from JDeQ’s August 2, 2013 blog entry “Dinner at the Harvard Faculty Club“.

Tags Chamberlin, Dorfman, Dunlop, Leontief, MeyerJ, Smithies

Columbia Faculty Regulations Salaries

Columbia. Definition of Sub-professorial Ranks, 1966

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2020-09-26

Since universities and their departments are formal organizations with hierarchical structures, from time to time Economics in the Rear-view Mirror digs out and preserves information useful in understanding employment histories of individual academic economists. Today’s post is concerned with the pre- or sub-professorial appointment ranks and comes from a Columbia University document found in the economic department records at the Columbia University archives.

____________________

Revised April 28, 1966

Office of the Secretary
208 Low Memorial Library

DEFINITION OF RANKS:

Lecturer

A Lecturer is an officer of mature experience, holding the doctorate or having equivalent special preparation, who is appointed annually to give part- or full-time instruction, and who does not qualify for the title of Adjunct Professor (see 1965 Faculty Handbook, Pages 28-30).

A Lecturer’s salary is generally determined with reference to that of an Assistant Professor and for the academic year 1966-67 should be based on a minimum of $1,250 for a three- or four-point semester course. Prorated variations shall be made for courses of other point values only when there is a substantial difference in the number of teaching hours involved.

Associate

An Associate is an officer of mature experience, not a candidate for a higher degree, who is appointed annually because of special competence in a given field to give part- or full-time service and who does not qualify for the title of Lecturer. An Associate may have full responsibility for a course or courses or he may conduct under the supervision of a regular member of the faculty, drill or recitation sections related to courses offered by that member of the faculty.

An Associate’s salary is generally determined with reference to that of an Instructor and for the academic year 1966-67, the salary of an Associate who has full responsibility for a course or courses should be based on a minimum of $1,000 for a three-point semester course. Prorated variations shall be made for course of different point values only when there is a substantial difference in the number of teaching hours involved. The salary of an Associate who, under the supervision of a regular member of the faculty, conducts drill or recitation sections related to courses offered by that member of the faculty, shall be computed for a normal week of 16 hours at the rate of $7.50 per hour.

Note: Associates and Lecturers are not entitled to fringe benefits, including tuition exemption, except by special arrangement recorded in the Office of the Director of Personnel and subject to the rules governing Presidential appointments.

Note: The title of Associate or Lecturer requires a Presidential Appointment.

Preceptor

A Preceptor is a full-time candidate for the Ph.D. degree who has completed the course work and preferably the oral examinations for that degree and who is appointed annually, for not more than 3 years (or, in exceptional situations, 12 consecutive courses, not more than two of which shall be given in any one semester), to teach, under the supervision of a regular member of the faculty, one or more courses not to exceed six points a term. Appointment to this rank shall normally be limited to students of outstanding teaching potential. Candidates for the Ph.D. degree who have had suitable teaching experience are eligible for appointment to a Preceptorship before completing the residence requirement.

A Preceptor’s stipend is at the rate of $2,000 per semester. Appointments for less than the full assignment of two courses per semester carry a prorated stipend but do not reduce the tuition exemption benefits of 15 points per term or the equivalent if the appointee is a student in Graduate Faculties.

Teaching
Assistant (I)

A Teaching Assistant (I) is a full-time candidate for a higher degree who is given an appointment for one or two terms to conduct a section or an elementary or intermediate course under the supervision of a regular member of the faculty. Normally a person in this category, if reappointed for further service, should qualify on the basis of teaching experience as a Preceptor. Although normally for use in the Language Departments, this rank may be used in special cases in other departments.

The compensation for Teaching Assistant I is at the rate of $900 per course per semester. Two-point conversation courses shall be paid at the rate of $600 a course. Tuition exemption is granted up to 15 points a term (or the equivalent if the appointee is a student in Graduate Faculties) for a teaching load of 2 courses and is prorated for a lesser assignment.

Teaching
Assistant (II)

A Teaching Assistant (II) is a full-time candidate for a higher degree, preferably having completed one year’s residence for that degree, who is appointed for one or more terms, not to exceed four consecutive years, and who is not in charge of a course or courses but who conducts drill or recitation sections related to courses offered by a regular member of the faculty. Although normally for use in the Language Departments, this rank may be used in special cases in other departments.

The compensation for Teaching Assistant II is at the rate of $1,000 per semester for service of 8 or more class hours per week. Tuition exemption is granted up to 15 points per term (or the equivalent if the appointee is a student in Graduate Faculties), both stipend and exemption to be prorated for a lesser assignment.

Note: Assistants who work only in the Language Laboratory will be paid an appropriate hourly rate determined by the Director of the Laboratory.

Teaching
Assistant (S)

A Teaching Assistant (S) is a full-time candidate for a higher degree in one of the sciences who is appointed annually, for not more than four consecutive years, to conduct recitation, discussion, laboratory or other sections related to courses offered by a regular member of the faculty. Normally for use in the Science Departments, this rank may be used in special cases in other departments.

The compensation for a Teaching Assistant (S) is at the discretion of the department but should range between $2,000 and $2,400 per year. It is prorated on the basis that a full assignment amounts to 15 hours of service per week. Appointments for less than the full assignment do not reduce the tuition exemption benefits of 15 points per term or the equivalent if the appointee is a student in Graduate Faculties.

Graduate
Research
Assistant

A Graduate Research Assistant is a student who is engaged in research while registered in the University as a candidate for a higher degree. The research must be under the supervision and guidance of a member of the academic staff and must be of a kind which will satisfy academic requirements in connection with the particular degree for which the student is a candidate. In addition, equivalent research must be required of all candidates for the same degree as a condition to receiving the degree.

The compensation for a Graduate Research Assistant is generally at the rate of $250 per month for 20 hours of service a week. Tuition exemption is granted up to 15 points per term or the equivalent if the appointee is a student in Graduate Faculties.

Caution: Consult the memorandum entitled Secretary’s Appointment for Graduate Research Assistants (revised January 17, 1966) from the Office of the Secretary.

Departmental
Research
Assistant
(I or II)

A Departmental Research Assistant (I or II) is a full-time candidate for a higher degree who is appointed for one or more terms not to exceed four consecutive years, to assist the Department or one of its regular members in research and other academic work.

The stipend of a Departmental Research Assistant I is at the rate of $375 a term for 10 hours of service a week. Tuition exemption is granted up to 15 points a term, or the equivalent if the appointee is a student in Graduate Faculties, —both stipend and tuition exemption to be prorated for a lesser assignment.

The stipend of a Departmental Research Assistant II is at the rate of $550 a term for 10 hours of service a week. No tuition exemption is granted for this rank.

Reader

A Reader is a full-time candidate for a higher degree who is appointed for one or more terms, not to exceed four consecutive years, to read and grade papers, take attendance, proctor examinations, and perform other similar functions as may be required by the departmental supervisor of assistants.

A Reader’s stipend ranges from $100 to $300 a term, depending on the estimated number of hours of service. A Reader is entitled to tuition exemption up to 6 points a term or the equivalent if the appointee is a student in Graduate Faculties.

Please refer all questions concerning this Memorandum to:

Mr. John C. Graham
Assistant to the Secretary
213 Low Memorial Library
Extension 2570

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection, Carl Shoup Materials, Box 10, Folder “Columbia University. General”.

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

Economics Programs Faculty Regulations M.I.T.

M.I.T. “Industrial Economics” Ph.D. name changed to “Economics”, Economics S.M. recognized as exit ramp, 1965

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-11-09

Somewhat surprising is the late date (1965!) of the name-change for the economics Ph.D. at M.I.T. from “Industrial Economics” to “Economics”. Also interesting in the transcribed memorandum below is the request to lower the math and science prerequisites for the economics S.M. to that of the Ph.D. in order to facilitate the graceful, early exit of graduate students unlikely to complete the Ph.D.

____________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

MEMORANDUM

February 5, 1965

To: Committee on Graduate School Policy
From: Robert L. Bishop, Head, Department of Economics and Social Science

For some time now, there has been a strong sentiment in our Department that our graduate degree programs should be changed and supplemented. The changes that we should now like to propose officially will require action by the Faculty and the Corporation, because they involve changes in degree titles, in one instance a change in prerequisites and content of the degree, and in another instance the addition of a new degree. On the other hand, the changes are not really of a radical nature and will not involve any additional staff or any augmenting of the numbers of our graduate students.

At present we have programs for a Ph.D. in Industrial Economics, a Ph.D. in Political Science, and an S.M. in Economics and Engineering or in Economics and Science. Our proposals are: (1) to change the title of the Ph.D. in Industrial Economics to a Ph.D. in Economics; (2) to substitute for the present S.M. degrees a single S.M. in Economics, with admission requirements the same as for the Ph.D. in Economics; and (3) to add an S.M. in Political Science, having an analogous relationship to the existing Ph.D. in Political Science.

Dropping the adjective “Industrial” from the title of our Economics Ph.D. is merely a belated recognition of the considerable broadening of that program that has taken place since it was first established in the years just prior to World War II. At that time, the designation of Industrial Economics appropriately reflected the limited kind of study that was then visualized. Since then, however, our program has expanded in its scope and diversity so that the original designation has become a decided anachronism for the majority of our Ph.D. recipients.

Even in the beginning, as now, the admission requirements for our Economics Ph.D. have differed from those in most Departments, in that they did not include the amount of mathematics and science taken by M.I.T. undergraduates. Instead, only one full year of college mathematics and one full year of college work in science have been required. These requirements reflect, of course, a desire to make our program accessible to most Economics majors in liberal arts colleges. The requirements for our present S.M. degrees, by contrast, constitute essentially the subjects taken by an undergraduate in the Economics option of Course XIV. It is those admission requirements that we propose to change, so that a candidate for the Ph.D. might alternatively be a candidate for an S.M.

Professional training for a career in Economics is such that the Ph.D. has really become the essential degree for anyone who aspires to the fullest professional status. Nor is it our intention to admit candidates solely for the S.M., except in very special circumstances. Over the years, however, we have felt the desirability of being free to award and S.M. in Economics to some students. These include some foreign students, often connected with research programs at the Center for International Studies, who can profit significantly from graduate study at M.I.T. but who are unable to stay long enough for the full Ph.D. program. In all frankness, too, it must be confessed that we have sometimes wished that we were free to divert a Ph.D. candidate toward the lesser degree because of inadequacies of performance after enrollment at the institute. Naturally, the student whose performance is acutely disappointing should not be given any favorable consideration. In many cases, however, performance is not up to the high standard that I think we have maintained for the Ph.D., but still high enough to merit continuance for an S.M.

The reasons supporting a new S.M. degree in Political Science are exactly the same. The only difference here is that there is no S.M. of any kind available in Political Science.

These changes involving S.M. degrees are also in line with some changes that we are simultaneously proposing to the Committee on Curricula with respect to our undergraduate degrees in Course XIV. It is being proposed that these degrees be redesignated more simply as in Economics (Course XIV-A) or in Political Science (Course XIV-B). A copy of these proposals is attached.

Provided that both the undergraduate and graduate program changes are approved, we shall then adopt the same distinction between Course XIV-A and Course XIV-B at the graduate level as at the undergraduate. This will achieve the important administrative reform of distinguishing, as is not now the case, the Economics and Political Science graduate students.

As to the details of the revised graduate degrees, I enclose alternative catalogue copy that would replace the descriptions on pages 142-144 in the present catalogue.

To the extent that the Committee on Graduate School Policy may wish some further discussion of these changes, my colleagues and I will be very pleased to provide it.

RLB:e

Source: MIT Institute Archives. Department of Economics records. Box 1, Folder “Comm. On Grad. School Policy”.

Tags Bishop

Berkeley Chicago Faculty Regulations Harvard Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Rochester Stanford Uncategorized Yale

Harvard. Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-25

What makes this report on the general examination in the economics PhD program at Harvard particularly valuable is its brief survey of the practice at eight other universities: Yale, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, and Chicago.

_____________________

DRAFT

This draft is distributed in Professor Chenery’s absence to permit discussion at the next Department meeting, January 27, 1970.
Professor Chenery or other members of The Committee might wish to record further comments in preparation [of] a final report.

* * * * * * * *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02135
January 16, 1970

To: The Department of Economics
From: Committee on Graduate Instruction

REPORT ON THE GENERAL EXAMINATION FOR THE PH.D.

In response to a number of requests from students and faculty, the Committee has reexamined at considerable length the requirements for the General Examination. This report summarizes our general assessment in section I and makes specific recommendations for changes in section II. Some related issues needing further consideration are listed in section III.

Although for the past several years graduate students have criticized various aspects of the generals, the main source of dissatisfaction seems to be with the rigidity of “the system” rather than with any particular aspect of it. We have taken advantage of the fact that the Committee now has three student members to try to understand some of the effects of our present procedures on students’ choices and incentives. We have also tried to strike a better balance between preparation for the general examination and other aspects of a student’s training in his first two years.

As a background for our discussion, the secretary of the Committee compiled a useful summary of the regulations in effect at other leading universities, which is attached.

ROLE OF THE GENERAL EXAMINATION

The primary functions [sic] of the General Examination is to evaluate the student’s formal preparation in economics before he proceeds to more advanced phases of teaching and thesis preparation. It also serves as a screening device to weed out weak candidates, as a basis for subsequent recommendations for employers, and as an indirect way of organizing the student’s course work in his first two years. These multiple functions produce much of the debate over requirements at Harvard and elsewhere, since a system that is ideal for one purpose has weaknesses for another.

One of the main criticisms of the existing Harvard system is its psychological impact on the student. The need to satisfy the requirements in all fields within a period of several months inhibits most students from exploring non-required topics until after they have passed the generals. On balance, we are impressed with the desirability of adopting a more flexible timing that will encourage the student to get most of his tool requirements out of the way in the first year and use the second year to explore the fields of his special interest and get some taste of actual research. We have tried to maintain the undoubted benefits of an overall examination, however, as compared to a set of course requirements.

Our survey of other departments shows a significant trend toward breaking down the requirements into separate parts and focusing less on the culminating oral examination. Most departments use the qualifying examination in theory as a device for screening first year students, which also reduces the burden of preparing all fields in the second year. In most departments the minimum proficiency in quantitative techniques and economic history is demonstrated by a satisfactory course grade rather than by inclusions in the general examination. Although we have made our own judgements on these questions, we recommend movement in these directions.

Another consideration which makes greater flexibility desirable is the growing proportion of students who are already well prepared in one or more required fields. For many students, the present system therefore encourages too much review of material they have already covered. We feel that those who are adequately prepared on one of the required fields (theory, quantitative method, history) should have an opportunity to satisfy this requirement in their first year in order to make better use of their time thereafter.

Our recommendations are directed toward achieving greater flexibility in the timing of courses and examinations to allow the student to make more effective use of his time. This should enable many students to get started earlier on their optional fields and to make a better choice of their field of specialization. We do not envision any reduction in the total work done in the first two years or any lowering of standards of performance.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

General Principles

The general examination should be separated into four component parts—theory, quantitative method, economic history, and special fields—each of which would be graded separately.
The minimum requirement in quantitative method and economic history should be regarded as a “tool requirement” or “literacy test” as has become the practice in the quantitative field. Students wishing to specialize in these fields may offer them at a higher level as one of their special fields.
The term “general examination” would apply to the oral examination on the special fields. (The question of a general grade on all parts as at present was left open.)
There should be no prescribed timing of the four components, other than the stipulation that the required fields be either completed (or write-off courses in progress) at the time of the oral examination on the special fields. Qualified students would be encouraged to complete one or more requirements in the first year.
Two write-offs should be allowed rather than one.
A subcommittee would be set up for economic history (and retained in theory and quantitative method). The standards and ways of satisfying them in the three required fields should be proposed by the three subcommittees and ratified by the GIC and the Department.

The Theory Requirement

The present coverage (roughly 201a, 201b, 202a) should be retained. The examination would continue to be written.
The examination should be offered two or three times a year. (A straw vote by students showed a preference for June, September and January and a margin for September over January.) Most students would take the examination at the end of their first year—in June or September.

The Quantitative Requirement

The present de facto standard of the written examination should be accepted as the “literacy test”.
The requirement can be met either by the present type of written examination (given twice a year) or by a grade of B+ in 221b or 224a. (It is estimated that roughly 75% would be able to qualify by course examination.)

The Economic History Requirement

The history requirement be made parallel to the quantitative requirement in that:
1. It can be satisfied by course or special departmental examination.
2. It can either be offered at a minimum level or at a higher level as a special field.
The minimum requirement would be satisfied by a course grade that would allow a similar proportion to qualify in this way (B+ or A- pending further information).
Alternatives to the present 233 sequence (if any) to be established by the history subcommittee.
Minimum standards in both history and quantitative method could be demonstrated by course examination.

The Requirement in Special Fields

Two special fields would be required as the basis for the oral examination, which would also cover general analytical ability.
Advanced theory, econometrics and economic history would be eligible as special fields, but the first two could not both be included. (In the majority view, one applied field apart from history would be required in order to eliminate the possibility of a candidate offering only the three required fields.)
The candidate would be encouraged (or required?) to submit a research paper to be made part of the subject matter and record of the general examination (He is now “expected” to have presented a paper to a working seminar by the end of his second year.)
The general oral examination would normally be taken at the end of the second year, but could not be taken before the qualifying exams in theory, quantitative and history have been passed (or prospective write-offs are in progress.)

QUESTIONS OF GRADING

Should all examinations be either pass-fail or on a more limited grading scale than at present?
Should the passing standard for the course option in both quantitative methods and history be B+?
Should the four requirements be graded separately or combined (as at present) into an overall grade on the General Examination? (The committee favors first the alternative, but would also require “distinguished” performance in at least one area.)

* * * * * * * *

Examination Requirements at Other Places

Below I summarize examination requirements at eight other places, including Yale, MIT, Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan and Chicago. The main findings of the survey are:

It appears that the massive type of “generals” (where all fields and theory are combined in one session) has almost disappeared. With the exception of Hopkins, all of the above schools seem to settle the theory examination at the end of the first year, with special fields examined at the end of the second year.
Among the schools surveyed, only Yale has a written examination in history. Hopkins, Stanford, Chicago and Berkeley require a course, with “satisfactory” grade. MIT and Rochester have no requirement.
Only Yale gives a written in quantitative aspect of the generals. All the other schools have course requirements (satisfactory grade) only.
Practices vary with regard to number of special fields and type of examination. MIT and Hopkins require three, the others two special fields. Examinations at Yale are oral, at the other places written, in some cases both written and oral. In most places the special field examinations must be taken together, but in some (Rochester, Chicago) they can be separated. Throughout, these special examinations seem to be given by the department, and not merely as course examination.
Some provisions of special interest:
1. Chicago and Rochester’s second year research paper as part of general examination
2. Stanford’s requirement for distinction in at least one field.

I. Yale

Comprehensive Examination

Written examination in theory and econometrics, usually August or September after first year.
Written examination on economic history; usually late spring of second year.
Oral examination in two applied fields, chosen from six and in general analytical ability; late spring of second year. Given by four examiners. Student excused from general examination in special field courses at end of second year. Oral examination in theory, history, quantitative or field outside economics may be substituted for one of the applied fields if candidate has done year’s course work in applied field “with sufficient distinction”.

History and Quantitative

History—written, end of second year, and option to substitute for one special field.
Quantitative—written, end of first year, and option to substitute for one special field.

Other requirements

Has apparently been dropped.
One course credit of explicit research training, second year.
Dissertation to be completed in fourth year.

II. MIT

General examination

General examination in theory consists of two written papers—micro and macro, given in final exam period of first year. May be substituted for final examinations in theory courses.
General examination normally at end of second year. Consists of:
1. written examinations on three of 12 special fields. These may include advanced theory, econometrics or economic history.
2. oral examination in the three fields after written.
3. a fourth field is required but may be written off by B grade in full year course.

History and Quantitative

History—no requirement. May be a special field.
Quantitative—no generals examination. May be a special field.

Other requirements

Two languages

III. Johns Hopkins

First Year Oral Examination

A first year oral examination is given in the spring of the first year, covering the fields in which the student has worked during that year.

Comprehensive Examination

Normally taken in spring of second year. Consists of:

Two written examinations in theory, micro and macro.
Three written examinations in special fields, one of which may be outside economics.
Oral examination: Covers theory, special fields, statistics.

History and Quantitative

History—satisfactory work in course.
Statistics—satisfactory work in course.

Other Requirements

One language.
In addition to the departmental special examination, an examination is given by the graduate board, which includes members of other departments.

IV. Rochester

Qualifying Examination

Theory and econometrics courses are required but are not part of Qualifying Examination.
Qualifying Examination taken in May of second year. Consists of
1. Written examination in two fields. These may include mathematical economics and econometrics. Need not be taken simultaneously.
2. A second year research paper which is to be presented to a departmental seminar at the end of second year.
3. After (a) and (b) are met, an oral examination in the special fields.

History and Quantitative

Econometrics and mathematical economics requirements (courses), extent depending on fields.
No history requirement.

Other Requirements

Certain distribution requirement.
Language and mathematics.

V. Stanford

Comprehensive Examination

Written in micro and macro theory at end of first year. Cover course materials.
Selection of special fields under two plans:
1. If no minor subject is taken, student chooses four out of ten fields. These may include history, econometrics, mathematical economics. One field may be outside economics.
2. Student may choose a minor subject (in another department) and choose only one out of the ten special economics fields.

Comprehensive written examinations for each field scheduled annually, usually at close of course sequence. Must show distinction in at least one field.

History and Quantitative

History—Include at least two courses from offerings in economic history, history of thought, comparative economics, development.
Quantitative—Econometrics course required.

Other Requirements

Language or particular quantitative skills.
Two seminars and research papers.

VI. Berkeley

Departmental Examination in Theory

Must be passed by end of first year. Students with strong background take it in November of first term, others in June (end of first year).
Written qualifying examinations given in two out of thirteen special fields at end of second year. Examinations given twice a year, must be taken together.
Within one year after written qualifying examinations are completed, student presents himself for oral, based on prospectus (and interim results) of his thesis. General assessment of competence.

History and Quantitative

Course in economic history at 210 level.
Course in statistics at 240 level.

Other Requirements

No language.

VII. Michigan

Preliminary Examination

At end of theory courses in micro and macro, an “augmented examination” is given which serves as preliminary examination in theory.
Two fields of specialization are required. One field is satisfied by satisfactory grades in two courses. For the other field a written preliminary examination is required.
After this, oral examination on research topic and surrounding area.

Economic History and Quantitative

No history requirement.
Course requirement in statistics and econometrics.

Other Requirements

No general language requirement.

VIII. Chicago

Preliminary Examination

A “course [sic, “core” probably intended] examination” covering micro and macro theory is given twice a year (separate from course examinations) and is usually taken at end of first or middle of second year.
Two special fields are chosen. Written examinations in these fields, separate from course examinations. Need not be taken together.
Student presents a thesis prospectus before thesis seminar, usually in third year. Must pass on this for candidacy.

History and Quantitative

History course required as part of distribution requirements.
Course work in statistics required.

Other Requirements

Math, no languages.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard University Department of Economics: General Correspondence, 1967-1974 (2 of 3)”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1946.

Tags Chenery

From President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report on the academic year 1914-15.

Other related posts

C.V. from Harvard’s records

Prof. William J. Ashley on academic administration and procedures at Harvard (1897)

Degree Requirements in 1921-22

GENERAL INFORMATION

ORGANIZATION

DEGREES OF A.B. AND S.B.

CONCENTRATION IN HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, OR ECONOMICS

DIVISION EXAMINATION

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION

CONCENTRATION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION IN SOCIAL ETHICS

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

IN SOCIAL ETHICS

IN COMBINATION WITH THE CLASSICS

DEGREE OF A.M.

DEGREE OF PH.D.

GENERAL PREPARATION

I. GENERAL EXAMINATION

II. THESIS

III. SPECIAL EXAMINATION

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D. IN ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

GENERAL EXAMINATION

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D. IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

GENERAL PREPARATION

GENERAL EXAMINATION

SPECIAL EXAMINATION

1934-1935 HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Requirements for Graduate Degrees: The more important regulations regarding graduate degrees are stated below.

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz (undated, early 1950s)

Typed memo regarding training graduate students as “scientific craftsmen”

THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL

THE PROPOSED DEGREE REQUIREMENTS:

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE [1950-51 regulations]

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

MINUTES Meeting of the Department

Economics Faculty Meeting Minutes December 8, 1959

Abandonment of IBM-650

Introduction of a field labeled “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as an optional field for the oral Ph.D. examination

Office of the Secretary 208 Low Memorial Library

DEFINITION OF RANKS:

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Department of Economics and Social Science

MEMORANDUM

DRAFT

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

REPORT ON THE GENERAL EXAMINATION FOR THE PH.D.

ROLE OF THE GENERAL EXAMINATION

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

General Principles

The Theory Requirement

The Quantitative Requirement

The Economic History Requirement

The Requirement in Special Fields

QUESTIONS OF GRADING

Examination Requirements at Other Places

I. Yale

Comprehensive Examination

History and Quantitative

Other requirements

II. MIT

General examination

History and Quantitative

Other requirements

III. Johns Hopkins

First Year Oral Examination

Comprehensive Examination

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

IV. Rochester

Qualifying Examination

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

V. Stanford

Comprehensive Examination

History and Quantitative

Other Requirements

VI. Berkeley

Departmental Examination in Theory

Degree Requirements
in 1921-22

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN ECONOMICS

THE DEGREE OF Ph.D.
IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

1934-1935
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Requirements for Graduate Degrees:
The more important regulations regarding graduate degrees are stated below.

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz
(undated, early 1950s)

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department

Economics Faculty Meeting Minutes
December 8, 1959

Office of the Secretary
208 Low Memorial Library

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS