Categories
Columbia Curriculum Gender Undergraduate

Columbia. Economics and social science curriculum as of Dec. 1898

 

One of the duller parts of my project that covers roughly a century’s development (1870-1970) of undergraduate and graduate economics education is gathering information on the nuts-and-bolts of curriculum structure. Today, looking at a report of the Faculty of Political Science published in the December 1898 issue of Columbia University Quarterly, I saw the announcement that 1898-99 was the first time that women were admitted to graduate courses in history and economics. The report also presented an easy to follow outline of the four or five year curriculum in economics and the social sciences. The idea behind the curriculum was to provide an orderly and logical sequence of courses, yet with sufficient flexibility to serve the needs of undergraduates, graduates (a.k.a. specialists), and special students (those from outside the Faculty of Political Science).

_____________________________

Other Relevant Columbia University Artifacts

_____________________________

Highlights from the December 1898 report of the Faculty of Political Science

For the first time in its history women are admitted to its courses in history and economics, but only women who are graduates and who are competent to carry on the work of the courses. No women are admitted as special students or to the courses given to the undergraduates, the idea being to put the women graduate students on the same footing as the men, giving them the same opportunities.” p. 75.

“Several new volumes in the series of Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law are now completed, including volumes eight and nine. These studies comprise the most successful of the dissertations which are submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the doctor’s degree.”

Economics and social science curriculum (four or five years)

“Columbia University has attempted thus to formulate in the Department of Economics and Social Science a programme that shall be systematic, in the sense of orderly development and logical sequence (the course covers four or five years), and at the same time flexible, for the purpose of meeting the just demands of a great variety of students—the undergraduate, the specialist, and the special student.” p. 77.

Junior year economics:

“The undergraduate begins with the Economic History of England and America (Economics 1), which gives him that understanding of the evolution of economic institutions, such as the systems of land tenure, the factory system, the institutions of commerce and trade, which is necessary for any approach to economic discussion. That is followed by the Elements of Political Economy (Economics A), where the fundamental principles of the science are laid down and illustrated by contemporary events. These courses are usually taken during the Junior year, but may be taken a year earlier by students desiring to specialize in this direction. The lettered course is required of every student, and is in the nature of logical discipline for clear reasoning and a preparation for good citizenship. The College is held thereby to have discharged its duty to itself, in fulfilling the minimum required for the degree of A.B., and to the community, in inculcating sound principles in its graduates.” p. 76.

Senior year economics:

“For the majority of undergraduates these courses are but the preliminary sketch, the details of which are to be filled out by the more intensive study of Senior year. For this abundant opportunity is offered in the course on modern industrial problems, money, and labor (Economics 3), in the treatment of finance and taxation (Economics 4) and in the critical consideration of theories of socialism and projects of social reform (Economics 10 and 11). At the same time the elements of sociology (Sociology 15) furnish a broader foundation for generalization in regard to the fundamental principles of social life, and afford the student on the eve of graduation an opportunity to coordinate his knowledge of history, economics, philosophy, and ethics into a theory of society.

These courses of Senior year constitute the fundamental university courses, and are frequented by graduates of other colleges and by many students from the law school, the theological seminaries, and Teachers College, who find them valuable as auxiliary to their main lines of study. For the specialist and special student these courses in their turn are preliminary. They form the introduction to the university courses proper.” pp. 76-77.

Graduate (or specialist) economics:

“Here the specialist finds opportunity for development in economic theory (Economics 8, 9, and 10) and for further practical work (Economics 5 and 7), for sociological theory (Sociology 20, 21, and 25), for the treatment of problems of crime and pauperism (Sociology 22 and 23). and for the theory and practice of statistics as an instrument of investigation in all the social sciences (Sociology 17, 18, and 19). Crowning the whole are the seminars in political economy and sociology, and the statistical laboratory, where the student is trained for original work.” p. 77.

_____________________________

Faculty of Political Science
[Full Report for Dec. 1898 Columbia University Quarterly]

Department of History.—The late war seems to have had its effect on educational matters, and several resulting tendencies have been particularly marked at Columbia University. Thus, in the School of Political Science the attendance of students in the course on the general principles of international law has been very large and much interest is being manifested in the subject. Ordinarily this course, as well as a number of others treating of kindred subjects, is given by Professor Moore, who is at present in the service of the United States government. In his absence the course is being conducted by Mr. Edmond Kelly, who has lectured before the school on numerous occasions. Professor Moore’s course on diplomatic history is now being given by Dr. Frederic Bancroft, formerly librarian of the State Department, and a former lecturer in this Faculty.

The Faculty of Political Science has commenced the term with every indication of a most prosperous year. For the first time in its history women are admitted to its courses in history and economics, but only women who are graduates and who are competent to carry on the work of the courses. No women are admitted as special students or to the courses given to the undergraduates, the idea being to put the women graduate students on the same footing as the men, giving them the same opportunities.

The number of publications from the members of this faculty is constantly increasing, and several important works have recently been published or are in preparation. The Macmillan Company will soon publish Professor John B. Clark’s two-volume work on the distribution of wealth and the new edition of Professor Seligman’s Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. Several new volumes in the series of Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law are now completed, including volumes eight and nine. These studies comprise the most successful of the dissertations which are submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the doctor’s degree. Professor Robinson has just published a volume entitled Petrarch’s Letters, and Professor Munroe Smith’s Study of Bismarck has been issued from the University Press.

As Wednesday, October 19, was appointed Lafayette Day, President Low arranged for an address on “The Life and Services to this Country of Lafayette,” by Professor J. H. Robinson.

The department of history has enrolled about four hundred students from Columbia and Barnard. It offers a total of thirty-three courses. The new circular which explains fully its resources and gives a detailed account of its work can be had on application to the Secretary of the University. Professor Dunning is absent on leave. He is spending the winter in Rome, engaged in certain researches connected with the history of political theories and ancient institutions.

W. M. S. [William M. Sloane]

 

Department of Economics and Social Science.—The courses in this department have been so systematized as to meet the needs of both undergraduate and graduate students, while offering to other members of the University and of allied institutions the opportunity to broaden their studies by some knowledge of social theory and social problems.

The undergraduate begins with the Economic History of England and America (Economics 1), which gives him that understanding of the evolution of economic institutions, such as the systems of land tenure, the factory system, the institutions of commerce and trade, which is necessary for any approach to economic discussion. That is followed by the Elements of Political Economy (Economics A), where the fundamental principles of the science are laid down and illustrated by contemporary events. These courses are usually taken during the Junior year, but may be taken a year earlier by students desiring to specialize in this direction. The lettered course is required of every student, and is in the nature of logical discipline for clear reasoning and a preparation for good citizenship. The College is held thereby to have discharged its duty to itself, in fulfilling the minimum required for the degree of A.B., and to the community, in inculcating sound principles in its graduates.

For the majority of undergraduates these courses are but the preliminary sketch, the details of which are to be filled out by the more intensive study of Senior year. For this abundant opportunity is offered in the course on modern industrial problems, money, and labor (Economics 3), in the treatment of finance and taxation (Economics 4) and in the critical consideration of theories of socialism and projects of social reform (Economics 10 and 11). At the same time the elements of sociology (Sociology 15) furnish a broader foundation for generalization in regard to the fundamental principles of social life, and afford the student on the eve of graduation an opportunity to coordinate his knowledge of history, economics, philosophy, and ethics into a theory of society.

These courses of Senior year constitute the fundamental university courses, and are frequented by graduates of other colleges and by many students from the law school, the theological seminaries, and Teachers College, who find them valuable as auxiliary to their main lines of study. For the specialist and special student these courses in their turn are preliminary. They form the introduction to the university courses proper.

Here the specialist finds opportunity for development in economic theory (Economics 8, 9, and 10) and for further practical work (Economics 5 and 7), for sociological theory (Sociology 20, 21, and 25), for the treatment of problems of crime and pauperism (Sociology 22 and 23). and for the theory and practice of statistics as an instrument of investigation in all the social sciences (Sociology 17, 18, and 19). Crowning the whole are the seminars in political economy and sociology, and the statistical laboratory, where the student is trained for original work.

Columbia University has attempted thus to formulate in the Department of Economics and Social Science a programme that shall be systematic, in the sense of orderly development and logical sequence (the course covers four or five years), and at the same time flexible, for the purpose of meeting the just demands of a great variety of students—the undergraduate, the specialist, and the special student.

R. M.-S. [Richmond Mayo-Smith]

 Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Vol. 1 (December 1898), pp. 74-77.

Image Source:  Art and Picture Collection, The New York Public Library. (1890). Columbia University Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e0-cc6c-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

 

Categories
Curriculum Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Report on the Tutorial System in History, Government and Economics. Burbank, 1922

 

Harold Hitchings Burbank (1913-1951) will probably best be remembered in the history of economics for topping Paul Samuelson’s “Dishonor Roll” for antisemitism in the Harvard economics department ca. 1939 (the list is reproduced on p. 281 of Roger E. Backhouse’s first volume Becoming Samuelson, OUP 2017) as well as for being an all around bête noire in matters regarding mathematical economics at Harvard, though Backhouse (pp. 421-2) has at least been able to acquit Burbank of the charge of the premeditated “killing of the type” for Foundations of Economic Analysis [Plot spoiler: the printer did it (metal shortage)].

Burbank has in fact left a fundamental institutional legacy at Harvard College, having played a major role in the establishment and running management of the tutorial system that was set up to prepare undergraduates for the general examinations in their respective divisions of study. Many a Harvard economics graduate student, instructor, and  faculty member have served as economics tutors so that no study of the education of economists would be complete without a serious examination of Harvard’s tutorial system in which economists have been active from the very beginning.

________________________________

Harvard College President Lowell on the undergraduate general examination for divisions and the Tutorial System (1922)

The effect of the general examination upon the choice of subjects for concentration is interesting. When first introduced for History, Government, and Economics it diminished the number of students electing those studies as their main field of work, presumably frightening away the faint-hearted. But the dread soon passed off, and at present seems to have little influence.

[…]

The framing of general examination papers which shall be comprehensive enough to cover the subject, at the same time shall be fair, and which give the student a chance to show his knowledge or ignorance, his comprehension or vacuity, demands much skill, ingenuity and labor. Moreover, a great deal of time is required to read the books, or conduct the oral examinations, in any department where the candidates are numerous. Clearly members of the instructing staff cannot be expected to do this in addition to their ordinary work. Some provision ought, therefore, be made in such cases for relieving them of a part of their teaching; and in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, where the plan has been in operation much longer than in any other, the examiners are relieved of about half their courses, either by reducing these throughout the year, or by exemption from course instruction in the second half-year, that being the period when by far the heaviest burden of the examinations falls. In conducting them the committee in charge is really examining not only the candidates, but also the instructors in courses and the tutors if any, because they can hardly avoid forming some impression of the thoroughness with which teaching is done by the different members of the staff; and although they make no report upon the matter, the opinions they form cannot fail in the long run to have an effect upon the instruction in the departments of which they are members. Moreover, their examinations determine the requirements for a degree in the various subjects of concentration, and the standard of attainment on the part of undergraduates. Their selection is therefore a matter of the utmost importance. In those departments that have recently adopted the plan, and where the number of candidates is too large to be examined by the instructors as a whole, a committee is appointed by the department itself; but in the Division of History, Government, and Economics it is appointed by the Corporation. The first members of this committee, Professors G. G. Wilson, R. B. Merriman, and E. E. Day, were the pathfinders, and to their wisdom and labor is due from the outset the success of the project.

When the general examination was introduced for History, Government, and Economics, it was perceived that in these subjects it could not work well unless the students were provided with the assistance of tutors in correlating what they had learned in their courses, and in mastering the parts of the field which courses do not cover. At first it was difficult to find men qualified for this task, quite unknown as it was in American college education, since no one had any experience in doing it. A new form of instruction had to be devised; new men had to teach themselves a new art. They have done so, until at present an excellent corps of tutors is working systematically in this division. No doubt experience will still farther perfect their methods, and by frequent conferences they are seeking constant improvement. A tutor, who by the way may be of any academic grade, is by no means wholly confined to tutorial work. A number of them are also conducting courses, and that is a distinct advantage. The only college work which they cannot do is obvious. They should not be on the committee in charge of the examinations. There is no better way of stating what they strive to do, and what they have accomplished, than by inserting as an appendix hereto the report of Assistant Professor H. H. Burbank, the Chairman of the Board of Tutors for the division.

Source: President’s Report in Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1921-1922, p. 13-4.

________________________________

Report on the Tutorial System in the Division of History, Government and Economics at Harvard University, 1922

To THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY:

SIR, — I have the honor to submit a report on the Tutorial System in the Division of History, Government and Economics.

The tutorial system of the Division of History, Government and Economics was made possible and necessary by the introduction of the general examinations. When this Division accepted the principle of these examinations it declared that they could be made effective and, at the same time, just to the student only by the development of a system of individual guidance. Tutorial instruction began in 1914 with a staff of six tutors supervising the work of some one hundred and fifty students. At that time the Division expected the number of concentrators would not at any time exceed four hundred. During the present academic year sixteen tutors have given instruction to six hundred and forty-eight students.

When provision was made for tutors, the Division contemplated only indefinitely their functions and the scope of their work. There were no examples to be followed; no system of like nature had been established in any American university and the precedents afforded by Oxford and Cambridge could give little guidance. During the first three years many experiments were necessary. The place of the tutor’s work in the general system of instruction had to be found, methods of work had to be developed. These problems could be met only by a process of trial and selection. At first there were many false starts; undoubtedly there was some lost effort, but there was also appreciable growth and development. The War brought an abrupt cessation of activities. With the resumption of normal academic conditions in 1919-20, tutorial work was reorganized, and it is from this time that the more important growth of the system is to be recorded.

Different methods of tutorial instruction are still being tried and probably will continue for some time, but the experience of the years since 1914 has been sufficient to give a definite indication of the processes which are best suited to our needs. Because of the several experiments which different tutors are undertaking, all generalizations regarding tutorial work are open to some exceptions.

Each tutor has under his supervision approximately forty students, selected in about equal proportions from the senior, junior and sophomore concentrators. The tutor meets his students regularly, usually once each week, in individual conferences. In some few instances, especially with sophomores, groups of two or, at the most, three students are found advantageous, but such group conferences are used sparingly; the characteristic method is the individual conference. Usually the conference lasts for about half an hour, but here the exceptions are many. The student is never limited in the matter of time. If he wishes to see his tutor with greater frequency it is his privilege to do so and he is encouraged to take full advantage of the unusual opportunities offered to him by individual instruction. The unwilling students — and they are so few that they leave no mark on the system — are obliged to do a minimum amount of work and to give a minimum amount of time to the tutor. The interested students can have about all they desire in time and instruction.

The introduction of the tutorial system was not accompanied by any change in course requirements. The student who elects to concentrate in History, Government or Economics, and thereby comes under the direction of the tutor, carries the usual number of courses from which he secures the groundwork for his general and special concentration. But courses are not synonymous with subjects; they cut through or across subjects. The first work of the tutor is to help the student organize and correlate this course material so that his chosen field of study appears to him as continuous and homogeneous rather than as groups of data or ideas with little or no relation. For seven years the tutors proceeded on the principle that class instruction could be taken for granted, that the material offered in courses had been accepted and assimilated by the students. The results of the examinations lessened confidence in the validity of this position and pointed directly to the need for further instruction along the same line. Many of the courses in this Division have very large numbers; the majority of those which are elected by undergraduates are conducted by the lecture method with little or no opportunity for discussion or for a thorough test of the student’s grasp of the subject matter. Further study and emphasis in the tutorial conference of material already presented in courses is proving of inestimable value. The data frequently is the same, — an historical period, a theory of government, a principle of economics, — the point of view is different, the stimulus is different. In the tutorial conference there is no question of marks or discipline; the one important object is to understand something which appears to be important.

Thus the tutor’s work deals in part with the materials already presented in class instruction — correlating it, focusing it, teaching it. But to arrive at the standards imposed by the general examinations requires a very considerable amount of additional reading. The tutor must and does expand the field of study by assigning and discussing problems not within the limits of courses now offered. In this connection as well as in the reconsideration of course material the tutor strives to interest his students in general reading. This is a very great opportunity. The student at Harvard as well as at the other colleges of this country has been so beset with textbooks, books of selected readings, page assignments and the like, that the reading habit not only has gone undeveloped but has tended to become stultified. Through conferences with his tutor and by means of his reading, the student gains a familiarity with his subjects of study that courses alone cannot impart. Furthermore, if he responds adequately to tutorial direction, he forms, largely unconsciously, a reading habit, a critical judgment and a discriminating taste that the established system of college education seldom produces. Another phase of this subject, or perhaps a by-product of this tendency, is found in the matter of general reading during the vacations. Ten years ago the student was rarely found who did not regard the final examinations in June as the terminus of his educational effort for that year. By small degrees this is changing. With the inauguration of tutorial instruction students were urged to continue their reading during the vacations, especially during the summer months. The cumulative effect has been important. Students in sufficient numbers are undertaking this work, to call for facilities to direct their reading between June and September. A plan is now under consideration whereby tutors will be in Cambridge during the summer either to take personal charge of students or to direct their work by correspondence. The significance of this development is apparent when the reader is reminded that such work is not only voluntary but receives no credit in terms of grades or courses.

The tutor has still another function, less tangible perhaps, but no less important than those already mentioned. A cursory study of the college records of undergraduates is sufficient to indicate that a relatively small proportion achieve anything above mediocrity — that is, above a “C” grade. This is not because of limitation of capacity. Undergraduates are capable of accomplishment far beyond that registered in courses. But they have many interests other than those which find their expression in the class-room. Their interests and their efforts are scattered; much time and energy are wasted. A tutor of the type sought by this Division has the power and capacity to stimulate the undergraduate to real intellectual achievement. When a student comes to him with a predominating intellectual curiosity — the type of student who is usually a candidate for distinction — he has but to mould the material into finished form. The more difficult, but possibly the more important, task is to stimulate the less eager student, to make his subject of study real and alive, to make it attractive, to inspire the student to want to learn not because of the record that may be involved nor because of any particular honors that may be granted, but for the sake of the achievement itself. To do this on an increasingly larger scale is one of the main objects of the tutorial system. During the last three years there has been perceptible progress in this direction. A great deal remains to be done, but very definite limitations are imposed by the inflexible requirements of university instruction. Without any substantial change in these requirements considerably more can be accomplished. It depends upon securing the unusual type of tutor. With more flexibility and perhaps with some reasonable reduction of the requirements in terms of courses, progress is possible and probable that will be significant in the trend of American college education.

One might expect that the improvement in academic interest which the tutorial system has been able to stimulate would express itself in an increase in the number of candidates for distinction. To some extent such an increase has appeared; students have become candidates who would not have done so without the stimulation of individual direction and instruction. But there has been a concurrent counter effect. Candidacy for distinction is dependent upon grades in courses. Unfortunately, intellectual interest, sustained work and broad accomplishment are not always synonymous with a high grade in the particular course which covers a part of the field of study. Undergraduates in appreciable numbers are showing a distinct preference for tutorial rather than for class work — less effort is given to courses, more is devoted to the more intimate work with the tutor. No attempt is being made to pass upon the desirability of this tendency. It is simply presented as a tendency which is showing increasing strength.

Among the various experiments which the tutors have made in the effort to secure broader and better preparation for the general examinations have been those connected with written work. For some time it has been clear to the tutors that one of the most effective methods of instruction is found in the construction and repeated criticism of written reports, essays and theses. Incidentally, very few of the students do not need the added instruction in composition and expression that written work entails. Recently this Division, recognizing and emphasizing the value of written work, has voted that a satisfactory thesis shall be required of all candidates. To provide more adequate opportunity for writing of this character, each Department is now offering a course in thesis work.

The most significant development in connection with the tutorial system has been the very favorable response of the students. Tutorial instruction is an addition to the usual requirements for the degree. At the minimum this increase is equivalent, in terms of courses, to about one course a year or, during the three years of concentration, it approaches an additional requirement of a year’s work. At the maximum the only limitations are those set by the available time of the student and the tutor. Each year there are some students who give considerably more time to their tutorial instruction than to their more formal requirements. These, however, are exceptional instances. Yet, as a group, the majority of concentrators accept tutorial instruction as an educational opportunity rather than as a demand for additional hours of study. In spite of the very considerable increase in the work involved, concentration in this Division has increased steadily. When the system of general examinations and tutorial instruction was announced, concentration in the Division, especially in Economics, declined heavily. Almost immediately, however, the Division proceeded to win back the numbers it had lost through the additional requirements. In part, this may be explained by the introduction of general examinations in other Divisions, but there is reason to believe that concentration in this Division would have approximated its present position if the examinations had been confined to History, Government and Economics. Although this increase in numbers has been gratifying, a more pronounced reason for satisfaction is found in the distinct improvement in the quality of the student and in the level of accomplishment. To a large degree this is due to the failure of the unwilling or the less capable student to choose this Division as the field for his special study. In part, also, it is due to the increasingly effective work of the tutor. Indifferent students still choose this field, but in decreasing numbers, and as the sophomore and junior years pass by they are weeded out in considerable proportions or, responding to the efforts of the tutor, their work improves. After a trial, more or less prolonged, the indifferent student seeks other Departments, but during the last two years transfers to this Division have more than filled these vacancies.

Another aspect of tutorial work is indicative of the attitude of the student. Attendance at the conferences is not compulsory. There is no system of monitoring or reports of absences to the college office. The fear of disciplinary action cannot serve as a stimulus to meet appointments or to prepare assignments. It is true that the authority to employ disciplinary measures can be invoked if the occasion arises, but in eight years no resort to such measures has been necessary. Yet the cutting of tutorial appointments is comparatively rare, far less than the cutting of courses. The majority of concentrators, well over ninety per cent, seldom fail to meet their engagements. The tradition of tutorial work has become firmly established.

H. H. BURBANK.

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1921-22, pp. 34-38.

Image Source: Assistant Professor of Economics Harold Hitchings Burbank in Harvard Class Album, 1920.

Categories
Curriculum Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate Fields of Distribution. Economics Second, 1920

 

 

Economics served as a pioneer for the introduction of the division examination in a major field as a degree requirement. It is interesting to note that this additional requirement appears to have reduced the number of economics majors. “Beginning in 1914, all students “concentrating” in the division of history, government, and economics, have been obliged to take a general examination in their senior year. This requirement has been confined to that division, and has doubtless had the effect of turning away many men who otherwise would “concentrate” in economics.”

____________________

FIELDS OF “CONCENTRATION”

More students in Harvard College are specializing in English literature this year than in any other subject. Economics ranks second; and chemistry, third. Every student is now required to take during his four years in College at least six courses in some one field of study. Three hundred sixty-two men have chosen English literature as their field of “concentration”; 314, economics; 200, chemistry; 178, romance languages; 126, history; 87, government; and 63, mathematics.

In 1914 more students “concentrated” in economics than in any other subject; and English literature ranked second. In that year nearly four men were specializing in economics for every three in English. But since that time English has taken the lead. Beginning in 1914, all students “concentrating” in the division of history, government, and economics, have been obliged to take a general examination in their senior year. This requirement has been confined to that division, and has doubtless had the effect of turning away many men who otherwise would “concentrate” in economics.

Beginning with the class of 1922, however, the general examination, will be required of practically every student in Harvard College; and those who specialize in English and other subjects will be subject to a test similar to that which has been in force in the economics group for four years. There are already signs of a drift back to economics, though English is still in the lead.

Other changes in the past few years have been a decline in the number of men specializing in German, an increase in those specializing in Romance Languages, and an increase in the popularity of chemistry.

The figures for this year are as follows:

SUBJECT NUMBER OF MEN CONCENTRATING IN IT.
English

362

Economics

314

Chemistry

200

Romance Languages

178

History

126

Government

87

Mathematics

63

Engineering Sciences

53*

Geology

33

History and Literature

31

Biology

30

Classics

29

Fine Arts

29

Philosophy and Psychology

29

Physics

16

German

14

Music

10

Other Subjects

17

*This figure does not represent the entire enrollment in engineering, for most men whose tastes and abilities lie in this direction are registered in the Harvard Engineering School rather than in Harvard College.

 

Source:     Harvard Alumni Bulletin,   Vol. XXIII, No. 12 (December 16, 1920), p. 276.

 

Categories
Duke Undergraduate

Duke. Reflections on the learning objectives for undergraduate economics majors. Bronfenbrenner, 1977

 

 

This is a transcription of a draft of a paper that was later presented at the New York meeting of the American Economic Association (December 28, 1977) by Martin Bronfenbrenner (Chicago Ph.D., 1939). A revised version was published in Atlantic Economic Journal, vol. 6 (1978), pp. 22-25. The revision sandwiched the text below between an introductory and concluding sections. The conclusion consists of his responses to “strenuous opposition” the paper received from radical economists and faculty from small, “self-consciously ‘proletarian’ institutions.” To document the year of the draft, I have appended the comments (with date) from the Duke department of economics chair, Allen Kelley.

What struck me first upon seeing this draft was the reflection of a sexist empirical reality expressed in the subtitle of the paper. Bronfenbrenner title refers to “the person majoring in economics” as opposed to meaning major as “a particular course of study”: the published version begins with the sentence: “I view the undergraduate economics major not as a potential economist but as a potential lawyer or businessman, politician or journalist, and likewise as a potential voter.”)  But the brief note is more interesting as an artifact, an older scholar’s reflections (in the late 1970’s) of what an undergraduate education in economics should be all about. 

From the perspective of today, Bronfenbrenner’s inclusion of doctrinal history, 3 semesters of historical and/or current policy applications, 2 semesters of “alternative economic ideas and institutions” sounds like an early call (about forty years early to be precise) for the CORE Project.

__________________________

THE ECONOMICS MAJOR—WHAT IS HE?
Martin Bronfenbrenner, 1977 draft

We have on undergraduate campuses “Junior Ph.D.,” “Fraternity Row,” and “Split Level” major programs in Economics. As an elitist (meritocrat, intellectual snob) I want Economics to become a “Junior Ph.D.” major, along with, e.g., Mathematics and most of the natural sciences. There are plenty of alternatives open, including individual Economics courses, to playboys doing nothing and to intellectual anarchists “doing their own things.”

And so I should like undergraduate economics concentrations to include at least:

(1) Two semesters (or equivalent) of intermediate-level macro- and micro-theory of the standard sort. Doctrinal history might also fit into this group.

(2) Three semesters of quantitative techniques (mathematics at full-blown university level, statistics, econometrics, computer science, accounting). Formal requirements, such as the calculus, should also apply to the intermediate theory courses under (1) to avoid postponement to the student’s final term (which makes them meaningless).

(3) Three semesters of courses applying (1-2) to a historical record and-or to significant current problems of the U.S. and international economies.

(4) Two semesters’ exposure to “alternative” economic ideas and institutions. Radical and institutional economics naturally belong here, along with comparative systems, economic anthropology, specific studies of non-capitalist countries, etc.

(5) (For honors candidates) A “small-group learning experience” of a semester seminar which includes an honors essay. The essay should not only overcome passivity and indicate competence in some facet of undergraduate economics, but demonstrate ability at expository writing.

I have minimized reference to specific courses, since Section 1 of Public Finance, say, under Professor Jones, may be all theory and belong in Group 1, while Section 2 (Professor Brown) may be all policy problems (Group 3) and Section 3 (Professor Johnson) may fit equally well in either category. Harassed Chairmen, Executive Officers, and Directors of Undergraduate Studies will have unavoidable problems with the “nuts and bolts” of such a major, if they take their duties seriously. These problems will be lessened, of course, insofar as superior students are allowed to do whatever they like regardless of formal rules.

But before writing this proposal off as “impossible” or “Utopian” (as well as “elitist,”) please consider a few “matters in mitigation.”

(a) Economics won’t, and shouldn’t, do it all. Credit toward all the above requirements should be allowed for work in other departments. Mathematics, Computer Science and Economic History (as viewed by historians) are obvious examples. Labor Law in the Law School, History of Politics of Africa or Latin America with strong “Economic Development” or “International Economics” loadings, the History of Socialism, inter-disciplinary studies of the U.S.S.R. or Modern China, are only a little less obvious.

(b) The prospective Economics major should be encouraged to read Principles on his own, and go directly into Intermediate Theory. Alternatively, he should be shunted into a one-semester version of Principles. (Need I add that some version at least of the Principles course should be open to Freshmen?) More controversially perhaps, I also believe that the Principles course should be aimed primarily at non-majors, and modeled more frequently on the legendary “Physics for Poets” than on cram courses for Ph.D. qualifying examinations.

(c) The seminar (5) would presumably always count simultaneously toward satisfaction of some other requirement (1-4).

(d) And finally, I think the universities yielded too much on course requirements to the student activism of 1967-71. Reduction of the standard 5-course load to 4 courses, I recall, was proposed to promote student creativity and student participation in the real-world off-campus community. Well, it didn’t work that way. (And thank God, say I, whenever I read a student newspaper!) The 5-course normal load, I accordingly suggest, should be restored at least for the Sophomore and Junior years. Freshmen in process of culture shock, and Seniors in process of job-hunting, might well be left alone with the 4-course load.

MARTIN BRONFENBRENNER
Duke University

__________________________

Comment on draft by Allen Kelley, Chairman of the Duke Department of Economics

Department of Economics
Duke University

Chairman [Allen Kelley]
August 31, 1977

Dear Martin,

Dave Davies passed along your draft of the comment for the Christmas meetings.

A couple of observations.

Why would you consider doctrinal history as a substitute for theory? I’d almost put it in your category 4.

Why so much quantitative training? Statistics I can see as a major requirement. But accounting, computer programming? The latter can be learned at a mini-pragmatic level in the stat course, where the student runs some regressions with standard packages (e.g., SPSS). Many excellent students will want to do more analytical work, and spending three of their courses on quantitative skills seems a bit excessive.

I like everything else, and especially your addition of 4. Of course, I believe in 5, and most of the students already do 3 in most majors.

A final point, one that can’t be resisted by a zealous chairman. Does the University of Colorado have to get such heavy credit—looks like a joint appointment. We Dukies want to internalize all of your great prestige!

I’ve not sent this to Japan, since it would take too long to forward back to Durham.

Welcome home.

[signed “Allen”]

Durham, North Caorlina 27706

(919) 684-2723

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Project. Papers of Martin Bronfenbrenner, Box 26, Folder “Misc”.

 

Categories
Exam Questions Swarthmore Undergraduate

Swarthmore. External Examiner Richard Musgrave’s Economic Theory Exam, 1946

 

 

Harvard economics alumnus Wolfgang Stolper (Ph.D. 1938) was able to leverage his friendships and connections from graduate school to obtain a flow of external examiners for Swarthmore College’s honors examinations in economics. For today’s post I have transcribed the examination questions in economic theory provided by Richard Musgrave (Harvard Ph.D., 1937).

The 1943 honors examination questions of Paul Samuelson have been posted earlier.

_________________________

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE

Honors Examination
Richard A. Musgrave
Federal Reserve Board
Washington, D. C.

June 11, 1946
2:00-5:00 p.m.

ECONOMIC THEORY

Answer 4 questions, one from each part. All questions have equal weight.

Part I

There are some basic tools and concepts of economic analysis which can be applied to the solution of a variety of economic problems. Demonstrate this for any one of the following three tools, choosing such illustrations as you consider most significant:

(1) Indifference curves
(2) Tendency toward equilibrium
(3) Multiplier principle

Indicate both merits and shortcomings of your tool.

Part II

(1) Explain the shape of short and long run cost curves for the individual firm and show their relationship to the industry’s cost schedule.

(2) “From the social point of view perfect competition is always superior to monopolistic competition, monopoly or oligopoly.” Discuss.

(3) Discuss price determination under duopoly.

(4) Show briefly the effects on a firm’s price and output of any three of these changes:

(a) An increase in wage rates
(b) A progressive tax on profits
(c) A fall in demand
(d) A flat tax on unit of output. Show how the results will depend upon the prevailing state of competition.

Part III

(1) Compare the economic determination of (a) distribution of income and (b) factor prices in a free market economy and in a centrally planned economy.

(2) “The theory of distribution based on the concept of marginal productivity provides the economist with an adequate answer to the solution of wage disputes”. Do you agree?

(3) Discuss the difference, if any, between interest and profits and state the major factors which determine either return.

(4) Discuss the economic pros and cons of a more equal distribution of income, allowing for all major aspects of the question.

Part IV

(1) Suppose that a rapid development of atomic energy during the next 10 years will lead to a drastic reduction in the cost of power and a replacement of coal and electricity. What would be some of the economic consequences?

(2) Discuss the major factors determining the level of income and employment. You may illustrate with reference to a future year, say 1950.

(3) “As long as flexible costs and prices are assured, it is indeed impossible that overproduction or unemployment should prevail. The doctrine of under-employment equilibrium advanced by Keynes and others is based on the assumption of price rigidity.” Do you agree?

(4) “The capitalist society is inherently unstable. It may be likened to a bicycle rider who can maintain his balance only by moving ahead at a rapid rate.” Explain and discuss.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Wolfgang Stolper’s Papers. Box 22, Folder 1.

Image Source:Richard A. Musgrave portrait from the University of Michigan Faculty History Project.

Categories
Curriculum Harvard Uncategorized Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergrad economics program described in The Harvard Crimson, 1953

 

 

The Harvard Crimson has a really useful search function that can get you a student’s perspective on undergraduate economics education in Harvard’s ivy-covered (well, sometimes) lecture halls. I added links to courses and professors for a bit of value-added. Otherwise the article speaks for itself.

_______________________

The Harvard Crimson
April 22, 1953

Economics
Number of Concentrators: 331.
1952 Commencement Honors: cum, 17; magna, 20; summa, 1; 2 cums in General Studies.

The fact that Economics can boast one of the top faculties in the country, and probably has more nationally known professors than any other department in the College, is one of the main drawbacks to the concentrator. For few undergraduates are able to claim having really studied under any of them.

Most of the courses are conducted under the lecture system which does allows the undergraduate little contact with the men who divide their time between Washington and Cambridge.

The mistake should not be made that a concentrator in Economics will be trained in how to make his first million, no illusions should be developed that Economics is just another term for business administration. What the Department of Economics attempts to do is quite simple: the development of the economic background to present day social and political issues.

Tutorial

Economics I, required of every concentrator, is designed to introduce the student to the field. Its main criticism is that it is too general. But in the past it has been quite efficient in preparing students for the more advanced courses.

In an attempt to introduce some personal contact, the Department has now extended tutorial to all sophomores and juniors. According to Departmental chairman Arthur Smithies, its purpose is threefold: 1) to make specific things brought up in classes more concrete, 2) to tie the various fields of economics together, 3) to bring out the close relationship between economics and the other social sciences.

Tutorial in the junior year, usually limited to honors candidates, is now open to non-honors candidates also. Called “presumptive honors tutorial,” it meets in sessions conducted along honors tutorial lines. The program was opened last year with the hope of inducing more concentrators to apply for honors in their senior year. According to Ayers Brinser ’31, Head tutor of Economics, a great majority of the juniors who enter the junior tutorial with no intention of being an honors-candidates, change their minds during the junior year. By offering the presumptive tutorial, the department enables students who did not sign for honors to change in their senior year.

Basic Courses

Requirements for concentration do not impose too great a restriction on the concentrator’s program. Four Economic courses including Economics I are a must for non-honors men, while honors candidates are held for five. Three of the courses must be chosen from the basic courses: Economics 101, Economic Theory and Policy; Economics 141, Money, Banking and Economics Fluctuations; Economics 151. Public Finance; Economics 161, Business Organization and Public Regulation; Economics 171, Economics of Agriculture; and Economics 181a and b, Trade Unionism and Collective Bargaining, Public Policy and Labor.

Honors candidates may elect to take tutorial for credit for one semester of their senior year, while they work on their 40,000 word theses. Currently, more than a third of the concentrators are honors candidates.

The department also requires all concentrators to take full courses in Government, History, Social Relations or the second group Social Science courses.

Most popular of the advanced courses last year was Economics 161. Professors Kaysen and Galbraith divided last year’s schedule. The course deals with the structure and character of business and their markets; the attitude of the public toward combination and regulation, including the transportation industry and the public utilities; and the problems of resource conservation and industrial mobilization.

Labelled by most concentrators as the most difficult of the basic courses, Economics 141 crams a great deal into its program. Most concentrators prefer to get this one out of the way in their sophomore or junior year, since it is a good foundation for other courses in the field.

Labor Economics

One of the most popular professors teaching an undergraduate courses, John Dunlop will be back to give the two semesters of Labor Economics. Different from the other basic courses in that it emphasizes more human aspects, Economics 181 combines human and legal aspects of the labor movement as well of the economic foundation.

Economics 101, the basic theory course for undergraduates, is restricted to honors candidates in their last year of study.

Source: The Harvard Crimson, April 22, 1953.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Courses Economists Undergraduate

Chicago. Monopoly course proposal by Abram Harris with George Stigler’s (Dis)approval, 1961

 

 

The brutal honesty of George Stigler’s memo in response to the new undergraduate course proposal submitted by Abram Lincoln Harris at the University of Chicago is somewhat tempered by Stigler’s display of collegial tolerance for a colleague approaching retirement age. But the absolutely gratuitous zinger at the end to “advise our majors to forget it” leaves a dubious taste in this reader’s mouth.

I have included a copy of the biography of Abram Lincoln Harris from the BlackPast.org website.
Definitely worth consulting:  “Introduction: The Odyssey of Abram Harris From Howard to Chicago” by William Darity, Jr. in Race, Radicalism, and Reform: Selected Papers of Abram L. Harris (1989).

______________________

Harris, Abram Lincoln, Jr. (1899-1963)
Source: Abram Lincoln Harris from BlackPast.org.

Abram Lincoln Harris, Jr., the grandson of slaves, was the first nationally recognized black economist. Harris was highly respected for his work that focused primarily on class analysis, black economic life, and labor to illustrate the structural inadequacies of race and racial ideologies.  Harris’s major published works include The Negro Population in Minneapolis: A Study of Race Relations (1926), The Black Worker: the Negro and the Labor Movement (1931), and a book co-authored with Sterling D. Spero, The Negro as Capitalist (1936).  His final book, Economics and Social Reform, appeared in 1958.

Harris was a Marxist scholar and its theories influenced his work.  His The Black Worker was recognized as the foundation for future economic histories and assessments of the black condition.  The Negro as Capitalist argued that non-racial economic reforms were the key to solving black fiscal woes.  He also argued that capitalism was morally bankrupt and that employing race consciousness as a strategic way to enlighten a public was self-defeating.  W.E.B. DuBois described Harris as one of the “Young Turks” who challenged the then existing historical theories about blacks in a capitalist society while insisting upon using modern social scientific methods to further his analyses of African American life.

Born in 1899 in Richmond, Virginia to parents Abram Lincoln Harris, Sr., a butcher, and Mary Lee, a teacher, Harris grew up as part of the black middle class community in Richmond. After high school Harris earned a bachelor of sciences degree from Virginia Union University in 1922.

After graduation from Virginia Union, Harris enrolled at the New York School of Social Work and worked briefly for the National Urban League (NUL) and the Messenger, the leading black Socialist newspaper.  Harris taught for one year at the West Virginia Collegiate Institute (now West Virginia State University) and then earned an M.A. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1924. Harris was appointed head of the Department of Economics at Howard University in 1928 and later completed his doctorate in economics from Columbia University in 1930. Harris married his first wife, Callie McGuinn, in 1925 and later divorced in 1955.  Harris married his second wife Phedorah Prescott in 1962.

In the 1940s Abram Harris, along with E. Franklin Frazier, Allison Davis, and Ralph Bunche, was selected by the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal as “insiders” to work on his groundbreaking study An American Dilemma which was published in 1944.  Toward the end of the 1940s Harris began to retreat from his earlier work, progressive and race politics, and began to concentrate on economic philosophy.

Abram Harris died in Chicago, Illinois on November 16, 1963.  He was 64.

Sources:
Jonathon Scott Holloway, Confronting the Veil, Abram Harris Jr., E. Franklin Frazier, and Ralph Bunche, 1919-1941 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002); William Banks, Black Intellectuals: Race and Responsibility in American Life (W.W. Norton: New York, 1996); Cook County, Illinois Death Index.

Contributor:

Los Angeles City College

______________________

[Memo: Abram Harris to Al Rees]

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

Faculty Exchange
Box 84
Oct 26th, 1961

Dear Al,

I am enclosing a preliminary statement of a course approved by the Policy Committee of the College Social Science Section. It is to be given in the Spring Quarter 1961-62. I wonder if the Department of Economics would want to include this course in its undergraduate offerings?

Sincerely,

[signed]
Abe Harris

Professor Al Reese[sic]
Chairman
Dept of Ec.
Univ. of Chicago

______________________

 

Countervailing Power, Monopoly, and Public Policy

A proposed 200 course in the College
Submitted by Abram L. Harris

The course will attempt to combine theoretical analysis in a survey of the ideas of some leading economists who have dealt with the problem of market imperfections and monopoly along with discussions of the early trust movement, federal anti-monopoly legislation, and some of the problems connected with the current administration of this legislation. Galbraith’s “Countervailing Power” has been selected as a stimulating point of departure.

A technical mastery of theoretical economics is not a prerequisite. One main purpose of the course is to stimulate undergraduate interest in theoretical economics, the history of economic ideas, and the relation of these ideas to current economic policy issues. The course should be open to beginning majors in economics, students who are undecided about a major in the social sciences, and to those who are just curious.

Class discussions are to be organized around the following topics: The Concept of “Countervailing Power”: Old wine in new bottles? Chamberlain on the use and derivation of the concept. Market imperfections and monopoly in some classical and neo-classical writings: Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Alfred Marshall. The trust movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century in the United States (John Bates Clarke and his student, Thorstein Veblen, on monopoly and “absentee ownership”). The Standard Oil and U. S. Steel cases and federal anti-trust legislation. Recent anti-trust cases: administrative interpretation and application of federal legislation. Marx’s thesis concerning industrial concentration and confirmation of it by the new liberalism of the 20th century. The extent and measurement of industrial concentration (Stigler, Nutter, Adelman, Adams, Wilcox, etc.). The ideal or goal of government (federal) policy and practice: monopoly or competition?

A term essay will be required of all students who take the course for credit. The essay may take the form of a review, e.g., Berle’s Twentieth Century Capitalist Revolution, Mason’s The Corporation in Modern Society, Chamberlain’s Labor Union Monopoly or may deal with some topic, relevant to the course, selected by the student in consultation with the instructor.

P.S. The content of the course may appear be heavy and, probably, cannot be entirely covered in a single quarter. The layout will have, no doubt, to be tailored as we proceed to give the course for the first time.

October 1961.

______________________

[Memo Al Reese to George Stigler]

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DATE: Oct. 31 [1961]

TO: George Stigler

FROM: Al Rees

IN RE: Proposed Course by Abe Harris

What is your reaction? Please return his note and proposal when you have finished with them.

[signed]
Al

______________________

 

[Carbon copy of Stigler response]

[DATE:] 11/1/61

[TO:] Al Rees, Chairman                 [DEPARTMENT:] Economics

[FROM:] George J. Stigler

[IN RE:] propose 200 level course in the College by Abram L. Harris

Dear Al:

            This new course of Abe Harris arouses no enthusiasm on my part. It sounds like a protracted bull session, in which large ideas are neither carefully analysed nor empirically tested.

            Even if this is a correct prediction, it leaves open the question of our listing it. Abe is a nice guy, only about 3 years from retirement, and it serves no good purpose to hurt his feelings. My own inclination would be (1) to list it, with explicit proviso that it is only for as long as he teaches it, and (2) advise our majors to forget it.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Box 3, Folder “U of C, Miscellaneous [red folder]”

Image Source: Abram Lincoln Harris from BlackPast.org.

Categories
Bibliography Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Books on reserve in economics tutorial department, ca. 1927

 

In one of the folders containing economics course reading lists in the Harvard University Archives, I found a single sheet of paper with a typed list of books in the Harvard College economics tutorial office (a hand-written note above the list: “1926-27 or 1927-28”). Beginning with the Class of 1917, a general examination of candidates for the A.B. degree with a concentration in the Division of History, Government, and Economics was required. Following the English model, special tutors were appointed to supervise and provide supplementary non-course instruction in preparation for the general examination. This posting begins with some background material regarding both the general final examination and the tutorial system. Division exams for 1939 have already been transcribed and posted in Economics in the Rear-view Mirror–see the Economics General Exam for 1939 where links to the five specific (i.e. field) exams and six so-called correlation exams for honors candidates are provided. 

Today’s posting ends with the list of 45 economics titles (multiple copies, from 2-12) available in the economics tutorial office in the late 1920s.

______________________________

Introduction of the general final examination and tutorial system

…Beginning with the Class of 1917, students concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics will be given a general final examination upon the field of their concentration. This examination will be so arranged as to test the general attainments of each candidate in the field covered by this Division and also in a specific field of study pursued by the student within the Division. The specific field will be selected by the student himself upon the basis of his courses and his reading. The following list gives examples of such fields of study, but is in no sense exhaustive, and any other field of work within the Division may be presented by the candidate for approval:

Ancient History
American History and Government
Modern European History
Municipal and State Government
International Law and Diplomacy
Economic Theory
Economic History
Applied Economics

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 task-master, and students may consult him freely and informally concerning any phase of their work.

 

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1914-15. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XI, No. 1, Part 14 (May 19, 1914), pp. 79-80.

______________________________

From The Harvard Crimson

Tutorial System Hereafter
Rules for Concentration in History, Government and Economics Will Apply Next Year.
April 10, 1914

Beginning with the class of 1917 and applying to all subsequent classes, a new rule in regard to concentration in the Division of History, Government and Economics has been adopted.Concentration in this Division requires at least six courses which are related to each other. Under the new system all students concentrating in this division will be required to pass in their Senior year a final examination covering their special field within the Division, and consisting of a written examination early in the spring, and an oral examination toward the close of the year. In order to prepare students for these examinations the University will provide special tutors beginning with the Sophomore year.

Only Two Introductory Courses.

Every student intending to concentrate in History, Government, and Economics should state the Department in which he will take at least four courses and the Department in which he will take the remaining two. He will not be allowed to count towards his concentration more than two of the introductory courses, History 1, Government 1, and Economics A. The aim of the system is to enforce a more accurate knowledge and comprehension of studies as a whole. This aim has frequently not been achieved owing to the wide scattering of courses.

 

The Tutorial System
April 10, 1914

There are two new features in the recently announced requirements of the Division of History, Government and Economics, namely, the general examination and the tutorial system. And they are complementary. The task of the tutor is to intelligently guide the student in his preparation for the final examination, to assist him in that organization and correllation of his work which is the key-note of the plan. His work begins where the adviser’s work ends. The adviser still superintends the choice of courses made by the student although it is to be expected, probably, that a capable tutor will tend to influence this choice. It will be impossible so sharply to distinguish the task of choosing courses and correlating them as to prevent this. The sanction of the adviser may approximate formal permission, with the guiding force held by the tutor.

The general examination on the other hand, modelled after the plan in use for doctorate examinations, including a general examination for the division work and a supplementary special test for the department or field, reaches over the whole matter of choice and organization and focuses the work of the adviser, tutor and student.

One result is inevitable, that is, the effect of producing a more serious scientific attitude toward the work. The student who chooses this Division will be presumed to have made the choice with serious intent to perfect himself in that line. The student who chose that work because he had to concentrate in something may well feel he is getting more than he bargained for. This is not a criticism; the result-to make study in that division more in the way of laboratory work, to lift it out of the region of inconsequent eclectic undergraduate education may be more serious. The decline or increase in the number of men in the Division will show to what an extent the work there is taken for serious reasons, not as a line of least resistance.

The effect in minimizing course grades, cramming, and mechanical study can only be helpful. To produce capable and broad-minded students, with a wide grasp of their field and an accurate knowledge of their specialty is the very desirable end to which the system aims. And that not by more work but by better organization.

Excerpt from
Will Exchange Two Tutors [with Oxford and Cambridge] Next Year
March 19, 1923

…the work of the tutor is independent of courses, not subordinate to them; for tutorial instruction is quite separate from course instruction.

Started Here in 1912

The tutorial system was inaugurated Harvard in 1912. At that time a general examination for graduation was established experimentally for men concentrating in History, Government and Economics. It was felt that these examinations could be made effective and, at the same time, fair to the student only by the development of a system of individual guidance, so six tutors were appointed. Since then the general examination, with or without tutors, has been put into effect as a requirement for men concentrating in a number of other subjects, all in fact, except Mathematics and the natural sciences,–and the number of tutors having been accordingly increased from six to over 30.

Of the conditions here, Professor H. H. Burbank, G. ’15 says in his recent annual report as chairman of the board of tutors in History, Government and Economics. “Attendance at the conferences is not compulsory. There is no system of monitoring or reports of absences to the college office. The fear of disciplinary action cannot serve as a stimulus to meet appointments or to prepare assignments. It is true that the authority to employ disciplinary measures can be invoked if the occasion arises, but in eight years no resort to such measures has been necessary. Yet the cutting of tutorial appointments is comparatively rare, far less than the cutting of courses. The majority of concentrators, well over 60 per cent, seldom fail to meet their engagements. The tradition of tutorial work has become firmly established”….

____________________________

READINGS IN ECONOMIC TUTORIAL DEPARTMENT
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
[1926-27 or 1927-28]

6 Dunbar Theory and History of Banking Putnam, New York
6 Cannan Money King, London
12 Bagehot Lombard St. Murray, London
12 Robertson Money Harcourt Brace Co., N.Y.
5 Cassell Money and Foreign Exchange MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Carver Essays in Social Justice Harvard University Press
6 White Money and Banking Ginn and Co., Boston
6 Hawtrey Monetary Reconstruction Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
6 Hawtrey Currency and Credit Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
3 Hawtrey Economic Problem Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
6 George Progress and Poverty Garden City Pub. Co., N.Y.
3 Andreades History of Bank of England King, London
5 Withers Meaning of Money E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
3 Toynbee Industrial Revolution Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
4 Morley Life of Cobden, Vol. I; Vol. II. MacMillan, N.Y.
4 Trevelyan John Bright Houghton Mifflin Co., N.Y.
5 Fisher Purchasing Power of Money MacMillan, N.Y.
2 Chamberlain Bond Investment Henry Holt & Co., N.Y.
3 Lough Corporation Finance Alex. Hamilton Institute, N.Y.
2 Henderson Federal Trade Commission Yale University Press, New Haven
12 Smith Wealth of Nations (Everyman’s Lib.)  Vol. I; Vol. II. E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
6 Ricardo Political Economy (Everyman’s Lib.) E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
3 Ricardo First Six Chapters of Political Economy MacMillan, N.Y.
12 Ricardo Political Economy (Gonner Editor) George Bell, London
3 Malthus Essay on Population MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Mill Political Economy (Ashley Edition) Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
2 Mill Political Economy (2 vols) Vol. I; Vol. II. Appleton & Co., N.Y.
6 Marshall Principles of Economics MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Marshall Industry and Trade MacMillan, N.Y.
3 Hobson Work and Wealth MacMillan, N.Y.
3 Pigou Economics of Welfare MacMillan, N.Y.
12 Henderson Supply and Demand Harcourt Brace Co., N.Y.
6 Cannan Wealth King, London
3 Davenport Economics of Enterprise MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Carver Distribution of Wealth MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Ely Outlines of Economics MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Clark Economics of Overhead Costs University of Chicago Press
6 Gide & Rist History of Economic Thought D.C. Heath & Co., Boston
3 Fairchild, Furniss & Buck Principles of Economics MacMillan, N.Y.
2 Flux Economic Principles E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
6 Veblen Theory of the Leisure Class Vanguard Press, N.Y.
3 Cassell The Theory of Social Economy Harcourt Brace Co., N.Y.
4 Böhm-Bawerk Positive Theory of Capital G.E. Stecher Co., N.Y.
3 National Indust. Conference Public Regulation of Competitive Practices
3 National Indust. Conference Trade Associations

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC8522.2.1), Folder “1927-28”.

Image Source:  Harold Hitchings Burbank in Harvard Class Album 1925.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economics Programs Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Stanford Texas Undergraduate Vanderbilt Wisconsin Yale

Size distribution of graduate and undergraduate programs in economics. U.S., 1963-65

 

 

These are the last two statistical tables from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of leading economics departments in the U.S. intended to provide orientation for departmental chairpersons in salary negotiations. Today’s posting gives the numbers of undergraduate and graduate majors reported by 29 departments. 

Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors across departments. Two previous postings have the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the anticipated range of salary offers for new Ph.D.’s for 1966-67. Those first five reports from The Cartel provide distributions of median or average incomes or ranges of salary offers by ranks across departments. Table 6c from the summary report that gives the salary distributions by rank for 335 professors, 143 associate professors and 185 assistant professors from all 27 departments.

Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

____________________

 

TABLE 7c
Graduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions:

 

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66
(Estimate)
300 and over 2 2

1

200-299

0 0 2
150-199 3 4

5

100-149

6 5 6
80-99 4 4

3

60-79

5 7 5
40-59 6 4

4

20-39

2 1 0
1-19 1 1

1

Number of departments reporting:

29

28

27

Total number of students:

2,963

3,057

3,118

____________________

 

TABLE 8C
Undergraduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions

 

1963-64 1964-65
300 and over 4

4

250-299

1 1
200-249 3

2

150-199

4 6
100-149 8

5

80-99

1 1
60-79 2

1

40-59

2 3
20-39 1

1

1-19

1

1

Number of departments reporting:

27

25

Total number of students:

4,550

4,312

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: quick meme website.

Categories
Curriculum Exam Questions Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Francis Bowen’s Final Exam for Political Economy, 1869

 

 

While collecting old economics examination questions at the Harvard University Archives, I happened to come across a final examination for Political Economy from the pre-Dunbar years. The senior year course during the academic year 1868-69 was taught by Francis Bowen who assigned his own textbook, The Principles of Political Economy applied to the Condition, the Resources, and the Institutions of the American People (2nd edition, 1859). In the following year (1870) Bowen published American Political Economy; including Strictures of the Currency and the Finances since 1861. One probably can presume his lectures were closer to the latter of the two books. 

For this post I have included Bowen’s obituary published by the Harvard Crimson as well as a summary of the Harvard College curriculum in 1868-69 as published in the annual report of the President of Harvard College.

 

__________________________

Bowen’s Examination Questions

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

  1. Explain the difference between the laws of England, France, and the United States in respect to the rights of inheritance and bequest of real estate and personal property, showing the economical results of each of the three systems.
  2. What are the Metayer system, the Allotment system, Tenant Right, the Cottier Tenure, Peasant Proprietors, and the advantages and disadvantages of each?
  3. Show the difference between Exchange Value, Market Price, and Cost of Production. What is the law of the Equation of Demand and Supply?
  4. Wherein does Monopoly or a Scarcity Value differ from ordinary Cost of Production? According to Ricardo, is Rent an element in the Cost of Production;–and why.
  5. How is the interchange of commodities between distant countries regulated not by their absolute, but their comparative, Cost of Production? Explain the Equation of International Demand, and show the influence of cost of carriage on International Values.
  6. By what is the Rate of Interest regulated? Does this Rate depend on the Value of Money? How does it affect the price of land?
  7. What are the fundamental rules of Taxation? Distinguish between Direct and Indirect taxation:–what provision in the Constitution of the United States on this subject? How ought this provision to affect the Income Tax?
  8. What effect has the Rate of Taxation on the amount of revenue collected? Ought taxes to be at the same rate on large and small incomes?
  9. When did the National Debts begin, and wherein do they differ from private debts? What is the Funding of a National Debt?
  10. How came both England and the United States to be in debt for a much larger amount than they ever received from their creditors? What are the arguments in favor of paying off a National Debt within the lifetime of the generation that contracted it?

Sen. Ann. June, 1869.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations 1853-2001. Box 1, Folder “Final examinations, 1868-1869”.

 

__________________________

An Obituary for Francis Bowen

Francis Bowen.
Harvard Crimson, January 22, 1890

Late yesterday afternoon it was announced that Professor Francis Bowen had died at his home at one o’clock of heart failure. He was born on September 8, 1811, at Charleston, Mass., and was therefore in his seventy-ninth year. In 1833 he was graduated from the college in the same class with Professor Lovering, Professor Torrey, Dr. M. Wyman, Professor J. Wyman, and the late Dr. George E. Ellis of Boston. During the four years following his graduation he was an instructor here in intellectual philosophy and political economy. In 1843 he succeeded Dr. Palfrey as editor and proprietor of the North American Review which he conducted until 1854. He was appointed professor of history in the college in 1850, but the board of overseers refused to confirm the appointment on account of his unpopular views on politics. Three years later, however, he was unanimously confirmed as Alford professor to succeed Dr. Walker. In this capacity he continued to serve the college until December, 1889, when he resigned the professorship; so that he has been in active service over thirty-six years. He was a prompt and constant attendant at lectures and always interested in his work. Of late years he has done only half-work and is not well-known to many of the undergraduates. But his influence on the graduates has been remarkably strong, many of them remembering him with the greatest affection.

In the early days of the Lowell Institute he was one of the most popular lecturers in the country. In 1848-9 he lectured before the Institute on the application of metaphysical and ethical science to the evidences of religion; in 1850 on political economy; in 1852, on the origin and development of the English and American constitutions; and subsequently on English philosophers from Bacon to Sir William Hamilton. The most of these lectures were subsequently published. He also published an annotated edition of Virgil, Critical Essays on the History and Present Condition of Speculative Philosophy, Principles of Political Economy, a text book on Logic, Sir William Hamilton’s essays on metaphysics, condensed and edited, and not more than five years ago he prepared the report of the U. S. Silver Commission. In 1879 the degree of L. L. D. was conferred upon him by the University, an honor fifty crowning his years of usefulness. The last years of his life have been quiet and uneventful.

 

__________________________

 

Overview of Harvard College Courses of Instruction, 1868-69

APPENDIX.
I.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE COURSE OF INSTRUCTION PURSUED IN THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1868-69.

I. ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT.

 

  1. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

INSTRUCTION in Ethics and in Christian Evidences was given by the Acting President. During the First Term he heard recitations from the Freshman Class, twice a week, in Champlin’s First Principles of Ethics, and Bulfinch’s Evidences of Christianity.

During the Second Term he met the Senior Class twice a week, hearing them recite in Peabody’s Christianity the Religion of Nature, and delivering Lectures on the Christian Scriptures and the Evidences of Christianity. During the entire year the service of Daily Prayers was attended by him; and he supplied the Chapel pulpit on Sunday.

Two hundred and seventy-five students had leave of absence from Cambridge to pass Sunday at home; one hundred and forty-five attended worship in the College Chapel; and one hundred and sixteen attended other churches in Cambridge.

 

  1. PHILOSOPHY.

The means of instruction in this Department are recitations familiarly illustrated at the time by the Professor, lectures occasionally substituted for recitations, and written forensic exercises.

The Department was under the charge of Francis Bowen, A. M., Alford Professor, assisted by William W. Newell, A.B., Instructor in Philosophy. During the First Academic Term the Senior Class recited three times a week in Bowen’s Ethics and Metaphysics, and Bowen’s Political Economy. During a portion of the Second Term the same Class recited twice a week in Bowen’s Ethics and Metaphysics. An elective section of the same class also recited three times a week in Mill’s Examination of Sir W. Hamilton’s Philosophy, Schwegler’s History of Philosophy, Mansel’s Limits of Religious Thought, and Bowen’s Essays. The Junior Class recited twice a week to Mr. Newell in Bowen’s Logic, Reid’s Essays, and Hamilton’s Metaphysics. The Sophomores recited to Mr. Newell twice a week during one term in Stewart’s Philosophy of the Mind.

Forensics were read, in the First Term, once a month by the Seniors, half of the Class attending each fortnight. The Juniors also read Forensics once a month during one term.

 

  1. RHETORIC AND ORATORY.

This Department is under the superintendence of Francis J. Child, Ph. D., Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, assisted in the teaching of Elocution by James Jennison, A. M. Instruction was given to elective sections of the three higher classes in the Early English Language and Literature.

Sophomores had two lessons a week, and studied Vernon’s Anglo-Saxon Guide and Morris’s Specimens of Early English.

Juniors had three lessons a week, and studied Vernon’s Anglo-Saxon Guide, Morris’s Specimens, and Morris’s edition of the Prologues and Knightes Tale from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

The Senior section read Thorpe’s Analecta Anglo-Saxoniea and Mätzner’s Altenglische Sprachproben.

One fifth of the Sophomore Class wrote Themes, and attended a critical exercise upon them, each week throughout the year.

The Juniors wrote Themes, and attended a critical exercise upon them, once every three weeks during the First Term.

The Senior Class had four Themes during the Second Term.

The inspection of performances for Commencement and for the other public Exhibitions is committed to this Department.

The foregoing statement relates to the duties of the Professor.

There are separate courses of instruction in Elocution, and in Reading, which are wholly under the care of the Tutor in Elocution.

The Sophomores and Freshmen attended him once every week during the year as required, and he gave instruction to extra sections from all the classes.

He superintended rehearsals of performances for the Public Exhibitions of the year; the final rehearsal for each of which is regularly attended by the Professor.

 

  1. HISTORY.

In this Department instruction was given to the whole Senior Class by Professor Torrey and Professor Gurney; the textbooks used being the Abridgment of Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Guizot’s Civilization in Europe, Arnold’s Lectures, and Hallam’s Middle Ages. An elective class read with Professor Torrey May’s Constitutional History and Mill on Representative Government. A special examination was held of students who had offered themselves as candidates for Honors after having pursued an additional course of study.

The Sophomore Class recited to Professor Gurney in “ The Student’s Gibbon ” during the First Term.

The Freshman Class recited to Mr. Lewis, in the Second Term, in Duruy’s “Histoire Grecque.”

 

  1. MODERN LANGUAGES.

This Department is under the superintendence of James R. Lowell, A. M., Smith Professor of the French and Spanish Languages, and Professor of Belles-Lettres. Elbridge J. Cutler, A. B., Assistant Professor, has special charge of the instruction in French and German. Bennett H. Nash, A. M., is instructor in Italian and Spanish. Thomas S. Perry, A. M., is Tutor of Modern Languages. Louis C. Lewis, A. M., was Tutor of Modern Languages during the last year.

French is a required study during the First Term of the Freshman year; and Ancient History is taught from a French textbook during the Second Term of that year. French is an elective study during the Senior year. German is a required study during the Sophomore year; and an elective during the Junior and Senior years. During the last year the Sophomores studied French instead of German, they having failed to study French during their Freshman year, for reasons given in the last Annual Report. Spanish is studied as an extra, i. e. without marks, during the Junior year, and as an elective during the Senior year. Italian is an elective in the Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years, and the students are allowed to study Italian during any one or two of these three years; but no Senior beginning Italian is allowed to receive marks for the same.

The Professor gave a course of lectures to the Seniors during the Second Term.

The Assistant Professor taught elective German to the Seniors in two sections, three times a week throughout the year. Text-books, Otto’s and Weisse’s German Grammars, “Egmont,” “Taugenichts,” “Braune Erica,” Schiller’s “Maria Stuart,” and Goethe’s “Wahrheit und Dichtung.” He also taught elective French to the Seniors in two sections, three times a week. Textbooks, Beaumarchais’s “Barbier de Seville,” La Fontaine’s Fables, Racine’s “Athalie,” “Selections from French Prose-Writers,” and Pylodet’s “ Littérature Française.”

Instruction was given in Italian as follows :—

To a section of the Senior Class, in three recitations a week. This section read portions of Tasso’s “Gerusalemme ” and of Dante’s “Divina Commedia,” upon which the Instructor gave explanatory lectures. The section also handed in written translations from English into Italian, and had exercises in writing Italian from dictation. They had one written examination beside the annual examination.

To a section of the Junior Class, in two recitations a week. The textbooks used were Cuore’s Grammar, Nota’s “La Fiera,” and Dall’ Ongaro’s “La Rosa dell’ Alpi.” They attended one private written examination, practised writing Italian from dictation, and gave in written translations from English into Italian.

To two sections of the Sophomore Class. Each section had two recitations a week in the same text-books as the Juniors. Each section was exercised in writing Italian from dictation. Beside the annual examination at the close of the Second Term, the Sophomores attended three written examinations.

Instruction was given in Spanish as follows : —

To a section of the Senior Class, which attended three recitations a week, and read Moratin’s “El sí de las niñas,” Lope de Vega’s “La Estrella de Sevilla,” and portions of “Don Quijote.” This section wrote Spanish from dictation, and also translations from English into Spanish. They had one private examination in writing, beside the Annual Examination at the close of the Second Term.

To a section of the Junior Class, which recited twice a week, studying Josse’s Grammar and Reader, and portions of Le Sage’s “Gil Blas.”

 

  1. LATIN.

During the last year this Department was under the superintendence of George M. Lane, Ph. D., University Professor of Latin, aided by Mr. James B. Greenough and Mr. Prentiss Cummings, Tutors. The instruction of the Senior and Junior Classes was conducted by Professor Lane, that of the Sophomore Class by Mr. Cummings, and that of the Freshman Class by Mr. Greenough.

Instruction was given to the Freshman Class in Lincoln’s Selections from Livy (two Books), the Odes of Horace, Cicero’s Cato Major, Roman Antiquities, and in writing Latin:

To the Sophomore Class, in Cicero’s Laelius, Cato Major, and Select Epistles; Terence’s Phormio, Eunuchus, and Adelphi; Quintus Curtius, selections from Ovid, Seneca’s Hercules Furens, and in Writing Latin:

To the Junior Class, in Horace’s Satires, Tacitus’s Annals, and Juvenal :

To the Seniors, in Juvenal, Cicero de Deorum Natura, Lucretius, and Plautus, in the regular elective division. Besides this, instruction was given to the candidates for Honors, in Tacitus and in Latin Composition.

 

  1. GREEK.

The Greek Department, in the absence of William W. Goodwin, Ph. D., Eliot Professor of Greek Literature, was under the charge of Evangelinus A. Sophocles, LL.D., University Professor of Ancient, Byzantine, and Modern Greek, and Isaac Flagg, A. M., and William H. Appleton, A.M., Tutors in Greek.

The Freshmen were instructed by Mr. Flagg and Mr. Appleton. They were divided into four sections, and attended four recitations a week during each Term, besides exercises in Greek Composition. The text-books were Xenophon’s Memorabilia, the Odyssey, and Lysias.

The Sophomores were instructed by Mr. Flagg. They recited twice a week, in four sections, and read the Prometheus of Aeschylus, the Birds of Aristophanes, and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes. The elective section in advanced Greek read also Plato’s Apology and Crito, the Alcestis of Euripides, and half of the First Book of Herodotus. The Class was also instructed in Greek Composition.

An elective section of Juniors read the first three books of Polybius with Professor Sophocles. A section of Juniors read Aeschines, and Demosthenes on the Crown with Mr. Flagg.

An elective section of Seniors read Plato’s Apology and Crito, and the Electra of Sophocles with Mr. Flagg; and another section read the Antigone of Sophocles, the Alcestis of Euripides, and Thucydides with Professor Sophocles.

 

  1. HEBREW.

This Department, vacant the First Term, was filled the Second Term by Rev. Edward J. Young, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and other Oriental Languages, who gives instruction twice a week to such students as desire it.

 

  1. NATURAL HISTORY.

This Department, now wholly elective, was, in the absence of Professor Gray, under the care of Wm. T. Brigham, A.M.

The course was attended by sixty-four Students of the Junior Class; and the instruction was given by recitations in Structural Botany, lectures on Vegetable Physiology and Organography, and practical work in plant-analysis with the microscope, followed by oral and written examinations. Each student was occupied three hours each week in the lecture-room. From the Thanksgiving recess to the end of the First Term the Class attended recitations and lectures on Animal Physiology and Anatomy, under the care of Jeffri9es Wyman, M. D.

 

  1. ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY.

A course of twenty Lectures on the Anatomy and Physiology of Vertebrated Animals was delivered during the First Term, to members of the Senior Class, and to members of the Professional Schools, by Jeffries Wyman, M.D., Hersey Professor of Anatomy. The Lectures were given on Tuesdays and Thursdays, at 12 M. During the second half of the First Term, fifty members of the Junior Glass attended recitations from a text-book on Physiology, on Wednesdays and Fridays, from 10 to 12 A.M.

 

  1. CHEMISTRY AND MINERALOGY.

The instruction in this Department was given by Josiah P. Cooke, A.M., Erving Professor, and George A. Hill, A.B., Tutor in Physics and Chemistry. During the First Term the Sophomore Class studied Cooke’s Chemical Physics, reciting in three divisions twice each week, and passing two private examinations during the Term. In the Second Term the same Class studied “The First Principles of Chemical Philosophy,” passing one private examination, and the usual public examination at the end of the year. They also attended a course of Lectures, one each week, on General Chemistry.

Those of the Junior Class who elected this department attended during the whole year a course of instruction in Practical Chemistry, giving their attendance in the Laboratory six hours each week, in addition to the three regular hours of recitation. The text-books used were Galloway’s Qualitative Chemical Analysis and Cooke’s Chemical Philosophy; but the course is specially designed to train the faculties of observation and to teach the methods of scientific study, and hence the greater part of the instruction is necessarily oral. The course of Lectures on General Chemistry begun in the Second Term of the Sophomore was continued during the First Term of the Junior Year, two each week until the end of the Term.

Those of the Senior Class who elected Chemical Physics received instruction in Crystallography during the First Term (the text-book used being Cooke’s Chemical Physics), and during the Second Term in Blowpipe Analysis and in Mineralogy, the course consisting of Lectures and practical instruction in the laboratory and cabinet. Elderhorst’s Blowpipe Analysis and Dana’s Manual of Mineralogy were used as books of reference.

 

  1. PHYSICS.

During the last academic year instruction in this Department was conducted by George A. Hill, A.B., Tutor in Chemistry and Physics. Joseph Lovering, A.M., Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, was absent in Europe through the year, so that the usual courses of Lectures on Physics to the Senior and Junior Classes were not given.

The whole Junior Class recited to Mr. Hill three times a week during the First and Second Terms; and read Herschel’s Outlines of Astronomy and Lardner’s Course of Natural Philosophy [Optics]. This Class was examined at the end of the Second Term in both books.

The Class recited in three Divisions; each Division remaining with the instructor one hour at every exercise; in all nine hours a week.

 

  1. MATHEMATICS.

The instruction in this Department was given by Benjamin Peirce, LL.D., Perkins Professor of Astronomy and Mathematics; James Mills Peirce, A.M., Assistant Professor of Mathematics; Edwin P. Seaver, A.M., Tutor; and George V. Leverett, A.B., Instructor.
The Freshman Class recited, throughout the year, in four sections three times in the week, and in two sections, once in the week, from the following text-books: Peirce’s Plane and Solid Geometry, and Peirce’s Algebra. The Freshmen were also instructed in Plane Trigonometry.
The study of Mathematics was elective during the Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years.
In the Sophomore year the instruction in Pure and Applied Mathematics was arranged in four courses of two lessons a week each, and Students were allowed to elect one or more of these courses. The subjects taught were Analytic Geometry (Puckle’s Conic Sections, and lectures on the Elements of Analytic Geometry of Three Dimensions), the Differential Calculus (lectures and examples), Spherical Trigonometry
(lectures and examples), Elementary Mechanics (Goodwin and Kerr), and the Theory of Sound (Peirce).
Instruction was given to those who elected Mathematics in the Junior and Senior years, by lectures and recitations, on three days in the week, throughout the year, in Differential, Imaginary, Integral, and Residual Calculus, in the Calculus of Quaternions, and in the Mathematical Theory of Mechanics and Astronomy.
Applied Mathematics (Kerr’s Elementary Mechanics) was also an elective study in the Junior year.

[…]

 

COURSE OF INSTRUCTION FOR THE ACADEMICAL YEAR, 1868-69.

[…]

SENIOR CLASS.
FIRST TERM.

  1. Philosophy. Bowen’s Ethics and Metaphysics.—Bowen’s Political Economy.—Forensics.
  2. Modern History. Guizot’s and Arnold’s Lectures.—Story’s Abridged Commentaries on the Constitution.

ELECTIVE AND EXTRA STUDIES.

  1. Philosophy. Mill’s Examination of Hamilton’s Philosophy.—Last 140 pages of Bowen’s Logic.
  2. Mathematics. Peirce’s Analytic Mechanics.
  3. History. May’s Constitutional History.—Mill on Representative Government.
  4. Chemistry. Crystallography and Physics of Crystals.
  5. Greek. The Antigone of Sophocles.—The Alcestis of Euripides.
  6. Latin. Juvenal.—Cicero de Deorum Natura.—Tacitus’s Annals and Latin Exercises, with an extra Division.
  7. German. Goethe’s Egmont.—Schiller’s Wallenstein’s Lager und Maria Stuart.—Exercises in Writing German.
  8. French. Mennechet’s Littérature Française Classique.—La Fontaine’s Fables.—Writing French.
  9. Advanced Spanish. Moratin’s El sí de las niñas.—Lope de Vega’s La Estrella di Sevilla.
  10. Advanced Section. Tasso’s Gerusalemme.
  11. English. Thorpe’s Analecta Anglo-Saxonica.—Mätzner’s Alt-englische Sprachproben.
  12. Modern Literature. Lectures.
  13. Patristic and Modern Greek.
  14. Geology. Lectures.
  15. Anatomy. Lectures.

SECOND TERM.

  1. History. Hallam’s Middle Ages, one volume.
  2. Religious Instruction.
  3. Political Economy. Bowen’s, finished.
  4. Rhetoric. Themes.

 

ELECTIVE AND EXTRA STUDIES.

  1. Philosophy. Schwegler’s History of Philosophy (Selections).—Mansel’s Limits of Religious Thought.—Exercises and Lectures.
  2. Mathematics. Peirce’s Analytic Mechanics.—Lectures on Quaternions.
  3. Greek. Thucydides, First two Books.—Homer’s Iliad, Book IV.
  4. Latin. Lucretius and Plautus (Selections).
  5. History. Constitutional History.—Constitution of the United States, and the Federalist.
  6. Chemistry. Mineralogy and Determination of Minerals.
  7. German. Die Braune Erika.—Goethe’s Hermann and Dorothea.—Faust.—Writing German.
  8. French. Mennechet’s Littérature Française Classique.—Molière’s Misanthrope.—Beaumarchais’s Barbier.—Lessons in French Pronunciation.
  9. Advanced Spanish. Don Quijote.
  10. Advanced Section. Dante’s Divina Commedia.
  11. English. Studies of First Term continued.
  12. Zoölogy. Lectures.
  13. Modern Literature. Lectures.
  14. Patristic and Modern Greek.

[…]

 

The required studies of the Senior Class are History, Philosophy, and Ethics (together five hours a week). The elective studies are Greek, Latin, Mathematics, Physics, Chemical Physics, History, Philosophy, and Modern Languages (French, German, Italian, and Spanish). In each elective department there will be three exercises a week. Each Senior may choose three or two electives (at his pleasure), and receive marks for the same. Special students for honors may be permitted to devote the whole nine hours to two elective departments, under such restrictions as may be prescribed. Marks will be allowed in Modern Languages in the Senior year to advanced students only.

 

 

Source: Harvard University. Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1868-69.

Image Source:  Portrait of Francis Bowen from the Harvard Square Library (Unitarian Universalism). The Harvard Book: Portraits.