Category: Undergraduate

Harvard. Tutorial System and Divisional General Final Examinations, 1920

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-07-21

The Division of History, Government and Economics played a pioneering role in implementing the curricular reforms at Harvard College initiated by President A. Lawrence Lowell around the time of the First World War. The Department of Economics was to play a leading role in the administration of the divisional tutors in history, government and economics.

President Lowell wanted to get away from the extreme laissez-faire implicit in the system of electives left by his predecessor, Charles W. Eliot, to combine elements of concentration with distributional requirements that would leave students a guided sovereignty to elect their courses. Divisional General Examinations and Tutors to provide individually tailored instruction and counseling were institutional means seen as necessary to escape “the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated”.

“…the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation…”

In the opinion of the faculty Committee on Instruction the tutorial system should be established to support the best and brightest students to achieve their individual potentials rather than as a support system to provide remedial instructional services for the “mediocre and lazy”.

“…there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.”

__________________________

The General Final Examination and the Tutorial System

       The most important educational change, however, in Harvard College during recent years has been the establishment, as a requirement for the bachelor’s degree, of a general final examination on the student’s field of concentration; the problems which arise in connection with this plan are interesting and complex.

       When the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1909-10 voted to require each student to concentrate at least six courses in some single field or in related fields of knowledge, it thereby indicated its belief that knowledge of a subject is of more importance than the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated and which were often soon forgotten. Provision was made, at the same time, against undue concentration by a system of distribution, which, however, need not be considered here. Yet the requirement of concentration proved not to secure, in all cases, the choice of courses well related, and least of all did it require, or sufficiently encourage, the student to articulate and complete his knowledge of his field, by himself, through work outside the classroom. The next logical step, therefore, was taken in the autumn of 1912-13 when the Faculty passed the following vote:

That the Division of History, Government, and Economics be authorized to require of all students whose field of concentration lies in this Division, in addition to the present requirements stated in terms of courses for the bachelor’s degree, a special final examination upon each student’s field of concentration; and that the passing of this examination shall be necessary in order to fulfill the requirements for concentration in this Division.

That students who pass this special examination may be excused from the regular final examinations in such courses of their last year as fall within the Division of History, Government, and Economics, in the same way that candidates for distinction who pass a public test may now be excused under the rules of the Faculty.

That this requirement go into effect with the class entering in 1913.

That the Division of History, Government, and Economics submit for the sanction of the Faculty the detailed rules for the final examinations and such a detailed scheme of tutorial assistance as may be adopted before these are put into effect by the Division.

       The examinations thus established were first given at the close of 1915-16. Between that date and the end of the year 1919-20, these general examinations had been given to 444 men, of whom 26 (5.8+%) failed and therefore did not receive their degrees unless they passed the general examinations in some subsequent year; of the 418 who passed, 73 (17.4+%) won distinction and 345 (82.5+%) obtained a pass degree.

       General examinations had been used in the Medical School since 1911-12, and in the Divinity School since 1912-13, so that considerable knowledge of the actual working of such examinations was available by the opening of the academic year 1918-19. Accordingly on December 3, 1918, the Faculty passed the following vote under which a committee of nine was established:

       That a Committee be appointed to investigate the working of the general final examinations for degrees now used in various Departments of the University, and to consider the advisability of employing general final examinations on the fields of concentration in all Departments of Harvard College.

       After studying the subject for some months the Committee came to the conclusion that the advantages of the general final examination, particularly as employed in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, might be stated as follows:

The examination has secured “concentration” in related subjects.

It has encouraged the mastery of subjects or fields rather than of courses.

It has given the Division a survey of the student’s capacity at the end of his college course.

It has provided a more satisfactory method of awarding the degree with distinction than the plan formerly in use.

       The Committee therefore made the following recommendations, which the Faculty adopted April 1, 1919:

That general final examinations be established for all students concentrating in Divisions or under Committees which signify their willingness to try such examinations, and that adequate means be provided to enable such Divisions and Committees to administer these examinations; it being understood that the control of the general final examinations shall rest with the several Divisions and Committees in the same manner as the control of the examinations for honors and distinction now given by them.

That the new general final examinations be first employed for the members of the present freshman class.

That, so far as possible, the adviser to whom each student is assigned, be a teacher in the student’s field of concentration.

       All Divisions had previously indicated their desire or willingness to employ such examinations except the Divisions of Mathematics and of the Natural Sciences. The chief reason for the attitude of the Divisions declining appears to lie in the nature of the subjects which they represent, for Mathematics and the Natural Sciences have, by and large, fairly fixed paths of advancement for the undergraduate, so that an examination in an advanced course is, at the same time, an examination on all the work which has preceded, as may very well not be the case in Literary, Historical, and Philosophical subjects.

       Beginning then, with the year 1921-22, general final examinations on the fields of concentration will be required of all candidates for the bachelor’s degree, save in the Divisions named above. The plan is an experiment, and the experience of at least ten years may be needed before its virtues and defects can be fully estimated; but in the meantime, the successful working of such examinations in the Medical School, the Divinity School, and especially in the Division of History, Government, and Economics under this Faculty, the welcome given the plan by the more serious part of the student body, and the interest in the experiment shown by other colleges, give grounds for entertaining much hope.

       The very plan of a general final examination, however, requires that the student shall select his courses wisely, do work outside his formal courses, and by reading and reflection coordinate the details he has learned into a body of ordered knowledge of his subject, so far as this can be done in undergraduate years. In all this he requires guidance and stimulus. The Division of History, Government, and Economics, therefore, from the first, has employed Tutors whose business it is to guide and assist students, individually, in their preparation for the general final examination. Tutoring for this purpose was, on the whole, a new problem in American education, although Princeton University had made some important experiments with its Preceptorial system, and “advisers” for undergraduates had long existed here and elsewhere; moreover, the Oxford and Cambridge system of Tutors obviously could not be transplanted without change to this country because of the differences in secondary and college education. Therefore it was, and still is, necessary to experiment in methods and to develop men for the work. At first tutorial duties were superimposed on other teaching, thus increasing the total amount of instruction given by those who were appointed Tutors, but this plan proved unwise for reasons which now seem fairly clear, but which were not so easily seen in advance. More recently many Tutors have given all their time to tutorial duties, and in some cases this may always be a wise plan; but it appears probable that in many cases it will be unwise for a Tutor to be excluded wholly from giving some formal instruction in his subject by means of a “lecture” course or otherwise, for it is important that every teacher should grow in depth as well as in breadth of knowledge, and such growth can probably usually be best assured him by having him give a course in the subject which he is making especially his own. At present, then, the arrangement which seems most promising is to provide that, so far as possible, each Tutor who desires it shall use a certain proportion of his time in giving formal instruction with the usual classroom methods, the rest, usually the major part of his teaching, being given in the less formal but equally important work of a Tutor.

       Tutorial work means work with the individual student. General suggestions and directions can be given to small groups about as effectively as to single students; yet since the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation, the Tutors must generally deal with individual students; and this is the regular method employed at the present time. The Tutor meets the students under his charge every week to discuss with them the reading which they have done, to help them solve their difficulties, and to give them suggestions for their future guidance. The good Tutor is in no sense a coach, but a friendly counselor whose knowledge and wisdom are put at the disposal of his students. Unquestionably the total amount of work now required of each student has been somewhat increased over that formerly exacted, but the amount is not so excessive as to call in itself for any remission of the present requirements of courses. The most important purpose, however, of this work done by the student outside his courses under the direction of the Tutor is to teach him how to learn and how to assimilate his knowledge. Ambitious and able students realize the value of such training and give themselves much of it, becoming candidates for distinction in their fields of concentration; the indolent and slow are content with a bare degree. When more experience has been gained the Faculty may well consider relaxing somewhat the requirements of four courses in the Senior year for candidates for distinction, whose previous records give promise of success; but the pass man deserves no increased opportunities for self-discipline since he will ordinarily have proved that he cannot or will not use them.

       In this connection the question may well be raised whether all men should receive equal attention from the Tutors. That there should be equal opportunities for all until some have shown themselves indifferent or unequal to them is beyond doubt; but when the wills and abilities of men have been well tested, as should ordinarily be the case by the end of the sophomore year, it seems only justice to the willing and able to give them more attention than is bestowed on the men who are content with a pass degree. Of course a chance must be given the repentant laggard to climb into the more deserving, and therefore more favored, group during his last two years. But there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.

       In the vote of April, 1919, the Faculty wisely left each Department or Division free to determine the nature of the assistance to be given students concentrating under it and the means by which such assistance shall be given. The Divisions of Philosophy and of Fine Arts propose to use Tutors, as the Division of History, Government and Economics has done from the beginning of the experiment; the several Departments of Languages and Literatures, ancient and modern, will employ advisory committees. But whatever names and methods are employed, the aim will always be to give the individual student assistance and encouragement in acquiring a body of well-organized knowledge in his field. In this direction apparently lies the next advance in the improvement of instruction in Harvard College.

CLIFFORD H. MOORE, Chairman.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1919-1920, pp. 100-104.

__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________

Harvard. Course Outline, Reading Assignments, Semester Exams. Principles of economics. Smithies, 1951-52

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-07-17

The self-confidence of the businessmen appointed to Harvard’s economics department visiting committee at mid-20th-century to weigh-in on all matters related to the scope and method of economics as a science and policy art is breath-taking, and I don’t mean that in a good way. For an earlier post I transcribed the November 1950 report submitted by the visiting committee and the January 1952 response from Harvard President James B. Conant. Reading Keller and Keller’s Making Harvard Modern: The Rise of America’s University (2001), I learned that Clarence B. Randall [Chairman of the Economics Visiting Committee] alleged that the economics chairman, Arthur Smithies, ripped off the first page of the syllabus for the principles of economics course to hide the list of main sources of readings for the course, knowing that some of the items would displease Randall.

This was enough to get me to look at the syllabus with assigned readings and the final examinations for Economics 1 “Principles of Economics” for the academic year 1951-52 now transcribed for this post. The first page of the syllabus appears to simply be tables of primary sources for the readings assigned in the fall and spring terms that permit abbreviated reference in the course syllabus. But since he was given the complete list of readings and an outline of the course, I find it more likely that Randall merely saw a tempest in a teapot. Others can examine the artifacts themselves and come to their own conclusions.

If I were in the jury, I would vote to acquit Smithies of the charge of willfully destroying or hiding evidence known to be relevant. Any idiot could figure out Karl Marx made a guest appearance in the Harvard course readings from the course outline and its reading assignments. Smithies provided sufficient evidence as to course content to Randall. Actually I think Smithies should have been awarded damages for having his honor impugned, or even a Purple Heart. Suffering fools has always been a part of the price of departmental service.

__________________________

Cf. An earlier version of the Syllabus for “Principles of Economics”

1949-50. Economics 1 outline and exams.

__________________________

Smithies’ letter of Oct 31, 1951 to Randall

October 31, 1951

Mr. Clarence B. Randall
38 South Dearborn Street
Chicago 3, Illinois

Dear Mr. Randall:

I was very glad to get your letter and I do wish we had more opportunities to sit down to discuss the affairs of the Department in a more leisurely manner than is usually possible.

We have given a great deal of thought during the fall to the questions about the Department that you have raised with the President. I am afraid it might confuse things if I attempted to discuss those questions by letter so I shall forebear. I would like to say, however, that whether or not I agree with your conclusions I have always found your criticisms of the Department very helpful.

Dave Bailey called and asked us to keep Sunday evening, January thirteenth, free for a meeting with the committee. As you know, I do not think these single evening meetings serve any very useful purpose. They do not enable the Committee to talk at any length with members of the Department or to make any adequate appraisal of the Department’s program. Several members of the Committee have told me that oven the full day we devoted to the purpose last year was too short. Several members of the Department have also indicated to me that they feel that the Sunday evening meeting is to [sic] perfunctory. Therefore, I very much hope we can arrange another program of the kind we had last year.

Things seem to be going quite satisfactorily here. The enrollment has not shrunk to anything like the extent that was anticipated last spring.

This year we have extended tutorial to sophomores in Group III and above so that we have now practically restored the tutorial system that was eliminated during the war.

I am sending you a copy of the outline of Economics 1 which may interest you. I still regard it as by no means perfect but am more satisfied with it than with what we have had before. We are continuing to have occasional lectures in Economics 1 and during the course of the year I hope that most of the senior members of the staff will give at least one lecture.

Our contract with the Business School for Smith and Butters to teach Burbank’s courses is working out quite as well as I expected. I want to make this a permanent arrangement, but I would not be surprised at some time to see some resistance from the Business School. If we need it, I hope we can rely on your Committee’s support to continue this arrangement.

The defense program has made fewer inroads on the Department than we expected. It is absorbing a good deal of Mason’s sabbatical leave; Dunlop is spending a day or two a week with the Wage Stabilization Board; and I go to Washington for a couple of days a week as a consultant to Charles E. Wilson.

If there is any chance of seeing you during the fall, I would very much appreciate the opportunity. I am regularly in Washington on Thursdays — if you can every bring yourself to visit that unholy city.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Smithies

Enclosure

__________________________

Randall alleges sleight-of-hand by Smithies regarding the Economics 1 reading list.

“Besides their ideological concerns, the Overseers worried about the department’s ability (and desire) to teach undergraduates. [Chairman of the Economics Committee, Clarence B.] Randall fretted that research-obsessed professors were away too much; senior professors avoided teaching lowerclassmen. And he agreed with [President James B.] Conant that the field ‘has reached a point of ethereal content which is as lifeless to me as much…modern poetry. It just doesn’t seem to matter.’ Conant concede that the department ‘has not faced up to the problem of making a real effort ot improve the instruction in the introductory courses in Economics.’ Feeling the pressure, chairman [Professor Arthur] Smithies proposed an extensive plan to strengthen undergraduate teaching. Randall appreciated Conan’s response to his criticisms. He left the visiting committee in the fall of 1952, but not without a final disappointment. He heard that when he asked the chairman for a copy of the Economics A [sic, Principles of Economics last listed as “Economics A” in 1947-48. Beginning 1948-49 it was given the number “Economics 1″ ] reading list, Smithies tore off the first page because he thought that Randall would disapprove of many of the authors (as in all likelihood he would have). ‘I bear no animosity about that,’ Randall told Conant, ‘but it does make me a little heartsick. I am always shocked when I find amongst either professors or preachers ethical practices below the standard prevailing in business.”

Source: Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller, Making Harvard Modern: The Rise of America’s University (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 84-85.

__________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 1. Principles of Economics

Full course. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 12. The major part of the course is conducted in sections. However, throughout the year there will be occasional lectures on Wed. at 12. Mon., Wed., and Fri., will be the normal hour for section meetings but sections will be scheduled at other hours. Professor Smithies and other Members of the Department.

Economics 1 may be taken by properly qualified Freshmen with the consent of the instructor.

Economics 1 is designed to introduce students to the methods of economic analysis that bear on the issues that confront this country and the world. The course will thus serve the needs both of those students who plan no further work in economics and those who desire to obtain the groundwork for more advanced courses in the field.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction, 1951-52 pp. 75-76.

__________________________

Economics 1
Syllabus and Readings
1951-52

[first page begins]

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Fall Term

Sources:

	Bowman and Bach,	Economic Analysis and Public Policy, Second Edition (1949)
**	Clark, J.M.,	Common and Disparate Elements in National Growth and Decline
	Daugherty and Daugherty	Principles of Political Economy, vol. II
		The Midyear Economic Report of the President, July 1951
	Editors of Fortune,	U.S.A. — The Permanent Revolution
*	Gayer, Harriss, and Spencer,	Basic Economics, A Book of Readings
	Hart,	Defense Without Inflation
	Marx,	The Communist Manifesto
	Mill, J. S.,	Principles of Political Economy
*	Morgan, T.,	Introduction to Economics
	Office of Defense Mobilization,	Meeting Defense Goals
	Ruggles, R.,	National Income and Income Analysis
	Schumpeter, J. A.,	The Theory of Economic Development
	Slichter, S.,	The American Economy
**	Spengler, J. J.,	Theories of Socio-Economic Growth
	[“Baumol	Economic Analysis” inserted here]

* To be purchased.
** To be handed out in section meeting.

[end of first page]

ECONOMICS 1
Fall Term

PART I. The American Economy—Its Growth, Complexity, Institutions and Problems

The Growth of the U.S. Economy and Its Present Complexity
1. Change in productivity and income; the increase in population, capital accumulation, and the supply of natural resources.
2. The functions of the economy.
3. The complex division of labor and specialization within the U.S. economy for performing these functions.
4. The role of the price system and market mechanism — the circular flow of economic activity.

Readings:

Slichter, Ch. 1, The American Economy

Gayer, et al., Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 59

Bowman and Bach, Ch. 3, The Economic System — A Summary View; Chapter 4, Private Enterprise, Profits, the Price System

Prerequisites for a Growing Economy
1. Climate and natural resources, attitudes of the population, capital and technology, institutional conditions and systems, etc.
2. Comparisons among different economies

Readings:

Clark, Common and Disparate Elements in National Growth and Decline

Daugherty and Daugherty, Ch. 34, Modern Economic Society

Institutions of an Advanced Industrial Economy
1. Large scale enterprise — the organization of business
2. The organization of labor and agriculture
3. The role of the monetary system and its organization
4. The role of the government

Readings:

Morgan, [Introduction to Economics]

Ch. 4, The Scale and Location of Production

Ch. 5, The Organization of Business

Ch. 6, The Rise of Labor Unions; Social Legislation of the 1930’s

Ch. 7, The Nature of Money

Ch. 8, The Supply of Money

Ch. 9, The Demand for Money

[“Ch. 28” inserted here]

Ch.10, The Control of Money

Ch. 3, Economic Decisions under Laissez-Faire, a Mixed Economy, and Socialism

Editors of Fortune, Ch. 4, The Transformation of American Capitalism

Gayer, et al., Nos. 51, 54, 65 [“, 12” inserted here]

Some Views on Economic Growth
1. The classical economists
2. Schumpeter
3. Marx
4. Other socio-economic views

Readings:

Mill, Vol. II, Bk. IV, Ch. 6, Of the Stationary State

Schumpeter, Ch. 2, The Fundamental Phenomenon of Economic Development

Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Spengler, Theories of Socio-Economic Growth

The Problems of a Growing and Complex Economy
1. Business fluctuations and economic stability
2. Competition and monopoly
3. The distribution of income
4. International problems
5. Economic Power

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 1, Economic Problems and Economic Progress, pp. 3-7

Slichter, Ch. 6, How Good is the American Economy

PART II. Fluctuations in National Income — The Problem of Economic Stability

The Measurement of National Income
1. Components of national income and their statistical measurement.
2. Correcting national income figures for price changes over time — the real national income.

Readings:

Morgan, [Introduction to Economics]

Ch. 25, The National Income

Ch. 26, Fluctuations in the Real National Income: The Problem of Index Numbers

[“Ch. 27 Production & Employment” inserted here]

The Sources of the Expenditures Determining National Income
1. Consumption expenditures.
2. Investment expenditures.
3. Government expenditures.

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 31, The Sources of Expenditure

Fluctuations in National Income
1. The determination of the level of national income.
2. The effect of changes in spending—the multiplier and acceleration effects.
3. Business cycle experience of the past.
4. Counter-cyclical policies
5. The problem of the national debt

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 32, Fluctuations in Production and employment

Ruggles, Ch. 12, Economic Policy and the Level of Activity

Morgan, Ch. 36, Part C, The Burden of Public Debt, pp. 685-696

Gayer, et al., Nos. 81, 85

PART III. Economic Mobilization

1. The pattern of mobilization.
2. Methods of meeting the defense goals.
3. The problem of checking inflation in the mobilization period.

* * * * * * * * * *

[first page begins]

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Spring Term

Sources:

	Allen and Brownlee,	The Economics of Public Finance
	Blakiston Company,	Readings in the Social Control of Industry
	Buchanan and Lutz,	Rebuilding the World Economy
	Dean, J.,	Managerial Economics
	Ellsworth, P. T.	The International Economy
		Federal Budget in Brief, latest available
*	Gayer, Harriss, and Spencer,	Basic Economics, A Book of Readings
	Galbraith, J. K.,	American Capitalism
*	Morgan, T.,	Introduction to Economics
	Peterson, S.,	Economics
	Schumpeter, J. A.,	Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
**	Slichter, S.,	Profits in a Laboristic Society

* To be purchased.
** To be handed out in section meeting.

[end of first page]

ECONOMICS 1
Spring Term

PART IV. Economic Behavior of the Individual

1. The problem of choice — the manner in which the individual will use his services and property to earn income and the way he will allocate his income among consumer goods.
2. The factors influencing his decisions — marginal utility, prices and types of products and services, “conspicuous consumption,” technology, advertising, habit, etc.

Readings:

Peterson, ch. 19, pp. 478-488

Gayer, et al., Nos. 15, 18

PART V. Business Behavior in a Dynamic Economy

Profit-making as the main objective of business enterprises.

The relevance of the time period, liquidity and safety, potential competition, the anti-trust laws, etc., for profit maximizing.

The influence of market structure on the range of decisions by the firm.

Pure competition — agriculture;
Oligopoly or monopolistic competition — industry;
Monopoly — a limiting case.

1. Conditions of product demand — income levels, availability of substitutes, the price and nature of the product, advertising, etc.
2. Sales promotion plane and product improvement strategy — research.
3. Investment decisions — choosing the best plant size and operating it in the most efficient manner.
4. Pricing policies.
5. Labor relations.

The interactions of such decisions among business firms in a dynamic economy.
The effectiveness of business behavior in satisfying consumer demand, allocating resources, and stimulating growth.

Readings:

Dean, Ch. 1, Sections 1, 2, 4, 5

Morgan, Chs. 12, 11, 15, 16

Dean, Ch. 7

Schumpeter, Ch. 8

Gayer, et al., Nos. 20, 21, 26

Public Programs of Promotion and Control of Business.
1. The historical development of government regulation.
2. The anti-trust approach.
3. Public utility regulation.
4. Government sponsored restraints of competition.
5. Evaluation of government regulation.

Readings:

Gayer, et al., No. 35

Morgan, Ch. 17

Readings in the Social Control of Industry, Ch. 1

Gayer, et al., Nos. 34, 38

PART VI. The Division of the National Income among the Major Groups

1. The facts on distribution — past and present.
2. The manner in which demand and supply factors affect the income of the means of production.
3. The study of these elements in the determination of wages, rents, interest, and profits.
4. Interactions among prices, profits, wages and property incomes in a dynamic, industrial economy.
5. The influence of the government on the distributive shares.

Readings:

Morgan, Chs. 23, 18-22

Gayer, et al., Nos. 42, 41

Slichter, Profits in a Laboristic Society

Galbraith, Chs. 9-11, 14

Gayer, et al., Nos. 44, 50, 88 (Henry George)

PART VII. The International Economy

1. The development of the world economy.
2. The breakdown of the world economy.
3. Reconstructing the world-economy-post-war problems and policies.

Readings:

Buchanan and Lutz, Ch. 1

Morgan, Ch. 38

Ellsworth, The International Economy, Ch. 5, 111-120 or

International Economics, Ch. 2

Gayer, et al., Nos., 100-102, 104, 105

PART VIII. Government Finance and Fiscal Problems

Revenues and Expenditures of the Government
1. The historical change in the role of the government.
2. The structure of the Federal Budget.
3. Financing expenditures from sources of taxation — types of taxes, who pays them, and their effects on the economy.
4. The use of government borrowing to finance expenditures. Should we have an annual balanced budget? What is the burden of the National Debt.
5. The role of the government as a credit agency.

Readings:

Allen and Brownlee, Ch. 1

Morgan, Ch. 24

Federal Budget in Brief.

Gayer, et al., Nos. 89, 90, 92, 95

PART IX. The Prospects and Fundamental Problems of the American Economy

1. The problems of economic growth, economic stability, competition and monopoly, the distribution of income, and international economic relations.
2. How can these problems best be met within the framework of democratic capitalism?

Readings:

To be assigned later.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 5, Folder “Economics, 1951-1952 (1 of 2)”.

__________________________

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Mid-Year Examination, January 1952]

(Three hours)

Answer FIVE of the following SEVEN questions. Divide your time equally among each of the FIVE questions.

“Although Schumpeter was influenced to a great extent by Marx’s ideas, his views of capitalistic development differed in many basic respects from those of Marx.”
Develop the major points of similarity and difference of their theories of the process of capitalistic development.
Define Gross National Product and National Income. Discuss some of the conceptual and statistical problems in measuring these economic aggregates including the difficulty of comparing Gross National Product at different times. Comment upon the usefulness of these concepts as measures of economic growth.
Economic growth in the United States has been accompanied by bigness in business, labor, finance, and government. Should this concentration movement be regarded as inevitable in the process of capitalistic development? In your opinion has this trend towards bigness interfered with economic growth or accelerated it?
(a) What powers does the Federal Reserve System have to combat inflationary and deflationary movements in the level of economic activity? Explain the manner in which the application of each measure is designed to influence the economy.
(b) How has Treasury financing policy during the last decade interfered with the usefulness of these powers as a means of economic control?
Discuss the behavior and interactions of consumption and investment expenditures as Gross National Product fluctuates over the course of the business cycle.
“The Mobilization People seem to have two main goals – to maintain stability, i.e., prevent prices from rising, and to increase production. They are both laudable objectives by themselves. But those Washington bureaucrats don’t seem to realize they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They try to maintain stability by high taxes plus price and resource controls. Yet these are the very measures which strangle the businessman and take away his incentive to increase production. I say, forget the controls. American production in a free economy will achieve both goals.”
Discuss the issues raised in this statement and, in so doing, suggest the kind of economic policies that you think will best meet our mobilization needs as presently conceived by the federal government.
What in your opinion are the main factors which account for the different rates of growth in real income per capita at different periods of history and in various areas of the world.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28). Vol. 90 Final Exams [in] Social Sciences, January 1952.

__________________________

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Year-end Examination, May 1952]

PART I
(One hour)
Answer (a) and (b)

(a) Assuming perfect knowledge and the desire to maintain profits, explain briefly the manner in which the price and output of a commodity are determined (1), under purely competitive conditions and (2) under conditions of pure monopoly.
(b) How relevant and useful are these theories in adequately explaining business behavior:

(1) under industry conditions in which competitors are few and products differentiated,
(2) when short-run profit maximization may impair the long-run profit position, and
(3) in accounting for the phenomenon of innovation and company policy toward expansion.

PART II
(Two hours)
Answer any FOUR questions. Each will be counted equally.

“The failure of traditional economic analysis to develop a theory of profits which links them to economic growth has in some ways resulted in an unrealistic anti-monopoly program.” Discuss.
In what ways are wages related to the marginal productivity of labor? How does collective bargaining influence wages and employment?
“Equality is a good thing, but so are rising living standards and greater opportunity.”
To what extent do you think attempts to redistribute income are compatible with policies promoting economic growth? In your answer be careful to distinguish types of redistributive measures and their various effects.
This year every presidential candidate is faced with the need for advancing a tax and expenditure program. As a citizen what economic issues would you want a candidate to cover and what criteria would you employ in evaluating his program?
Answer (a) or (b).

(a) “We shall never have a sound system of international trade until we return to the Gold Standard.” Discuss critically the reasoning underlying this statement, particularly with regard to its implications as to the compatibility of domestic stability and international equilibrium.

(b) “Events in the past fifty years have seen the rise of the United States to a position of dominance in international trade. Yet it may be questioned whether we are willing to accept the responsibilities which our role in the world economy entails.”
Evaluate the statement in the light of the development of United States foreign economic policy in recent years.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28). Vol. 93 Final Exams [in] Social Sciences, June 1952.

Images Sources: Smithies from From Harvard Class Album 1952;
Portrait of Trustee of the University of Chicago, Clarence B. Randall, from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03000-082, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags RandallCB, Smithies

Faculty Regulations Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

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

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

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

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

________________________

C.V. from Harvard’s records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags Ashley

Economics Programs M.I.T. Undergraduate

M.I.T. Economics department committee (re-)organization. 1976-78

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-05-19

During my second year in graduate school at M.I.T. (1975-76), the economics department professors were engaged in a discussion about reforming the administration of their department. At the time I was completely unaware of this discussion that had been provoked by the following memorandum written by then Department Head, Professor E. Cary Brown, based on his experience with the growing overload of administrative chores and responsibilities in a department with the scale of that attained by M.I.T.’s economics department.

Brown’s memo to the faculty is followed by a transcription of a copy of the letter Brown wrote to Robert Solow, who as an administrative reorganization committee member, must have been asked for some further testimony. The entire committee’s (Peter A. Diamond, Stanley Fischer, Jerry Hausman, Paul Joskow, Robert M. Solow) report was completed two months after Brown’s memo. In the same departmental file from the M.I.T. archives, one finds a copy of the actual assignment of administrative responsibilities for the academic year 1977/78.

Many, if not most, of the administrative tasks had been allocated and faithfully executed before this “reorganization”. I know that Evsey Domar had long been covering the placement of new Ph.D.’s and also proudly serving as the departmental representative for library-related affairs. I sense reading these documents that the truly neglected child all along was the undergraduate program for which some arm-twisting was required to achieve equitable burden-sharing among the faculty. But perhaps there were other specific items that had been sore points too. Maybe Brown simply wanted an explicit organization chart to forestall “whataboutism” from the mouths of relatively uncooperative colleagues. But like I wrote above, this was a discussion that was invisible to me (appropriately so) at the time.

Cf. The committee assignments in the Harvard economics department during the 1972-73 academic year.

__________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

March 12, 1976

Economics Department Faculty

Dear [blank]

For some time I have become increasingly dismayed at the increase in the administrative burden in the Department, and now find the present job as Head to be a nearly impossible one. If the job is to be made tolerable, it must have substantial additional faculty support in some form to cut it down to a scope manageable either by me or a successor.

There are two basic ways that this can be achieved: (1) by spreading the administrative activities and responsibilities more widely among the faculty; or (2) placing these tasks on essentially an associate departmental head, whose precise title could take various forms Executive Officer, Academic Officer (e.g., Tony French in Physics), or Associate Head. I personally would favor the Associate Head route, but regard it as an open question subject to further discussion and consideration, and to Administration approval. This new structure should be treated as an experiment, to last no longer than until the next Head is chosen, and to be reconsidered at that time.

My own thinking about the administrative tasks of the Department separates them into four major areas: undergraduate programs, graduate programs, research programs, and personnel and budgeting. While these can be headed by an administrator or by faculty, it seems to me that the first two programs should have formal faculty control regardless of the form the administrative reorganization takes. The graduate program nearly has that form now and largely runs itself, with the exception of a few odds and ends that now lie outside the responsibility of the graduate registration officers. The undergraduate program is a long way from this structure and will require a good deal of imagination, initiative and effort to resuscitate the Undergraduate Economics Association and provide more guidance and support for majors. The research programs (student and faculty) focus more or less clearly under the Committee on Economic Research. Personnel and budgeting are an administrative responsibility. They have involved increasing amounts of time as budgets have tightened, space has tightened, and the search for new faculty has expanded.

The administrative structure is an important matter to the Department. Because it involves departmental administration and the role of the Department Head, it concerns the Administration through Dean Hanham. He has asked me to appoint the following committee to consider these questions of reorganization and to make recommendations: Bob Solow, Peter Diamond, Stan Fischer, Paul Joskow, and Jerry Hausman. Please give your views to members of the committee as soon as you can.

Sincerely,
[signed “Cary”]
E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/sc

__________________________

Brown to Solow

March 16, 1976

Professor Robert Solow
E52-383

Dear Bob:

I shrink from making organization charts, but the following diagram is intended to give some idea of the orders of magnitude of faculty involvement in departmental chores.

Chairman, Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Faculty counselors (we have agreed with the UEA to keep members to 10 or less, and let faculty build up expertise by staying adviser for freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior year).

—10 faculty: 2 for each class. 4 for seniors

Faculty adviser for humanities concentration in economics (advises and signs up students); also considers the eligibility of economics subjects, what we consider concentration, etc.
Closely related to (2) is possible membership on the so-called Humanities Committee that approves and reviews the whole Humanities, Arts, and Social Science requirement and program. (We have no one on this year but as the largest concentration will surely need to have a presence.)
Approval of transfer of credits from other schools to M.I.T.
Advising with Undergraduate Economic Association in matters academic, professional, social.
Undergraduate placement, while an Institute responsibility, could be supervised and assisted by a faculty member who would keep up to date on summer placement, interning possibilities, salaries. The experience our students have applying to graduate schools, actual jobs offered and taken.
Design of curriculum, cooperative program, etc.
Various activities, such as providing information to undergraduates in their choice of major (Midway in fall, seminar in spring), Open House activities, Alumni activities, etc.
Relations with other Departments at undergraduate level, such as subject offerings, subject content, etc.
Supervision and staffing of undergraduate subjects with multiple sections — 14.001, 14.002, 14.03, 14.04, 14.06, 14.30, 14.31.
Catalog copy.

Chairman, Committee on Graduate Studies

Graduate Registration Officers, so far one each for first two years, and one for thesis writers. Has been suggested that we have an additional adviser for foreign students and minority and women?
Admissions Committee has, in the past, had three members.
Placement, both summer and permanent.
Supervision of core subjects.
Ph.D. and M.S. requirements, program, size.
Financial aid — coordinating various GRO; Admissions Committee, and Budget limitations.
Graduate School Policy Committee meetings.
Annual revision of brochure.
Graduate Economics Association, Black Graduate Economics Association.
Catalog copy.
Various activities — professional and social that are not contained within a particular class.

Chairman, Committee on Economic Research (I faculty)

Organized list of faculty projects requiring research assistants and the supply of them (both graduate and undergraduate). Assignment of R.A.’s.
Assistance in research proposals.
Inventory of internships and off-campus research.
Supervision of unscheduled subjects, such as UROP, Undergraduate Seminar, and thesis.
Supervision of M.I.T. Working Paper Series.
Allocation of computer funds, developing rules, developing alternative sources.

Personnel and Budgeting (Administrative Officer and a large chunk of my time)

Personnel
1. Nonfaculty is supervised by the Administrative Officer.
2. Faculty Personnel

(1) Employment — new Ph.D.’s and senior faculty
(2) Review and promotion
(3) Assignments, leaves, research

1. Postdoctoral personnel
Space allocations, revisions.
Budget Proposals
a. Proposals
b. Implementation

Telephone
Xerox & Ditto
Supplies
Equipment

There may be other matters that I am leaving out – routine meetings average probably a day a week, and things like that. Consultations with faculty, students, and other Departments, would probably add a couple more days.

If there are questions, I’ll oblige, of course.

Sincerely,
E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/sc

__________________________

MEMORANDUM

May 10, 1976

TO: Department Faculty
FROM: Committee on Reorganization (PAD, SF, JH, PJ, RMS) [Peter A. Diamond, Stanley Fischer, Jerry Hausman, Paul Joskow, Robert M. Solow]

SUBJECT: Reorganization

ECB’s [E. Cary Brown] letter of March 12, which created this committee, starts from the premise that the administrative burden on the Department Head has become essentially impossible. This seems clearly to be the case. It has happened because the department has increased in size and complexity without any corresponding adaptation of its administrative arrangements. Every new function has fallen into the Head’s lap. (Top that, anyone.) Apart from the sheer burden of work thus created, another problem is the difficulty of communications, because that is also time-consuming.

After some palaver and negotiation, we have a reorganizational package to suggest. It rests on two conditions; since it is something of an interconnected web, it will probably unravel if the two conditions can not be met. (1) Since the only way to correct an excessively centralized structure is to decentralize it, we propose to diffuse administrative responsibility more widely through the department; there will be at least one serious administrative post for everyone, or perhaps two minor posts instead, but everyone will have to participate. (2) The administrative load attached to the undergraduate program has increased with the size of the enrollment and the improvement of the curriculum; no one wants to manage an inadequately staffed program. We propose, therefore, that the normal teaching load for everyone in the department be agreed to be half graduate and half undergraduate teaching. This definition should be extended to everyone on the departmental budget: joint appointees, visiting professors, etc. As soon as there are a couple of exceptions to this understanding, there will be more. Then the management of the undergraduate program will break down, and it will revert or default to the Department Head, and that is what we are trying to stave off.

The particular organization we have in mind is as follows.

The central functions (budgeting, space, leaves, relations with the MIT hierarchy, etc.) will be in the hands of the Department Head and an Associate Head namely PAD [Peter A. Diamond]). In addition, one of them (probably ECB [E. Cary Brown]) will be an ex officio member of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies to be proposed below, and the other will be an ex officio member of the Committee on Graduate Studies. The precise division of labor is obviously a matter of taste; for the moment, ECB [E. Cary Brown] will probably do most of the relations with the MIT structure and PAD [Peter A. Diamond] will concentrate on intra-departmental matters.
There will be a Director of Undergraduate Studies (PT [Peter Temin]), who will be chairman of a Committee on Undergraduate Studies (with 2 or 3 additional members, possibly RD [Rudiger Dornbusch], PJ [Paul Joskow] and one other). This committee will be responsible for revisions of the undergraduate curriculum adding and subtracting subjects, staffing them, degree requirements, etc. In recent discussions with the Undergraduate Economics Association, the proposal has merged that there should be a larger number of Undergraduate Advisors (i.e., registration officers) than there is now, with each taking care of at most 10 students. That suggests we would need about 8 such advisors. The members of the Committee might serve as advisors, plus others. Merely serving as registration officer for 10 undergraduates is by itself not an onerous job.
There seems to be no need for change in the organization of graduate studies in the department. We suggest that there be a Director of Graduate Studies (RSE [Richard S. Eckaus]) and a Committee on Graduate Studies which would, as now, consist of the other two Graduate Registration Officers. Things are going very well now with REH [Robert E. Hall] handling the first-year students. MJP [Michael J. Piore] the second-year students and RSE [Richard S. Eckaus] the thesis-writers. REH [Robert E. Hall] is prepared to take on the task or devising a scheme to keep track of post-generals students, and see that they find themselves a reasonable thesis topic in a reasonable amount of time. The scheme may need another person to look after it.
We suggest the creation of Committee on Staffing whose functions would include looking after the hiring of assistant professors, the dovetailing of visiting professors with faculty leaves, and the rationing of visiting scholars. The picture we have is that the members of committee would do the interviewing and preliminary screening of new Ph.D.’s at the annual meetings, and decide which of them to invite to come and give seminars. At that stage and thereafter, the whole department faculty would be in on the act, and final decisions would be made, as they are now, in a department meeting. The main time-consumer for this committee would be the correspondence in connection with hiring. Since that would fall on the Chairman, that post would be a major one. For the other members of the committee, the burden would be relatively light. We suggest REH [Robert E. Hall] as chairman, plus perhaps 3 others.
There seems to be no reason to change the way the Admissions Committee now functions.
We see no need for major change in the Placement process. Our only suggestion are (a) perhaps to provide EDD [Evsey D. Domar] with another person to share the load, and (b) to have a pre-season department meeting, analogous to the post-generals meeting, at which each graduate student entering the market could be discussed by the full facuIty, and information and ideas collected.
There are other details. RLB [Robert L. Bishop] is functioning as advisor to MIT undergraduates thinking about economics as part of their Humanities requirement, and we are happy to preserve that human capital. MAA [Morris A. Adelman] who has been our representative to CGSP is to begin a term on the CEP, which should count as a major administrative burden. We need his successor on CGSP.

One last point: we hope that each committee chairman will promptly send a written notice of each substantive decision to the Head and Associate Head for distribution to the department faculty, so that communications are well looked after. That plus rational expectations should do the trick.

Source: MIT Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records. Box 2, Folder “Department Organization”.

__________________________

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES:
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT 1977-78

UNDERGRADUATE COMMITTEE

Chairman:	Peter Temin
Members:	Cary Brown	Senior Faculty Counsellor, Ex Officio
	Jerry Rothenberg	Senior Faculty Counsellor
	Peter Temin	Senior Faculty Counsellor
	Rudiger Dornbusch	Junior Faculty Counsellor
	Jeffrey Harris	Junior Faculty Counsellor
	Jagdish Bhagwati	Sophomore Faculty Counsellor (Fall)
	Henry Farber	Sophomore Faculty Counsellor (Spring)

Summer Jobs: Jeffrey Harris
Humanities Adviser: Robert Bishop
Transfer of Credits: Cary Brown

GRADUATE COMMITTEE

Chairman:	Richard Eckaus	Thesis, Graduate Registration Officer
Members:	Paul Joskow/Mike Piore	Second Year Graduate Registration Officer
	Marty Weitzman	First Year Graduate Registration Officer
	Jerome Rothenberg	CGSP Representative
	Stan Fischer, Ex Officio

Admissions Committee:

Chairman: Robert Bishop
Members: Frank Fisher and Lance Taylor

Placement: Evsey Domar
Harvard-MIT Theory Seminar: Eric Maskin
Theory Workshop: Kevin Roberts

OTHER DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Staffing Committee: Chairman: Rudiger Dornbusch

(For New Ass’t Profs.) Members:

Paul Joskow
Jerry Hausman
Stan Fischer, Ex Officio
(Added for Temporary Visitors: Robert Solow)

Independent Activity Period: Jeffrey Harris/Marilyn Simon
Unstructured Subjects Committee: Peter Temin, Undergraduate; Richard Eckaus, Graduate
Computer Allocation: Richard Eckaus

ADDENDUM: INSTITUTE COMMITTEES

CEP: Morris Adelman
Associate Chairman of the Faculty: Michael Piore
Visual Arts: Jerry Rothenberg
Library System, Chairman: Evsey Domar

Image Source: For this portrait of members of the M.I.T. economics department in 1975 see the Economics in the Rear-view Mirror post that provides identifications.

Tags Adelman, Bhagwati, Bishop, BrownEC, Diamond, Domar, Dornbusch, Eckaus, Farber, Fischer, FisherFM, HallR, HarrisJE, Hausman, Joskow, Maskin, Piore, RobertsK, Rothenberg, Solow, TaylorLD, Temin, Weitzman

Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1946-47 to 1949-50

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-04-18

This post adds the Chair’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the early post-WW II years to previously posted reports for 1932-33 through 1945-46.

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics.

1932-1941

1941-1946

___________________________

1946-1947

September 29, 1947

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year 1946-47.

This report necessarily follows much the same pattern as the report for last year. Again our work has been dominated by the number of students, undergraduate and graduate, and the lack of a trained junior staff.

The number of undergraduates of course is entirely so beyond our control. In Economies A and in most of our “middle group” courses, the elections taxed our capacity for effective instruction. Under the most propitious conditions the crowded classrooms would have presented many problems but with a dearth of trained teaching fellows and annual instructors the load carried by the senior staff was unduly heavy. Foreseeing this range of problems, the Department voted on February 19, 1946 [sic, 1947 probably correct. In December 1946 departments wereallowed to withdraw from offering tutorials] to suspend tutorial instruction for a period of two years. It may be stated here that this was probably a wise decision. Concentration in Economics appears to have resumed the trend apparent before the war. In the current year the number of concentrators will approach, or perhaps exceed 800. Even should no consideration be given to the expenditure involved, the possibility of finding and training effective tutors even for honors candidates seems somewhat remote.

On the graduate level the problems of instruction were even more difficult. During the year the number of graduate students receiving instruction was approximately 286. Our course offering on this level is large. Nevertheless, the principal graduate courses were crowded to a point where the maintenance of standards was difficult. After the graduate student has completed his preliminary program and has been accepted as a candidate for the Ph.D, degree, the instruction is largely individual. In the last year we were just coming into the situation where a considerable proportion of the students were receiving such instruction. The full impact of this situation will be felt in the current year. Most members of the senior staff will be directing the theses of some 10 to 15 students. Some officers will be responsible for even larger numbers. With the numbers we are attempting to handle on the graduate level the single task of examining candidates in the general and special examinations becomes a major consideration. During the last academic year the staff conducted general and special examinations. Such an amount of examining and of individual instruction on the graduate level has its bearing on tutorial instruction for undergraduates.

The Department voted to accept the large number of graduate students now on our rolls only after considerable investigation and discussion. It is my own personal opinion that we have set our limit altogether too high. However, the pressure upon us for admission has been very strong and our obligations to the Littauer School, where the pressure is hardly less, just be observed.

This matter of the size of the Graduate School in the immediate future is one of our most difficult problems. It will receive our attention in the current year.

In the last two or three years these reports have noted certain experiments in instruction, especially in connection with Economics A. Such experiments are dependent upon the presence of a considerable number of able and mature young men with adequate teaching experience, as well as upon a margin of free time. Both of these factors are lacking to such a degree that substantial and outstanding progress could not be expected but the plans were active and some progress was made.

If full tutorial instruction is not resumed by the Department, experimentation in undergraduate courses is imperative and this we have planned. It is our expectation that a good deal in the way of individual guidance can be accomplished in connection with Economics A and some of our middle group courses. We believe that we can make our instruction more efficient with a much smaller personnel and at much less expense than the tutorial system would involve. However, a definitive decision has not been reached on all of these matters.

It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the heavy instructional demands discussed above affected our research projects. Furthermore, the officers of this Department are severely handicapped by the lack of research funds. This dearth of research funds is a question which has been placed before our Visiting Committee.

In spite of the difficulties involved, the contributions of the members of the Department were substantial. The following books were published:

Teoria de la Competencie Monopolica, by E. H. Chamberlin, Mexico, 1946. (Spanish translation of The Theory of Monopolistic Competition)

Economic Policy and Full Employment, by A. H. Hansen. McGraw-Hill. 1947.

The New Economics, S. B. Harris, editor and contributor Knopf. 1947.

The National Debt and the New Economics, by S. E. Harris. 1947.

Income and Employment, by T. Morgan. Prentice-Hall. 1947.

New enlarged edition of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, by J. A. Schumpeter.

The Challenge of Industrial Relations, by S. H. Slichter, Cornell University Press, 1947.

Postwar Monetary Plans and other Essays, by J. Williams. Knopf, 3rd edition. 1947.

articles were published.

Although we are able to record only one new volume and one republication of an older volume in the Harvard Economic Series for the past year, four other volumes are in the hands of the printer and will appear in the current year.

In the area of distinctions or honors, I believe the only items to be noted concern Dean Edward S. Mason. Last spring he was appointed Economic Advisor to Secretary of State Marshall at the Moscow Conference. In July he was appointed a member of President Truman’s Committee on Foreign Aid.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck

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

___________________________

1947-1948

September 30, 1948

Dear Provost Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year 1947-48.

The report on the work of the Department for the last year can be given in part in the same terms that have been employed in the last three reports. Our major problems have been quantitative and have presented the same difficulties that were emphasized in the other post-war reports. However, we believe that the last year did reach the peak of the load and that the pressure of numbers will abate steadily. The problem of building and maintaining an effective junior staff was hardly less than in the preceding years. Crowded classrooms and insufficiently trained assistants imposed unduly severe burdens upon the senior teachers responsible for course instruction. Some improvement, especially in the middle group courses, is in prospect for the coming year but it is probable that two to three years more will be necessary before these courses will be adequately staffed. In the introductory course which relies heavily upon a large number of young instructors and teaching fellows, the situation is still serious but latterly we have been able to utilize young men with more satisfactory preparation and training. Because of the heavy demands for the services of these young men by other institutions, the turnover is large leaving us each year with a relatively inexperienced staff.

Graduate instruction continues to make unusual demands upon the time and energy of the senior staff. During the past year we conducted 109 general examinations and 26 special examinations. Examining and the related task of directing the research of candidates for the higher degrees undoubtedly have an incidence upon undergraduate instruction which raises questions of fundamental importance. It is encouraging that the number of graduate students is, through the action of the Department, declining.

In spite of the difficulties presented by the numbers of undergraduates and graduates, the Department, perhaps belatedly, has given particular consideration to its commitments in the Areas and in General Education. A report on General Education is enclosed.

Also, the Department has considered at length and in detail various problems of instruction, particularly undergraduate instruction. These considerations will be continued in the current year. By completely revising the content of our basic courses it may be possible to increase the effectiveness of our instruction and reduce somewhat the number of courses offered. A preliminary report on this aspect of our work is included.

A year ago I noted that many of our senior officers were handicapped severely by the lack of research funds. As you know, it can now be recorded with sincere satisfaction that a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and that several projects under the auspices of the Research Marketing Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Charles H. Hood Dairy Foundation, the Ferguson Foundation Fund, and the Carnegie Corporation Fund, meet the situation effectively for some of our officers. The set-up of these projects promises not only to be of great value to the professors in charge of the research but it contributes heavily to the training of our most promising graduate students and younger officers.

The following books were published by members of the Department:

How Shall We Pay for Education? by Seymour Harris. Harpers.

Stabilization Subsidies by Seymour Harris. Historical Report Series, U.S. Gov’t.

Price Control of International Commodities by Seymour Harris. Archives Volume, Historical Records Office.

International Monetary Policies, by Gottfried Haberler (with Lloyd Metzler and Robert Triffin). Postwar Economic Series, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors.

Problemas de Conjuntura e de Politica Economica, by Gottfried Haberler. Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janiero.

Production in the United States, 1866-1914, by Edwin Frickey. Harvard University Press.

Seventy-eight articles have been published. Three books were published in the Harvard Economic Series during the past year. Five volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year.

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin has been appointed to succeed Dr. Arthur B. Monroe as Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Both the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics are well established intellectually and financially. With the demands of instruction and research, the editing of the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as the direction of the Harvard Economic Series, raises questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions or honors, Professor Joseph A. Schumpeter was chosen to be President of the American Economic Association for 1948. Dean Edward S. Mason was awarded an honorary degree, D. Litt, from Williams College, June, 1948.

Very sincerely,
H. H. Burbank

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

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

___________________________

1948-1949

September 28, 1949

Dear Provost Buck:

The pattern of the report of the Department of Economics on the work of the last year is essentially the same as the other reports for the post-war years. Indeed, not a little of the introduction to the report of a year ago could be utilized in the current report. The quantitative side of our work has been among our major problems. I think I was correct in predicting that the peak of the load would be passed in 1948-49. For the year 1949-50, numbers, particularly on the graduate level, will be approximately less although the total is still beyond the capacities of our senior staff.

Again I can repeat that the problem of building and maintaining a junior staff presents great difficulties. We have strengthened our position on the level of the assistant professor but we are unable to hold our most promising young Ph.D’s for appointment at the instructor level. All of our undergraduate instruction suffers because of this factor, but Economics 1 (the introductory course) is affected particularly. The demand for these young men by other institutions continues at a high level resulting in a high rate of turnover and leaving us sech year with a relatively inexperienced staff. [end of p. 1]

[Note: need to replace unfocussed image of page 2]

[p. 3 begins ] …expectation that we will be able to revise our general examination effectively.

In the post-war years the Department has been striving to meet its obligations to General Education and to the areas. We believe that we have made an excellent beginning in both General Education and in the Russian Area. We are still actively engaged in the attempt to strengthen our position in the Chinese Area. This is exceedingly difficult but I believe that some progress is being made.

Last year we were able to record with great satisfaction that some research projects were being established satisfactorily. These projects under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation and under the auspices of various groups interested in agriculture and marketing are now going forward successfully and up proving to be important for us not only as research projects but also because of their general effect upon a relatively large group of our graduate students. We can now give a type of training to our most promising men which would have been impossible without such projects. It should be emphasized at this point that other areas of interest need research funds.

The following books were published:

Collective Bargaining: Principles and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1949, by John I. Dunlop.

Labor in Norway by Walter Galenson. Harvard University Press, 1949.

Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, by Alvin Hansen McGraw-Hill, 1949.

The European Recovery Program, by Seymour E. Harris. Harvard University Press.

Foreign Economic Policy for the U.S., edited by Seymour E. Harris, Harvard University Press.

Price Control of International Commodities, by Seymour E. Harris. Archives Volume for Historical Records Office.

Saving American Capitalism, edited by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Economic Planning, by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Post-war Monetary Plans and Other Essays, by John H. Williams. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

The American Economy, Its Problems and Prospects, by Sumner H. Slichter. Knopf.

There were 62 articles published by members of the Department during the past year. Five books were published in the Harvard Economic Studies and two volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year. There has been a total of 86 books published in the Harvard Economic Studies to this date.

It should be recorded that both the Quarterly Journal of Economics under the editorship of Professor Chamberlin and the Review of Economics and Statistics have prospered during the year. Again I do feel it necessary to refer to the fact that editing the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics and the carrying forward of the Harvard Economic Studies continues to raise questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions and honors, Professor Slichter was awarded honorary degrees (LL.D.) from the following universities: Lehigh University, Harvard University, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin and Northwestern University. Professor

Haberler was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Economics (“Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaft honoris causa”) from Handelshochschule, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Dr. Galbraith was awarded the President’s Certificate of Merit, Medal of Merit Board, for services in Price Control and Economic Stabilization during the war.

Sincerely
[Harold H. Burbank]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

___________________________

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

In each of the reports for the last three years, emphasis has been placed upon two matters; our efforts to handle the increased numbers incident to the war, particularly on the graduate level, and our attempts to revise and improve our instruction, particularly on the undergraduate level.

With a good deal of satisfaction we are able to report that for the last year substantial progress has been made in each of these areas. Immediately after the war the number of our graduate students increased from approximately 100 to nearly 300. By raising the standards of admission and giving the most careful scrutiny to applications, the numbers on the graduate level are now well under 200, and will be reduced somewhat more for 1950-51.

The work of supervising and directing graduate students falls very unevenly upon the various members of the senior staff. Even with not over 150 graduate students some members of the staff will carry an inordinate part of individual instruction and of examining for the higher degrees. Further, large graduate classes tend to dilute the instruction.

On the undergraduate level the Department has revised its requirements for concentration, including the content of many of our key courses. This plan has been accepted by the Faculty and is now in operation. It is an ambitious scheme that involves not only a change in the content and coverage of our key courses but it also involves the strengthening the staff in these courses and an integration of course work with tutorial work. Undoubtedly it will take some years to complete this plan. Much depends upon our ability to build a strong junior staff, especially on the annual instructor level. When this reorganized instruction is in full operation it is expected that a number of courses now offered for undergraduates may be deleted.

Also it is with a good deal of satisfaction that after a period of suspension tutorial instruction has been reestablished and is developing steadily. The period of suspension was unfortunate but probably inevitable. We are now approaching a position with respect to both graduate and undergraduate instruction that at least approximates a normal situation, with a possibility of a carefully planned and well integrated system of undergraduate instruction. As a part of this plan increased attention has been given to reestablishing the General Examinations on something approximating the level of earlier years. Since we are lacking experienced tutors the establishment of tutorial instruction is a very real task but it is believed it can be done successfully.

We have been fortunate to have been able to attract to the Graduate School a group of unusually able young men. The very top of this group represents ability of the very highest order. Unfortunately only rarely can we retain the services of these young men even on the assistant professor level. However, the Department is keenly aware of the difficulties it faces in recruitment and every effort is being made to follow the progress of the product of other schools as well as the progress of our own young scholars.

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

___________________________

1949-1950

January 5, 1951

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

I am now somewhat belatedly submitting the report of the Department of Economics for 1949-50.

I. Undergraduate Instruction

Four hundred eighty-two Harvard and Radcliffe students concentrated in economics in 1949-50 as compared with 608 in the previous year. The enrolment in Economics 1 was 402 as compared with 546 in the previous year. Seventy-seven students graduated with honors; 20 obtaining magna cum laude and 57 cum laude.

The entire senior staff gave courses at the undergraduate level— a practice that distinguishes Harvard sharply from institutions such as Columbia and Chicago which restrict the activities of some of the most talented members of the staff to graduate instruction. Nevertheless, the strength of our undergraduate teaching has depended very largely on the unusually fine group of assistant professors we now have on our staff.

During the past couple of years the Department has been gradually moving toward restoration of the tutorial system and last spring it decided finally to give tutorial instruction to all honors students in their junior and senior years,

II. Graduate Instruction

Two hundred graduate students in economics were in residence last year as compared with 234 the previous year. The Department gave 58 general examinations for the Ph.D. and 47 special examinations.

The number of graduate students is still too large to handle effectively with the present staff. The students themselves justifiably complain that they cannot see enough of the members of the faculty. However if they did see as much of the faculty as they wanted to, the faculty would have little time for reading and research and the quality of instruction would decline. We are planning to deal with this problem as far as possible by making sure that more graduate students attend reasonably small seminars and do have an opportunity to get to know at least one faculty member reasonably well.

I believe that the quality of our graduate work has suffered through overemphasis on course work and preoccupation with grades. We tend to make graduate instruction too much of a prolongation of undergraduate instruction. We also tend too much in the direction of specialization and provide too little encouragement for students to become coordinated in the whole economic field. The remedy for this state of affairs depends more upon the general attitude of the Department rather than any specific measures of reorganization. We shall do whatever is possible to encourage students in the feeling that their main function here is to acquire the maturity that is essential for scholarship rather than to accumulate a collection of pieces of isolated information.

III. Research

Professors Mason, Leontief, Black, Galbraith and Dunlop are all conducting organized research projects within the Department. Apart from their substantive value, these projects give a considerable number of graduate students an opportunity to take part in organized research activity. I believe these projects have an important part to play in the future of the Department as a whole rather than as special interests of individual members. However, I do not share the view that most of our intellectual activities should be directed towards organized research. There is danger that we may become a research bureaucracy and that the merits of individual scholarship may achieve less recognition than they deserve. While the research project is invaluable in training the students in specialized activity, it does little to cultivate the maturity that should be one of the most important products of our graduate training.

IV. The Staff of the Department

Professor Schumpeter’s death has meant a loss to the Department that cannot be covered by any individual that we now have on the staff or could get from the outside. The only way to make up for his absence is for the present members of the faculty to direct part of their attention to the aspects of economic thought in which Schumpeter was particularly interested. This has in part been done. I think it is true to say that since Schumpeter’s death his own work has received more attention in Harvard classrooms than it received while he was alive.

The only new additions to the to the staff at the professorial level in 1949-50 were assistant professors Orcutt and Sawyer. Orcutt is giving a course at the graduate level and the undergraduate level on empirical economies in which he stresses the quantitative aspects of economic theory. He is also a first-class statistician. Since the resignation of Professor Crum we have had only one professional statistician in the Department, and it seems highly desirable to have at least two. Sawyer will add considerable strength to the Department’s work in economic history although he will spend half of his time in the General Education program.

**VI. [sic] Distinctions**

Members of the Department received the following distinctions:

Professor Edward Chamberlin — An honorary degree (Dr.) awarded by the Universita Catholica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. December 1949.

Professor Sumner Slichter — President, Industrial Relations Research Association.

Professor Gottfried Haberler — President, International Economic Association for 1950 (held by Professor Schumpeter at the time of his death).

I am attaching a bibliography of the writings of the members of the Department. [not included in this folder]

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Smithies

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

Images Source: Burbank (left) from the Harvard Class Album 1946, Smithies (right) from the Harvard Class Album 1952.

Tags BlackJD, Burbank, Chamberlin, Crum, Dunlop, Frickey, Galbraith, Haberler, Hansen, Harris, Leontief, Mason, Metzler, Monroe, Orcutt, SawyerJ, Schumpeter, Slichter, Smithies, Triffin, WilliamsJH

Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Student Class Debate on Impact of Protection on Wages. Taussig, 1889

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-04-15

From the Harvard Crimson archive a chance discovery of the student debate briefs on whether a protective tariff would raise wages. This debate took place in a senior course jointly supervised by Frank Taussig during the first term of the 1889-90 academic year. I had never thought of checking whether Taussig ever taught an English Course.

Expanded versions of these briefs were later published (1908) in a collection of economic policy debates that have been transcribed for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror earlier.

I tried to track down all the literature cited but was unable to find a few items (e.g. Walker’s Pamphlet, Seank’s [sic] International Trade Report). Nonetheless most of the items have a link.

______________________________

Course Announcement

[English] 6. Oral Discussion of Topics in Political Economy and History. Half-course. Th., from 3-5. Asst. Professors Taussig and Hart, and Mr. Hayes.

Course 6 is open to Seniors only.

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of Courses of Instruction provided by the Faculty of Harvard College for the Academic Year 1889-90 (May, 1889), p. 11.

______________________________

Debate of October 10, 1889.

Question: Resolved, That a high protective tariff raises wages.

Brief for the Affirmative.
R. D. [Reynolds Driver] Brown ‘90, and E. S. [Edward Stetson] Griffing ‘90.

Best general references.— Taussig, Forum VI. p 169; Thompson’s Ireland and Free Trade.

The United States is the best example of the effect of the tariff on wages.
Money wages are higher in the United States than in Europe — Walker’s Pamphlet, esp. pp. 4-5.
Real wages are also higher in the United States — Consular Report 40, p 304, et seq; 42, pp. 12-14; and 15; 45, pp. 117-118.
1. 1. Proven directly by the amount an American workman can save.
  2. Proven indirectly by his higher standard of living.
High authorities hold that a high protective tariff raises wages. — Thompson’s Pol. Econ., Carey’s Pol. Econ., International Review XIII, p. 455.
1. 1. Opinion of writers.
  2. Opinion of manufacturers.
It is shown historically that a high protective tariff raises wages —
1. 1. Effect of tariff in England and Ireland.
  2. Effect of tariff in Germany and United States — Porter’s “Bread Winners Abroad;” Seank’s [sic, possibly James Moore Swank, Our Bessemer Steel Industry, p. 23] International Trade Report.

Brief for the Negative.
F. F. [Francis Frederick] Causey [‘90] and F. L. [Frank LaMont] DeLong [‘90].

Best general reference: Professor F. W. Taussig’s article in Forum for October, 1888. Evils of the Tariff System, in North American Review, September 8, 1884; Sumner on Protective Taxes and Wages, in Fortnightly Review, vol. 37, p. 272.

Loose comparisons are untrustworthy.
1. 1. There is no uniform rate of wages in any country;
  2. Such comparisons prove too much — American Almanac for 1889, p. 103; Schoenhof’s, The Industrial Situation, p. 124; Wells’ Practical Economics, p. 137;
  3. There are many local causes which must necessarily make wages higher in one country than in another.
    1. 1. Natural advantages — D. A. Wells, Relation of Tariff to Wages, p. 2;
      2. Standing service — Wells as above;
      3. Question of unoccupied land — Sumner, Protective Taxes and Wages; North American Review, vol. 136, p. 270.
Careful use of statistics show higher relative wages under a low tariff.
1. 1. High wages in the United States are set by unprotected industries. Laughlin’s note to Mill, p. 619.
  2. Compare wages in protected industries in the United States and wages in those same industries in England — Report of J. G. Blaine, secretary of state, on the Button Goods Trade of the World, published by Department of State, Washington, June 25, 1881, (cited in Wells’, Relation of the Tariff to Wages); Wells’ Practical Economics, p. 143.
  3. Wages in United States higher than abroad before there was any protection in the United States — Nation, October 25, 1888.
  4. New South Wales is more prosperous than Victoria: The Results of Protection in Young Communities. — Fortnightly Review for March, 1882.
In a given country, changes in the rate of wages can only be produced by changes in the amount of capital distributed in wages, or by changes in the number of persons competing for work-Sumner, Protective Taxes.
1. 1. But since the number of persons competing for work is not changed by high protection, if high protection affects wages at all it must affect them through the amount of capital distributed in wages.
  2. Yet protection diminishes the amount of capital distributed in wages for two reasons:
    1. 1. The productiveness of industry being less, the product to be divided between capital and labor is less Wells’ Practical Economics, p. 135;
      2. and also the proportion in which that produced is divided is less favorable to labor.
  3. Evil effect of limiting the sale of commodities to a domestic market — Wells’ Practical Economics, p. 139.
The tariff increases the price of commodities, and thus puts them out of the reach of the poorer classes. Their real wages thus become less — Sumner, Protective Taxes and Wages.

Source: The Harvard Crimson, October 8, 1889.

______________________________

Links to many of the authorities cited by the students

American Almanac and Treasury of Facts. Statistical, Financial and Political, 1889. P. 103.

Carey, Henry Charles. Principles of Political Economy. Philadelphia: Carea, Lea & Blanchard, 1837.

Evils of the Tariff System. Essays by David Ames Wells, Thomas G. Shearman. J.B. Sargent, and W.G. Sumner. North American Review, vol. 139, No. 334 (September 1884), pp. 274-299.

Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy, abridged with commentary by J. L. Laughlin. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1884 , p. 619.

Porter, Robert P. Bread-Winners Abroad. New York: J.S. Ogilvie & Company, 1885.

Powell, G. Baden. Protection in Young Communities. The Fortnightly Review, vol. 31. New Series, March 1882.p. 369-379.

Roach, John. What the Tariff Laws have Done for Us. International Review, vol. 13 (November 1882) pp. 455-477.

Schoenhof, Jacob. The Industrial Situation and the Question of Wages. A Study in Social Physiology. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, 1885.

Sumner, W. G. Protective Taxes and Wages. North American Review, vol. 136, No. 316 (March 1883), pp. 270-276.

Swank, James Moore. Our Bessemer Steel Industry. Philadelphia, 1882.

Taussig, Frank W. How the Tariff Affects Wages. Forum, v. VI (October, 1888), pp. 167-175.

Thompson, Robert Ellis. Political Economy with especial Reference to the Industrial History of Nations (3^rd, revised edition) Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1882.

Thompson, Robert Ellis. Ireland and Free Trade: An Object Lesson in National Economy. Advertised as a tract that can had free from The American: A National Journal (September 8, 1888) vol. 16, No. 422.

Cf. Thompson’s contribution to the discussion “Irish Comments on an English Text” published in The North American Review, vol. 147 (September 1888), pp. 297-301

Wells, David Ames. Relation of the Tariff to Wages. (Questions of the Day, No. LIV). New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, 1888.

Wells, David Ames. Practical Economics. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, 1885.

The Evolution of the Wages Argument. The Nation October 25, 1888. Number 1217. Pp. 327-328.

United States Department of State. Reports from the Consuls of the United States on the Commerce, Manufactures, etc., of their Consular Districts.

Labor, Wages, and Living in Germany, in Vol. 12, No. 40 (April 1884), p. 304 ff.

Proposed Increase of the import Duties in Germany in Vol. 13, No. 42 (June 1884), pp. 12-14

The Effect of Protection on Labor in Germany, in Vol. 13, No. 42 (June 1884), p. 15.

An Industry Created by the New Protective Tariff of Germany, in Vol. 14, No. 45 (September 1884), pp. 117-118

Image Source: Frank W. Taussig ca 1885-1890. Harvard University Hollis Images.

Tags Taussig

Economists Gender Radcliffe Undergraduate

Radcliffe. Paul Sweezy’s blue eyes and a summary of economics courses taken by the Class of 1942.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-03-25

Paul Sweezy by many accounts was a Paul Newman of academic economics. This is implicitly confirmed in the following text, written by one of his fans for the Radcliffe Class of 1942 Yearbook summarizing Harvard economics courses offered to Radcliffe women in the early years of WWII.

_______________________

Economics. Ec. A—Or is the business cycle necessary? Wages, interest, profit, rent—where that last five dollars went. If value equals distribution, why do we pay so much tuition?—Money and Banking, or How Professor Harris converts the American business man to Keynes.—Corporations. Dull? How could it be, considering its Social Significance, and Dr. Sweezy’s blue eyes.—Economic Theory—watch ring-master Chamberlin corral the whole economic system into ceteris paribus.—Ec. 18. We have to strike a defense note in these parlous times.—Did we say strike? Ec. 81, Labor Problems, led this year by Messrs. Healy and Hogan.

Source (Text and Image): Radcliffe College Yearbook, Class of 1942, p. 43.

Tags Chamberlin, Harris, Healy, Hogan, Sweezy

Economics Programs Economists Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Promotion for Harold H. Burbank, Job Offer for Allyn Young 1919

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-03-20

This provides some back-story to the rise of Harold Hitchings Burbank in the Harvard economics department. Coincidentally, some light is cast on the salary negotiations involved in the hire of Allyn Young, as well as the hopes the department of economics held in the prospect of Young joining the economics department.

Chairman Bullock’s characterization of Burbank “He does everything willingly, but we are already in danger of driving the willing horse to death” is not exactly the language a chairman today would use today to justify a promotion for an assistant professorship…I hope.

___________________________

Harvard University
Department of Economics

F.W. Taussig
T.N. Carver
W.Z. Ripley
C.J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W.M. Cole
O.M.W. Sprague
E.E. Day
B.M. Anderson, Jr.
J.S. Davis
H.H. Burbank
E.E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
12 o’clock. January 28, 1919.

Dear Mr. Lovell:

I have failed thus far to get in touch with Dr. Burbank, but will leave word at his house, and he will doubtless come to see you tomorrow.

I wish to express the hope that you will not propose any arrangement to him by which he will have to do any more work or make any more labor-consuming adjustment in connection with his work this year. He does everything willingly, but we are already in danger of driving the willing horse to death. Your suggestion that recent graduates now studying in the Law School be put in to do section work in Economics A. involves, even tho these new men are placed in charge of sections which began work in September, an amount of labor, responsibility, and worry on Burbank’s part which I feel strongly It would be unfair to ask of him.

I have not myself been one of the real sufferers from the war, so far as University work is concerned. Such extra work as I have had to do for the men in Washington has been comparatively limited in amount, and some of my ordinary work has been decreased so that I have not suffered greatly. But the younger men who have stood by us have had a bad time, and I feel so keenly that it is unjust not to give them relief as soon as we can do it that I hate to think of Burbank’s being asked to make any further readjustments in Economics A.

You will recall, if you will review the last two years, that I have not found difficulties in the way of doing the things which it was necessary to ask the Department to do, and have been ready to disorganize, or readjust and adapt, to any necessary extent. I have further found the ways of doing this; and only last fall, in spite of the fact that I felt it was hardly right for Day to be taken from us, I went to a deal of trouble to fix up an arrangement under which he might be released. If I saw any arrangement now, I would surely make it, as I have done in the past. If Burbank can think of any arrangement that I have not been able to think of, I shall be glad to have it put into effect; but I wish to represent to you that it will not only be bad for the course, but very unfair for Burbank to ask him to take young and inexperienced instructors whose heart is in the Law School work anyway, and fit them into section work in Economics A at this time. Moreover, this arrangement involves delay of at least ten days or a fortnight, and our men need relief at the earliest moment. There are certainly no suitable men in the Law School now; and if any register next week, it will take time to find them out, to make arrangement, and to have them get up their work so that they are fit to take charge of a section. should think that under this plan it would be more rather than less than a fortnight before our men would get any relief. If you could know from actual contact with conditions what I have been compelled to know about the work of our young men during the war, I believe you would feel as strongly as I do that what they need now is immediate relief and not a plan by which they will have to spend the next month breaking in green, and possibly inefficient, substitutes. By the time that Burbank gets Economics A running smoothly again, if, indeed, that can be done at all, the term will be most over and the acute need of relief will be almost at an end.

Sincerely yours,
[Signed] Charles J. Bullock

President A. Lawrence Lowell

___________________________

Harvard University
Department of Economics

F.W. Taussig
T.N. Carver
C.J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W.M. Cole
O.M.W. Sprague
E.E. Day
J.S. Davis
H.H. Burbank
E.E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
March 8, 1919.

My dear Mr. Lovell:

Dr Burbank informs me that he has received from Dartmouth College the offer of a full professorship, and this makes it necessary for the Corporation to consider whether it desires to retain him at Harvard. You will recall that two years ago the Department of Economics recommended that Burbank be advanced to an assistant professorship. This was at the time when he received from Chicago University the offer of an assistant professorship with full charge of their instruction in Public Finance. A year ago I brought the matter to your attention, but you desired to postpone action until Burbank’s book had been published. Last June I asked whether you would be willing to waive the question of publication of Burbank’s book, which was nearly, but not quite, completed. in order that he might accept employment from a committee of the American Economic Association, which would both be remunerative and give him an unusual opportunity to investigate a subject in which he is greatly interested, namely, the practical operation of the Federal income and excess profits taxes. You sent me word through Mr. Pierce that you would waive the requirement, and that you would be glad to have Mr. Burbank accept this employment.

Mr. Burbank made a distinct success of his work for the Economic Association, and such success as the Committee achieved was largely due to him. This year he has been conducting Economics A, and has demonstrated his ability to handle that course in a satisfactory manner. It seems to me that he is an invaluable man for the Department, and I hope that the Corporation will be able nor to advance him to an assistant professorship.

You also asked me this morning to write you concerning Allyn A. Young, whom we have had under consideration for a number of years.

In the winter of 1916-17 the full professors of the Department of Economics, after carefully looking over the field, recommended to you that Mr. Young be called to a full professorship at Harvard University.

You authorized me to write to Young and inquire whether he could be secured, and if so, at what salary; and I was able to report to you that Young would come to Harvard if he were offered a full professorship at a salary of $4500. At this juncture the United States entered the war, and the matter was necessarily dropped.

Last December Professors Gay and Haskins called my attention to the fact that Young was likely to receive an offer from Columbia University, and I held a hurried conference with them, and they later conferred with you. Action was postponed, inasmuch as Mr. Young was going to the Peace Conference as exert on economic resources; and it appeared probable that, if we could offer him a professorship at $5000, we could secure him for Harvard, even tho another offer developed elsewhere.

I hope that the Corporation will feel able to extend a call to Professor Young at this time. Since I talked with you this morning, I have met Professors Carver and Ripley, and they both concur in the recommendation which I make. Professor Gay gave you his opinion in December; and since that time I have heard from Taussig, who still is of the opinion that we ought to call Young.

I have no further knowledge as to the amount of salary that it would be necessary to offer. I assume that we should have to offer at least $4500, which was the figure that would have been necessary in 1916; and in view of Young’s increased experience and enhanced reputation, I should think that a salary of $5000 would be justified.

It is, I believe, important for the Department to secure Young at this time. We had in 1917 a Department of Economics which was recognized as one of the strongest in the country; but we needed Young at that time, and shall need him still more now in order to develop our work during the next decade. With him, I believe we should have a department that would be recognized as very clearly the strongest department in the country.

There is one further consideration to be taken into account in connection with extending a call to Young. If our economic research enterprise proves permanent, Young would be absolutely the best man in the country to coöperate with Professor Persons in carrying through the work we have undertaken. With Young and Persons in the economic research undertaking, we should have almost a monopoly of high class statistical brains. Young’s appointment was recommended by the Department in the winter of 1916-17, before the Committee on Economic Research was established, and without any reference to the development of that Committee’s work. The Department recommended him because they thought he was the one man whom the Department needed. The point I am now making is that Young is the one man whom our economic research undertaking needs, so that it seems upon every account desirable to add him to our staff next fall. Under the arrangement that I have in mind, if our economic research enterprise proves permanent, Professor Persons could give two-thirds of his time to the Committee on Economic Research and one-third to teaching, and Professor Young could give two-thirds of his time to teaching and one-third to the Committee on Economic Research. By this arrangement the Department of Economics would gain two teachers of the very highest reputation at an expense amounting only to the salary of one full professor, while the Committee on Economic Research would secure the services of the two minds in the country which are best adapted for the immediate work it has in hand.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Charles J. Bullock

President A. Lawrence Lowell

___________________________

Carbon Copy of Letter from President Lowell to Professor Bullock

March 8, 1919

Dear Mr Bullock:

I understand that Mr Burbank is feeling uneasy about his promotion, and has been made valuable offers from elsewhere. Mr Pierce, at my request, wrote you last May that the completion of his book was not essential to his promotion to an assistant professorship. He is as near as possible the soul of the body of tutors; and I think it is important that we should make it clear that good work as a tutor will receive as much recognition as an equally good conduct of lecture courses. Would it not be well, therefore, if Mr Burbank were appointed an assistant professor now? There is a Corporation meeting on Monday, and I should be very glad if you could communicate with me before it takes place, if you come home in time.

Very truly yours,
[stamp] A. Lawrence Lowell

Professor Charles J. Bullock
6 Channing Street
Cambridge, Mass.

Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers 1917-1919. Box 124. Folder 1689.

Tags Bullock, Burbank, Young

Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Committee Assignments, 1972-73

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-03-20

“The Division of Administration is limited by the Extent of the Department” might have been a chapter title in a history of economics written by Adam Smith were he to have lived two centuries after the publication of the Wealth of Nations. I transcribed and now post the following list of administrative committees/tasks and the names of members of the Harvard economics department belonging to each during the 1972-73 academic year. The list comes from the economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron’s papers at the Harvard Archives. I have paired this artifact with the printed list of economics faculty teaching economics courses in 1972-73 from the annual Harvard course catalogue.

_____________________________

Committee Assignments for 1972-73

Undergraduate Instruction

Otto Eckstein, Chairman
Elisabeth Allison
Abram Bergson
James Duesenberry
Jerry Green
William Raduchel
Martin Spechler
Francois Wilkinson

Examing Committee

Benjamin Friedman, Chairman
Richard Caves
Abram Bergson
Robert Dorfman
Jerry Greene
Martin Spechler

Graduate Instruction

Robert Dorfman, Chairman
Truman Bewley
Hendrik Houthakker
Gregory Ingram
Richard Musgrave
Thomas Schelling
Gail Pierson

Mathematics Examination

Truman Bewley
David Starrett

Theory Examination

Arthur Smithies, Chairman
Zvi Griliches
Glenn Jenkins
John Lintner
Stephen Marglin
Janet Yellen
Tsuneo Ishikawa (Spring)

Quantitative Methods Examination

Lance Taylor, Chairman
Edward Leamer
William Raduchel
Howard Raiffa
T. N. Tideman
Thomas Horst (Spring)

Economic History Examination

Alexander Gerschenkron
Paul David

Ph.D. in Business Economics

John Lintner

Fellowships and Admissions

Zvi Griliches, Chairman
Elisabeth Allison
Hendrik Houthakker
T. N. Tidema
Marcelo Selowsky

Less Developed Countries Recruitment

Richard Mallon

Recruitment of Black Students

T. N. Tideman

Non-Tenure Personnel

John Kain, Chairman
Richard Caves
James Duesenberry
Harvey Leibenstein
Marc Roberts
David Starrett
Janet Yellen

Placement Officer

Dwight Perkins

Publications

Harvard Economic Studies

Richard Caves, Chairman
Edward Leamer

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Richard Musgrave, Editor

Review of Economics & Statistics

Hendrik Houthakker, Editor

Wells Prize

Harvey Leibenstein, Chair
Alexander Geschenkron
Jerry Green

Political Economy Lectures

Wassily Leontief, Chairman
Stephen Marglin

Schumpeter Prize

Arthur Smithies, Chairman
Wassily Leontief

Goldsmith Prize

Gregory Ingram, Chairman
Richard Musgrave

Department Minutes

Martin Spechler

Harvard Computing Center

William Raduchel

Universities-National Bureau Committee

John Lintner

Administrative Committee, Harvard Institute for Economic Research

William Raduchel, Acting Chairman
James Duesenberry
John T. Dunlop
Zvi Griliches
Dale Jorgenson (fall)
Dwight Perkins

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Alexander Gerschenkron, Box 3, Folder “Economics (General) 1973/74, 1 of 2”.

_____________________________

1972-73
Faculty of the Department of Economics

James S. Duesenberry, William Joseph Maier Professor of Money and Banking (Chairman)

Elisabeth S. Allison, Assistant Professor of Economics

Kenneth J. Arrow, Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Abram Bergson, George F. Baker Professor of Economics

Truman F. Bewley, Assistant Professor of Economics and of Mathematics

Samuel S. Bowles, Associate Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Richard E. Caves, Professor of Economics

Hollis B. Chenery, Lecturer on Economics

David C. Cole, Lecturer on Economics

Paul A. David, Visiting Professor of Economics (Stanford University)

Kenneth M. Deitch, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Robert Dorfman, David A. Wells Professor of Economics

John T. Dunlop, Lamont University Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Otto Eckstein, Professor of Economics

Martin S. Feldstein, Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Benjamin M. Friedman, Assistant Professor of Economics

John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics (on leave spring term)

James D. Gavan, Lecturer on Population Sciences (Public Health) Lecturer on Economics (spring term only)

Alexander Gerschenkron, Walter S. Barker Professor of Economics

Richard T. Gill, Lecturer on Economics

Carl H. Gotsch, Lecturer on Economics

Jerry Green, Assistant Professor of Economics

Zvi Griliches, Professor of Economics

Albert O. Hirschman, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Political Economy (on leave 1972-73)

Thomas Horst, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave fall term)

Hendrik S. Houthakker, Professor of Economics

Gregory Ingram, Assistant Professor of Economics

Dale W. Jorgenson, Professor of Economics (on leave spring term)

John F. Kain, Professor of Economics

Leonard Kopelman, Lecturer on Economics

Edward Leamer, Assistant Professor of Economics

Harvey Leibenstein, Andelot Professor of Economics and Population

Wassily W. Leontief, Henry Lee Professor of Economics

John Lintner, George Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration (Business)

Arthur MacEwan, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

George F. Mair, Visiting Professor of Population Economics (Smith College)

Richard D. Mallon, Lecturer on Economics

Stephen A. Marglin, Professor of Economics

Albert J. Meyer, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Lecturer on Economics

Richard A. Musgrave, Harold Hitchings Burbank Professor of Political Economy; Professor of Economics (Law)

Gustav Papanek, Lecturer on Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Dwight H. Perkins, Professor of Modern China Studies and of Economics

Gail Pierson, Assistant Professor of Economics

William J. Raduchel, Assistant Professor of Economics

Howard Raiffa, Frank Plumpton Ramsey Professor of Managerial Economics (Business)

Marc J. Roberts, Associate Professor of Economics

Sherwin Rosen, Visiting Professor of Economics (University of Rochester)

Henry Rosovsky, Frank W. Taussig Research Professor of Economics

Michael Rothschild, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave 1972-73)

Thomas C. Schelling, Professor of Economics

Marcelo Selowsky, Assistant Professor of Economics

Arthur Smithies, Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy

Martin C. Spechler, Lecturer on Economics and Social Studies

David A. Starrett, Associate Professor of Economics

Joseph J. Stern, Lecturer on Economics

Carl M. Stevens, Visiting Professor of Economics (Reed College)

Lance Taylor, Assistant Professor of Economics

T. Nicolaus Tideman, Assistant Professor of Economics (on leave fall term)

Thomas A. Wilson, Visiting Professor of Canadian Studies (University of Toronto)

Janet Yellen, Assistant Professor of Economics

Other Faculty Offering Instruction in the Department of Economics

Francis M. Bator, Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School) (Public Policy, West European Studies)

Ralph E. Berry, Jr., Associate Professor of Economics (Public Health)

William M. Capron, Lecturer on Political Economy (Kennedy School) (Political Economy and Government)

Peter B. Doeringer, Associate Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School)

Rashi Fein, Professor of Economics of Medicine at the Center for Community Health and Medical Care (Medicine)

Sherwood Frey, Assistant Professor of Business Administration (Business)

Herbert M. Gintis, Lecturer on Education (Education)

Joseph J. Harrington, Associate Professor of Environmental Health Engineering (Public Health)

Henry D. Jacoby, Associate Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School)

James R. Kurth, Associate Professor of Government (Government)

Walter J. McCann, Jr., Associate Professor of Education (Education)

Harold A. Thomas, Jr., Gordon McKay Professor of Civil and Sanitary Engineering (Engineering and Applied Physics)

Richard J. Zeckhauser, Professor of Political Economy (Kennedy School)

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard & Radcliffe, 1972-73, pp. 183-185.

Image Source: Littauer Center (July 1970). Harvard University Archives.

The General Final Examination and the Tutorial System

Related previous posts

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

Other related posts

Cf. An earlier version of the Syllabus for “Principles of Economics”

Smithies’ letter of Oct 31, 1951 to Randall

Randall alleges sleight-of-hand by Smithies regarding the Economics 1 reading list.

Course Announcement

Economics 1 Syllabus and Readings 1951-52

ECONOMICS 1 1951-52 Fall Term

ECONOMICS 1 Fall Term

PART I. The American Economy—Its Growth, Complexity, Institutions and Problems

PART II. Fluctuations in National Income — The Problem of Economic Stability

PART III. Economic Mobilization

ECONOMICS 1 1951-52 Spring Term

ECONOMICS 1 Spring Term

PART IV. Economic Behavior of the Individual

PART V. Business Behavior in a Dynamic Economy

PART VI. The Division of the National Income among the Major Groups

PART VII. The International Economy

PART VIII. Government Finance and Fiscal Problems

PART IX. The Prospects and Fundamental Problems of the American Economy

1951-52 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 1 [Mid-Year Examination, January 1952]

1951-52 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 1 [Year-end Examination, May 1952]

C.V. from Harvard’s records

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

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

Brown to Solow

MEMORANDUM

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES: ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT 1977-78

Reports to the Dean of Harvard from the Department of Economics.

1946-1947

1947-1948

1948-1949

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950 Professor Burbank

1949-1950

I. Undergraduate Instruction

II. Graduate Instruction

III. Research

IV. The Staff of the Department

VI. [sic] Distinctions

Course Announcement

Debate of October 10, 1889.

Question: Resolved, That a high protective tariff raises wages.

Links to many of the authorities cited by the students

Harvard University Department of Economics

Harvard University Department of Economics

Carbon Copy of Letter from President Lowell to Professor Bullock

Committee Assignments for 1972-73

1972-73 Faculty of the Department of Economics

Economics 1
Syllabus and Readings
1951-52

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Fall Term

ECONOMICS 1
Fall Term

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Spring Term

ECONOMICS 1
Spring Term

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Mid-Year Examination, January 1952]

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Year-end Examination, May 1952]

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES:
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT 1977-78

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics.

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

**VI. [sic] Distinctions**

Harvard University
Department of Economics

Harvard University
Department of Economics

1972-73
Faculty of the Department of Economics