Categories
Economists Funny Business Harvard Undergraduate

Vermont. Yearbook account of economics lecture by Harvard PhD Charles W. Mixter, 1904

While trolling the yearbook of the University of Vermont in search of a portrait of Professor Charles W. Mixter (Harvard Ph.D. 1897), I came across the following student account of what one presumes is a not an untypical classroom performance by Professor Mixter. He appears to have been pretty proud of his Harvard connection, in particular with Professor O.M.W. Sprague.

Incidentally, I have yet to discover a photograph of Charles W. Mixter anywhere on the internet, and I have tried…

…and what pray are “Persian Alexis overshoes” anyhow?

_______________________________

Pol. Econ. à la Mixter

A room in the Old Mill. The bell strikes and during the next ten minutes the class straggles in. The second bell strikes; some minutes elapse during which Burrows ’o4 amuses himself — and the class — by crayon sketches from life ( ?). Macrae, to whom art of so high an order does not appeal, looks at his watch and announces that the five minutes are up. A discussion follows as to the advisability of cutting. Finally better instincts prevail and the class decides to stay. At the end of another five minutes, Pomeroy, from his lookout at the window, descries the Professor in the distance. Informed of the fact the class rushes up just in time to see His Portlyship, in Persian Alexis overshoes, and English Ulster [Note: apparently the sort of overcoat worn by Sherlock Holmes], rounding the statue of Lafayette and puffing like a tug under full steam.

 

The Professor’s tread is soon heard on the stair and the class take their seats just as he enters the room. In answer to the chorus of good-mornings, he nods a general recognition, divests himself of ulster, overshoes and Alexis and takes his seat. These preliminaries over, he fumbles for some time in the recesses of an inner pocket and at length pulls forth a slip of paper upon which is the frame-work of a lecture. After vainly trying to read his own writing, the Professor gives up in despair, puts back the notes, and launches out on another tack.

 

His eye lighting on Macrae nodding on the back seat, he explodes this poser at the offending member:

 

My friend Sprague — the great economist — of course you’ve all heard of him — edited Dunbar blur—r—r um and all that sort of thing — well he’s just returned from Oklahoma — he says the banks are holding the largest deposit in the Territory’s history. What does that indicate for general prosperity, Mr. Macrae?

 

Macrae, to whom reciting is a bore, pulls himself together with a supreme effort and begins a learned disquisition on the inter-relation of loans to deposits and the utter uselessness as an index to prosperity of bank statements in general and of this report in particular.

 

Whenever a glint of truth appears in Macrae’s remarks — which is far from often — the Professor nods approvingly, assumes his Rooseveltian grin and rumples his hair encouragingly.

 

Macrae finally comes to the end of his rope and the Professor, suddenly recollecting an anecdote that “my friend Sprague” told him at Harvard, springs it on the guileless members of Economics II. When the laughter incident on this effort has subsided, the Professor has some interesting things to say on railroad stocks.

 

Prof. (clearing his throat and groping for his handkerchief in a hip pocket) Um — yum yum yum yum yum — I own some stock myself — huh — oh yes — huh (grimace à la Roosevelt). Hasn’t paid me any dividend for seventeen years, though. Speaking of railroads puts me in mind of a man I met up in the Berkshire Hills once. Oh yes — um I — I was up in the Berkshires and I met a man who had lost his fortune during the war — well he — huh — huh huh. The Professor, anticipating the ludicrous end of his tale, cannot resist the temptation to laugh, and the rest of his speech is lost in a gurgle of merriment, in which the class feels itself called upon to join.

 

Turning from the Berkshire Hermit the Professor travels to Tennessee, where he tells how he proffered a check in payment and how that check was actually received! Next he leads the class a pretty pace through Threadneedle Street, where they enter the Bank of England and help the Professor cash a ten pun’ note, after which they awake to find themselves reposing quietly in their seats none the worse for wear but a little dazed in spirit.

 

The remainder of the Professor’s talk is a brilliant counterpane, with which he covers his subject, resplendent with purple patches of travel, finance, the stock exchange, international trade, panics, industrial organization, underwriting, indigestible securities, and bank history from Daniel to Dunbar, freely interspersed with the dicta of Ami Sprague. The Professor is in the midst of an interesting Harvard reminiscence when the bell strikes and he makes a hasty end, regretting  — as always — that he hasn’t covered as much ground as he had hoped to. The class escapes furtively while the Professor worms himself into his ulster, sticks on the Alexis and descends the stair ruminating on the value of anecdote as a means of inculcating the fundamental principles of that most abstruse science of political economy.

Source: The University of Vermont Libraries, Digital Collections.Yearbook, The Ariel 1905, Vol. XVIII, pp. 277-278.

Image Source: University of Vermont (between 1900 and 1906) from the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate courses taken by John F. Kennedy, Class of 1940

 

In an earlier post Economics in the Rear-view Mirror presented James Laurence Laughlin’s recollection of Theodore Roosevelt’s economics education at Harvard.

This post moves us forward to the graduate of the Class of 1940, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who it took the standard two term principles of economics followed by three semester courses in economics at Harvard. The future president was a concentrator in the government department which accounted for much more of his studies.

We begin with a complete list of the courses taken by Kennedy that is probably not untypical for your average government major except for maybe the junior semester abroad to England where his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., happened to be serving as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

As it turns out, material for three of the courses taken by Kennedy have already been transcribed and posted.

Economics A. Principles of Economics (1936-37).
Economics 11bEconomics of Socialism (2nd term, 1940).
Economics 62bIndustrial Organization and Control (2nd term, 1940).

To help complete the picture this post adds the final examination for Kennedy’s junior year course Economics 61a, The Corporation and its Regulation. The reading list for this course used in the following year (Kennedy’s senior year, 1939-40) has been transcribed and posted earlier.

Fun fact: Nobel prize economist and economic adviser to JFK, Professor James Tobin of Yale was a fellow student in the Principles of Economics course taken by Kennedy. Plot spoiler: Tobin got an A in Economics A.

____________________________

Undergraduate Courses Taken by John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Class of 1940

Note: Second term senior year courses are listed without a final grade because final examination were waived for the history, government, and economics division honors examination

JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY
S.B. cum laude June 20, 1940
Field of Concentration Government

Freshman year (1936-37)

English A. Rhetoric and English Composition, Oral and Written. (Not Required)

English 1. History and Development of English Literature in Outline. Professor Munn. (C)

Economics A. Principles of Economics. Professor Burbank. (B)

History 1. European History from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Present Time. Professor Merriman. (C)

French F. Introduction to France. Professor Morize. (C)

Sophomore year (1937-38)

English F1. Public Speaking. Asst. Professor Packard. (C)

Fine Arts 1e. Interpretation of Selected Works of Art: an Introduction to Art History. Professor Koehler. (C)

Government 1. Modern Government. Professors Holcombe and Elliott. (C)

History 32a1. Continental Europe; 1815-1871. Professor Langer. (D)

History 32b2. Continental Europe; 1871-1914. Professor Langer. (C)

Government 302. New Factors in International Relations: Asia. Asst. Professor Hopper. (B)

Junior year (1938-39)

Economics 61a1. The Corporation and its Regulation. Professor Mason. (C)

English A-11. English Composition. Messrs. Davis, Gordan, Bailey and McCreary. (B)

Government 7a1. The National Government of the United States: Politics. Professor Holcombe. (B)

Government 9a1. State Government in the United States. Professor Hanford. (B)

Government 181. New Factors in International Relations: Europe. Associate Professor Hopper. (B)

History 551. History of Russia. Asst. Professor Karpovich. (B)

Second Term Leave of absence (England)

Senior year (1939-40)

Economics 11b2. Economics of Socialism. Dr. P. M. Sweezy.

Economics 62b2. Industrial Organization and Control. Professor Mason.

Government 3a1. Principles of Politics. Professor Elliott. (B)

Government 4. Elements of International Law. Associate Professor P. S. Wild. (B)

Government 22. Theses for Honors. Members of the Department. (B)

Government 8a1. Comparative Politics: Bureaucracy, Constitutional Government and Dictatorship. Professor Friedrich. (B)

Government 10a2. Government of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Professor Elliott.

Government 281. Modern Imperialism. Associate Professor Emerson. (B)

Source: John F. Kennedy Academic Record at Harvard.  John F. Kennedy Personal Papers, 1917-1963, Harvard University Files, 1917-1963/Academic Records 1939-1940; John F. Kennedy Harvard Course Transcript. John F. Kennedy Personal Papers, 1917-1963, Harvard University Files, 1917-1963/Course listing.

____________________________

The Corporation and its Regulation
First Semester 1938-39

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 61a 1hf. Professor Mason and Dr. P. M. Sweezy. — The Corporation and its Regulation.

Total 209: 2 Graduates, 57 Seniors, 110 Juniors, 29 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 10 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1938-39, p. 98.

Reading Period Assignment
January 5-18, 1939

Economics 61a: Read one of the following

  1. Larcom, R. C., The Delaware Corporation.
  2. Flynn, Security Speculation.
  3. Lowenthal, The Investor Pays.
  4. Gordon, Lincoln, The Public Corporation in Great Britain, omit pp. 156-244.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 2. Folder “Economics,1938-1939”, Reading Period, p.3.

Final Examination (Mid-Year)

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 61a1

PART I

Write a critical review of your reading period work (about one hour).

PART II
Answer two questions.

  1. Discuss the influence of depreciation policies in the determination of net income.
  2. In corporate reorganizations what considerations determine the priority of claims on the assets of the reorganized company?
  3. “The large corporation is a bureaucracy of much the same type as a government agency. As such it faces all the management problems faced by bureaucracy.” Discuss.

PART III
Answer two questions.

  1. “The only people who gain from the stock market are brokers and speculators. Corporations, investors and underwriters would be better off if there were no stock market.” Analyse this statement with respect to each class of person or institution named.
  2. Discuss the direction and significance of present trends in the ownership of securities in the United States.
  3. Write on either the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Describe the main problems with which the act in question is intended to deal, any previous efforts to solve these problems, and how the act proposes to solve them.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-Year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 13. Bound volume “Mid-Year Examinations 1939”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1940.

Categories
Dartmouth Undergraduate

Dartmouth. 19th century instruction in History, Law, Politics, & Political Economy. Colby, 1796-1896.

 

 

Throughout the nineteenth century political economy taught in American colleges was just one ingredient in a hearty moral philosophical stew served to students. Economics as its own course in a social scientific menu appears relatively late in the century.

I stumbled upon an article in the Boston Evening Transcript (January 13, 1897, p. 9) that reported on a pamphlet written by Dartmouth professor James Fairbanks Colby on the history of Dartmouth instruction on constitutional law, politics, and political economy. I found the pamphlet at the hathitrust.org archive and it was interesting enough for me to prepare this post with links to all the course text books that Colby mentioned. 

Fun fact (if true): “William and Mary appears to have led by prescribing the use of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations as early as 1807. Most of the other Colleges followed within a few years of each other: Harvard in 1820; Yale in 1824; Columbia in 1827; Dartmouth in 1828; Princeton in 1830; Williams in 1835.” Nonetheless, the text book of choice for much of the 19th century was the English translation of Say’s Political Economy.

————————————————-

Biography

James Fairbanks Colby was born November 18, 1850, in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, the son of James K. and Sarah (Pierce) Colby. After graduating from St. Johnsbury Academy. Colby attended Dartmouth College, graduating in 1872. He received his AM from Yale in 1877 and his LL. B. from George Washington University in 1875. Colby died in Hanover, New Hampshire, October 21, 1939.

Colby was an instructor of economics and history at the Sheffield Scientific School at Yale University from 1879 until 1881 and taught international law at Yale Law School from 1883 until 1885. At Dartmouth College he was an instructor of history from 1885 until 1893, a professor of political economics from 1885 until 1898, and Joel Parker professor of law and political science from 1885 until 1916. He also taught constitutional and international law at Amos Tuck School of Business Administration from 1900 until 1908, and lectured in jurisprudence and international law at Boston University Law School from 1905 until 1922.

In 1902, he was a delegate to the New Hampshire Constitutional Convention; he compiled and edited the Manual of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, 1902, as well as the revised 2nd edition in 1912. Never a candidate for public office himself, Colby exerted influence on political reform and the Progressive Movement in New Hampshire.

Source: Dartmouth Library, Archives & Manuscripts. Colby, James Fairbanks, 1850-1939

————————————————-

LEGAL AND POLITICAL STUDIES IN DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, 1796-1896.

by James Fairbanks Colby,
Parker Professor of Law and Political Science

Hanover, N.H.: The Dartmouth Press, 1896.

         The studies of Law and Government have been pursued at Dartmouth for one hundred years. Meager records and their vague language leave it doubtful whether any American college except William and Mary, Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania), and Princeton made earlier and continuous offer of instruction in both these branches. Since their first introduction into its curriculum, Dartmouth has given both these studies constant recognition in all its plans for a liberal education. This was made possible by the broad purpose of its Founder; it became practicable through the wise resolves of its Trustees and the liberal benefaction of one of its most distinguished graduates, Chief Justice Joel Parker.

         The royal charter of the College of 1769 created a corporation empowered to give instruction in “all liberal arts and sciences.” Despite this ample grant no positive evidence has been found that regular instruction was offered by the College in the particular sciences of Law and Government during the first twenty-five years after its foundation. The reasons for this delay are not hard to find. They were the original mission of Wheelock to Christianize the Indians, the scanty resources at his disposal, and the traditional limitation of the curriculum of his Alma Mater — Yale — to the Sacred and Classical Languages, Mathematics and Divinity. But the location of the College on the frontier and the stirring events which followed its founding, the Revolution, the framing of new constitutions, State and Federal, the long struggle over the New Hampshire Grants, and the rise of American political parties, aroused liveliest interest in Law and Government throughout all the region where dwelt the natural constituency of the new College, and made increasing demand upon it for legal and political training.

         Evidence of effort to satisfy this demand may be found in the first formal curriculum of the College, which was adopted by its trustees in 1796. This, under the head of “Public and Classical Exercises,” enumerates among the subjects of study for Juniors “Natural and Moral Philosophy,” and among those for Seniors “Natural and Politic Law.” Since Moral Philosophy, as then defined, treated of the State — the subject matter of Political Science — the first formal curriculum of the College appears to have included both the studies of Law and Government. Neither search in the official records of the College, nor wide gleaning among the biographies and letters of graduates of that period, yields much information about the conduct of these courses from 1796 to 1822. Instruction in Natural and Politic Law apparently fell with the general care of the Senior class to the President, and so was given by John Wheelock from 1796 to 1815, by Francis Brown from 1815 to 1820, and by Daniel Dana from 1820 to 1821. The instruction in Moral Philosophy (including Political Philosophy) apparently was assigned with the general care of the Junior class to Rev. John Smith, Professor of the Latin and Greek Languages from 1796 to 1804, and to Rev. Roswell Shurtleff, Phillips Professor of Divinity,1 from 1804 to 1823. Probably the earliest text books in each of these subjects were those known to have been in use in 18162. These were the two famous works, Burlamaqui’s Principles of Natural and Politic Law, first published in Geneva in 1747 and republished in Boston as early as 1793, and Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy, first published in England in 1785 and republished in Boston as early as 1795. The sixth book of Paley is devoted to what is now called Political Science — the State, its origin, forms of government, civil liberty, and the administration of justice. Both these books were then coming into use in America and the former was prescribed as a text in the College as late as 1828, and the latter as late as 1838.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

1 In 1796 it was voted by the trustees “that it be the duty of the Professor of Divinity to teach Theology, to preach and instruct the students in Logic and Moral Philosophy.” This chair was not filled till 1804.

2 “Documents relating to Dartmouth College, published by order of the Legislature of 1816,” page 32. The included report shows the amendments made to the curriculum from 1796 to 1816.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

       Before 1810 a marked tendency among Dartmouth graduates toward the profession of law was noticeable. The records showed that the proportion of graduates entering that profession was increasing from decade to decade. The proportion of lawyers to graduates, which from 1770 to 1780 had been only 4½% per cent., increased from 1780 to 1790 to 17½% per cent., from 1790 to 1800 to 36 1/3% per cent., and from 1800 to 1810 to 46¼% per cent. Before this time attempts had been made by the University of Pennsylvania, William and Mary, Columbia, Princetown [sic], and Yale, all founded before Dartmouth, to promote good citizenship by academic training in law, but such instruction apparently had not been continuous in all these Colleges. The need of other legal training for the bar than that which could be had in the office of active practitioners was coming to be more and more felt, but the only law school then existing in New England was the famous Litchfield (Conn.) Law School, which was founded in 1784 and enrolled 1024 students before it was closed in 1823.

         Under these circumstances the Trustees of Dartmouth College deemed it wise to plan for the establishment of a collegiate professorship of law, as is shown by the following extract from the records of their meeting3 held Jan. 7, 1808:

         “Whereas, An establishment of professorships in different branches of education at universities facilitates improvement; and as a more general acquaintance with the important science of law would be greatly conducive to the welfare and prosperity of the citizens of our country; and as in promoting that end the establishment of a professorship of Law at this university is highly desirable; Therefore,

            Resolved, Unanimously that this board will proceed to establish a professorship of Law and appoint a suitable person to the office so soon as adequate means shall be furnished. And as all, the present funds are necessarily applied to other objects of education the liberal and patriotic are earnestly solicited to favor and promote by their munificence the early accomplishment of this design.

            Voted, that the secretary be requested to cause a suitable number of subscription papers to be printed for the purpose of aiding the object contemplated in the foregoing resolution.” Trustees‘ Records, vol. 1, p. 321.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

3 Those present at this meeting were President Wheelock, Rev. Eden Burroughs, Rev. J. Smith, Hon. Peter Olcott, John A. Freeman, Nathaniel Niles, John S. Gilman, S. W. Thompson, Stephen Jacobs, Timothy Farrar Elijah Paine. Five of these trustees were eminent lawyers in their own generation in Northern New England.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

         It does not appear whether the Secretary prepared subscription papers nor whether the aid of the liberal and patriotic was solicited, but the serious dissensions which arose in the Board of Trustees the following year and which were to issue in 1819 in the cause célèbre, indefinitely postponed the establishment of the proposed professorship. The spread of these dissensions from 1809 to 1815 and the controversy between the College and the State which filled the years from 1815 to 1819 prevented any enlargement of the courses in Law and Government until 1822.

         The circumstances of that controversy and especially the forensic triumph of Webster as the filial champion of the “small College” before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1819 seem to have awakened fresh interest in the study of American Constitutional Law and to have been the immediate occasion of its addition to the curriculum. There is no authentic record at least of such a course before 1822. The catalogue of that year, the first published by the College, enumerates among the studies for Juniors Moral and Political Philosophy, (Paley), and for Seniors Natural and Politic Law (Burlamaqui), Moral and Political Philosophy (Paley), the Federalist. No change in these three courses was made till 1828, but the appointment in 1823 of Daniel Oliver (Harvard, 1809) as Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy probably made him the instructor in Political Philosophy for the next five years.

         In 1828 Prof. Roswell Shurtleff (D. C., 1799) was transferred to the newly established chair of Moral Philosophy and Political Economy, and the Trustees having voted, “that the Senior class be instructed in Say’s Political Economy so far as can be by leaving out Burlamaqui,” his Natural and Politic Law disappeared from the curriculum.

         The establishment of this chair and the almost simultaneous introduction of the study of Political Economy by other American Colleges is noteworthy.4 Probably this was due to the industrial revolution which the inventions of Arkwright, Hargreaves and Fulton had wrought, the expansion of commerce which followed the close of the Napoleonic wars, and the rise of new political issues in the United States — the tariff, the bank, slavery, and internal improvements. The addition of Political Economy to the curriculum of Dartmouth as well as other Colleges undoubtedly was facilitated by the appearance as early as 1821 of an American edition of Say’s Political Economy which presented the subject in clear, orderly and attractive form.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

4 William and Mary appears to have led by prescribing the use of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations as early as 1807. Most of the other Colleges followed within a few years of each other: Harvard in 1820; Yale in 1824; Columbia in 1827; Dartmouth in 1828; Princeton in 1830; Williams in 1835.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

         The three courses prescribed in 1828 in Political Economy, Moral and Political Philosophy (transferred from Senior to Junior year in 1833), and the Federalist, underwent no modification until the resignation of Professor Shurtleff in 1838. Throughout his long service Prof. Shurtleff was a popular and respected instructor. The marginal notes in his own handwriting in his copies of Paley and the Federalist reveal his acuteness, skill in argument and abounding humor.

         His successor, though the name of the chair was changed to that of Intellectual Philosophy and Political Economy, was Professor Charles B. Haddock (D. C., 1816). He continued the three courses previously described during his term of office and extended the instruction. In 1838 he substituted Wayland’s Moral Philosophy [Elements of Moral Science, 1835] for Paley’s, and in 1842 added a course in Kent’s Commentaries, Vol. 1, for Seniors in the second term. In 1845-6 this course, probably to enable students to work by themselves to advantage during the long winter vacation, was opened to Juniors as well as Seniors. In the catalogue of 1851-2 Story on the Constitution [1833: Volume 1; Volume 2; Volume 3], open to Juniors and Seniors, took the place of Kent’s Commentaries, Vol. 1, which probably had been used continuously since 1842, though it is not named in the catalogues of 1846-7, 1848-9. In 1852-3 the study of Guizot’s Lectures on Civilization was added to the courses previously prescribed for Seniors. In 1854 Prof. Haddock, who three years earlier had accepted the position of Charge d’ Affaires of the United States at the court of Lisbon, resigned his chair. A nephew of Daniel Webster, Prof. Haddock resembled his distinguished relative in graceful diction, luminous statement and, capacity for logical argument. These qualities, though best displayed in his brief service in the New Hampshire Legislature and his public addresses, made his class room instruction memorable and the tradition of its large value is uniform.

         His successor was Rev. Clement Long (D. C., 1828), who had served as Lecturer on Intellectual and Moral Philosophy since 1851. The courses in Law, Government and Economics when he assumed his chair were the four previously named: Political Economy, (Say), History (Guizot), Constitutional Law (Story [1833: Volume 1; Volume 2; Volume 3],), open to both Seniors and Juniors — and the Federalist. No change was made by him in these courses during his term of office, except that in 1860-61 Story on the Constitution was withdrawn and Woolsey’s International Law was offered to Juniors though it does not appear during the years immediately following. Prof. Long, like all the other incumbents of this chair, occasionally supplemented the prescribed textbooks by formal lectures. Two of his are the only ones that an extended search has discovered. One is entitled “The Justice and Expendiency of Laws Regulating Trade.” The other treats of “The Importance of the Study of Human Nature in Relation to Politics,” and discusses first, the actual interest of Americans in politics; second, urgent reasons why their political opinions should be correct; third, the certainty that there must be somewhere a basis of fact for some political theories; fourth, some principles in human nature which a political theorist should recognize, and fifth, certain errors which have sprung from a disregard of these principles. Prof. Long was a trained logician who had a scrupulous regard for facts and unusual power to stimulate thought. His professional training led him to give large place to the ethical aspect of whatever subject he taught, and his success as a teacher of Political Science and Economics and his moulding power upon his students was marked.

         Upon the death of Prof. Long in 1861 he was succeeded by Prof. Samuel Gilman Brown (D. C., 1831). During his occupancy of this chair the three courses in Political Economy (Say), History (Guizot), and the Federalist were offered in each year, and in addition the following: in 1862 Lieber’s Civil Liberty and Self Government; in 1864 May’s Constitutional History of England [1878: Volume 1; Volume 2 ; Volume 3]; in 1865 Pomeroy’s Municipal Law. Prof. Brown resigned in 1867. Widely known to American lawyers as the graceful biographer of Rufus Choate, Prof. Brown in the class room emphasized the historical phase of his work and impressed all who came under his instruction by his varied culture, exact thought, and judicial temper.

         His successor was Prof. Daniel J. Noyes (D. C., 1838), during whose term the instruction in Law and Government was greatly strengthened. He substituted Pomeroy’s Constitutional Law for the Federalist which had been used continuously in the class room at least since 1822, and Bowen’s National Economy and later Perry’s Political Economy for Say’s which had been used by successive classes since 1828. In 1867-8 International Law was offered to Juniors for whom it continued to be prescribed till 1876 when it became a Senior study.

From 1869 to 1875 Joel Parker (D.C. 1811), Chief Justice of New Hampshire from 1838 to 1848, and Royall Professor of Law in the Harvard Law School from 1847 to 1868, Trustee of the College from 1843 to 1860, annually delivered a course of lectures on law before its officers and students. Unfortunately only three of these lectures, those delivered in 1869, were published. These may be found in the volume entitled Addresses of Joel Parker, under the titles of: 1, “The Three Powers of Government;” 2, “The Origin of the United States and the Status of the Southern States on the Suppression of the Rebellion;” 3, “The Three Dangers of the Republic.” These were clear, logical and masterly discussions of some of the questions in American Constitutional Law which were then agitating the public mind. The events of the recent Rebellion which suggested these subjects, the clear and interesting exposition of the National Theory of the Constitution by Pomeroy in the class room by Professor Noyes, and the legal acumen and powerful logic with which that theory as applied by the party then dominant in the government was criticised in the lecture room by Judge Parker, gave special interest during this period to the course in Constitutional Law.

         In 1871 Benjamin Labaree (D. C., 1828), ex-President of Middlebury College, was added to the faculty as special Lecturer on International Law, and continued to instruct Juniors in this subject until his retirement in 1876, when it was transferred to the Senior year. His lectures, with illustrations drawn from our recent diplomatic history, worthily supplemented those just described on Constitutional Law.

         In 1883 Professor Noyes resigned. Of him no discriminating pupil could say less than that he had “the beauty of accuracy in his understanding and the beauty of righteousness in his character.” In the class-room he always showed thorough command of the material of his text books and constantly “aimed to secure the thorough mastery of these, as being for most students the best preparation for broad and thorough supplementary study of other authors, and other aspects of each subject.”

         During the two following years the regular courses in Political Economy, in Constitutional Law, and in International Law were conducted by Samuel G. Brown, Professor of Intellectual Philosophy and Political Economy, 1863–7 and ex-President of Hamilton College, and Henry A. Folsom, Esq., (D.C., 1871), a member of the Suffolk Bar of Massachusetts.

         In 1882 the study of American Political History was added to the curriculum for Seniors, and during the collegiate years 1882-5, there being no chair of history, instruction in this subject was generously given by Charles F. Richardson, Winkley Professor of the English Language and Literature. The manual used as a basis in this course was Johnston’s American Politics.

         In 1885 a legacy to the College from Chief Justice Parker, whose death occurred ten years earlier, became available for the establishment of such a collegiate professorship of law as had been planned by the Trustees in 1808. This distinguished jurist, whose many and unrequited services to his Alma Mater were not limited to or measured by his faithful discharge of the duties of Trustee and Lecturer on Law during a whole generation, intended to found a Law Department in Dartmouth College. The inadequacy of the realized endowment for that purpose and the difficulties that were anticipated in the attempt to conduct an additional law school in New England, apart from any populous center and remote from courts, led the Trustees, when duly authorized thereto, in 1885, to apply this legacy to the establishment of the Joel Parker Professorship of Law and Political Science. In the same year the present incumbent of this chair was elected and also was made Instructor in History. The courses offered under his tuition during the next ten years, 1885-95 (except when transferred to his colleagues as below specified), included the following:

  1. Constitutional Law (Required for Seniors). Text, Cooley’s Principles of Constitutional Law.
  2. Elementary Law (Elective for Seniors). Text, Hadley’s Roman Law and Markby’s Elements of Law, or Holland’s Jurisprudence.
  3. International Law (Elective for Seniors). Text, Woolsey’s or Davis’ International Law.
  4. Elementary Political Economy (Required for Seniors). Text, Walker’s Political Economy. This course was transfered to the Professor of Social Science in 1893.
  5. Advanced Political Economy (Elective for Seniors). An historical and critical study of some present economic problems, such as Taxation, Tariff History of the United States Banking, Bimetallism. Among the texts used in different years were Cossa’s Principles and Methods of Taxation, Taussig’s Tariff History of the United States, Dunbar’s Theory and History of Banking, Hadley’s Railroad Transportation, and the Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency. This course was introduced in 1888 and a part of its work was transferred to the Professor of Social Science in 1893.
  6. Advanced Political Economy (Elective for Seniors). Economic History. Lectures with use of Rand’s Economic History since 1763 and Wells’ (D. A.) Recent Economic Changes. This course was introduced in 1888 and was transferred to the Professor of Social Science in 1893.
  7. Mediaeval and Modern History (Required for Sophomores). Text, Freeman’s General Sketch of European History or Myers’ Mediaeval and Modern History. In 1888 this course was transferred to Librarian Marvin D. Bisbee to give place to course 9 below described.
  8. American Political History (Elective for Seniors), Lectures on the Physical Geography of the United States, the Planting of the English Colonies, the Formation of the Union, and a study of the period 1783-1860. Manuals used were Fiske’s Critical Period of American History, Johnston’s American Politics. This course was transferred to the Professor of History in 1893, though taught during that year by Prof. D. Collin Wells.
  9. English Constitutional History (Elective for Seniors), Texts, Taswell-Langmead’s or May’s Constitutional History of England [1878: Volume 1; Volume 2 ; Volume 3].

         During these years, 1885–95, while many new electives were being added to the curriculum the number of students pursuing the studies above described is shown in the following table:

Class

Constitutional Law
(Required)
Elementary Law (Elective) International Law (Elective) American Political History (Elective) English Constitutional History (Elective) Elementary Economics (Required) Advanced Economics (Required) Economic History (Elective)

1886

55 17 47 45 55
1887 63 9 26 38 63

1888

48 23 24 30 48 10
1889 52 8 21 27 8 52 4

7

1890

53 12 25 38 8 53 23 4
1891 46 21 29 43 4 46 25

20

1892

55 13 20 43 11 55 31 24
1893 56 18 20 42 18 56 26

9

1894 65 18 7 15 13 65 33

15

         In 1893 a notable enlargement and marked improvement in the work of the College was made possible by the establishment of chairs of Social Science and of History. The resulting division of the labor of the Parker Professor of Law and Political Science, the addition of numerous courses5 in Social Science and History, and the mutual helpfulness of each of these departments whose subject matters are interdependent, have united to give Dartmouth exceptional means among smaller colleges for the pursuit of those studies which directly promote good citizenship.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

5 See “Study of Sociology at Dartmouth,” by Prof. D. C. Wells, in The Dartmouth, June 14, 1895, and “Teaching of History at Dartmouth,” by Prof. H. D. Foster in The Dartmouth, May 22, 1896.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

         In Law and Political Science the courses offered during the current year, 1895–96, the object proposed and the method used are as follows:

  1. American Constitutional Law (Prescribed for Seniors, First Term). This course is designed to give students a knowledge of the general principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States, both federal and statal. Such knowledge is exacted of all students because it is deemed essential to intelligent citizenship. The historical aspect of the subject is emphasized and particular attention is given to the origin and development of American political institutions, to the merits of written and unwritten constitutions, and to the immediate causes of the adoption of the federal constitution and to the most important parts of its text. The system of State and Federal courts is also described, frequent reference is made to reports, and students are urged to read leading cases and those of present practical interest. Recitations, supplemented by lectures and examination. Forty-two exercises, three hours weekly. (Cooley’s Principles of Constitutional Law).
  2. English Constitutional History and Law (Elective for Seniors, Second Term). This course is planned with special reference to the needs of students who expect to enter the profession of law. It traces the growth of English political and legal institutions from the earliest times to the present. Forty-eight exercises, four hours weekly. (Taswell-Langmead’s English Constitutional History, or Anson’s Law and Custom of the Constitution [1886: Part 1 Parliament ; 1896 Part 2 The Crown], with use of the Statutes of the Realm, and Select Charters).
  3. The State (Elements of Politics). (Elective for Seniors, Second Term). This course is historical as well as comparative and critical. It treats of the origin and development of the state, its forms, functions, and ends. It includes a brief study of the governments of Greece and Rome, the Teutonic (Mediaeval) Polity, and comparison of the present constitutions of England, France, Germany and the United States. Recitations and lectures. Twenty-four exercises, two hours weekly. Manual, Wilson’s The State.
  4. Elementary Law. (Elective for Seniors, Third Term), This course is intended for students who expect to enter the profession of law, and is planned to give a general view of the whole field of the law and an introduction to its terminology and its fundamental ideas. It consists of (a) an historical survey of the Roman Law and of the English Common Law and (b) a critical examination of the fundamental ideas in both these systems of law. Recitations and lectures with reports on assigned topics in the history of law. Forty exercises, four hours weekly. Texts, Hadley’s Introduction to Roman Law, Markby’s Elements of Law.
  5. International Law. (Elective for Seniors, Third Term). This course is historical and explanatory of present international relations. It treats of the origin and development of the rules that generally govern the intercourse of modern civilized states, the most important European treaties since 1648, and some subjects of recent interest in American Diplomacy such as the Northeast Fisheries, Asylum on American Merchant Vessels in Foreign Waters, Jurisdiction over Behring Sea, Recognition of Cuban Belligerency. Lectures and readings. Twenty exercises, two hours weekly. Manual, Lawrence’s Principles of International Law.
  6. Graduate Course. This is an extension of courses 1, 2, 3 and 4. The work includes American Constitutional History, 1789-1865, English Constitutional History, 1760-1870, the History of the Common Law, and Comparative Constitutional Law.

         In all these six courses the method of instruction is a combination of recitation upon text book and of lectures. The proportionate use of each varies both with the subject matter and with the class or division and its adjudged requirements; but in all cases a text-book with set lessons, followed by examination, both oral and written, is prescribed as a basis for the class or division work.

         In 1894, through the liberality of Gardiner G. Hubbard, Esq., (D. C. 1841), a Lectureship on United States History during and since the Civil War was established which has been filled for the past three years by ex-Senator Henry L. Dawes. His large ability, long experience in both branches of Congress and ripe judgment have made these lectures authoritative expositions of constitutional law, economic policy and recent political history, and greatly strengthened the regular work of the College. The subjects of these lectures were as follows:

In 1894: The Dual Character of Our Government; The Respective Powers of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the Government; The Executive Department; The Battle Before the War; The Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of the Seceding States; The History of Tariff Legislation.

In 1895: The Amendments of the Constitution, Their History and Character; The Origin and Basis of Nullification and Secession; The History and Character of Our Territorial Acquisitions; The Presidency in Court (Impeachment and Counting the Electoral Vote); Thaddeus Stevens and His Leadership in the War and Reconstruction; The United States and the Indian.

In 1896: Politics in Appointments; The Constitution and Interstate Commerce; Inter-Oceanic Commerce; The History and Scope of the Monroe Doctrine; England During and After Our Civil War; Fifty Years of Development and Expansion in a Written Constitution.

         No account of instruction in Law and Economics in Dartmouth College would be complete which failed to mention the work which has been done in its Associated Institutions. In the Chandler Scientific School at different times between 1853 and its closer union with the College in 1893, brief elective courses were offered in Municipal, Constitutional and International Law, and Political Economy. Instruction in these subjects commonly was given by the same person who taught them in the College, but in Municipal Law, from 1883–6, by Henry A. Folsom, Esq., and in Political Economy from 1884–92 by Charles P. Chase (D. C. 1869), the present Treasurer of the College.

         In the Medical School lectures on Medical Jurisprudence were given as early as 1838 and a professorship of Medical Jurisprudence was established as early as 1847. This chair has been held in succession by three eminent graduates of the College whose contributions to legal literature and whose services as teachers of law have added to their high reputation, Chief Justice Joel Parker, Chief Justice Isaac F. Redfield and Prof. John Ordronaux.

         The Law Library of the College numbers by recent count 2700 volumes, made up of statutes, histories of law, treatises, English and American reports, and numerous works on Roman Civil Law. A large part of the treatises and reports were received from Chief Justice Parker. The more recent additions are due to the liberality of some of the Alumni of New York. There is need of constant though small additions to this library for which there is no permanent fund.

         Such have been the civic studies offered by Dartmouth for one hundred years. With what measure of success they have been taught by the different instructors named must be judged by the Historian of the College. But it is permissible, so plain is the record, for any one to affirm that all of them, Shurtleff, Haddock, Long, Brown, and Noyes, and the special Lecturers have been faithful to their high trust of training American youth for good citizenship. This implies, since Dartmouth has constantly insisted that all candidates for its degrees should have some knowledge of Political Science and the fundamental laws of their country, that none of its graduates have gone forth wholly unprepared for the intelligent discharge of their duties as citizens. The circumstance that a large proportion of these graduates have entered the profession of law and the subordinate place commonly given to the topics of Political Science, Public and International Law in Law Offices and Law Schools also have contributed to make these collegiate instructors important though silent forces in the Commonwealth. The extent of the influence of a college upon public affairs is not susceptible of exact statement, but an unmistakable sign that that of Dartmouth has been large is found not only in the number of its distinguished graduates whose names are part of our legal and political history, among whom are Webster, Choate, Chase, Parker, and Redfield, but also in the marked tendency of its graduates toward the profession of law. This tendency, challenging attention in the early years of the century and continuing to its close, is shown in the following table compiled from the General Catalogue:

Years

Total Graduates Lawyers Per cent
1771-1780 89 4

4 ½

1780-1790

165 29 17 ½+
1790-1800 363 132

36 1/3 +

1800-1810

337 156 46 ¼ +
1810-1820 400 109

27 ½ +

1820-1830

335 101 30 +
1830-1840 388 104

26 ¾

1840-1850

588 163 27 ¾ +
1850-1860 565 178

31 ½ +

1860-1870

495 143 29 –
1870-1880 616 184

30 –

1880-1890

538 130 24 +
4879 1433

29 +

         Whatever Dartmouth College has been able to accomplish during the long period under review by the offer of political, legal, and economic studies in promoting good citizenship and in contributing to the broad training of lawyers has been due in no small degree to two causes. One is the strong character of the youth who have formed its constituency and who have come to its portals mainly from New England where township government already had awakened their political instincts and made them unusually receptive of the ideas of political philosophers and eager for a practical knowledge of law. The other is the wise refusal of its Founder to prescribe any such test of political orthodoxy for its teachers as was set up by Jefferson in the University of Virginia or Wharton in the School of Finance and Economy in the University of Pennsylvania, and its trustful commission to them to teach untrammelled and without regard to sect or party what they believed to be the truth.

Source: James Fairbanks Colby, Legal and Political Studies in Dartmouth College, 1796-1896.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Honors Exams, 2002-2016

 

Departmental websites are valuable to visitors for providing up-to-date information but the future needs of historians of economics are of no consequence for the informational calculus of working webmeisters. We all hate it when we encounter dead links in our internet searches. Fortunately, the internet archive WaybackMachine often provides us a time tunnel needed to take on our mission to resuscitate expired web pages for the “old” content we seek. 

Today’s post is a simple listing of archived links to Harvard’s undergraduate honors examinations in economics from the period 2002-2016. The only gap is for the year 2015. Maybe a copy of the 2015 exams has survived as hard-copy in someone’s literal files? Peeps, don’t fail me now!

To see how the honors examinations fit into the economics concentration requirements at Harvard in the early 21st century, I have provided a copy of the 2003/2004 requirements, followed by a link to the requirements 2015/2016.

_____________________________

Concentration requirements rev. Sept. 2003

COURSES REQUIRED OF ALL ECONOMICS CONCENTRATORS

• Math 1a or equivalent knowledge
• Social Analysis 10
• Econ 970 (Sophomore Tutorial)
• Stat 100 or Stat 104; or both Stat 110 and 111; or both Stat 110 and econometrics
• Econ 1010a or 1011a
• Econ 1010b or 1011b
(except for Math, none of the above may be taken pass/fail)
• 3 related field courses
• (1 econometrics course – Econ 1123 or 1126 – for students entering Harvard in fall 2003 or thereafter)

NON-HONORS REQUIREMENTS

• 4 additional half courses (3, for students entering Harvard in fall 2003 or thereafter) that include:

1 course with a writing requirement
1 course with intermediate theory as prerequisite

HONORS REQUIREMENTS

A. With Thesis: The following are required for Summa or Magna degrees:

• 1 econometrics course (Econ 1123 or 1126)
• 3 additional half courses that include:

1 course with a writing requirement
1 course with intermediate theory as prerequisite

• Econ 985 (Senior Thesis Seminar)
• Successful completion of senior thesis
Honors general examination

B. Advanced Course Track: Department honors without thesis – cum degree only

• 1 econometrics course (Econ 1123 or 1126)
• 5 additional half courses that include:

2 courses with a writing requirement
2 courses with intermediate theory as prerequisite

Honors general examination

C. Joint Concentration

• Same as Honors requirements with thesis with one exception:

4 courses in joint field instead of the 3 related field courses

ECONOMICS AS THE ALLIED FIELD

• Social Analysis 10
• 4 additional half courses in economics, including at least one intermediate theory course (1010a, 1011a, 1010b, 1011b – these may not be taken pass/fail)
• Thesis required combining both areas of study
Honors general examination – answer either the micro, macro, or econometrics question

Note: Courses may count for more than one requirement – one course could satisfy a writing and prerequisite requirement. However, you still must take the required overall number of economics courses.

Source: Oct 9, 2003 capture by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

Cf. the economics concentration requirements at Harvard as of October 2015.

_____________________________

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

-unavailable-

2016

Categories
Cambridge Harvard Oxford Princeton Regulations Undergraduate

Harvard. Tutorial System and Divisional General Final Examinations, 1920

 

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. That this requirement go into effect with the class entering in 1913.
  4. 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:

    1. The examination has secured “concentration” in related subjects.
    2. It has encouraged the mastery of subjects or fields rather than of courses.
    3. It has given the Division a survey of the student’s capacity at the end of his college course.
    4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. That the new general final examinations be first employed for the members of the present freshman class.
  3. 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.

__________________________

Related previous posts

Harvard. First Undergraduate General and Specific Exams in History, Government and Economics Division, 1916.

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

 

Categories
Faculty Regulations Harvard Undergraduate

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

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.

______________________________

Other related posts

Harvard. First Undergraduate General and Specific Exams in History, Government and Economics Division, 1916.

Harvard College President Lowell on Instruction in Economics Department, 1917

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

Image Source: Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell from Harvard Class Album 1920.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Teaching Undergraduate

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

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
  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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]

  1. 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

  1. 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
  1. 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]

  1. 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

  1. 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
  1. 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.

  1. 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.
  1. The interactions of such decisions among business firms in a dynamic economy.
  2. 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

  1. 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
  1. 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.

  1. “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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. (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?
  5. Discuss the behavior and interactions of consumption and investment expenditures as Gross National Product fluctuates over the course of the business cycle.
  6. “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.
  7. 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)

  1. (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.

  1. “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.
  2. In what ways are wages related to the marginal productivity of labor? How does collective bargaining influence wages and employment?
  3. “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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.

Categories
Faculty Regulations Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

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

 

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.

 

Categories
Economics Programs M.I.T. Undergraduate

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

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

  1. 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

  1. Faculty adviser for humanities concentration in economics (advises and signs up students); also considers the eligibility of economics subjects, what we consider concentration, etc.
  2. 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.)
  3. Approval of transfer of credits from other schools to M.I.T.
  4. Advising with Undergraduate Economic Association in matters academic, professional, social.
  5. 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.
  6. Design of curriculum, cooperative program, etc.
  7. 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.
  8. Relations with other Departments at undergraduate level, such as subject offerings, subject content, etc.
  9. Supervision and staffing of undergraduate subjects with multiple sections — 14.001, 14.002, 14.03, 14.04, 14.06, 14.30, 14.31.
  10. Catalog copy.

Chairman, Committee on Graduate Studies

  1. 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?
  2. Admissions Committee has, in the past, had three members.
  3. Placement, both summer and permanent.
  4. Supervision of core subjects.
  5. Ph.D. and M.S. requirements, program, size.
  6. Financial aid — coordinating various GRO; Admissions Committee, and Budget limitations.
  7. Graduate School Policy Committee meetings.
  8. Annual revision of brochure.
  9. Graduate Economics Association, Black Graduate Economics Association.
  10. Catalog copy.
  11. Various activities — professional and social that are not contained within a particular class.

Chairman, Committee on Economic Research (I faculty)

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

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

  1. 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
  1. Space allocations, revisions.
  2. Budget Proposals
  3. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. There seems to be no reason to change the way the Admissions Committee now functions.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

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

 

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.