Category: Yale

Categories
Economists Suggested Reading Yale

Yale. Suggested readings in social sciences from Arthur T. Hadley, 1901

President of Yale and former Professor of Political Economy, Arthur T. Hadley provides guidance to reading in the social sciences in the literature survey of this posting. It was published as one of six papers in a volume “based upon lectures arranged by the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, and delivered in Philadelphia in the winter of 1898-99. The impulse to read good books that has grown out of the work of the Society in Philadelphia seemed to demand the suggestions that it was the purpose of these lectures to offer to those who desire to read wisely.”

Economics is discussed between pages 155 and 162 in the text following the book references, but visitors are encouraged to read the entire essay to appreciate the place of economics in Hadley’s scheme of the social sciences.

________________________

SOCIOLOGY, ECONOMICS, AND POLITICS
BY ARTHUR T. HADLEY

REFERENCES

“History of the Science of Politics,” by Sir Frederick Pollock, London, 1890.
[First edition 1890; New and Revised Edition 1911; Reprint 1930.]

“Commentaries on the Laws of England,” by Blackstone, London, 1765-69.
[John Adams’ copies:  Book I; Book II;  Book III; Book IV]

“Fragment on Government,” by Jeremy Bentham, London, 1776.

“Ancient Law,” by Sir Henry Sumner Maine, London, 1861.

“Wealth of Nations,” by Adam Smith, 1776. Edition with notes by Thorold Rogers, Oxford, 1880. Abridgment by Ashley, London, 1895.  [Vol I.; Vol II.]

“Principles of Political Economy, with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy,” by John Stuart Mill, London, 1848.
[1871: Seventh edition:   Vol. I; Vol. II.]

“Contemporary Socialism,” by John Rae. Second edition, London, 1891.
[1884: First edition; 1891: Second edition;  1901: Third edition]

“Burke,” by John Morley, London, 1888.

“Social Evolution,” by Benjamin Kidd, London, 1894.

“Physics and Politics,” by Walter Bagehot, London and New York, 1872. [1873: First Edition; 1881: Sixth Edition]

 

[p. 139]

SOCIOLOGY, ECONOMICS, AND POLITICS

It is the work of the biographer or the historian to gather the events which group themselves about some man or body of men, and trace the subtle sequences of causation by which they are connected. The task of the student of political theory, whether he call himself economist, jurist, or sociologist, is a more ambitious and a more perilous one. His explanations of political events must be general instead of specific. It is not enough for him to correlate the occurrences of a particular life or a particular period. He must frame laws which will enable his followers to correlate the events of any life or any period with which they may have to deal, and to sum up in a single generalization the lesson of many such lives and periods.

This is the kind of result at which the sociologist must aim, if he has the right to call himself a sociologist at all. His manner of [140] reaching it will depend upon his individual character. It may be in flashes of genius like that of Burke. It may be by the strict observance of logical processes like those of John Stuart Mill. It may be — and this is the most common method of all — by a painstaking study of history like that of Aristotle or Adam Smith. Such a study of history the sociologist is at some stage of his progress practically compelled to make. The most brilliant genius must verify his theories by comparing them with the facts. The most astute logician must test the correctness of his processes by applying his conclusions to practical life. In default of such study we have not a work of science but a work of the imagination. This is the character of books like Plato’s “Republic,” like More’s “Utopia,” like Bellamy’s “Equality.” It is to a less degree the character of books like Rousseau’s “Contrat Social” or George’s “Progress and Poverty.” Each of these is a work of genius; but in Plato or Bellamy there is no historical verification at all, and in Rousseau or George there is not enough of it. A work of this kind is sure to be unscientific; and what is worse, it is [141] almost equally sure to be pernicious in its practical influence.

We are sometimes told that these imaginative works of sociology bear the same relation to politics that the historical novel does to history. This may be true if we look at them solely from the standpoint of literary art. But if we judge from their moral effect upon the reader the parallel fails. Reader and author both know that the historical novel is not true. It does not pretend to be true. No one is in danger of mistaking “Quentin Durward”or “Henry Esmond” for actual histories of the time with which they deal. With the writings of political theorists it is far otherwise. The line between the picture of an actual state and the picture of a possible state is not a very clear one. The reader of Rousseau or George hardly knows when he passes from a description of real evils and abuses to a description of imaginary remedies. The greater the ability with which such a work is written the greater is the danger of confusion. The author as well as the reader is excited by the exercise of imaginative power. Bellamy is said to have written “Looking Backward” as a work of fiction [142] pure and simple; but when his readers began to regard him in the light of a prophet, there was an irresistible temptation for the author to regard himself in the same way.

If a man can write literature at all, the construction of a work of political imagination gives him a fatally easy chance to act as a leader of men’s thoughts, Plato’s “Republic” was a far easier work to construct than Aristotle’s “Politics.” The one required only concentrated thought, the other involved in addition a painstaking use of material. There is the same advantage in facility of construction in the works of Rousseau as compared with those of Turgot. The easily written work is also the one which enjoys more readers and which has more influence, at least during the writer’s lifetime. George’s “Progress and Poverty” was not based on an investigation into the history of land tenure. He was therefore able in good faith to promise his readers the millennium if certain schemes of social reform were adopted; and readers anxious for the millennium were enthusiastic over the book. Wagner, in his “Foundations of Political Economy,” unfortunately not translated into English, made a [143] scrupulous investigation of those historical points which George had overlooked, and he was therefore unable to promise his readers the millennium. The consequence is that where Wagner counts one disciple George counts a thousand. Of the ultimate disappointment and evil which result when we trust ourselves to unhistorical theories of politics it is hardly necessary to speak. The work of political imagination may have the same artistic character as the historical novel, but it has a baneful practical influence which makes it, from the moralist’s standpoint, an illegitimate use of artistic resources.

It is not in his choice of subject matter, but in the form of his conclusions, that the work of the sociologist differs from that of the writer of history. The man who aims at specific explanations, however widespread, is an historian; the man who is occupied with verifying generalizations, however narrow, is a sociologist. Bryce’s “American Commonwealth” is essentially a work of history. That he deals with a set of contemporary events instead of successive ones is an accident of his subject. He has taken a cross section of history, instead of a longitudinal [144] section, because American political events are better understood by looking at them in the former way than in the latter. On the other hand, Bagehot’s “English Constitution,” though very similar to Bryce’s “American Commonwealth” in its subject and in its external arrangement, is predominantly a sociological work; and the same thing may be said yet more unreservedly of Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” To Bagehot and to Burke, the understanding of English or French politics was not an end; it was rather an incident in the discovery and application of those profounder laws which regulate the politics of every nation.

The use of the name “sociology” to designate investigations of this kind dates from Auguste Comte; its widespread popular acceptance, which makes it necessary for us to use it whether we like it or not, results chiefly from the influence of Herbert Spencer. Many students of political theory regard the term as an unfortunate one; and I am inclined to think that we shall understand the real scope of our subject better if we use the word sociology only under protest. This is not because it is bad Latin, — though it is very bad [145] Latin indeed, — but because it has prevented the use of a much better term, ethics, the science of customs and morals. The effect of calling our subject sociology instead of ethics has been bad, both on the students of morals and on the students of society. It has caused the students of morals to follow old methods and to make their science predominantly a deductive rather than an empirical one. Instead of availing themselves of the results of history and making a social study of those laws of conduct which are essentially social phenomena, they have continued, like their fathers, to make it a branch of psychology. Meantime it has caused the professed students of sociology to go too far in the other direction; to neglect the help which they can get from wide-awake psychologists like Mark Baldwin, whose “Social and Ethical Interpretations in Mental Development” is really a profound contribution to political study, and to occupy themselves far more with classifying things which they see from the outside, than with explaining those which they get from the inside. Among people who have but a slight knowledge of the methods and purposes of political science, [146] there is a tendency to apply the name “sociology” to every description of the actions of men in society, whether scientific or not. The story of a public bath-house, the collection of a few wage statistics, or the scheme for a new method of measuring criminals are all described as studies in sociology; and the observer, who has perhaps collected a little material for the future historian, is deluded by the high-sounding name into the belief that he has done more truly scientific work than Gibbon or Mill, Nor do the really scientific sociologists wholly escape the baleful influence of a name which tends to separate their field so widely from that of the moralists. It leads them to make their science a branch of anthropology; to deal with men chiefly in masses; to give disproportionate importance to the study of prehistoric races just because they are so readily looked at in this way. Even if, like Bastian or Giddings, we give just importance to the development of mental processes, as distinct from physical ones, we are prone to begin at a point so remote from our own that we are unable to test the correctness of our descriptions.

Thus it has come to pass that there is in [147] the popular mind not only a separation but an antithesis between ethics, which deals with the profounder instincts derived from our consciousness, and the various branches of sociology, — law, economics, politics, — whose study and whose precepts are empirical. This way of looking at things is fundamentally wrong. All good sociological work has a profoundly ethical character. Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, Blackstone, Adam Smith, not to mention a score of scarcely less distinguished writers, obtained their hold upon the public by the light which they threw upon ethical difficulties and moral problems. Their sociological work has sometimes been based on good ethics and sometimes on bad ethics; in fact, its ethics has generally been good or bad according to the greater or less completeness of the historical study which has preceded it. But some powerful ethical reasoning it has contained and must contain in order to secure a hold on mankind. It must explain men’s mental and moral attitude toward each other. Sociology is ethics, and ethics is sociology. The apparent opposition between the two is the result of deductive scientific methods on one side or the other.

[148] We have now defined the limits of our subject. We are seeking to gain a general view of that literature which is based upon history, expresses its conclusions in general laws, and seeks to explain men’s moral conduct as members of society. The successful investigations in this field fall under three groups: law, economics, and politics. The first seeks to explain, criticise, and justify the judicial relations of mankind as determined by the necessities of public security; the second their commercial relations as determined by the necessities of business; while the third, as yet in its infancy, attempts to consider their political and moral relations as members of a civil society in whose government they have a share.

The principles of law were of course formulated at a very early period. First we have codes of procedure, like the Twelve Tables of Rome; then we have formal rules of conduct which will be enforced by the civil authority; still later we have judicial decisions and legal text-books indicating the methods in which these traditional rules are applied to new cases. But none of these is literature. Legal literature, in the broader [149] sense, may be said to begin when we endeavor to explain the relations between the rules of law and the principles of natural justice accepted by the conscience of the community. The two greatest modern works of law, Blackstone’s “Commentaries” in England and Savigny’s “System of the Roman Law of To-day” in Germany, both owe their power to this underlying idea. Not that it is obtruded upon the reader, but that it is held in reserve as a vivifying force. Blackstone is distinguished from “Coke upon Littleton,” not in being a greater legal authority, — for, technically speaking, “Coke upon Littleton” is legal authority while Blackstone is not, — but because Blackstone wrote a work for the public and not for the lawyers; a work which put all English-speaking gentlemen in touch with the common law, and made it, not an instrument of professional success, but a part of the reader’s life. The ethical character manifest in Blackstone’s writings is from the necessity of the case even more saliently developed in the works of the international lawyers, and most of all in their great leader Grotius. For international law rests not [150] upon the authority of a superior who has the physical force to make his commands respected, but on the common sense and common consent of the parties in interest. A treatise on international law is therefore in the highest sense a treatise on ethics, — ethics put to the test of practice, and verified or rejected by history.

But profound as is the harmony between law and justice in civilized nations, the occasional dissonance is on that ground all the more marked. These dissonances have therefore occupied a large attention among those who studied the relations between law and ethics. What gives authority to certain principles which we call law, more or less independent of those other principles which we call justice? It was Hobbes who, in his “Leviathan,” first undertook a systematic answer to this question, and developed the theory of the social compact which, for good or ill, has formed the subject of so many political controversies. According to Hobbes, a state of nature is for mankind a state of anarchy. To avoid the intolerable evils of this condition, governments have been established for the purpose of giving [151] security. As long as a government does, in fact, give such security, it performs its part of the compact under which it was established; and its subjects, as representatives of the other party to such a compact, are bound to obey its ordinances. The evils of anarchy were, in Hobbes’s view, so great that no approximation to the enforcement of justice could be obtained except under such a surrender of personal rights and opinions as was implied in his fiction of the social compact.

In the hands of Hobbes this doctrine was a conservative force. It justified men in keeping quiet under evils against which their moral sense would otherwise have led them to revolt. But in the century following Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau made a use of the social compact theory of which its author never dreamed, — a use which made it not a conservative but a revolutionary power, — a use which reintroduced into politics and into law those discussions of natural justice which it had been Hobbes’s aim to exclude. For Rousseau denied emphatically that the government had fulfilled its part of the contract with the people when it simply [152] maintained a state of public security. It was not enough to govern, it must govern well; it must not merely repress positive disorder, but promote that justice and that happiness which the collective public opinion of the community demanded. The government, as Rousseau regarded it, was a trustee for the people, pledged and required to pursue popular happiness, and forfeiting its trust the moment it used it for any other purpose. It was on these views of Locke and Rousseau that the authors of the Declaration of Independence based their political doctrines. It was on these views that the French Revolution was founded, and in the exaggeration of these views that its excesses were committed.

But just at the time when this idea of the social compact was most widely influential in practice, it received its deathblow as a theory. With marvelously acute analysis, Bentham, in his “Fragment on Government,” proved that there was neither historically nor logically any such thing as a social compact. Government, according to Bentham, derives its authority, not from an ancient promise to give public security, nor from [153] a long standing trusteeship in behalf of the people, but from the habitual obedience of its subjects. Where such habitual obedience exists, there is government. The accredited acts of such a government are lawful, whether they conform to the ideas of natural justice in any individual case or not. If these acts are habitually contrary to the people’s sense of justice, discontent will culminate in revolution, and then the government will be changed so that another authority and another set of laws will come into being. But the second government, like the first, derives its authority from the fact of being able to exercise its power. Any rights which Hobbes might deduce from a supposed agreement by which it was brought into being, or any limitations on its authority which Rousseau might deduce from a similar hypothesis, are both alike fictitious.

Such was the ground taken by Bentham; and he has been followed by almost all English and American writers who deal with law from a professional standpoint. But there has very recently been a tendency to react from this extreme view and to take a middle ground between the position of [154] Bentham and Hobbes. For while it is undoubtedly true that people habitually obey a government, and that its authority is in fact based on this habitual obedience, it is also true that they obey cheerfully only within certain limits set by public opinion, and that beyond those limits they defeat the governmental authority, not by a revolution, but by the quieter process of nullification. The same habit which establishes the government establishes bounds within which it regards the authority of that government as salutary, and beyond which it will not encourage or even allow the government to go. This view was foreshadowed by Burke in some of the noblest of his political orations. It was applied historically by Sir Henry Maine in his studies of Indian village communities. It has received vigorous support from Herbert Spencer in his brilliant collection of essays, “The Man versus the State.” In America, where the extreme views of Bentham have never enjoyed the unquestioned authority which they possessed in England, even professional lawyers like Abbott Lawrence Lowell have developed theories of law and government based on this [155] view. It only remains for some man of genius to summarize the conclusions of these scattered works, and to develop a theory of the relations between law and justice which shall do for the students of our day what Aristotle did for those of two thousand years ago.

The study of economics, or principles of commerce, began much later than the study of law. The recognition of the ethical character of governments antedated by at least two thousand years the recognition of the ethical character of commerce. Those who look at business operations from the outside, as most of the early writers did, regard them as presumably immoral; as bearing the same relations to the principles of justice which the thief bears to the policeman. Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, are all actuated by this idea. It was reserved for Adam Smith to develop a philosophy of business which was in the highest and best sense of the word a moral philosophy. There have been a good many needless inquiries as to the reasons which make the “Wealth of Nations” superior in merit and influence to the many other acute economic [156] writings in the latter part of the last century. The answer to these inquiries is a simple one. It was because Smith presented clearly to the reader the essentially moral character of business under modern conditions. His predecessors had generally thought of trade as a bargain, as a contest between buyer and seller, where the more skillful and more unscrupulous party gained the advantage over the other. Smith showed how under free competition the self-interest of the several parties, intelligently pursued, conduced to the highest advantage of the community. Did high prices prevail? It was a symptom of scarcity. If we forbade the seller to take advantage of that scarcity, we perpetuated the evil. If, on the other hand, we invited other sellers to compete with him, we directed the industrial forces of the community to the point where they are most needed; we relieved the scarcity of which the high price is but a symptom, and at comparatively small expense to society effected a lasting cure. There is not time to develop this theory of Smith’s in all its varied applications, or to show how, under the marvelous adjustments of modern business, price tends [157] to adjust itself to cost, and cost to be reduced to such a degree as to give the various members of the community the maximum of utility with the minimum of sacrifice. That Smith saw this truth, was his fundamental merit. That he was the first to see it in anything like its full scope, that he had the power to verify it, the candor to recognize its limits, the vigorous English in which to communicate his ideas to others, are facts which give the “Wealth of Nations” the place it deservedly holds in science and in literature. Not in economic science only, but in the whole field of morals have we learned from Adam Smith to expect a harmony of interests between the enlightened self-interest of the individual and the public needs of the community. The fact that the completeness of this harmony has been exaggerated by subsequent writers does not detract from the merit of its discoverer, but rather is a testimony to his power.

Of course Smith’s economic principles were widely called in question and vigorously debated. Some rejected his views altogether. Out of this rejection came the socialist controversy. Others held that his [158] principles of commerce were true as between individuals, but not as between nations; that in the latter case we necessarily had a bargain and a contest rather than a competition, a conflict of interests rather than a harmony. Out of this grew the protectionist controversy. The whole problem of protection is so interwoven with difficult points in the theory of taxation that the best discussion of the subject is often highly technical, and scarcely belongs to the domain of literature. But it would be wrong, in the city of Philadelphia, to give a review of economic writing which should pass over in silence the honored name of Henry C. Carey, who alone, perhaps, among protectionist writers meets the points of Adam Smith with a moral purpose not less profound than that of his opponent.

The socialist controversy belongs in far larger degree to the domain of literature. For half a century succeeding Adam Smith the benefits of increased competition were so great that all classes joined in demanding the removal of barriers against trade. But by the middle of the nineteenth century it had become quite evident that universal [159] happiness was not to be obtained in this way. Under the influence of Malthus many of the professed economists said that it was useless to strive in that direction; that with an increase of population misery must be the lot of the larger part of mankind. Such views aroused a reaction against commercialism. The literature of this reaction falls into two groups, — that of the Christian or conservative socialists, represented in English by Carlyle, Kingsley, and Ruskin, and that of the social democracy, whose great leaders in literature as well as in politics were Lassalle and Marx. The work of the Christian socialists has given us some charming examples of literary art. For the most part, however, the history of this school illustrates the danger of attempts to write on sociology without the necessary historical study. When it came to practical questions the Christian socialists as a body were found on the side of the slaveholder and the tyrant. Actual progress in emancipation came from the cautious and somewhat pessimistic student like Mill or Bright, who saw the difficulties in the way of reform, rather than from the man to whom impatience [160] seemed a virtue and idealism a substitute for history.

Lassalle and Marx deserve far more attention. Lassalle’s works have not been translated into English, and those of Marx are too voluminous and too abstruse for the general reader; but a good account of their character and influence can be found in Rae’s “Contemporary Socialism.” Lassalle was primarily a student of history, Marx a critic of actual business conditions. Lassalle thought that he discovered a law of historical evolution by which the control of business was moving farther and farther down among the masses of the people. Adam Smith’s work represented to him a period of transition from a narrower to a broader economy. It had the merit of taking business out of the hands of the privileged classes. It had the demerit of incompleteness, in that it left it in the hands of the property-owners. The evils of this incomplete work were accentuated — and over-accentuated — by Lassalle and Marx and their followers. Starting from the Aristotelian dogma that value is based on labor, Marx showed that the laborer did not get at present [161] all the product, but only a part of it; and he held that the other part, kept back from the laborer, represented legalized robbery.

Of the great ability of these writers and of their importance in the world’s literature there can be no doubt. In intellectual brilliancy they were probably superior to their greatest contemporary among the defenders of the existing order, — John Stuart Mill. Their failure was the result of a faulty method. Instead of starting from historical facts and working out towards explanations, they started with a principle of deductive ethics, that labor was necessarily the source of value. It was not in intellectual acuteness that they failed by comparison with Adam Smith, but in the intrinsic weakness of purely deductive methods for dealing with social phenomena. And it was just by knowing when to abandon these methods that John Stuart Mill succeeded. It is the fashion nowadays to criticise Mill’s economic writings unsparingly, to say that he carried nothing out to its logical conclusion, that he used neither the relentless logic of the last century nor the Darwinian methods [162] of the present. Yet Mill was greater than his critics. He had a profound conception of the importance of his subject in its moral aspects. He had a wide knowledge of facts. He had infinite industry in testing those facts. The very incompleteness of his conclusions, which has been made a subject of complaint against him, was the result of that candor which would not allow him to deal unscrupulously with facts that interfered with his theories. Great in the sense of Adam Smith he probably was not, at any rate as an economist, for he developed no new truths of wide-reaching importance. His work was not a work of seedtime, but a work of harvest. It was his to gather and store for use the fruit which Adam Smith had sown.

But the middle of the nineteenth century witnessed the beginnings of a political science wider than the study of law or the study of economics. Men’s minds were no longer satisfied with analyzing the relations between law and justice or between commerce and justice. They demanded to know what was that justice itself, and who made it. The Catholic theory that it was made by the [163] Church, and the Protestant theory that each man made it for himself, were found to be equally inadequate for explaining historical events. We needed a broader science of politics, which should explain the social structure and the public opinion which held it together, — the political entity, of which law was but one manifestation and business another.

The problem was not a new one. Men had tried to solve it in all ages; and at least four attempts had been made which possessed great merit, whether viewed from the standpoint of scientific care, of literary form, or of practical influence. These were the “Politics” of Aristotle, at the culmination of Greek thought; the “Republic” of Jean Bodin, at the close of the Middle Ages; the “Spirit of the Laws” of Montesquieu, in the literary movement which preceded the French Revolution, and the “Philosophy of History and Law” of Hegel. It was the method of analysis which was new. The Darwinian theory, with its doctrine of survival and elimination, gave us a means of explaining political evolution which our ancestors had not possessed. Crude as were the first efforts in [164] its application, and incomplete as are the results even now attained, it represents a new power in political and moral study. In one sense it was not really new; for orators like Burke and Webster and Lincoln were applying to the problems of practical statesmanship those conceptions of evolution and struggle and survival which we associate with the name of Darwin. But the growth of the modern science of biology has had a profound influence on the science and literature of politics; and those ideas which a century or even a half century ago were but the occasional inspirations of our men of genius, are now being systematized and developed in all directions. They form the background of books like Kidd’s “Social Evolution” or Fiske’s “Destiny of Man;” they are reflected in almost every page of the political essays of John Morley; they are made the basis of scientific studies as diverse as those of Spencer, Giddings, and — best of all — Bagehot, whose “Physics and Politics” perhaps represent the high-water mark of constructive attainment in this field of literary and scientific activity. Not that Bagehot’s work is in any sense final; the great book [165] to which future generations shall refer as marking an epoch in this progress remains yet to be written.

But though we cannot yet point to any such culminating achievement, we can indicate with much precision the fundamental ideas which modern political science is following, — the lines of development —

“Where thought on thought is piled till some vast mass
Shall loosen, and the nations echo round.”

The first of these fundamental ideas is that of race character. Each social group — horde, tribe, or nation — has its type of personal development. The habits of the race limit the activity of the individual. Institutions, religions, philosophies of life and conduct, are but the expressions of this race type. This is what is really meant by saying that society is an organism. The men who first made this expression popular, like Spencer, tended to carry too far this analogy to a biological organism, and to study the processes of social nutrition rather than those of social psychology. But this error is largely a thing of the past. The success of a book like Kidd’s “Social Evolution,” in spite of the vagueness or crudeness of many [166] of its parts, shows how eagerly people are looking for a science which shall lay stress on explaining their beliefs and moral characteristics rather than their visible organization.

A second fundamental idea is that this race character is but the record of the past history of the people; embodying itself in habits of action which are a second nature to the individuals that compose it. “In every man,” says Morley, “the substantial foundations of action consist of the accumulated layers, which various generations of ancestors have placed for him. The greater part of our sentiments act most effectively when they act most mechanically.” Or to quote the noble passage in Burke which suggested this utterance of Morley: “We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. [167] If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but the naked reason: because prejudice with its reason has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. . . . Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit, and not a series of unconnected acts.”

A third idea following closely upon the second is that these habits of mind have been given their shape in a struggle for existence between different races, no less severe than that which prevails among the lower animals; only this human struggle is chiefly a conflict between ethical types rather than physiological ones, and stamps its verdict of fitness or unfitness upon moral characteristics rather than physical structures. This is where the work of Darwin has given the modern investigator his greatest advantage. There were writers prior to Darwin who, like Hegel, were just as completely possessed of the idea of evolution as Spencer or Bagehot; but Hegel and every other political writer who preceded Darwin found it [168] hard to get, outside of his own consciousness, either a test of fitness or a compelling force which should make for progress. To the Darwinian this is easy. Here are two tribes, with different standards of morality. One standard preserves the race which holds it, and is therefore self-perpetuating; the other has the reverse effect, and is therefore self-destructive. The process of elimination by natural selection does its work and registers its verdict.

But the race characteristics which contributed to success in one age or state of civilization may not be equally successful in a later age or more advanced state. The race which would be permanently successful must have the means of adapting itself to new conditions. A really permanent system of morals must provide for progress as well as discipline, for flexibility to meet future conditions as well as firmness to deal with present ones. How is the combination to be secured ? The answer to this question gives us the modern doctrine of liberty, as developed by Mill and his followers. This represents the fourth and greatest of the ideas of modern social philosophy, which can be [169] applied to almost every department of human activity — commercial freedom, religious toleration, or constitutional government. We cannot better close our survey of political literature than by availing ourself of John Morley’s unrivaled powers of statement in summarizing this great principle.

“We may best estimate the worth and the significance of the doctrine of Liberty by considering the line of thought and observation which led to it. To begin with, it is in Mr. Mill’s hands something quite different from the same doctrine as preached by the French revolutionary school; indeed, one might even call it reactionary, in respect of the French theory of a hundred years back. It reposes on no principle of abstract right, but, like the rest of its author’s opinions, on principles of utility and experience.

“There are many people who believe that if you only make the ruling body big enough, it is sure to be either very wise itself, or very eager to choose wise leaders. Mr. Mill, as any one who is familiar with his writings is well aware, did not hold this opinion. He had no more partiality for mob rule than De Maistre or Goethe or Mr. Carlyle. [170] He saw its evils more clearly than any of these eminent men, because he had a more scientific eye, and because he had had the invaluable training of a political administrator on a large scale, and in a very responsible post. But he did not content himself with seeing these evils, and he wasted no energy in passionate denunciation of them, which he knew must prove futile. . . . Mr. Carlyle, and one or two rhetorical imitators, poured malediction on the many-headed populace, and with a rather pitiful impatience insisted that the only hope for men lay in their finding and obeying a strong man, a king, a hero, a dictator. How he was to be found, neither the master nor his still angrier and more impatient mimics could ever tell us.

“Now Mr. Mill’s doctrine laid down the main condition of finding your hero; namely, that all ways should be left open to him, because no man, nor the majority of men, could possibly tell by which of these ways their deliverers were from time to time destined to present themselves. Wits have caricatured all this, by asking us whether by encouraging the tares to grow, you give the [171] wheat a better chance. This is as misleading as such metaphors usually are. The doctrine of liberty rests on a faith drawn from the observation of human progress, that though we know wheat to be serviceable and tares to be worthless, yet there are in the great seed-plot of human nature a thousand rudimentary germs, not wheat and not tares, of whose properties we have not had a fair opportunity of assuring ourselves. If you are too eager to pluck up the tares, you are very likely to pluck up with them these untried possibilities of human excellence, and you are, moreover, very likely to injure the growing wheat as well. The demonstration of this lies in the recorded experience of mankind.”

 

Source: H. Morse Stephens et al. Counsel upon the Reading of Books, Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1901.

Image Source: Wikipedia, Arthur Twining Hadley.

Categories
Economists Yale

Yale. Arthur Twining Hadley. Biographical Sketch, 1899

HADLEY, Arthur Twining, 1856-

Born in New Haven, Conn, 1856; fitted for College at Hopkins Grammar School; A.B. Yale, 1876; studied political science for a year at Yale, and history and political science at the University of Berlin, 1877-79; Tutor at Yale, principally in German, 1879-83: University Lecturer on Railroad Administration, 1883-86; Professor of Political Science in the Graduate Department, 1886-99, and also during the absence of Professor Sumner, in the Academic Department, 1891-93; has also lectured at Harvard, at the Mass. Institute of Technology and elsewhere; Associate Editor of Railroad Gazette, 1887-89; author of numerous articles and monographs, and of several books, among them: Railway Transportation: Its History and its Laws; and Economics: An Account of the Relation between Private Property and Public Welfare. In 1899, on the retirement of Prof. Timothy Dwight, he was elected by the Corporation Thirteenth President of Yale, being the first layman to hold that office; LL.D. from several institutions, 1899.

 

ARTHUR TWINING HADLEY, LL.D., thirteenth President of Yale, was born in New Haven, Connecticut, April 23, 1856. He comes of an academic family. His grandfather, James Hadley, was a Professor of Chemistry in Fairfield Medical College in Herkimer county, New York. His father, James Hadley, is one of the most notable of Yale’s long line of notable instructors. His memory is treasured with feelings of woe by thousands of students throughout the country who have struggled through his (Greek Grammar; though as a teacher his memory is honored to-day by all of the large number of Yale students who came under his instruction. Arthur Twining Hadley fitted for College at the Hopkins Grammar School of New Haven and entered Yale in 1872. He graduated from Yale in 1876, being the Valedictorian of his class. He was one of the youngest men in his class, but Yale, and continued there in that capacity until 1883, teaching various branches, but mainly German. During the ensuing three years he was University Lecturer on Railroad Administration, contributing during this period a series of articles on transportation to Lalor’s Cyclopaedia of Political Science, and part of the article on Railways in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In 1885 appeared his Railway Transportation: Its History and Its Laws, which is one of his best known works and has gone through translations into French and Russian. In 1886 Professor Hadley was elected by the Corporation to the Professorship of Political Science which he held until his election to the Presidency. Governor Harrison, in 1885, appointed him Commissioner [563] of Labor Statistics of the State of Connecticut, and his two reports in this capacity are marvels of research into the details of his work. It is impossible to more than summarize Professor Hadley’s writings. He has contributed numerous articles to the principal magazines of the country, and an article in Harper’s Magazine for April 1894 in which he laid stress upon the value of Yale Democracy, the importance of a high standard of scholarship and strict adherence to it, and the utility of athletics as a factor in University life. His greatest work. Economics: An Account on the Relation between Private Property and Public Welfare, appeared in 1896, and is in use as a text-book in a number of colleges. He was associated with Colonel H. G. Prout in the editorship of the Railroad Gazette from 1887 to 1889. In 1898 Professor Timothy Dwight resigned the Presidency of Yale, and the problem which confronted the Corporation in finding his successor was no small one. There was a general feeling that it would perhaps be well to break away from some of the established precedents into somewhat broader methods. After months of careful consideration the choice devolved upon Professor Hadley, who was elected Thirteenth President of the University in 1899. The very fact that he was chosen marks considerable of a departure from Yale’s traditions and shows the ability of the man, for he was the first President in all of Yale’s two hundred years of history who was not entitled to prefix Reverend to his name. He assumed office at Commencement in 1899, and began his duties with the well wishes of thousands of Yale Alumni all over the country. Professor Hadley married, June 3, 1891, Helen Harrison, daughter of former Governor Luzon B. Morris. They have three children: Morris, Hamilton and Laura Hadley.

 

Source: University and their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Editor-in-chief, General Joshua L. Chamberlain, LL.D. Vol. II, pp. 562-563.

 

Categories
Yale

Yale. History of graduate education up to 1898.

The following sketch of the history of Yale’s graduate school was published in 1898. What would become the graduate “seminaries” of the respective disciplines were organized as extracurricular “clubs”. The introduction of graduate fellowships and scholarships is of interest as in the early openness Yale showed with respect to graduate admission for women. Arthur Twining Hadley enters the Yale scene as professor of political science and later of political economy as well as serving as the Graduate Dean.

_______________________________

[343]

CHAPTER VI
The Graduate School

GRADUATE instruction, apart from that leading to one of the three “learned professions,” [i.e. clergy, law and medicine] was probably not thought of at Yale before the present century. Its beginnings can perhaps be traced in the comprehensive plans of President Dwight, who, as one of the founders of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1799, showed his desire to encourage independent research, and the acquisition of knowledge in other fields than those which had hitherto been almost exclusively cultivated. “Resident Graduates” came here for study during his term of office, but it is not known to what extent their studies were other than theological. The catalogue of 1814, contains the names of seventeen, the first official record of their presence, and the list is continued in succeeding catalogues, rising in one year to thirty-one, until 1824, when it suddenly disappears. But in that year, “Theological Students” are entered for the first time, and the presumption is that they are simply the “Resident Graduates” appearing now under their proper descriptive title. In1826, appear the names of four Resident Graduates, and as the students of the three professional Schools are all separately entered, we doubtless have here the first reliable list of non-professional graduate students. Three of these were Bachelors of Arts from Amherst College, one being Charles U. Shephard, afterward for many years a Professor at Amherst, and well known for his mineralogical collections. For the next twenty years, with a few exceptions, lists of graduate students appear in the Catalogue, the largest number for anyone year being seven. Among these were Robert McEwen and Gordon Hall, afterward prominent clergymen; B. G. Northrup, the well-known Superintendent of Education in Connecticut; Noah Porter, James D. Dana and Denison Olmsted, Professors at Yale; and William L. Kingsley, for many years Editor of the “New Englander.” The instruction of this class of students is known to have appealed especially to the scholarly enthusiasm of President Woolsey during the years of his Professorship, and their claims always received his special attention. Professor Thacher also, with his usual forethought, expressed at an early date his desire that provision might be made for them.

In 1841, an important step was taken in the appointment of Edward E. Salisbury as Professor of Arabic and Sanskrit. This was the first provision made for the instruction of graduate students by other than College Professors whose attention was mainly given to undergraduates. It was also the first recognition in this country (if the importance of Sanskrit in the study of language, and, so far as demand for instruction went, was in advance of the time. For eight years no student presented himself; then two came. They were William D. Whitney and James Hadley. The former had taken his first degree at Williams College, and came to Yale for graduate study, attracted by Professor Salisbury, who was the only Professor of Sanskrit in the country. He studied here one year, in 1849-50, then went to Germany for three years. He returned to Yale in 1854, and took the Chair of Sanskrit which had been vacated for him by Professor Salisbury, who retained the Chair of Arabic two years longer.

Professor Whitney’s appointment came at a time when the Graduate School was beginning to emerge clearly to view as a distinct section of the new Department of Philosophy [344] and the Arts. This, as is elsewhere stated, commenced in 1847, and was opened to “graduates and others.” That year there were eleven students, five of whom were undergraduates. Contrary to expectation, the number of the latter greatly increased, so that in 1852, it was found best to classify them in separate Schools of Chemistry and Engineering, leaving two graduates who were not pursuing those studies. These were Daniel C. Gilman and Hubert A. Newton. In 1854, the year of Professor Whitney’s appointment, the courses in Chemistry and Engineering were brought together under the title “Yale Scientific School,” and the following year a scheme of lectures and instruction designed especially for graduates not in the Scientific School appears.

In 1861. the degree of Doctor of Philosophy was conferred for the first time, and its recipients were Eugene Schuyler, James M. Whiton and Arthur W. Wright. These three scholars, since so well known in their respective lines of work, were, so far as academic form goes, the first finished product of the Yale Graduate School. Yale was the first institution in the United States to confer this degree on the basis of at least two years’ resident graduate work, with a final examination and thesis giving evidence of high attainment. It furnished to young men of ability and ambition, but moderate means, the opportunity to earn this most highly prized of all academic degrees without going abroad, and at the same time gave a notable impulse to the cause of advanced scholarship in the United States.

The award of the degree in 1861, gave consistency and dignity to the courses leading to it, though much remained to be done in the way of development and further organization of a Graduate School. In 1872, the Department of Philosophy and the Arts was re-organized, as elsewhere mentioned, so as to include all the sub-departments of instruction outside the three Professional Schools, and the graduate students, both of letters and science, in the new Department, were entered in a single list in the Catalogue. At the same time the Graduate School was given a definite organization by the appointment of an Executive Committee to “receive and record the names of applicants for instruction, and judge and approve the courses of study proposed.” Shortly after, the number of degrees to be awarded in the School was increased. These at first were Doctor of Philosophy and Civil Engineer. In 1873, that of Mechanical Engineer was added. In 1874, the degree of Master of Arts, hitherto given in course to Bachelors three years after graduation on payment of five dollars, was rescued from its comparative worthlessness as a certificate of longevity and pecuniary ability, and was made to depend upon one year of non-professional study. In 1897, the degree of Master of Science was established.

In 1892, the organization of the School was further improved by the appointment of Professor A. T. Hadley as Dean. At the same time a step of much significance was taken, in the opening of the School to the graduates of Women’s Colleges, who were invited to come here and study for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This practical recognition of the needs of women, and of their right to participate in the advantages of the more highly specialized courses to be found only at the larger Universities, was accorded to them in New England first at Yale. This move was received with much interest in academic circles, and has met with a fair measure of success. The matter of pecuniary assistance, combined with honorable recognition of merit, was also taken up. Five fellowships of $400 each, and twenty scholarships of $100 each, were established by the Corporation. These were to be open to all members of the School, though the fellowships   were to be given by preference to students in their second year who had shown marked ability in the first. In 1895, Professor [345] Phillips succeeded Professor Hadley as Dean, and was established in a convenient office where he zealously looks after the interests of the School. In 1896-7, its membership was two hundred and twenty-seven, including thirty-one women, an increase of fourfold in ten years.

The Faculty of the School consists of the Professors of the four sub-departments of the Department of Philosophy and the Arts, with Lecturers and Instructors wherever available, and University Professors whose time is given mostly to research. The latter have been few in number, owing to the very limited resources of the University. One of Yale’s greatest needs to-day is large endowment for University Professorships which will furnish opportunities for lives devoted to the highest work of the scholar, such as are hardly possible when time and strength are mainly given to undergraduate teaching. It is no disparagement of the work of the teacher to say that in practice it is apt to interfere with the best work of the scholar. Both are necessary to the highest usefulness of a University, but in the assignment of work, the best results can be obtained by a judicious release of some from undergraduate teaching, rather than by the requirement of substantially the same amount from all. The University Professorship furnishes the golden opportunity for advancing the bounds of knowledge along scholarly lines.

Mention has been made of the appointments of Professors Salisbury and Whitney. In 1866, Othniel C. Marsh was appointed Professor of Palaeontology. His work has been done mainly in connection with the Peabody Museum. In 1871, Josiah W. Gibbs was appointed Professor of Mathematical Physics. In 1877, Samuel Wells Williams, the well-known and eminent student of Chinese language and history, accepted a Professorship of Chinese, which he kept until his death in 1884. In 1886, William R. Harper came as Professor of Semitic Languages, and Arthur T. Hadley was appointed Professor of Political Science. These appointments awakened much interest, and the membership of the School was nearly doubled in five years. At the end of that time Professor Harper left to assume the duties of President of the Chicago University, and Professor Hadley was transferred to the Chair of Political Economy in the College. In 1895, Edward W. Hopkins was appointed Professor of Sanskrit to succeed Professor Whitney, who died in 1894.

From the date last given it will be seen that Professor Whitney was connected with the Graduate School for forty years, which is substantially the whole period of its existence. In a certain sense he was the gift of Professor Salisbury to Yale. It was Professor Salisbury who as his teacher in 1850, discovered his special gifts and encouraged him to cultivate them, then in 1854, made a place for him by giving up to him a portion of his own work, and again in 1869, made it possible for him to remain here by endowing for him the Chair of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology. In that year President Eliot signalized the first month of his Presidency by inviting Professor Whitney to Harvard, and the latter would have felt constrained by financial considerations involving the welfare of his family to accept, had it not been for the prompt and generous action of his former teacher and life-long friend. Concerning this invitation Professor Lanman of Harvard has said, “It reflects no less credit upon Mr. Eliot’s discernment of character and attainments than upon Mr. Whitney’s surpassing gifts, that the youthful President should turn to him, among the first, for aid in helping to begin the great work of transforming the Provincial College into a National University.” Professor Whitney gladly remained at Yale and made it a centre of Philological study for the country. Of his work here Dr. [346] Ward of the “Independent” has said, “What Harvard did for the science of life in America through Agassiz, Yale did for Indo-European philology through Whitney.”

Important agencies in carrying on the work of the School are the clubs, of which there are now eleven, namely, the Classical, Mathematical, Political Science, Philosophical, Semitic, Biblical, Comparative Religion, Modern Language, English, Physics Journal and Engineers, Clubs. The older ones are in a measure revivals of earlier organizations for the promotion of original research; but in their present form they have appeared within the past twenty years, and most of them quite recently. Their membership consists of the instructors and graduate students in the department of study indicated by the name of the club. Their meetings furnish opportunities for interchange of views between teachers and pupils, and thus supplement in a most useful way the more formal instruction of the class-room. In the language clubs, authors are read and discussed. In nearly all, papers are presented which embody the results of individual investigations, and the most important of these have been subsequently read before various larger organizations and printed in their transactions. The Physics Journal Club does not aim at research, but has for its object the reading and discussion of the various periodicals in the field of Physics. Several of the clubs have rooms set apart for their use, and the Classical Club is especially favored in having a commodious, well-lighted room, and a good working-library of its own. For some years it occupied the upper story of the “Old Chapel ;” but when Phelps Hall was completed, it moved into the top story of that beautiful building, where it enjoys its present quarters, exceptionally well arranged and located for quiet uninterrupted work. The opening of the club-room in 1896 was observed with public exercises in the Chapel, where an address was delivered by Professor Gildersleeve of Johns Hopkins University, followed by a social gathering of classical scholars from different parts of the country. During the evening, announcement was made that Mr. Sears of Boston had purchased and presented to the University the valuable classical library of the late Ernst Curtius, the distinguished historian of Greece. This had been pronounced by competent authority in Berlin, “the most valuable library in its department which had been offered for sale in Germany since 1870.” A considerable part of this choice collection of books was placed on the shelves of the Classical Club, where they “increase in a marked degree the facilities for advanced work in the classics.”

A part of the work of the Graduate School is done in connection with the American Classical School at Athens. The Soldiers’ Memorial Fellowship at Yale is conferred upon a Yale graduate who has shown special proficiency in Greek. It may be held five years, and a part or all of that time may be spent at the School in Athens. During ten of the fifteen years since the School started, Yale has been represented by six Soldiers’ Memorial Fellows. Four other Yale men have studied there, so that out of the seventy-three students going from the twenty-three Colleges co-operating in the support of the School, ten have gone from Yale, a number exceeded by Harvard alone. Four of the Directors also, including Professor Richardson, the present head of the School, have been graduates of Yale, which from the first has been one of the most active promoters of the enterprise. A similar school for Latin classical study has been started at Rome, and Professor Peck of Yale is to serve as its Director during the year 1898-9.

The Graduate School claims to be non-professional. This claim rests partly on the fact that the School does not train its students for one of the three traditional “learned [347] professions.” It also rests partly on the theory that the School seeks to promote culture, to strengthen scholarly habits of life and thought, and to widen the fields of knowledge, quite apart from any use which may be made of these acquisitions as capital in the ordinary work of life. It is earnestly hoped that this ideal may be realized in future years, when a goodly number of young men and women may be able and willing to lengthen the period given to a general education before commencing special preparation for a particular calling. At present, however, the School is in fact largely a professional one, furnishing such an equipment as is most useful to the teacher. Its great academic prize, the Ph.D. degree, is sought mainly by those who expect to teach, and is valued largely because it helps its possessor to secure a College Professorship. Such being the case, attention is naturally called to the success of a School in fitting its students for the higher walks of the teacher’s calling, and in this respect the record of the Yale Graduate School is a most honorable one. In the Chicago University, out of fifty-nine Doctors of Philosophy on the Faculty above the grade of Instructor, eleven received their degree from Yale, a larger number than from any other institution, Harvard coming next with six. In all, over one hundred and thirty Professors in different Colleges and Universities have studied at the Yale Graduate School since 1860, but not all have completed the course for a degree. They are widely distributed in the United States, the British Provinces and Japan.

During the past ten years, a number of graduates of the Swedish Colleges, Augustana and Gustavus Adolphus, have been to Yale for their Doctor’s degree. The movement of these Swedes to Yale, especially in view of the fact that most of them have specialized in Philosophy and Biblical studies, has signified more than the individual preferences of the persons concerned. It has been from the first the subject of much interest and careful deliberation in the Swedish Lutheran body in the United States, and the confidence thus shown in the University opens for the latter a most promising and important field of usefulness.

In Japan the name and work of Yale are well-known through the gifted men who have come here for study, mainly in the Law and Graduate Schools, and on returning to their own country have occupied high positions in political and educational life. An interesting episode in the relations of Yale to educational work in Japan was the threefold invitation extended to Professor Ladd by the Trustees of the Doshisha, the teachers of the summer school at Hakone, and certain gentlemen of Tokio who were interested in education. Complying with this invitation, Professor Ladd spent the summer of 1892 in Japan, delivering lectures on Philosophy, especially the Philosophy of Religion. His reception was most cordial, and his lectures, given three times in as many places, were well received by large and attentive audiences. One result of his visit was additional interest in Yale, and desire to secure its advantages, which have brought an increased attendance of Japanese students. It is safe to say that, of American Universities, Yale occupies at present the first position of influence in Japan, and it seems reasonable to believe that the years spent here by men now in influential positions in that country have helped to prepare the way for the liberal policy of the Empire which throws open to Christians the highest offices in the State. Nor, in the matter of maintaining peaceful and friendly relations between the United States and Japan, can it be a matter of indifference that scholarly men of the two countries have worked together, and have learned to respect and trust each other.

 

Source: University and their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Editor-in-chief, General Joshua L. Chamberlain, LL.D. Boston: R. Herdon Company. Vol 1 (1898)

Image Source: Arthur Twining Hadley.  Ibid, Vol 2, p. 562.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Curriculum Harvard Johns Hopkins Pennsylvania Princeton Wisconsin Yale

Columbia Economics’ Market Share in 1900

The School of Political Science at Columbia University was divided into three groups of subjects: History and Political Philosophy, Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, and Economics and Social Science.

Economics and Social Science comprised the two subject groups: Political Economy and Finance; Sociology and Statistics. 

Seligman figured that of the approximately 135 graduate students specializing in economics in 1899-1900 in the seven eastern departments (Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale), about 75 were at Columbia.

___________________

SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Department of Economics.—Since the recent reorganization of the work in economics, there has been a marked increase in the number, as well as in the quality of the students. Numbers, indeed, constitute no adequate test of the real work done by the various departments within a university; for the subject which attracts the fewest students may possess the highest scientific value and may be presided over by the ablest professors. But, when an institution is compared with others of about the same grade and size, the relative number of students in any one department affords a fair indication of the importance to be assigned to it. Hence, the following table is of much interest:

 

1900_ColumbiaEconomics

*By graduate student is meant a student holding a first degree.
1 Attending for three terms.
2 Including Economics and Public Law.
3 Including Economics, Politics and History.

The number of graduate students in economics and social science at Columbia is much greater than the number in any other American institution. If we compare Columbia with six Eastern universities,—Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Pennsylvania and Princeton,—we find that Columbia has almost as many such students as all six, that is, 75 as against 89. And if it were possible to separate the students working primarily in economics at Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Cornell (where the figures include other students in political science as well), it is practically certain that Columbia would be found to possess more graduate students working primarily in economics and social science than the other six institutions together. Assuming that half of the students returned in Johns Hopkins, Yale and Cornell are working primarily in economics,—a very liberal assumption, —we should have a total of 60 in the six Eastern universities, as against 75 in Columbia. This is a remarkable showing.

In order that it may not be supposed that the basis of classification varies, it may be added that each of the students at Columbia is enrolled primarily under the Faculty of Political Science and is a candidate for the master’s or doctor’s degree, with the major subject in economics and social science. Every such student is required to attend a seminar. In addition to the seminar, 35 of the 75 students are taking 3 or more courses in economics or social science and 20 are taking 2 such courses. The remainder, who are taking one course in addition to the seminar, are chiefly students who have taken most of their lecture work in previous years.

The following figures, as to enrollment in economics and social science, will prove instructive:

Graduate students, primarily enrolled in political science, taking graduate courses (whether as a major or minor) 95
Graduate students (male) in the whole university taking graduate courses 123
Non-graduates (male), primarily registered in political science, doing chief work in economics 22
Students, graduates and non-graduates (male, but exclusive of seniors and other college students) in the whole university, taking graduate courses 149
Enrollment of students, as above (not deducting duplicates), in graduate courses in economics and social science 559
Enrollment of under-graduates in Columbia College 179
Enrollment of students of all kinds (male) pursuing these studies 738
Enrollment of Barnard students 140
Total enrollment in the University 878

The relative importance of the university work may also be seen by this comparison with Harvard:

Harvard Columbia
Total students primarily registered in non-professional (graduate) schools 341 331
Total graduates in non-professional (graduate) schools 323 292
Total graduates in political science 52 or 16% 114 or 39%
Total graduates primarily in economics and social science 8 or 2½% 17 or 26%

This showing is doubtless due in part to the system on which the work in economics and social science at Columbia is organized. The department has four full professors, one instructor and two lecturers. The work has been so apportioned that each professor devotes himself primarily to his own specialty—Professor Mayo-Smith to statistics and practical economics, Professor Clark to economic theory, Professor Giddings to social science, and Professor Seligman to economic history and finance. Another explanation of the large numbers is the facility afforded to students to combine with their studies in economics the courses in history, public law and general political science.

Among the recent graduates in economics of the School of Political Science, no less than 25 are now giving instruction in economics at other institutions, including Yale, Cornell, Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Smith, Syracuse, the Universities of Illinois, Indiana, and Colorado, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A number of graduates have become editors of important daily or weekly papers, in New York, Buffalo, Omaha and other cities, and a large number occupy administrative positions in the service of the national and state governments. Among the latter may be mentioned one of the chief statistician in the census office, a number of expert agents and chief clerks in the departments of the treasury and of agriculture in Washington; and the deputy commissioner of labor statistics and the sociology librarian in the State Library at Albany.

E. R. A. S. [Edwin R. A. Seligman]

___________________

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Vol. 2, June, 1900, pp. 284-287.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Curriculum Harvard Johns Hopkins Michigan Pennsylvania Yale

Cornell. Laughlin’s Scheme to Expand Economics,1891

J. Laurence Laughlin was hired away from Cornell to build the Department of Political Economy at the University of Chicago that began operation in the academic year 1892-93. This proposal to expand Cornell’s own instructional and research work in political economy and finance is interesting as Laughlin’s vision of what it would take to go from second-rate to the leading department. It is also interesting for its table comparing Laughlin’s dream department with the state of affairs at six rival universities: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 1890-91.

_______________

SCHEME FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND FINANCE IN CORNELL UNIVERSITY, PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

I.

In view of the arrangement of courses for the coming year, (1891—2,) careful consideration should be given to the opportunities afforded by this department. The subjects heated are essential parts of the civic education of every member of society. Apart from their disciplinary value, their practical character would alone make it natural that the curricula of such schools as those of Agriculture, and of Mechanic Arts, should be enriched by including in them economic courses. This policy has already been announced by the statement in the University Register that Political Economy shall be hereafter made a part of the course of Civil Engineering. When regard is had to the prevailing ignorance of economics and its effect on national legislation, the wisdom of this policy is undoubted. The question might even be raised whether it were not advisable to require Political Economy of all students in the various courses, quite as much as History, or Chemistry. I cannot think, however, it is of advantage to the influence of a study to make its pursuit obligatory; but there cannot, I suppose, be any difference of opinion as to the wisdom of providing the proper amount of instruction, when the study of it is voluntary, and when the numbers of students are too great, (as is now the case,) to be properly cared for by the single professor

II.

In extending the reputation and prestige of Cornell University, no possible investment of its funds would, in my judgment, produce larger or earlier fruit than those spent in enlarging the work of this department. Such a policy would, at once, lend aid in educating the country where it most needs education, and bring here greater numbers of bright students who want economic training. The real University is to be found in the men it trains, and in the influence they exert on the community.

The deplorable ignorance and prejudice regarding questions of great practical importance, (such as banking and currency topics.) in the very regions from which we now draw our students, and must hereafter draw them in increasing numbers, makes the duty, as well as the opportunity, of our University, one of transcendent importance. Can it rise to the occasion? It is entirely within the truth to say that no such opportunity is open to us in any other branch of study. Furthermore, no other institution in our country is, at present, so well situated as Cornell University for doing a great and striking work in economics. If we accomplish this work, we can secure a strong hold on the people, and an enviable repute for enthusiastic, enterprising scholarship on subjects touching the immediate welfare of every individual citizen.

The mere fact of having had this exceptional opportunity for twenty years, and not having used it, (excepting one year,)—although there may be good reasons for it—has created a widespread belief elsewhere in our lack of interest and purpose in aiding economic study. To take only a second-rate position, therefore, or to do only moderately well, will not be enough to place us in a proper attitude before the public. Nor will it do to act so slowly that the growth of the department, however real, may be imperceptible to the outside world. In short, to produce the desired effect we should, if possible, draw the attention of the country to us by a striking and important movement; and it will be easy to make it striking and effective, because it is started in a subject which is occupying general attention. To indicate what form this movement should take is, in my opinion, the proper purpose of this communication. It has consequently seemed best to present a scheme of work for the department in as nearly complete a form as possible; a scheme, which shall be more thorough, more comprehensive, more scholarly than that presented by any other university. If adopted, it may then be said that greater advantages for economic study are offered at Cornell University than at any other American university. That a distinct opportunity exists for us, any member of an economic department in other institutions would be the first to admit. Our apathy in this matter has, in the past, excited some comment and surprise.

The discussion regarding the neglect by this University of liberal studies in favor of the professional and technical schools, might suggest the present as a favorable opportunity to disabuse the public of that mistaken idea, by adopting this scheme for enlarging the department of economics; for, while appealing to those who believe in an intensely practical education, economics in truth belongs, because of its disciplinary power, to the culture studies. Should the Fayerweather bequest be received, may it not be the means, by concentrating its use on one field, of making a striking movement which would command public attention?

III

I present herewith a list of courses which, if provided, would place this department ahead of any other in America. This is then followed by a comparison of the proposed scheme with the courses offered at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The courses run throughout the year, at the given number of hours per week :—

  1. Introductory course. Principles of Modern Economics. Elementary Banking. Descriptive economics: Money, coöperation, bimetallism, railway transportation, etc.
    3 hours a week. [At present, two sections, requiring of the instructor six hours a week.]
  1. Advanced course. History of Economic Theory. Examination of writers and systems. Critical Studies. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
    3 hours a week.
  1. Investigation of Practical Economic Questions of the day: shipping, money, profit-sharing, social questions. Theses and Criticisms. Training for Seminary. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
    2 hours a week.
  1. The Industrial and Economic History of Europe and the United States in the last 100 years. Lectures and selected reading. No previous economic study required.
    3 hours a week.
  1. Taxation. Public Finance. Banking. Comparative study of the Financial Methods of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
    3 hours a week.
  1. History of Financial Legislation in the United States since 1789. Lectures and reports. Open to all students.
    1 hour a week.
  1. History of Tariff Legislation in the United States since 1789; Tariff Legislation of France, Germany and Great Britain. Open to all students.
    2 hours a week.
  1. Railway Transportation and Legislation in the United States and Europe. Open to all students.
    2 hours a week.
  1. Statistics. Methods. Practical Training for Statistical Work. Presentation of Results. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
    3 hours a week.
  1. Land Tenures. Land Systems of England, Ireland, France Belgium. Germany, and the United States. Open to all students. 1 hour a week.
  1. Socialistic Theories. Marx, Lasalle, Proudhon; and modern popular theories. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
    1 hour a week.
  1. Seminary. Special Investigations. Open only to competent students.
    2 hours a week.

 

COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED COURSES WITH THOSE NOW GIVEN AT VARIOUS UNIVERSITIES.

Courses. Proposed for Cornell. Now Given at
Cor-
nell.		 Har-
vard.		 Yale. Colum-
bia.		 Johns Hopkins. Penna. Michi-
gan.
1 3 3 3 7 ½ 1 5 4 ½ 2
2 3 }3 3 3 1 ½ 5 (?) 6 1
3 2 1 ½ 1 2 2 ½
4 3 3 2 1 2 1[*]
5 3 3 2 3 1 1 ½
6 1 1 ½ }2 2 2
7 2 1 1 ½ 1 1
8 2 1 ½ 1 1 ½
9 3 2 1 ½
10 1
11 1 1 2
12 2 2 2(?) 2 ½ 2 2 2 2
Total. 26 9 20 22 19 12 18 ½ 11 ½
Number of In-
structors.		 5 1 4 4 4 1 5 2

[* The actual entry in this cell appear to be:
LaughlinGraphic

This Table makes obvious, at a glance, how far Cornell is behind other universities in this department. When it is considered that man’s character is moulded by his material surroundings; that questions of livelihood and economic concern occupy his thoughts more hours in the day, possibly, than any other subject; that the great forming agencies of the world are religious and economic,—this shortcoming in our courses of instruction becomes painfully evident. Not only are we behind other institutions, but this department, with all its importance, is far behind almost every other of our departments, especially in comparison with the Historical group.

The present number of students in the department (about 160) is, moreover, too large to be properly cared for by one instructor. Nor should the present professor be expected to keep in view the larger questions of the scope and influence of the department, or the work of investigation, and yet continue the reading of routine, but necessary, exercises.

To give the courses in the proposed list above, in addition to the present professor, there would be needed at least one associate professor, at a probable salary of $2,000 (to whom it would be necessary, in order to obtain the right man, to offer some definite expectation of further promotion in the future); one assistant-professor, at the usual salary, and two capable instructors, paid probably $1,000 each. These estimates are, of course, provisional.

IV

Of equal, or even greater importance than the increased hours of instruction, for the purpose of touching the work of students at its most vital point, is the grant of a suitable Publication Fund. The professor in charge believes this to be essential to the success of the department; that this part of the scheme is of primary importance. It is proposed to publish investigations of students and instructors in a series of bound volumes, with a distinctive cover, marking them as productions of Cornell University, and entitled “Cornell University Studies in Economics.” For this purpose at least $1,000 per annum should be granted. It would be appropriate to name this the “Fayerweather Publication Fund,” and every volume issued would bear the name of this benefactor. With the material already in sight that sum would not be sufficient; but it would, so far as it goes, send the name of the University into every centre of scholarly work in this country and in Europe. Still better, it would do more than any other one thing to stimulate the work of our students, and to produce finished and accurate scholarship; while the practical bearing of these studies would bring the University to the notice of men in business and financial circles.

The subject has been carefully examined and studied in view of past experience in other institutions. The establishment of the Quarterly Journal of Economics by Harvard University was due to the creation of a Publication Fund, and it has won the respect and attracted the attention of scholars, as well as the public, the world over. Columbia College has wielded a large influence by the Political Science Quarterly, and stimulated its work in these lines: while, in addition, the publication of a series of monographs is now announced. The University of Pennsylvania has lately taken energetic steps to increase its publications, by which the work of the Wharton School has been suddenly brought to the attention of students everywhere. Not only a journal, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, but a series of monographs, and translations of important German works, are published by this school. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science have been published for years, and, although not even in quality, have done more than anything else to attract attention to their facilities for investigation and study. Finally, the scheme of the new University of Chicago, following the trend of these successful movements, makes the “University Publication Work” one of the three general divisions of its work, and emphasizes the desire to publish papers, journals, and books by instructors, thereby hoping to furnish greater stimulus and incentive than now exist toward original investigation.

V

The fixing of a high standard of work by students; in the department; the encouragement of capable young men to carry on their studies beyond mere superficial work; a relief to poor, but able, men from subsidiary employments to earn a living while engaged in investigations; a means of drawing here from other institutions the brightest men who have distinguished themselves in economics; and, to provide for investigators, who will present their results to the public and enlarge the repute of the University for scholarly work both at home and abroad,—all these things can be effected only by the creation of fellowships and scholarships in this department. Five (5) fellowships, permitting the holders to reside either at the University, or abroad, with an annual income of $500 each; and four (4) scholarships, with an annual income of $250 each, are urgently needed.

VI

The library is deficient in important collections and series, which are absolutely essential to economic research; and which are possessed by other institutions. In other places these deficiencies are supplemented by access to neighboring libraries (e.g., at Columbia College, by the Lenox and Astor Libraries; at Harvard University, by the Boston Public Library and the Atheneum. Our absolute isolation requires that we should own these important collections outright. We have, for example, none of the British Government Publications (the “Blue-Books”), a complete set of which is very expensive; nor those of France, or Germany, whose statistical work is exceedingly valuable. Of the various European economic journals, by which we may keep abreast of current thinking, we have almost none. It is a hindrance: which would be regarded as intolerable in Physics, Chemistry, or Philology. In short, the department needs a special annual grant of $2,000 for at least five (5) years beyond the present and expected allowance of next year for this department) to bring it to a respectable basis, as compared with other departments. Detailed accounts of these wants can be given, if needed.

VII

SUMMARY.

The Board of Trustees is respectfully asked to grant an annual appropriation to this department of the following sums :—

Additional instruction,
One Associate Professor,

$ 2,000
One Assistant Professor,

   1,600
Two Instructors at $1000 each,

   2,000

$ 5,600
Five Fellowships at $500 each,

   2,500
Four Scholarships at $250 each,

   1,000
Publication fund,

   1,000
Books (for five years),

   2,000
Total,

$12,100

With this grant, it is quite certain we can produce results which are not now possible in any university in this country Our department of economics will then be the first in the United States.—one of which every friend of Cornell can speak with pride. Especially will it mark an epoch in the history of economic training in this country, and bring Cornell to the front in an important subject of universal, and yet practical, concern. The University is not rich enough to permit any other institution to seize the opportunity for which she herself has so evident an advantage, and for which she so evidently occupies a strategic position.

Very respectfully presented by

J. LAURENCE LAUGHLIN.

Professor of Political Economy and Finance.

March 2, 1891

_______________

 Source: Laughlin, James Laurence. Papers, [Box 1, Folder 17], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Image Source: Clipped from printed speech given at the 78th meeting of The Sunset Club at the Grand Pacific Hotel, Chicago, December 6, 1894 found in Laughlin, James Laurence. Papers, [Box 1, Folder 17], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Yale

Yale. Irving Fisher recording on 100% reserves, 1938

Voice recording of a campaign endorsement by Irving Fisher for Jerry Voorhis, a Yale Phi Beta Kappa, and apparent advocate of the sort of monetary reform that Irving promoted. By the way, Voorhies was defeated by Richard Nixon in 1946.

 

Image source: Voorhis campaign license plate attachment, on display at Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda CA.

Categories
Columbia Cornell Economists Pennsylvania Yale

Portrait of Eight Economists. University Extension Summer Meeting. 1894

This set of pictures was found in Box 2, Folder “Photographs” of the Franklin Henry Giddings papers, 1890-1931, Columbia University, Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Judging from the college/university affiliations given (about a two year window) and the fact that the Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association was held with Columbia College, New York City, December 26-29, 1894, my first guess was that this was related to the AEA event and put together by the local organizers.

However we can be certain that this handsome collection of portraits was published instead as a supplement to the University Extension Bulletin. Exactly these eight economists are the “corps of lecturers” for the University Extension Summer Meeting held July 2-28, 1894 at the University of Pennsylvania as described in The University Extension Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 8 (May 10, 1894). Further it is announced: “We present our readers also with a supplement with portraits of the lecturers in the Economics Department.” Here at haithitrust.org is that supplement.

 

Probably this collection of portraits is related to the 7th Annual AEA Meeting at Columbia Dec 26-29, 1894.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Courses Economists Harvard Johns Hopkins Michigan Pennsylvania Yale

Graduate Economics Courses. 23 US Universities. 1898-99

In this posting we have a compilation of virtually all the graduate courses in economics (and sociology) offered at the major graduate schools in the U.S. at the end of the 19th century. Source 

Barnard
Brown
BrynMawr
California
Chicago
Columbia
Cornell
Harvard
Hopkins
Stanford
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
NYU
Northwestern
Pennsylvania
Princeton
Radcliffe
Vanderbilt
Wellesley
WesternReserve
Wisconsin
Yale

____________________

EXPLANATORY

“ To state the numbers of Graduate Students who have taken courses in each department during 1897-8, thus giving an indication of the amount of graduate work actually going on. A Graduate Student often takes courses in two or more departments; such student counts once in each of those departments….

…The number of hours per week is put in small Roman, the number of weeks in Arabic numerals. A dash, followed by a mark of interrogation, calls attention to the absence of specific information. Unless months are given, a course usually extends from September or October to May or June (inclusive). The abbreviations for the names of the months are as follows: Ja., F., Mar., Ap., My., Jun., Jul., Au., S., O., N., D.

…[Enclosed] in brackets all courses not to be given in 1898-9. Bracketed courses usually may be expected in 1899-1900.

…[Marked] with the asterisk all courses “not designed primarily for Graduate Students.” It should be borne in mind that “Graduate work” in each institution is conditioned by local plans of administration, as well as by the previous preparation of Graduate Students. The marking of a course with an asterisk simply means that (under the conditions prevailing in his institution) the instructor does not offer the course with a primary purpose of meeting the needs of Graduate Students. But the inclusion of the course in these lists indicates that it is often useful to such students.” [p. liii]

 

 

 

  1. ECONOMICS, SOCIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, AND ETHNOLOGY. 

(Including Finance and Statistics. See also 9 and 11.)

 

BARNARD.
16 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

[All Graduate Courses in Columbia under 10 open to Barnard Graduate Students.]

 

BROWN.
8 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

Henry B. Gardner, Assoc. Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Brown, ’84, and A.M., ’87; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’90;
Instr. in Pol. Econ., Brown, ’88-’90.

Hist. of Economic Thought.* iii, 12, S.-D.
Economic Policy. iii, 12, S.-D.
Money and Banking.* iii, 11, Ja.-Mar.
Public Finance.* iii, 10, Ap.-Jun.
Practical Economic Questions.* iii, 12, S.-D.
Economic Theory (adv.) iii, 11, Ja.-Mar.

 

George G. Wilson, Prof. of Social and Pol. Science.
A.B., Brown, ’86, A.M., and Ph.D., ’89;
Assoc. Prof. of Social and Pol. Science, ’91-5.

Princ. of Sociol.* iii, 12, S.-D.
Social Conditions and Probs.* iii, 21, Ja.-Jun.
Current Social Theory and Practice. i, 33.
Sociology. Seminary. Fort.

 

James Q. Dealey, Asst. Prof. of Social and Pol. Science.
A.B. Brown, ’90, A.M., ’92, and Ph.D., ’95.

Devel. of Social Theory. iii, 12, S.-D.
Social Philos. iii, 11, Ja.-Mar.
[Segregation of Population. iii, 10, Ap.-Jun.]

 

Alpheus S. Packard, Prof. of Zool. and Geol.
Ph.D., Bowdoin;
Libr. and Custodian, Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., ’65; Lect., Mass. Agricult. Col. ’69-’77; Maine Agricult. Col., ’71; Bowdoin, ‘73-6.

Anthropology.* iii, 10, Ap.-Jun.

 

 

BRYN MAWR.

3 Graduate Students, 1897-8.
1 Fel. $525 in Hist. of Political Science.

 

Lindley M. Keasbey, Assoc. Prof. of Pol. Sci.
A.B., Harv., ’88; Ph.D., Columbia, ’90;
Asst. in Econ., Columbia, and Lect. on Pol. Sci., Barnard, ’92; R.P.D., Strassburg, ’92; Prof. of Hist., Econ., and Pol. Sci., State Univ. of Col., ’92-4.

Economic Institutions. i, 30.
Am. Primitive Society. i, 30.
Am. Commerce. i, 30.
Descriptive Sociology.* iii, 30.
Theoretical Sociology.* ii, 30.

 

 

CALIFORNIA.

1 Graduate Student, 1897-8.

 

Bernard Moses, Prof. of Hist. and Pol. Econ.
Ph.D., Heidelberg.

Economic Theory.* iv, 16, Ja.-My.
[Econ. Condition of Laborers in Eng. ii, 16, Au.-D.]

 

Carl C. Plehn, Assoc. Prof. of Hist. and Pol. Science.
A.B., Brown; Ph.D., Gottingen.

[Federal Expenditures, Revenues and Debts. ii, 32.]
Industrial and Commercial Hist. of U. S. ii, 32.
[Currency and Banking. ii, 32.]
Finance and Taxation.* iv. 16, Ja.-My.
Statistics. Hist., Theory, and Method, as applied to Econ. Investigation.* ii, 16, Au.-D
Local Govt. and Admin. —?

 

CHICAGO.

 40 Graduate Students, 1897-8; and 40 in Summer Quarter, ‘97, in Political Economy;55 Graduate Students, 1897-8; and 95 in Summer Quarter, ’97, in Sociology. Pol. Econ., Club and Social Science Club fortnightly. Dept. libs. of Pol. Econ., Sociol. and Anthropol. have leading magazines and 6,000 vols. In Anthropol. Dept. of Walker Museum, coll. of 3,000 pieces on Archaeol. of Mexico,valuable colls. on Cliff and Cave Dwellings, and Japan and Aleutian Islands; also complete anthropometrical apparatus. Access to the Fieid Columbian Museum. 6 Fels. in Pol. Econ. 4 in Sociol. 1 Fel. in Anthropol.

 

J. Laurence Laughlin, Head Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Harv., ’73; A.M., and Ph.D., ’76;
Instr. in Pol. Econ., same, ’83-8; Prof. Pol. Econ. and Finance, Cornell, ’90-2.

Money and Banking. iv, 12, Jul.-S.
Seminar. ii, 12, O.-D.
Money. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Seminar. ii, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Unsettled Problems. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Seminar. ii, 12, Ap.-Jun.

 

Bernard Moses, Prof. of History and Political Economy, Univ. of Cal.
Ph.B., Univ. of Mich., ’70; Ph.D., Heidelberg, ‘73;
Prof. of History and Engl. Lit., Albion Col. ’75; Prof. of Hist. Univ. Cal. ’75-6; Prof. Hist. and Pol. Econ. Univ. Cal. ’76.

Practical Economics.* iv, 12, Jul.-S., and O.-D.
Advanced Course on Theory. iv, 12, Jul.-S., and O.-D.

 

Adolph C. Miller, Prof. of Finance.
A.B., California, ‘87 A.M., Harv., ‘88;
Instr., in Pol. Econ., Harv., ’89-’00; Lect. on Pol. Econ., California, ’90-1, and Asst. Prof.-elect of Hist. and Pol. Sci., same, ’91; Assoc. Prof. Pol. Econ. and Finance, Cornell, ’91-2; Assoc. Prof. Pol. Econ., Chicago, ’92-3.

[Public Finance. iv, 12, O.-D.]
[Economic and Social Hist. iv, 24, Ja.-Jun.]
Public Finance.* iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Financial Hist.* U. S. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
[Pol. Econ (adv).* iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.]
[Taxation. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.]
Seminar in Finance. ii, 12, Ja.-Mar.

 

William Hill, Asst. Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Kansas, ’90; A.B., Harv., ’91, and A.M., ’92;
Fellow, Harv., ‘91-3; Instr. Pol. Econ., same, ’93; Tutor Pol. Econ., Chicago, ’93-4; Instr., same, ’94-7.

Tariff Hist.* iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Railway Transportation.* iv, 12, O.-D.
Oral Debates.* ii, 24, O.-Mar. (With Messrs. Damon and Lovett.)
Comparative Railway Legislation.* iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Banking.* iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Money and Banking. iv, 12, O.-D.

 

Thorstein B. Veblen, Instr. in Pol. Econ.
A.B., Carleton, ‘80; Ph.D., Yale, ‘84;
Fellow in Economics and Finance, Cornell, ’91-2; Fellow, Chicago, ’92-3; Reader in Pol. Econ., same, ’93-4; Tutor, same, ’94-6.

Hist. of Pol. Econ.* iv, 12, O.-D.
Scope and Method of Pol. Econ.* iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Socialism. iv, 24, Ja.-Jun.
American Agriculture. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Economic Factors of Civilization. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.

 

Henry Rand Hatfield, Instr. in Pol. Econ.
A.B., Northwestern, ’92; Ph.D., Chicago, ’97;
Prof. of Pol. Econ. Washington Univ., ’95-7.

Railway Accounts, Exchanges, etc.* iv, 12, O.-D.
Processes of Leading Industries. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Coöperation.* iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.

 

A.W. Small, Head Prof. of Sociol.
A.B., Colby, ’76, and A.M.’79; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’89;
Prof. Hist. and Pol. Econ., Colby, ’81-8; Reader in Hist., Johns Hopkins, ’88-9; Pres., Colby, ’89-’92.

Social Teleology. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Sociol. Methodology. viii, 6, Jul.-Au., and iv, 12, O.-D.
[Philos. of Soc. iv. 12, O.-D. State and Govt., Ja.-Mar. Socialism, Ap.-Jun. Social Functions U.S. Govt. iv, 6, Jul.-Au. Contemp. Soc, Jul.-Au.]
[Sem. Probs. in Social Teleology. ii, 36, O.-Jun.]
Social Dynamics. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
[Historical Sociology. iv, 12, Ja.- Mar.]
[Outlines of Constructive Social Philos. Philos. of Society. iv, 12, O.-D. The Social Problem. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar. Philos. of State and Govt. iv, 12, Ap.-S.]
[Seminar. Problems of Social Dynamics. ii, 36, O.-Jun.]
Seminar. Problems in Methodology and Classification. ii, 36, O.-Jun.
[Am. Experience with State Control of Social Action. iv, Ja.-Mar.]
Controlling Ideas of Modern Society. iv, 12. Ap.-Jun., and iv, 6, Jul.-Au.
[Some Pending Problems in Sociology. iv, 6, Jul.-Au.]
[The Sociological Method of Stating the Social Problem and of Arranging Evidence, Applied to a Selected Hist. Period. iv, 6, Jul.-Au.]
[Comparative Study of Social Forces in Am. and French Democracy. iv, 6, O.-D.]

 

C. R. Henderson, Assoc. Prof. of Sociol.
A.B., Old Univ. of Chicago, ’70, and A.M., ‘73; D.B. Baptist Union Theol. Sem., ’73; D.D., same, ’83;
Assist. Prof. Sociol., Chicago, ’92-4.

Methods of Social Amelioration. Sem. ii, 36, O.-Jun.
[The Domestic Inst. iv, 12, O.-D.]
Associations for Sociability and Culture. iv, 12, O.-D.
[Social Reform. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.]
[Beneficent Forces of Cities. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.]
Social Inst. of Organized Christianity. iv, 12, O.-D.
Social Treatment of Crime. iv, 6, Au.-S.
[Bibl. and Eccles. Social Theories. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.]
[Field Work in Local Institutions of Charity and Correction. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.]
The Family.* iv, 12, O.-D.
The Labor Movement.* iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Amelioration of Rural Life. iv, 6, Jul.-Au.
Modern Cities. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Contemporary Charities. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Philanthropy. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.

 

Marion Talbot, Assoc. Prof. of Sanitary Science.
A.B., Boston Univ.’80, and A.M., ’82; B.S., Mass. Inst. of Technology, ’88;
Instr. Domestic Science, Wellesley, ’90-2.

General Hygiene.* iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Seminar. Sanitary Science.* iv, 36, O.-Jun.
House Sanitation.* iv, 12, O.-D.
Economy of Living. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Sanitary Aspects of Water, Food, and Clothing. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.

 

Charles Zueblin, Assoc. Prof. of Sociol.
Ph.B., Northwestern, ’87; D.B., Yale, ’89.

Social Philos. of Eng. People in the Victorian Era. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun. and Jul.-S.
Structure of Eng. Society.* iv, 12, Ap.-Jun. and Jul.-S.

 

G. E. Vincent, Asst. Prof. of Sociology.
A.B., Yale, ’85; Ph.D., Chicago, ’96;
Vice-Principal, Chautauqua System, ‘88-pr; Fellow in Sociology, Chicago, ’92-4.

Course in Statistics.
[Province of Sociol. iv, 12, O.-D.]
[Social Structure. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.]
The Social Mind and Education. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Contemporary Society in the U. S.* iv, 12, O.-D.
Am. City Life.* iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Introd. to Study of Society.* iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Introd. to Sociology,* iv, 12, O.-D.
The Theory of the Social Mind. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.

 

W. I. Thomas, Asst. Prof. of Sociol.

A.B., Univ. of Tenn., ’84; A.M., ’85; Ph.D., Chicago, ’96;
Prof. of English, Oberlin, ’89—’93; Fellow in Sociol., Chicago, ’93-4; Instr. in Folk-psychology, Chicago, ’95-6.

Folk-psychol. iv, 12, O.-D., and Ap.-Jun.
[Primitive Social Control. iv, 12, O.-D. Seminar.]
[Art and Amusement in Folk-psychol. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar. Sex. Ap.-Jun.]
[Analogy and Suggestion in Folk-psychol. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar. The Child. Ap.-Jun.]
[Intro. to Study of Soc.* iv, 12, Jul.-S.]
Ethnological Æsthetic. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
The Primitive Social Mind. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
Sex in Folk-psychology. iv, 12, Ja.-Mar.
[Hungarian and South Slavonian Ethnology and Folk-psychol. iv, 12, O.-D.]
Primitive Social Control. iv, 12, O.-D.

 

Lester F. Ward, Professorial Lecturer in Sociol., Smithsonian Institution.
A.B., Columbia, ‘69; LL.B., same, ‘71; A.M., ’73; LL.D., ’97.

Dynamic Sociology. iv, 4, Au.-S.
Social Mechanics. vi, 4, Au.-S.

 

Henry W. Thurston, Instr. in Econ. and Civics, Hyde Park High School.
A.B., Dartmouth, ’86.

A Method of Applying Sociological Pedagogy to the Teaching of Economics in Secondary Schools. iv, 6, Jul.-Au.

 

Frederick Starr, Assoc. Prof. of Anthropology.
S.B., Lafayette, ‘82; S.M. and Ph.D., ’85;
Prof. Biological Sciences, Coe Col., ‘84-8; in charge Dept. Ethnology, Am. Mus. of Natural Hist., ‘89-’91.

Lab. Work in Anthropology. iv, 36, O.-Jun.
Physical Anthropol. Lab. iv, 36, O.-Jun.
[Physical Anthropol. iv, 12, O.-D.]
Mexico Archaeology, Ethnology. iv, 12, Jul.-S.
General Anthropol.* iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.
Ethnology American Race. iv, 12, Jul.-S.
Prehistoric Archaeology. American. iv, 12, O.-D.
[Field Work in Anthropol. Mexico. Jul.-S.]
Prehistoric Archaeol. European. iv, 12, O.-D.
General Ethnology.* v, 12, Jul.-S.
General Anthropology.* iv, 6, Jul.-Au.
Ethnology American Race. iv, 6, O.-N.
Mexico. Archaeology, Ethnology. iv, 6, Au.-S.
[Comparative Technology. iv, 36, O.-Jun.]

 

Merton Leland Miller, Lecturer in Anthropology.

A.B., Colby Univ., ’90; Ph.D., Chicago. ’97.
Instr. Eureka Acad., ’92; Grad. Stud. at Chicago, ’92-7; Asst. In Anthropol. Mus., ‘94-7;

The Peoples of Europe. iv, 6. O.-N.
Physical Anthropology. Laboratory Work. iv, 36, O.-Jun.

 

J. H. Breasted, Asst. Prof. of Egyptology and Semitic Langs.; Asst. Dir. of Haskell Museum.
A.B., Northwestern, ’88;A.M., Yale, ‘92; A.M. and Ph.D., Berlin, ’94;
non-res. Fellow, Chicago, ’92-4; Asst. in Egyptology.

Chicago-Egyptian Life and Antiquities. iv, 12, Ap.-Jun.

 

C. H. Hastings.
A.B., Bowdoin, ’91.

Bibliography of Sociology. iv, 6, Au.-S.

 

 

COLUMBIA.

63 Graduate Students, 1897-8.
[All graduate courses under 10 open to Barnard Graduate Students.]

 

Richmond Mayo-Smith, Prof. of Pol. Econ. and Social Science.
Ph.D. (hon.), Amherst.

Pol. Econ. (el).* iii, 14, F.-Jun. (With Mr. Day.)
Pract. Pol. Econ:
(a) Problems of Mod. Industry. iii, 16, O.-F.
(b) Problems of Exchange. iii, 14, F.-Jun.
(c) Problems of Distribution. iii, 14, F.-Jun
(d) Readings in Marshall’s “Prin. of Econ.” i, 30.
Statistics and Sociology. ii, 16, O.-F.
Statistics and Economics. ii, 14, F.- Jun.
Theory, Technique, and Hist. of Statis. Sci. ii, 14, F.-Jun.
Seminar. Statistics. i, 30.
Seminar. Pract. Econ. i, 30.

 

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Prof. of Pol. Econ. and Finance.
LL.B., Ph.D., Columbia, ’84.

Econ. Hist. of Europe and America. ii, 16, O.-F. (With Mr. Day.)
Sci. of Finance. ii, 30.
Fiscal and Indus. Hist. of U. S. ii, 16, O.-F.
Hist. of Economics. ii, 30.
Railroad Problems. ii, 14, F.-Jun.
[Hist. of Pol. Econ. ii, 30.]
Seminar. Pol. Econ. and Finance. i, 30.

 

John B. Clark, Prof. of Pol. Econ.
Ph.D., Amherst, ’75;
Prof. Hist. and Pol. Econ., Carleton, ’77-’82; Prof. of same, Smith, ’82-’93; Lect. Johns Hopkins, ‘92-5; Prof. Pol. Econ., Amherst, ’92-5.

Econ. Theory. Statics. ii, 16, O.-F.
Dynamics. ii, 14, F.-Jun.
Communistic and Socialistic Theories. ii, 16, O.-F.
Theories of Social Reform. ii, 14. F.-Jun.
Seminar. Pol. Econ. i, 30.

 

Franklin H. Giddings, Prof. of Sociology.
A.M., Union.

General Sociology. ii, 16, O.-F.
Progress and Democracy. ii, 14, F.-Jun.
Pauperism, Poor Laws, and Charities. ii, 16, O.-F.
Crime and Penology ii, 14, F.-Jun.
Seminar. Sociology. i, 30.

 

William Z. Ripley, Lect. on Anthropology.
B.S., Mass. Inst. of Tech , ’90; A.M., Columbia, ’92; Ph.D., Columbia, ’93;
Assoc. Prof. Pol. Econ. and Sociol., Mass. Inst. of Tech., 94-7; Lect., Hartford School of Sociology, ’95-6.

Physical Geog. Anthropol. and Ethnology. ii, 16, O.-F.

 

Livingston Farrand, Instr. in Physiolog. Psychol.
A.M., Princeton, ’91; M.D., Columbia, ’91.

General Anthropology. ii, 14, F.-Jun.
Anthropology. Primitive Culture. ii, 30.

 

Franz Boaz, Inst. in Anthropol.
Ph.D., Kiehl, ’81.

Phys. Anthropol. ii, 30.
Applica. of Statistical Methods to Biolog. Problems (adv). iii, 30.
North Am. Langs. Seminar. ii, 30.

 

George J. Bayles.
Ph.D., Columbia, ’95.

Civil Aspects of Ecclesiastical Organizations. i, 30.

 

 

CORNELL.
14 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

J. W. Jenks, Prof. of Pol. Econ. and Civil and Social Instit.
A.B., Michigan, ’78, and A.M., ’79; Ph.D., Halle, ’85;
Prof. Pol. Econ., Knox, and Indiana State Univ.; Prof. of Polit., Municipal, and Social Institutions, ’91-2.

Economic Legislation.* ii, 32.
Economics and Politics.*

 

Charles H. Hull, Asst. Prof. of Pol. Econ.
Ph.B.. Cornell, ’86; Ph.B., Halle, ’92;
Instr. in Pol. and Sociol. Institutions, Cornell. ’92-3.

Money, Credit, and Banking*. iii, 32.
Railroad Transportation.* iii, 9, Ap.- Jun.
Finance, Taxation, Admin.* Public Debts. ii, 32.
Recent Econ. Theory. Am., Eng., Continental.* ii, 32.
Earlier Econ. Theory (Prior to J. S. Mill).* ii, 32.
Economic and Commercial Geography. ii, 23, O.-Mar.
Seminary. ii. 32.

 

Chas. J. Bullock, Instr. in Economics.
A.B., Boston, ’89; Ph.D., Wisconsin, ’95.

Industrial Hist., Eng. and Am.* ii, 32.
Internat. Trade and Tariff Hist. U. S.* ii, 32.
Labor Question.* ii, 12, S.-D.
Hist. Trades Unions.* ii, ll, Ja.-Mar.
Socialism.* ii, 9, Ap.-Jun.

 

Walter F. Willcox, Prof. of Social Science and Statistics.
A.B., Amherst; Ph.D., Columbia;
Instr. in Philos., Cornell, ’91-2; Asst. Prof. Social Science and Pol. Econ., ’92-4.

Social Science (el).* ii, 32.
Social Statistics.* ii, 32.
[Theoretical Social Science (adv).* ii, 32.]
Practical Social Science (adv).* ii, 32.
[Anthropology.* ii, 32.]
Philos. and Pol. Econ.* ii, 32.
Seminary. ii, 32.

 

Wm. E. Baldwin, Pres. Long Island R. R.
A.B., Harvard, ’85.

Pract. Railroad Management. Lects. i-ii, Ja.-Mar.

 

Charlton T. Lewis, Counsel Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Principles of Insurance. Lects. i, 15,
—?

B. F. Fernow, Director of Col. of Forestry.
Grad. State Col. of Forestry, Münden, Prussia;
Chief of Dir. of Forestry, U. S. Dept. of Agric, ’86-’92, LL.D., Wisconsin.

Forestry: Econ and Pol. Aspects. ii, 21, Ja.-Jun.

 

 

HARVARD.
21 Graduate Students, 1897-8.
(Courses marked [R] are open to Radcliffe Graduate Students.)

Fel. in Pol. Econ., $450; in Soc. Sci., $500; in Archaeol. and Ethnol., $500 and $1,050, and Schol. of $200. Prize of $150 for Essay in Pol. Sci., two of $100 each for essays on social questions. Peabody Mus., Am. Archaeol., and Ethnol., with Lib., is intended for research.

 

Charles F. Dunbar, Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Harv., ’51; LL.D., same, ’91.

Financial Legislation of U. S.* ii, 15, F.-Jun.
[Financial Admin. and Pub. Debts. iii, 15, F.-Jun.]
Money and Banking. v, 15, O.-Ja.
Seminary. Economics. i, 30. (With Prof. Taussig and Asst. Prof. Cummings.)

 

Frank W. Taussig, Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Harv., ’79; Ph.D., ’83, and LL.B., ’86.

Econ. Theory in the 19th Cent.* iii, 30. (With Prof. MacVane.)
[Theory and Methods of Taxation. Special ref. to U. S. Local Taxation.* ii-iii, 15, O.-Ja.]
Scope and Method of Economic Theory and Investigation.* ii-iii, 30.

 

William J. Ashley, Prof. of Econ. Hist.
A.B., Oxford, ’81, and A.M., ’85; Fel., Lincoln Col., and Lect. on Hist., Lincoln and Corpus Christi Col., Oxford, ’85-8; Prof. Pol. Econ. and Const. Hist., Toronto, ’88-, ‘92.

[Mediaeval Economic Hist. of Europe.* ii-iii, 30.]
[Hist. and Lit. of Economics to close of 18th Cent.* ii-iii, 30.]

 

Edward Cummings, Asst. Prof. of Sociology.
A.B., Harv., ’83; A.M., same, ’85.

Princ. of Sociology. Devel. of Modern State.* ii-iii, 30.
Socialism and Communism.* ii-iii, 30.
Labor Question in Europe and U. S.* iii, 30. (With Dr. John Cummings.)

 

John Cummings, Instr. in Pol. Econ.
A.B., Harv., 91; Ph.D., Chicago, ’94.

Theory and Methods of Statistics*. iii, 30.

 

H. R. Meyer, Instr. in Pol. Econ.
A.B., Harv. ’92; A.M., ’94.

Public Works, Railways, etc., under Corporate and Pub. Management.* iii, 15, F.-Jun.

 

G. S. Callender, Instr. in Pol. Econ.
A.B., Oberlin Col., ’91; A.B., Harv., ’93; A.M., ’94; Ph.D., ’97.

Economic Hist. of the U. S.*
Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th Cents.* ii-iii, 15, F.-Jun.
Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects.* ii-iii, 15, F.-Jun.

 

Francis G. Peabody, Prof. of Christian Morals.
A.B., Harv., ’69; A.M. and S.T.B., ’72; S.T.D., Yale, ‘87.

[Ethics of Social Questions.* iii, 30. (With Dr. Rand.)]
[Sociolog. Sem. Christian Doct. of the Social Order. ii, 30.]

 

Frederick W. Putnam, Prof, of Archaeology and Ethnology, and Curator of Peabody Museum.
A.M. (hon,), Williams, ’68; S.D.(hon.), Univ. of Pa., ’94;
Curator Dept. Anthropol., Am. Mus., Central Park, N. Y.

Primitive Religion. iii, 30. (With Mr. Dixon.)

[R] Am. Archaeol. and Ethnol. Research.

 

F. Russell, Asst. in Anthropology.
S.B., Univ., of Iowa, ’92, and S.M., ’95; Asst., same, ’94-5.

Gen. Anthropology, Archaeology, Ethnology.* iii, 30. (With an Asst.)
[R] Somatology. iii, 15, F.-Jun.
[R] Somatology (adv). Research—?

 

 

JOHNS HOPKINS.
9 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

Sidney Sherwood, Assoc. Prof. of Pol. Econ.
Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’91.

Legal Aspects of Economics. ii, 15, O.-F.
Corporations and Economics. ii, 15, F.-My.
Econ. Conference. ii, 30.
Economic Theory. ii. 30.
Economics (adv).* ii, 15, O.-F.

 

Jacob H. Hollander, Assoc. in Economics.
Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’94.

Development of Economic Theories. ii, 15, O.-F.
Financial Hist. of U. S. ii, 15, F.-My.
Economics (adv)*. ii, 15, F.-My.
Current Congressional Happenings.* i, 30.

 

 

LELAND STANFORD, JR.
2 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

Hopkins Railway Library, about 10,000 vols.; Transportation, Railway History, Economics, and Law.

 

Amos G. Warner, Prof, of Applied Economics.
B.L., Nebraska, ’85; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’88;
Prof,of Pol. Econ., Nebraska, ’87-’91.

[Corporate Industry.* iii, 15, S.-D.]
[Personal Economics.* ii, 15, S.-D.]
Seminary. (With Ross and Durand.) ii, 32.

 

Edward A. Ross, Prof. of Sociology.
A.B., Coe Col., ’86; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’91;
Prof. of Econ. and Social Science, Indiana, ’91-2; Assoc. Prof. of Pol. Econ, and Finance, Cornell, ’92-3.

[Economic Theory (adv). ii, 15, S.- D.]
[Sociology.* iii, 32.]

 

Mary R. Smith, Asst. Prof. of Social Sci.
Ph.B., Cornell, ’80, and M.S., ’82; Ph.D., Stanford, ‘96;
Instr. in Hist. and Econ., Wellesley, ’86- ’90.

[Statistics and Sociology.* iii, 17, Ja.-My.]

 

Edward D. Durand, Asst. Prof. of Finance and Administration.
A.B., Oberlin, ’93; Ph.D., Cornell, ’96;
Legislative Librarian, N. Y. State Library, ’96-7; Student, Berlin, ’97.

Practical Economic Questions.* iii, 17, Ja.-My.

 

 

MICHIGAN.
10 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

Henry C. Adams, Prof, of Pol. Econ. and Finance.
A.B., Iowa Col., ’74; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’78;
Lect., Johns Hopkins, and Cornell; Statistician to Interstate Commerce Commission: Special Expert Agent on Transportation, 11th Cens.; Director of Economics, School of Applied Ethics.

[Devel. and Significance of Eng. Pol. Econ. iii, 6, O.-N.]
Devel. and Significance of Hist. School of Econ. iii, 6, O.-N.
[Devel. and Significance of Austrian School of Econ. iii, 6, O.-N.]
Relations of the State to Industrial Action. iii, 6, F.-Mar.
[Labor Organizations and Corporations as Factors in Industrial Organization. iii, 6, F.-Mar.]
History of Industrial Society.* ii, 17, O.-F.
Transportation Problems. iii, 17, F.- Jun.
Sem. Economics. ii, 17, O.-F.

 

F. M. Taylor, Junior Prof. of Pol. Econ. and Finance.
A.B., Northwestern, ’76, and A.M., ‘79; Ph.D., Mich., ’88;
Prof. of Hist. and Politics, Albion, ’79-’92.

Hist. and Theory of Money and Banking.* ii, 17. O.-F.
Hist. of Pol. Econ. ii, 17, F.-Jun.
Principles of Finance.* ii, 17, F.-Jun.
Sem. Economics. ii, 17, F.-Jun.
Socialism.* ii, 17; F.-Jun.
[The Value of Money, Theory, and Statistics. iii, 6, O.-N.]
[The Standard of Value. iii, 6, N.-D.]
Paper Money. iii, 6, O.-N.
[Social Philos., with spec. ref. to Econ. Probs. iii, 6, F.-Mar.]
[Credit as a factor in Production. iii, 6, Mar.-Ap.]
The Agricult. Problem. iii, 6, Mar.-Ap.

 

C. H. Cooley, Instr. in Sociology.
A.B., Mich., ’87; Ph.D., same, ’94.

Principles of Sociology.* iii, 17, O.-F. Problems, F.-Jun.
Sociology (adv).* ii, 17, F.-Jun.
Histor. Devel. of Sociolog. Thought. iii, 6, Ja.-F.
Nature and Process of Social Change. iii, 6, My.-Jun.
[Aims and Methods in Study of Society. iii, 6, Ja.-F.]
Social Psychology. iii, 6, My.-Jun.
[Current Changes in Social Organization of U. S. iii, 6, My.-Jun.]
[Theory of Population. iii, 6, Ja.-F.]
Theory of Statistics.* i, 34.
Special Studies in Statistics.* ii, 17, F.-Jun.

 

 

MINNESOTA.
26 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

William W. Folwell, Prof. of Pol. Science.
A.B.,Hobart, ’57; A.M., ’60; LL.D., ’80;
Prof. Math., Hobart, ’59-’61; Prof. Math. and Engineering, Kenyon Col., ‘69; Pres., Univ. of Minn., ’69-’84.

Pol. Sci. Sem. i, 36.
Individual Research. ii, 36.

 

Frank L. McVey, Instr. in Economics.
A.B., Ohio Wesleyan, ‘93; Ph.D., Yale, ‘95;
Instr. in Hist. Teachers’ College, N. Y., ’96.

Comparative Econ. Doctrine. ii, 36.
Economics.* iv, 13, S.-N.
Modern Industrialism.* iv, 12, Mar.-Jun.

 

Samuel G. Smith, Lecturer on Sociology.
A.B., Cornell Col., ’72; A.M.. and Ph.D., Syracuse, ’84; D.D., Upper Iowa Univ., ’86.

Social Sci.* iii, 12, Mar.-Jun.
Indiv. Research. i, 36.

 

 

MISSOURI.
3 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

F. C. Hicks, Prof, of Hist. and of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Univ. of Mich., ’86; Ph.D., same, ’90.

Economic History.* iii, 36.
Problems in Economics.* iii, 36.
Modern Financial Systems.* ii, 36.
Seminar. ii, 36

 

 

NEW YORK.
21 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

Frank M. Colby, Prof. of Economics.
A.B., Columbia, ’88, and A.M., ’89.

Practical Economics. ii, 24.
Economic Theory. ii, 24.
Hist. of Indust. Devel. ii, 30.

 

I. F. Russell, Prof. of Sociology, and of Law in N. Y. U. Law School.

A.M., N. Y. U., ‘78; LL.M., Yale, ‘79; D.C.L., Yale, ‘80; LL.D., Dickinson, ‘93;
Prof. Econ., and Const. Law, N. Y. U., ’80-’93.

[Intro. to Sociology. ii, 30.]
Principles of Sociology. ii, 30.

 

 

NORTHWESTERN.
6 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

John H. Gray, Prof. of Political and Social Science.
A.B., Harv., ‘87; Ph.D., Halle, ‘92;
Instr. in Econ., Harv., ’87-9.

Administration. ii, 36.
[Finance.* ii, 36.]
Seminary.* ii, 36.

 

William Caldwell, Prof. of Moral and Social Philosophy.
A.M., Pass Degree, Edinburgh, ’84; A.M., and Honors of First Class, same, ’86;
Asst. Prof. of Philos., same, ’88-’90; Instr., Cornell, ’90-1; Instr., Chicago, ’92-4; Fellow, Edinburgh, ’86-’93, and Sc.D., ’93.

Seminary. Ethical Philos.* ii, 36.
Seminary. Sociology.* iii, 36.

 

 

PENNSYLVANIA.
12 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

Colwell Lib. of Pol. Econ., 7,000 vols. Carey Lib., valuable for economic history, including 3,000 Eng. pams. 1 Fel. $500 + tui; 1 Schol. in Hist. and Economics, $100 + tui.

 

Simon N. Patten, Prof. of Pol. Econ.
Ph.D., Halle.

Hist. of Pol. Econ. ii, 15, O.-F.
Recent Devel. of Pol. Econ. ii, 15, F.-My.
Relat. of Eng. Philos. to Econ. in 18th Cent. ii, 15, O.-F.
[Scope and Method of Pol. Econ. ii, 15, F.-My.]
[Pract. Applications of Econ. Theory. ii, 12, O.-F.]
Problems of Sociol. ii, 15, F.-My.
Special Topics. ii, 30.

 

Henry R. Seager, Asst. Prof. of Pol. Econ.
Ph.B., Mich., ‘90; Ph.D.. Univ. of Pa., ’94;
Instr. in Pol. Econ., same, ’94-6.

Econ. Conference. ii, 30.
Adv. Reading in Ger. and Fr. Economics. ii, 30.
Eng. Indust. Hist. and Devel. of Econ. Theory, 1750-1870. ii, 15, F.-My.

 

Emory R. Johnson, Asst. Prof. of Transportation and Commerce.
B.L., Univ. of Wis., ‘88; M.L., same, ’91; Fel. in Econ., Univ. of Pa., ’92-3; Ph.D., same, ‘93;
Lect. on Transporta., same, ’93-4; Instr., same, ’94-6; Instr. in Econ., Haverford, ’93-6.

Theory of Transportation. i, 30.
[Am. Railway Transportation. ii, 30. ]
Transportation Systems of the United Kingdom and Germany. i, 30.
Hist. of Commerce since 1500. 1, 30.

 

Roland P. Falkner, Assoc. Prof. of Statistics.
Ph.B., Univ. of Pa.. ’85; Ph.D., Halle, ‘88;
Instr. in Statistics, ’88-’91.

Intro. to Statistics. ii, 15, O.-F.
Statistics of Econ. Problems. ii, 15, F.-My.
Hist. and Theory of Statistics. ii, 15, O.-F.
Statistical Organization. ii, 15, F.-My.

 

Samuel McC. Lindsay, Asst. Prof. of Sociol.
Ph.B., Univ. of Pa., ’89; Ph.D., Halle, ’92.

Theory of Sociol. (2 yr. course). ii, 30.
Social-Debtor Classes. ii, 30.
Sociol. Field Work. ii, 30.
Seminary. ii, 30.

 

 

PRINCETON.
5 Graduate Students, 1887-8.
1 Fellowship, $500.

 

Winthrop M. Daniels, Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Princeton, ’88, and A.M., ’90;
Instr. Wesleyan, ’91-2.

Public Finance.* ii, 18, S.-Ja.
Hist. of Pol. Econ.* ii, 18, F.-My.

 

W. A. Wyckoff, Lect. on Sociology.
A.B., Princeton, ’88, and A.M., ’91.

Sociology.* ii, 18, F.-My.

 

 

RADCLIFFE.
4 Graduate Students, 1897-8.
[See Harvard Courses marked “[R]”.]

Seminary in Econ. (With Prof. Taussig and Asst. Prof. Cummings.)

 

W. J. Ashley.

[Med. Econ. Hist. of Europe.* iii,30.]

 

Dr. Cunningham, Trinity Col., Cam. Eng.

Industrial Revolution in Eng. in 18th and 19th Cents.* iii, 15, F.-Jun.

 

G. S. Callender.

Econ. Hist. of U. S.*

 

Edward Cummings.

Princ. of Sociol.* iii, 30.

 

Edward Cummings and John Cummings.

Soc. and Econ. Conditions of Workingmen.* iii, 30.

 

John Cummings.

Statistics, Theory, Methods, Practice.*

(Of last three courses, two only will be given in 1898-9.)

 

F. Russell.

Gen. Anthropol.* —?

 

 

VANDERBILT.
2 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

Frederick W. Moore, Adj. Prof. of Hist. and Econ.
A.B., Yale, ’86, and Ph.D., ’90

 

Chas. F. Emerick, Asst. in Economics.
A.B., Wittenberg, ’89; Ph.M., Mich., ’95; Ph.D., Columbia, ’97.

Theory of Pol. Econ. Growth of Corporate Industry. iii, 32.
A Study of Socialism.* iii, 16.

 

 

WELLESLEY.
o Graduate Students, 1897-8.

 

Katharine Coman, Prof. of Hist. and Pol. Econ.
Ph.B., Mich., ’80.

Indust. Hist. of U. S.* iii, 17, F.-Jun.
[Indust. Hist. of Eng.* iii, 17, S.-Ja.]
Statistical Study of Problems in the U.S. iii, 17, S.-Ja.

 

Emily Greene Balch, Instr. in Economics.
A.B., Bryn Mawr.

Socialism.* iii, 17, F.-Jun.
Evolution and Present Conditions of Wage Labor.* iii, 17, S.-Ja.
Social Economics.* iii, 17, S.-Ja.; also F.-Jun.

 

 

WESTERN RESERVE.
4 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

S. F. Weston, Assoc. Prof. of Pol. and Soc. Sci.
A.B., Antioch, ’79, and A.M., ’85; Asst. in Economics, Columbia, ’92-4.

Social Theories.* iii, 17, F.-Jun.
Pauperism and Charities.* iii, 17, F.-Jun.
Money and Banking.* iii, 17, F.-Jun.
U.S. Tariff and Revenue System. iii, 17, F.-Jun.
Economic History of England.* iii, 16, S.-Ja.
Economic History of United States.* iii, 16, S.-Ja.
The State.* iii, 16, S.-Ja.
Civil Government.* iii, 16, S.-Ja.
Social Problems.* iii, 17, F.-Jun.
Economic Theories. iii, 36.

 

 

WISCONSIN.
24 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

Location at State capital gives special facilities for studying the State’s activities and methods of administration. Field work in charitable and correctional institutions in Madison and Chicago. Opportunity for continuous practical work during summer months.

 

Richard T. Ely, Prof. of Pol. Econ. and Director of the Sch. of Econ., Pol. Science and Hist.
A.B., Columbia, ’76; Ph.D., Heidelberg, ‘79; LL.D., Hobart, ’92;
Chair of Pol. Econ., Johns Hopkins, ’81-’92.

Distribution of Wealth. iii, 72, S.-Jun. (This course is to run through ’98- ’99, and ’99-1900.)
Public Finance. iii, 18, S.-F.
Taxation and Am. Public Finance. iii, 18, F.-Jun.
[Social Ethics. ii, 18, S.-F.]
[Socialism. ii, 18, S.-F.
Economic Seminary. Recent Devel. of Econ. Theory. ii, 36. (With Prof. Scott and Dr. Jones.)

 

William A. Scott, Prof. of Econ. Hist. and Theory.
A.B., Rochester, ‘86; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, ’92.
Prof. Hist. and Pol. Econ., Univ. So. Dak., ’87-’90; Instr. in Hist., Johns Hopkins, ’91-2;

[Theories of Value. ii, 18, S.-F.]
Theories of Rent, Wages, Profits, and Interest. ii, 36, S.-F.
[Theories of Production and Consumption. ii, 18, F.-Jun.]
Classical Economists. iii, 18, F.-Jun.

 

Edward D. Jones, Instr. in Econ. and Statistics.
B.S., Ohio Wesleyan Univ., ’92; Halle and Berlin, ’93-4; Ph.D., Univ. of Wisconsin, ’95.

Economic Geography. ii, 18, S.-F.
Statistics. iii, 18, F.-Jun.
Charity and Crime. iii, 18, S.-F.

 

Balthasar H. Meyer, Instr. in Sociol. and Transportation.
B.L., Univ. of Wis., ’94; Berlin, ’94-5; Fel. Univ. of Wis., ’95-7; Ph.D., Univ. of Wis., ’97.

Elements of Sociology.* iii, 18, S.-F.
Psychological Sociologists.* ii, 18, S.-F.
Modern Sociological Thought. iii, 18, F.-Jun.
Transportation. ii, 18, F.-Jun.

 

Frank C. Sharp, Asst. Prof. of Philos.
A.B., Amherst, ’87; Ph.D., Berlin, ’92.

Social Ethics. ii, 18, F.-Jun.
Readings in Ger. Social Philos. ii, 18, S.-F.

 

 

YALE.
43 Graduate Students, 1897-8.

Pol. Science Club meets fortnightly. Club Room with Library for Graduate Students.

 

W. G. Sumner, Prof. of Pol. and Soc. Sci.
A.B., Yale, ’63; LL.D., Tenn., ’84.

Anthropology. ii, 32.
Systematic Societology. ii, 32.
[Indust. Rev. Renaissance Period. ii,32.]
[Begin. of Indust. Organization. ii,32.]
Science of Society.* (German.) ii, 32.

 

H. W. Farnam, Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Yale, ’74; R.P.D., Strassburg, ’78.

[Pauperism. ii, O.-D.]
Modern Organiza. of Labor. ii, 20, Ja.-Jun.]
Princs. Pub. Finance. ii, 32.

 

A. T. Hadley, Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B., Yale, 76, and A.M., ’87.

Econ. Problems of Corporations. i, 32.
Relat. between Econ. and Ethics. ii, 32.
Railroad Transportation.* ii, 32.

 

A. T. Hadley and Irving Fisher.

Economics (gen. course).* iii, 32.

 

W. F. Blackman, Prof. of Christian Ethics.
A.B., Oberlin, ’77; D.B., Yale, ’80; Ph.D., Cornell, ’93.

Social Science. ii, 32.
Lit. of Social. ii, 12, O.-D.
Soc. Study of Family. i, 12, O.-D.
Soc. Teach. and Influence of Christianity. i, 32.

 

J. C. Schwab, Asst. Prof. of Pol. Science.
A.B., Yale, ’86, and A.M., ’88; Ph. D., Göttingen, ’89.

Finance. ii, 32.
U.S. Indust. Hist. ii, 32.
U.S. Financial Hist. i, 32.
Finances of Confed. States, 1861-65. i, 32.

 

Irving Fisher, Asst. Prof. of Pol. Econ.
A.B. Yale, ’88, and Ph.D., ’91.

Principles of Economics (adv). ii, 32.
Statistics. ii, 20, Ja.-Jun.
Vital Statistics and Life Insurance. ii, 12, O.-D.

____________________

Source:  Graduate Courses 1898-99: A Handbook for Graduate Students. (6th edition). (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1899), pp. 80-90.