Notes from a faculty meeting in my experience are more often a list of items, resolutions, motions, and votes than a narrative of the actual discussion. The transcribed notes in this post come from a 1959 Harvard economics faculty meeting that had two items on the agenda. The first was John R. Meyer’s report on how to manage graduate student computing needs if the department were to lose access to IBM-650 services. The second discussion was a continuation of a debate in the department whether a new Ph.D. oral examination field “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” should be introduced (plot spoiler: the resolution was tabled, at least for the time being).
_____________________
Economics Faculty Meeting Minutes
December 8, 1959
The Department of Economics met on Tuesday evening, December 8 [1959] at the Faculty Club. Those present: Messrs. Bergson, Chamberlin, Dorfman, Dunlop, Gerschenkron, Leontief, Mason, J. R. Meyer, Smithies (Chairman), Taylor, Black, McKie, Artle, Erbe, Daniere, Gill, Lefeber, Anderson, Baer, Gustafson, Hughes, Jones, Kauffman, Wilkinson, Mrs. Gilboy, and Miss Berman.
Abandonment of IBM-650
Professor John Meyer explained that with cheaper time available on newer computers within and outside the University the market for IBM-650 services is waning. A deficit on operations can be expected within a few months, and it will, therefore, be impossible to retain the machine. The problem the Department now faces is that of making available to students a computer training device comparable to the 650. The Harvard Univac can serve this purpose well although it is likely to disappear in the near future through the competition of better machines.
Professor Smithies called the attention of the meeting to two further effects of withdrawing the IBM-650:
(a) Students without outside financing will not, as in the past, be able to solve their problems by making use of free 650 time.
(b) It will no longer be possible to handle problems requiring a succession for short programs with some elements of trial and error; every program will have to be handed to an operator and the results, good or bad, will not be available until days later.
Both Professor Dorfman and Meyer vouched that, even under these impediments, the cost of most computations would be far lower through such a machine as the 704 than with the 650.
With respect to student training and student problem financing, Professor Leontief expressed the opinion that if scientific departments at Harvard can receive funds for the purchase of materials and equipment needed in the training of their students the Administration should certainly be ready to offer similar help in the social sciences. After hearing from Professor Meyer that the Dean’s offices had not been particularly responsive to this suggestion, Professor Leontief suggested than an arrangement could be entered with IBM by which we could contract at a discount for a large block of 705 time at their Cambridge Street laboratory with the understanding that we would sell some of the time to financially able Harvard users and utilize the remainder for training and computing students’ problems.
Professor Meyer agreed that this might become feasible in the near future when, with the appearance of an IBM-709 at the Smithsonian Institute and other 704’s in the neighborhood, IBM may face a buyers’ market. His proposal for the time being was to turn to Univac while it is still on our premises and to divert some of the departmental contributions now going to the support of the Littauer Laboratory to subsidize student training and to some extent student problems on the 704.
Introduction of a field labeled “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as an optional field for the oral Ph.D. examination
Professor Dorfman reintroduced his motion that “a field called ‘Mathematical Economics and Econometrics’ be one of the optional fields for the Ph.D. examination.” He recalled his previous arguments, i.e., that both Mathematical Economics and Econometrics become legitimate specialties in the general field of economics with a literature sufficiently abundant and specialized that a student well versed in economic theory and statistics will not generally know the former fields and that no student can become thoroughly familiar with them in his two years of graduate work unless his load is otherwise reduced. The substance of the proposed examination would be the literature in which relatively advanced methods of mathematical analysis are applied to economic theory and advanced methods of statistical analysis are applied to the processing of data relevant to economic problems.
The discussion centered around two objections: (1) to the extent that proficiency in economic theory is a prerequisite to mathematical economics and that an advance knowledge of statistics is required in econometrics, students who are examined in both the new field and one or both of the older fields of theory and statistics will obtain double credit for what is a single specialization and (2) an essential requirement of our Ph.D. is breadth of preparation in economics. As it is, nothing under the motion would prevent a student from presenting the following five fields: theory, statistics, mathematical economics and econometrics, mathematics and history. This clearly represents a narrow preparation and cannot be acceptable under our standards. The second objection, voiced most effectively by Professor Dunlop, was immediately recognized as valid, and Professor Dorfman amended his motion to include the condition that mathematics could not be presented jointly with the new field. He insisted, however, that students offering mathematical economics and econometrics are of such a type that, even without the amendment, they would not have taken advantage of the mathematics loophole. Their insistence on a mathematics examination is based entirely on the recognition that they cannot become proficient in their specialty while carrying in addition the same load as their colleagues.
Three different suggestions were offered as alternatives to the proposed motion.
(1) Professor Dunlop accepted the introduction of the new field as long as examinations in any or all of the three fields of theory, statistics, and mathematical economics and econometrics would not count toward more than two of the five fields required.
(2) Professor Chamberlin did not change the present field listing but proposed that a student could by previous arrangement ask to be examined in theory with emphasis on mathematical analysis, the requirements be correspondingly milder with respect to traditional theory and history of thought.
(3) Professor Bergson offered a variation of Professor Chamberlin’s proposal pointing out that, even without the introduction of mathematical analysis, economic theory is now a broad and somewhat ill-defined field so that, in order to better test the students’ analytical scale, fields of concentration should perhaps be agreed upon before the Ph.D. examination. He also emphasized that students do not after all stop learning after their oral examination and that since a student proficient in mathematics can be expected to make use of mathematical techniques in his thesis work the special examination might be the best time to test him on his ability in this field.
Professor Leontief injected a fatalistic note indicating that the problem will solve itself in the future as more and more students join the graduate school with a mathematical preparation such that the theory courses can make use of mathematical tools. For the present it would be unfortunate to have students neglect economic theory for the purpose of acquiring mathematical proficiency. We should, however, provide adequate training facilities for those who because of superior ability or previous preparation can benefit from courses in mathematical economics and, to the extent that recognition may be helpful, include a mention of their special skill in their records.
In view of the lack of agreement evidenced by the meeting, Professor Dunlop asked that the motion be tabled. All were in favor.
Andre Daniere
Secretary
Dictated 12/14/59
Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961 and some earlier. (UAV349.11), Box 13.
Image Source: Harvard Faculty Club from JDeQ’s August 2, 2013 blog entry “Dinner at the Harvard Faculty Club“.