The department of political economy at Harvard University was not even two decades old when a Boston newspaper printed the following report about the expansion in economics course offerings that took place between the single prescribed course taught seniors by Francis (a.k.a. Fanny) Bowen in 1849-50 to the twenty or so courses taught in 1896.
_________________________
1896 Newspaper Report
HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
Development of the Department of Economies and the Large Increase in the Number of Students Electing the Study.
The interests aroused during the progress of the recent campaign undoubtedly account to some extent for the unusually large number of men here electing work this year in the department of economics. This increase has been already noted. Courses in finance which have never before numbered above twenty or thirty men have more than doubled, while the course known as economics 1, which last year opened with 370 men, now has 510. [In the President’s Report for 1896-1897 the final number enrolled in Economics 1 was reported as 464] The number of men electing economics 1 has increased from year to year, and now practically every undergraduate takes the course at some time or other during his college career. If he intends to specialise in economics he takes the course usually in his sophomore year; if he does not so intend, he may take it in his junior or senior year.
Within the department of economics are grouped together, with courses purely economic in character, others more properly sociological, political and financial. Those in social ethics are included in the department of philosophy, while those which deal with the forms of government and with the development of social institutions are given in the department of history and government. Within these several departments are minor groups of courses devoted to pretty well-defined lines of social inquiry, and so special and interdependent as to suggest the formation of new departments. The double title of the department of history and government indicates the extent to which the process of bifurcation has gone here, and the lines of separation are unmistakably forming within the department of economics.
A glance at some of the earlier catalogues reveals curious groupings of courses. Professor Francis Bowen, McLean professor of ancient and modern history and instructor in political economy, conducted as early as the year 1849-50 a course in political science, which was prescribed for seniors. In it Professor Bowen used as reference books John Stuart Mill’s “Political Economy,” [1848 ed., Volume I, Volume II] a book which is still used as a basis for the lectures given in the introductory course in economics; and Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution.” After Professor Bowen was created Alford professor of natural religion, moral philosophy and civil polity he continued to give the only instruction in economics which the university offered at that time, and his course in philosophy came eventually to embrace a much wider range of topics than those indicated above, and was extended through the entire year. He lectured upon political economy and upon the English and American constitutions, and upon such a wide range of other topics, moral, ethical and metaphysical, that the ground covered by this single course is now apportioned among four departments.
With some modifications from year to year Professor Bowen continued his instruction along these lines, down through the period of the civil war, to the year 1871, when a professor of political economy was appointed. [It is interesting that the name of Charles F. Dunbar is not mentioned here, perhaps he wrote this article? Possibly Taussig?] In the year following two courses were offered under the heading “Political Science,” Mill’s “Political Economy” [1871, seventh edition. Volume I, Volume II] being reintroduced and used along with Bowen’s “Political Economy” and Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” [e.g., 1869, Rogers’ edition. Volume I,Volume II] as a basis for discussion and criticism.
These courses were soon after absorbed in the department of philosophy, where they continued to be offered until the year 1879-80, when the department of political economy was established. Development since, that date has been characterised by a gradual increase in the number of courses, from three in 1880 to the nineteen or twenty courses and half-courses that are now given. The department in the year 1886 began the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which was the first journal devoted exclusively to the advancement of economic theory that was ever printed in English.
Among the more advanced courses are two devoted to the study of economic history[,] two to the history of economic theory, one to the scope and method of economics, three to subjects distinctly sociological — the principles of sociology, socialism and communism, and the labor question in Europe and America — another to the theory and methods of statistics, and a number of half courses devoted to special subjects in taxation, finance, international payments, tariff legislation, railway transportation and the like.
Another significant step was taken in 1891-92 in the organisation of the Economic Seminary, the importance of which can hardly be overestimated. Prior to the establishment of the seminary there had been no systematic provision made for the conduct of graduate work. Graduate students in the department who were working up their doctor’s theses did so under the guidance of the several instructors, but without any very satisfactory or clearly defined official status. All this has been changed and every provision is now made for graduate work. An advanced student may study entirely in connection with the seminary, and so he is freed from the necessity of registering in a certain number of courses where the work outlined is adapted to students less advanced. The Economic Seminary numbers at the present time some twenty-five men, each of whom is engaged in original work. The seminary meets once a week, and at each meeting some member reports upon the results of his investigations, receiving at the same time the criticism of his fellow students and of the instructors in the department.
Source: Boston Evening Transcript, December 16, 1896, p. 10.