Tag: Chenery

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Haberler pushes hiring Caves rather than Chenery or Arrow in 1961

 

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has already posted two artifacts revealing Gottfried Haberler’s unfiltered opinions of other economists that he put into writing.

re: John Kenneth Galbraith vs. Paul Samuelson
re: Samuel Bowles

In my reading of the memo transcribed below I get the sense that Haberler was not shy of overstating his case for the  appointment of Richard Caves by diminishing Arrow’s virtues: “I cannot help feeling that some of his [Arrow’s] work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low.”

Personal note: I once paid my Yale mentor William Fellner a courtesy call when he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. in the 1970s. Fellner was a lunch-buddy of Gottfried Haberler and he invited me to join the two of them for lunch at the Mayflower Hotel. I confess (with a combination of understanding for myself and shame) that I hadn’t a clue who the frail old man wolfing down his lunch across the table from me was and he displayed no interest in conversation with me either. And now here I sit, posting a 63 year old Haberler memo for the historical record.

____________________

All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway

Kenneth Arrow (1951 Ph.D. Columbia, Harvard appointment 1968)

Richard Caves (1958 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1962)

Hollis Chenery (1950 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1965)

____________________

Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues

To the Senior Members of the Department:

I am going to send the attached letter to the President unless anybody strongly objects. For the members of the Department I should like to add that I somewhat resent the surprise tactic used in bringing up the name of Arrow in yesterday’s discussion. Let me confess that this was not immediately clear to me — which on reflection causes me to deplore it all the more. I have reason to believe that others too were taken by surprise.

December 13, 1961

____________________

Haberler’s Protest in Full

CONFIDENTIAL.

MEMO TO: The President, the Senior members of the Department of Economics, the Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration

FROM: Gottfried Haberler

In my opinion, the Department of Economics is making a serious mistake in filling up the Department too much with mathematical and econometric economists through the proposal to appoint Arrow and Chenery. May I say by way of introduction that, although I am not myself a mathematical economist, I have a high appreciation of the mathematical and econometric method and have consistently shown that by my votes in the Department.

I do believe, however, that at the present time the Department is well supplied with talent in this field. Five members of the permanent staff belong to that category — Dorfman, Houthakker, Leontief, Meyer, Schelling. True, all of them have developed strong interests in policy problems and have worked on applied problems. None of them is a “pure” theorist in the sense that he works exclusively in the theoretic-mathematical-econometric field, but all of them (with the exception of Schelling) have been appointed for their theoretical, mathematical, econometric skills.

In addition to the permanent members, there are always non-permanent members in that category, at present especially Clopper Almon [Obituary].

No two of these five men are quite alike and Arrow is different from all of them. As far as I know, Arrow has not yet developed an active interest in policy questions. I do not criticise him for that — it may well be an asset. All I want to say is that we are well supplied in his general field of competence. He certainly is a most competent man and he, rightly, has a high reputation in the profession. But I cannot help feeling that some of his work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low. On earlier occasions when he was discussed in the Department, Professor Leontief expressed precisely the same doubts and reservations. Now he thinks that a large department, such as ours, should have men of that type even if — as he still readily concedes — the permanent value of his ideas is problematic. My point is that we are well supplied with this sort of talent and that we are tilting the balance of the Department too strongly in one particular direction.

The fact that we propose to the School of Public Administration the appointment of Chenery fortifies in my opinion the above criticism.

Chenery too is a mathematical-econometric economist of high quality and great energy. His special field is input-output analysis in its application to less developed countries. He is not, of course, a “pure” theorist. On the contrary, application of the theoretical-statistical tools is his strength, especially of input-output analysis. He has also developed administrative talents. At this time, he holds an important position in Washington which makes him look especially attractive to Littauer, I am not in a position to evaluate his suitability for his government assignment. But I should like to say this: I feel strongly that input-output is of no use for the less developed countries, because their basic statistics are woefully inadequate. This does not mean that Chenery will be a poor administrator. It is possible that for him, in his present position, input-output will be a mere ritual. I assume, however, that Littauer does not appoint him for his administrative capabilities, but rather for his scholarly talents, and these latter belong to the same general field — mathematical-econometric analysis — as Arrow’s and the five members of the Department whom I mentioned.

I feel all the more strongly that the Department is making a grave mistake, because we are passing up a rare opportunity to appoint another man who fits into our Department better than either of the two men mentioned and who has other talents which we urgently need, namely, Richard Caves.

The Department has unanimously voted to recommend the appointment of Caves if Arrow is not available. I therefore need not argue his high competence and standing in this profession. Let me only say this: Caves has shown that he not only understands and appreciates the modern mathematical, statistical and econometric methods of analysis, but also — which is a different thing — that he knows how to use them. He has shown himself at the same time to be a master of traditional economic theory and of modern quantitative analysis, a very rare combination indeed. In addition to that he has become a very effective and stimulating undergraduate teacher, which neither one of the other two men is. We are often criticised for neglecting undergraduate teaching. We have tried to remedy this situation, but the difficulty has always been to find a man who measures up to our standards of scholarship and is at the same time an effective undergraduate teacher. Here we have the very rare opportunity, the opportunity of a lifetime, to appoint a man who is both at the same time — an accomplished scholar who is thoroughly familiar with the history of his science and wields modern quantitative methods of analysis effectively, and is also an inspiring undergraduate teacher. It would be inexcusable to let that opportunity pass.

It should be added that Caves is younger than the other two and is being considered by two leading universities for a permanent position. If we do not get him now we will in all probability have lost him forever.

I should also like to say that I disagree with the view that Chenery is better suited for Littauer than Caves. True, being older he has more administrative experience. But this should not be decisive, in my opinion, except that from a superficial public relations standpoint it may look appropriate to appoint someone to Littauer who has held a high position in Washington. Both men are intensely interested in policy problems, but both will always feel that they are primarily economists and neither will want to lecture only on policy problems or only to Littauer students.

December 13, 1961

Source: Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.

Image: Radcliffe Archives. Portrait of Gottfried Haberler. (1965).

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Faculty Regulations Harvard Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Rochester Stanford Uncategorized Yale

Harvard. Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

 

 

What makes this report on the general examination in the economics PhD program at Harvard particularly valuable is its brief survey of the practice at eight other universities: Yale, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, and Chicago. 

_____________________

DRAFT

This draft is distributed in Professor Chenery’s absence to permit discussion at the next Department meeting, January 27, 1970.
Professor Chenery or other members of The Committee might wish to record further comments in preparation [of] a final report.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02135
January 16, 1970

To: The Department of Economics
From: Committee on Graduate Instruction

REPORT ON THE GENERAL EXAMINATION FOR THE PH.D.

In response to a number of requests from students and faculty, the Committee has reexamined at considerable length the requirements for the General Examination. This report summarizes our general assessment in section I and makes specific recommendations for changes in section II. Some related issues needing further consideration are listed in section III.

Although for the past several years graduate students have criticized various aspects of the generals, the main source of dissatisfaction seems to be with the rigidity of “the system” rather than with any particular aspect of it. We have taken advantage of the fact that the Committee now has three student members to try to understand some of the effects of our present procedures on students’ choices and incentives. We have also tried to strike a better balance between preparation for the general examination and other aspects of a student’s training in his first two years.

As a background for our discussion, the secretary of the Committee compiled a useful summary of the regulations in effect at other leading universities, which is attached.

 

ROLE OF THE GENERAL EXAMINATION

The primary functions [sic] of the General Examination is to evaluate the student’s formal preparation in economics before he proceeds to more advanced phases of teaching and thesis preparation. It also serves as a screening device to weed out weak candidates, as a basis for subsequent recommendations for employers, and as an indirect way of organizing the student’s course work in his first two years. These multiple functions produce much of the debate over requirements at Harvard and elsewhere, since a system that is ideal for one purpose has weaknesses for another.

One of the main criticisms of the existing Harvard system is its psychological impact on the student. The need to satisfy the requirements in all fields within a period of several months inhibits most students from exploring non-required topics until after they have passed the generals. On balance, we are impressed with the desirability of adopting a more flexible timing that will encourage the student to get most of his tool requirements out of the way in the first year and use the second year to explore the fields of his special interest and get some taste of actual research. We have tried to maintain the undoubted benefits of an overall examination, however, as compared to a set of course requirements.

Our survey of other departments shows a significant trend toward breaking down the requirements into separate parts and focusing less on the culminating oral examination. Most departments use the qualifying examination in theory as a device for screening first year students, which also reduces the burden of preparing all fields in the second year. In most departments the minimum proficiency in quantitative techniques and economic history is demonstrated by a satisfactory course grade rather than by inclusions in the general examination. Although we have made our own judgements on these questions, we recommend movement in these directions.

Another consideration which makes greater flexibility desirable is the growing proportion of students who are already well prepared in one or more required fields. For many students, the present system therefore encourages too much review of material they have already covered. We feel that those who are adequately prepared on one of the required fields (theory, quantitative method, history) should have an opportunity to satisfy this requirement in their first year in order to make better use of their time thereafter.

Our recommendations are directed toward achieving greater flexibility in the timing of courses and examinations to allow the student to make more effective use of his time. This should enable many students to get started earlier on their optional fields and to make a better choice of their field of specialization. We do not envision any reduction in the total work done in the first two years or any lowering of standards of performance.

 

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

General Principles

  1. The general examination should be separated into four component parts—theory, quantitative method, economic history, and special fields—each of which would be graded separately.
  2. The minimum requirement in quantitative method and economic history should be regarded as a “tool requirement” or “literacy test” as has become the practice in the quantitative field. Students wishing to specialize in these fields may offer them at a higher level as one of their special fields.
  3. The term “general examination” would apply to the oral examination on the special fields. (The question of a general grade on all parts as at present was left open.)
  4. There should be no prescribed timing of the four components, other than the stipulation that the required fields be either completed (or write-off courses in progress) at the time of the oral examination on the special fields. Qualified students would be encouraged to complete one or more requirements in the first year.
  5. Two write-offs should be allowed rather than one.
  6. A subcommittee would be set up for economic history (and retained in theory and quantitative method). The standards and ways of satisfying them in the three required fields should be proposed by the three subcommittees and ratified by the GIC and the Department.

The Theory Requirement

  1. The present coverage (roughly 201a, 201b, 202a) should be retained. The examination would continue to be written.
  2. The examination should be offered two or three times a year. (A straw vote by students showed a preference for June, September and January and a margin for September over January.) Most students would take the examination at the end of their first year—in June or September.

The Quantitative Requirement

  1. The present de facto standard of the written examination should be accepted as the “literacy test”.
  2. The requirement can be met either by the present type of written examination (given twice a year) or by a grade of B+ in 221b or 224a. (It is estimated that roughly 75% would be able to qualify by course examination.)

The Economic History Requirement

  1. The history requirement be made parallel to the quantitative requirement in that:
    1. It can be satisfied by course or special departmental examination.
    2. It can either be offered at a minimum level or at a higher level as a special field.
  2. The minimum requirement would be satisfied by a course grade that would allow a similar proportion to qualify in this way (B+ or A- pending further information).
  3. Alternatives to the present 233 sequence (if any) to be established by the history subcommittee.
  4. Minimum standards in both history and quantitative method could be demonstrated by course examination.

The Requirement in Special Fields

  1. Two special fields would be required as the basis for the oral examination, which would also cover general analytical ability.
  2. Advanced theory, econometrics and economic history would be eligible as special fields, but the first two could not both be included. (In the majority view, one applied field apart from history would be required in order to eliminate the possibility of a candidate offering only the three required fields.)
  3. The candidate would be encouraged (or required?) to submit a research paper to be made part of the subject matter and record of the general examination (He is now “expected” to have presented a paper to a working seminar by the end of his second year.)
  4. The general oral examination would normally be taken at the end of the second year, but could not be taken before the qualifying exams in theory, quantitative and history have been passed (or prospective write-offs are in progress.)

QUESTIONS OF GRADING

  1. Should all examinations be either pass-fail or on a more limited grading scale than at present?
  2. Should the passing standard for the course option in both quantitative methods and history be B+?
  3. Should the four requirements be graded separately or combined (as at present) into an overall grade on the General Examination? (The committee favors first the alternative, but would also require “distinguished” performance in at least one area.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Examination Requirements at Other Places

Below I summarize examination requirements at eight other places, including Yale, MIT, Hopkins, Rochester, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan and Chicago. The main findings of the survey are:

  1. It appears that the massive type of “generals” (where all fields and theory are combined in one session) has almost disappeared. With the exception of Hopkins, all of the above schools seem to settle the theory examination at the end of the first year, with special fields examined at the end of the second year.
  2. Among the schools surveyed, only Yale has a written examination in history. Hopkins, Stanford, Chicago and Berkeley require a course, with “satisfactory” grade. MIT and Rochester have no requirement.
  3. Only Yale gives a written in quantitative aspect of the generals. All the other schools have course requirements (satisfactory grade) only.
  4. Practices vary with regard to number of special fields and type of examination. MIT and Hopkins require three, the others two special fields. Examinations at Yale are oral, at the other places written, in some cases both written and oral. In most places the special field examinations must be taken together, but in some (Rochester, Chicago) they can be separated. Throughout, these special examinations seem to be given by the department, and not merely as course examination.
  5. Some provisions of special interest:
    1. Chicago and Rochester’s second year research paper as part of general examination
    2. Stanford’s requirement for distinction in at least one field.

 

I. Yale

Comprehensive Examination

  1. Written examination in theory and econometrics, usually August or September after first year.
  2. Written examination on economic history; usually late spring of second year.
  3. Oral examination in two applied fields, chosen from six and in general analytical ability; late spring of second year. Given by four examiners. Student excused from general examination in special field courses at end of second year. Oral examination in theory, history, quantitative or field outside economics may be substituted for one of the applied fields if candidate has done year’s course work in applied field “with sufficient distinction”.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—written, end of second year, and option to substitute for one special field.
  2. Quantitative—written, end of first year, and option to substitute for one special field.

Other requirements

  1. Has apparently been dropped.
  2. One course credit of explicit research training, second year.
  3. Dissertation to be completed in fourth year.

 

II. MIT

General examination

  1. General examination in theory consists of two written papers—micro and macro, given in final exam period of first year. May be substituted for final examinations in theory courses.
  2. General examination normally at end of second year. Consists of:
    1. written examinations on three of 12 special fields. These may include advanced theory, econometrics or economic history.
    2. oral examination in the three fields after written.
    3. a fourth field is required but may be written off by B grade in full year course.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—no requirement. May be a special field.
  2. Quantitative—no generals examination. May be a special field.

Other requirements

  1. Two languages

 

III. Johns Hopkins

First Year Oral Examination

A first year oral examination is given in the spring of the first year, covering the fields in which the student has worked during that year.

Comprehensive Examination

Normally taken in spring of second year. Consists of:

  1. Two written examinations in theory, micro and macro.
  2. Three written examinations in special fields, one of which may be outside economics.
  3. Oral examination: Covers theory, special fields, statistics.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—satisfactory work in course.
  2. Statistics—satisfactory work in course.

Other Requirements

  1. One language.
  2. In addition to the departmental special examination, an examination is given by the graduate board, which includes members of other departments.

 

IV. Rochester

Qualifying Examination

  1. Theory and econometrics courses are required but are not part of Qualifying Examination.
  2. Qualifying Examination taken in May of second year. Consists of
    1. Written examination in two fields. These may include mathematical economics and econometrics. Need not be taken simultaneously.
    2. A second year research paper which is to be presented to a departmental seminar at the end of second year.
    3. After (a) and (b) are met, an oral examination in the special fields.

History and Quantitative

  1. Econometrics and mathematical economics requirements (courses), extent depending on fields.
  2. No history requirement.

Other Requirements

  1. Certain distribution requirement.
  2. Language and mathematics.

 

V. Stanford

Comprehensive Examination

  1. Written in micro and macro theory at end of first year. Cover course materials.
  2. Selection of special fields under two plans:
    1. If no minor subject is taken, student chooses four out of ten fields. These may include history, econometrics, mathematical economics. One field may be outside economics.
    2. Student may choose a minor subject (in another department) and choose only one out of the ten special economics fields.

Comprehensive written examinations for each field scheduled annually, usually at close of course sequence. Must show distinction in at least one field.

History and Quantitative

  1. History—Include at least two courses from offerings in economic history, history of thought, comparative economics, development.
  2. Quantitative—Econometrics course required.

Other Requirements

  1. Language or particular quantitative skills.
  2. Two seminars and research papers.

 

VI. Berkeley

Departmental Examination in Theory

  1. Must be passed by end of first year. Students with strong background take it in November of first term, others in June (end of first year).
  2. Written qualifying examinations given in two out of thirteen special fields at end of second year. Examinations given twice a year, must be taken together.
  3. Within one year after written qualifying examinations are completed, student presents himself for oral, based on prospectus (and interim results) of his thesis. General assessment of competence.

History and Quantitative

  1. Course in economic history at 210 level.
  2. Course in statistics at 240 level.

Other Requirements

  1. No language.

 

VII. Michigan

Preliminary Examination

  1. At end of theory courses in micro and macro, an “augmented examination” is given which serves as preliminary examination in theory.
  2. Two fields of specialization are required. One field is satisfied by satisfactory grades in two courses. For the other field a written preliminary examination is required.
  3. After this, oral examination on research topic and surrounding area.

Economic History and Quantitative

  1. No history requirement.
  2. Course requirement in statistics and econometrics.

Other Requirements

  1. No general language requirement.

 

VIII. Chicago

Preliminary Examination

  1. A “course [sic, “core” probably intended] examination” covering micro and macro theory is given twice a year (separate from course examinations) and is usually taken at end of first or middle of second year.
  2. Two special fields are chosen. Written examinations in these fields, separate from course examinations. Need not be taken together.
  3. Student presents a thesis prospectus before thesis seminar, usually in third year. Must pass on this for candidacy.

History and Quantitative

  1. History course required as part of distribution requirements.
  2. Course work in statistics required.

Other Requirements

  1. Math, no languages.

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard University Department of Economics: General Correspondence, 1967-1974 (2 of 3)”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1946.