Tag: Dunlop

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Memo to Provost supporting Galbraith appointment. Black, 1947

 

As surprising as it might sound, the Harvard economics department couldn’t always get whom they wanted (Theodore Schultz). As a consequence we are able to observe an aggressive strategy employed by a member of one side in the departmental hiring dispute.  Professor John D. Black attempted to play the rebound in re-pleading his case for John Kenneth Galbraith’s appointment to a newly established professorship. Indeed by writing directly to the Provost, Black could have been charged with at least an additional count of “working the ref”. The episode is well summarized in Richard Parker’s biography of Galbraith (John Kenneth Galbraith: his life, his politics, his economics, pp. 226-227). Still, there is nothing quite like the pleasure of watching sharp elbows at work in the service of intradepartmental politics as revealed in the complete letter posted below.  Black was not afraid to push nativist buttons in referring to anti-Galbrathians among his colleagues: “European clique” (cf. Haberler in 1948 on Galbraith vs Samuelson), “the monetary-fiscal policy axis” and “gaudy Keynesian trappings”.

A cynical nose can detect more than a whiff of a self-serving plea to strengthen the prospects of Black’s own field and style of research. 

Archival note: Parker refers to a copy of the letter in Black’s papers with the Wisconsin Historical Society, this post is based on a copy of the letter I found in Galbraith’s papers at the JFK Presidential Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides the outlines and exams for Black’s courses on the marketing of agricultural commodities from 1947-48).

____________________

December 22, 1947

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

As you are no doubt aware, it was I who last year nominated Galbraith for the joint professorship to the School of Public Administration and in the Department of Economics. It was my judgment at that time that in view of his experience in public affairs and acknowledged great ability he surely should be considered for this position. The voting last year confirmed my judgment surprisingly. Excluding Schultz, to whom the appointment was offered, and Tinbergen from the Netherlands, he ran neck and neck with Yntema for top place in all of the balloting, with Samuelson next, and Smithies in seventh place. Tinbergen owed his strength to the European clique in the Department of Economics (by no means all European born), who have a European idea of the function of a university, und would have been a misfit in this appointment.

The voting of course reflected in large measure the conceptions of the voting members as to the needs of the appointment. A majority of my colleagues in the Department of Economics thought of it in terms simply of getting another high-grade technical economist, with little thought for the needs of the School of Public Administration. To meet this situation, I prepared and read at one of last year’s joint meetings on the appointment, the following statement, which I now I now submit anew, as still describing the conditions of the appointment:

The decision as to an appointment in economics at this time raises the whole question of the future of the Graduate School of Public Administration and its meaning for the Departments of Economics and Government.

The first point to make under this head is that the two departments named, without the Graduate School of Public Administration, are destined to become conventional departments in these fields, not distinguishable from similar departments in other universities, except for probably having better faculties than most of them. Even the latter distinction could easily fade in the next decade or two. With the Graduate School of Public Administration working with them, they both have possibilities of becoming super-graduate departments, by building on top of the usual graduate offerings in these fields a type of advanced graduate instruction that deals with problems of the sort that arise in the higher levels of policy-making in government. The seminars now given are well worth while from this point of view, but they fell much sort of realizing their possibilities. The two departments therefore very much need the Graduate School of Public Administration. It offers them a real opportunity to achieve greatness and become important influences in our national life. On the other hand, the School can get nowhere without the regular graduate work of the two departments as a foundation. The School and the two departments should therefore work closely together, each helping the others at each step in their advancement.

This means looking at a problem, such as that of the new appointment, as a common problem, and asking the question what kind of an appointment now will promote best the progress of the departments and the School?

Before answering this question, we need to go back and consider the basis on which the School was conceived. Those who formulated the program for the School finally settled down on training in policy-making as the great opportunity for a school of public administration at a university like Harvard. They exhibited a kind of prescience and inner wisdom in so doing that would almost seem like a miracle except for the fact that it did grow almost inevitably out of the situation.

In the two or three years following the founding of the School, much actual headway was made in realizing the objective of training for policy-making. The program of the School and it method made a strong impression in government circles and in the world of education. Since then, the School has lost considerable of the advantage of such a splendid start. If it does not take hold with vigor again and press forward along the lines laid out, it will lose it entirely in five or ten more years and become nothing more than a minor adjunct of the two conventional departments of the University. This the departments themselves cannot afford to let happen. Neither can Harvard University.

Looking at the present problem in this light, there can be no doubt that the great weakness in our present situation is in persons qualified to train advanced graduate students in policy-making, who have the aptitude for it as well as the background. The interests of the departments are in such an appointment at this time. The training in policy-making, comparatively speaking, is not suffering now, and will not suffer for several years, because of deficiencies in the preliminary graduate training needed as a foundation for it.

Also needing to be considered are important and somewhat similar relations to other departments of Harvard University, particularly to the Graduate School of Business Administration, to the Law School, and to the new Department of Social Relations. The School can add something of high importance to each of these if its seminars in the policy-making function are adequately developed; and in turn its contribution will be much enriched by what workers in these fields have to offer.

An appointment at this time of one new professor qualified as indicated will not of course take us far alone the way we need to go. But it will make a good start. We shall need mainly two things in addition: A. Additional research funds for the different seminars — to be used in employing research associates, financing field work, statistical laboratory work, etc., B. Some appointments wholly on the faculty of the School. Funds for both of these, especially the first, can be obtained if sought in earnest.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the School has made a start exactly along the right lines. It does not need in the least to back up and take a fresh start, but instead only to pick up what it has and go forward with it.

You, Provost Buck, do not need to be told that since I made this statement, the School has done exactly what I was hoping for. Almost certainly now at least three of the major seminars of the School will have research projects combined with them, each with small staffs of research associates. Steps are being taken to bring the School into effective working relations with the Law school and the Department of Social Relations. The need for an appointment that will strengthen its instruction in the policy-making function has in consequence become even more urgent then it was a year ago.

When it came time to offer nominations again this year, I felt that in view of the strong vote for Galbraith last year, surely he should be considered again. The third men in the top three this year, Smithies, has been substituted for Samuelson by those who supported Samuelson last year, apparently for two reasons: one, they now admit Samuelson’s shortcomings in the policy role, and consider Smithies a better candidate from this point of view; two, they expect to have Samuelson appointed to the full professorship now vacant in the Department of Economics. There seems to be more general acceptance than year ago of my conception of the needs of the appointment.

It has been necessary for me to make this last statement because it is the basis for the most important factor in the whole situation as it now develops, namely, that to appoint both Smithies and Samuelson at this time would further unbalance the work in economics at Harvard in the direction of the monetary-fiscal policy axis, since both of these men work mainly along these lines. The simple fact of the matter is that the men working in money and banking, fiscal policy and international trade, plus a few (in theory mostly) who vote with them on appointments, already constitute a voting majority in the Department of Economics. (You will remember that they did their utmost to prevent Dunlop’s appointment two years ago.) To add one more to this axis at this time would be highly unfortunate. It is, of course, not their voting which is most important — it is the narrowing effect which they have on the teaching and research in economics at Harvard. Those two appointments would contribute more than usual to such narrowing, since they are Keynesians in addition.

Of course none of these in this axis considers that he is narrow. In their discussions, to be sure, they draw in all phases of the economy. But they organize it all in terms of a single framework of reference. They pour it all, as it were, through one narrow funnel, and do some sieving in the process. As to how much they may mislead themselves in so doing, — and unfortunately some of the policy-makers of the nation; we have had abundant evidence in the past two years.

We can be reasonably certain that within ten or fifteen years, the Keynesian system of economic thinking will have been pretty well taken in stride. It would be unfortunate if at that time Harvard found itself with a faculty in economics too largely clothed in outworn habiliments. The economies of that day will have a different cast then the pre-Keynesian; but it will have lost much of its gaudy Keynesian trappings.

One of the first stories told me about Harvard when I arrived in 1927 was of President Eliot’s having been asked why Harvard University’s Department of Psychology had never developed a “school” of thought in that field, as had the Departments of Cornell and Columbia, and of his having answered that if he had discovered that his Department of Psychology was becoming dominated by one school of thought he would have hastened to appoint the strongest man he could find of an opposing school.

Of course this last point is no argument for the appointment of Galbraith. It is merely an argument against appointing Smithies if Samuelson is going to be appointed to the Department of Economics — and the pressure for Samuelson’s appointment is very strong in the Department of Economics.

I do not propose to present any strong affirmative arguments in support of Galbraith’s appointment. I nominated him because I believed that he should at least be considered. It has been the votes of my colleagues that has put him in the running, and I prefer that they tell you their reasons. I would not want him appointed if in their judgment, and that of the ad hoc committee, he is not the strongest man for this joint appointment.

I say this even though I would hope that if Galbraith were appointed he could spare a small fraction of his time to helping me give the two year courses which I now give in Commodity Distribution and Prices (ordinarily called Marketing.) Even though I am now giving these two courses, with the help of one-fifth of the time of an annual instructor, in addition to three full year courses in the Economies of Agricultura (with help of part of the time of one visiting lecturer) besides supervising a score of doctor’s theses, I shall manage somehow if I can get some other regular help with the three courses in the Economics of Agriculture.1

____________

  1. The undergraduate course in marketing had 90 students in the fall term, and the graduate course had 12 plus 8 auditors. This course was offered to Harvard undergraduate in 1946-47 for the first time, except for sone special instruction in food marketing given to armed service prospects during the war. The graduate course has been given since 1933.

    ____________

It may also be of interest that 12 of the 120 Ph.D’s reported as conferred in Economics in the United States in 1946-47 (12 months) were to candidates writing theses under my direction. (See September 1947 American Economic Review.)

There have, however, been some statements made about Galbraith in faculty discussions that must be commented upon in the interest of truth and sound decision. It has been said of him that he is “not a highly competent technical economist.” All this means is that he has published no articles in which he has applied methods of statistical and mathematical analysis, to the development of refinements of economic and monetary theory. I have no doubt of Galbraith’s ability to do this when this is the important thing for him to do. The simple truth is that a man of his breadth of comprehension is likely to find himself mainly absorbed in dealing with broad fundamental economic relationships; and this is especially true in times as disturbed as those in which he has been doing his writing. When asked, in the summer of 1947, to read a paper on the current economic situation, I entitled this paper “Fundamental Elements in the Current Agricultural Situation,” and I wrote as follows:

“The day and the hour seem to call for analysis in terms of broad fundamentals. This is no occasion for the refinements of theory and their application; but rather for over-simplification and over-emphasis on a few vital elements. Something of accuracy is lost in consequence; but this is not relatively important in the emergency that confronts us. There are wild horses loose in the world and the first task is to bring them to leash. Later we can break them to the plow and the cart.”

This statement is truer today than it was in 1942. If any economist of today is turning out articles or books presenting analysis of refinements, he is doing it because he lacks real power of analysis of the larger issues of the day, or as a by-product of such analysis, or as relaxation from the steady grind of his regular job. No doubt some of Smithies’ articles fit into these latter descriptions. Galbraith’s writings of the past ten years have covered the larger aspects of a very broad range of subjects.

Another criticism has been that he is not a good speaker. It is true that he often speaks haltingly when extemporizing. He needs time to find the exact word he wants. But he writes excellent papers, and reads them very effectively. (John Williams reported at a recent faculty meeting that his paper and Ed Mason’s were the outstanding papers at a full meeting in Philadelphia. His paper at the Atlantic City meeting in December 1946 was an outstanding performance.) In fact, he has become a very effective writer. To have a man in the Graduate School of Public Administration who can write as effectively as Galbraith on public questions of the day will be a highly valuable asset.

It needs to be added that he is effective in the classroom in spite of halting for a word now and then. The secret of this is that he has an uncanny sense for the vital points in a classroom discussion the same in analyzing public issues, and for putting these in their proper perspective. He is also a very stimulating influence among students in private discussion.

Rating higher in my scale of values than in those of many other academicians is capacity. Some of my colleagues do twice as much teaching, research and writing as some others, and do it fully as well or better. Galbraith has demonstrated a high order of capacity.

The other adverse report concerning Galbraith is not so easy to analyze. It is that he does not handle public relations well, nor even his relations with colleagues and subordinates. Surely a man of Galbraith’s type needed a man of different sort to work alongside him and handle the difficult public relations of OPA. And surely Leon Henderson was not that man. He was less apt at it even than Galbraith. The public relations man for OPA had to say “No” very often; and Galbraith does not have the ease of manner for such an assignment. Given time enough to plan for it in advance, he is able to differ with his colleagues and associates in a pleasant and gracious manner; but not in haste and under pressure, and especially when some body is trying to “put something over”.

No doubt a factor in his relations with others has been his urge to get on with the job and not waste too much time talking about it. I must confess a kinship with him in this respect. He no more than I should be assigned task a with many administrative decisions.

On this point, I am ready to predict without any hesitancy that Galbraith’s relations with his colleagues in the School and in the Department of Economics, should he receive this appointment, would be more congenial by a wide margin then those now generally prevailing in these departments; also that in the role of a Harvard professor, his relations with the public and with government officials would be unusually cooperative and friendly.

Perhaps a word is in order as to why I did not vote for Yntema. Most of all, I do not want to take a chance on either of two things (1) that he will prefer to continue with his present job, thus postponing our filling this appointment for another year: (2) that he will accept the appointment, but will want to continue a tie-us with CED that will remain his main interest. We cannot afford any more such tie-ups. Second, he seems to be so well fitted to his present assignment that I do not believe he would fit ours.

Very truly yours,

John D. Black

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 519. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Correspondence Re: Appointment of JKG as Professor of Economics. 12/22/47—3/22/50”.

Image Source:  Professor John D. Black in Harvard Class Album 1945.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Meeting of the Visiting Committee with the Economics Department. January 1944

 

Maybe attending to the routine business of the Harvard economics department was seen as a welcome respite amidst the Sturm und Drang of the Second World War. Maybe the consensus was simply shared that the transistory shock of the war would soon be over and it was time to worry again about the core missions of Harvard and its economics department. In any event, the following report outlines a “Research Program for the Department of Economics” presented to the visiting committee by the chair of the department’s Committee on Research Program, Professor John D. Black. 

____________________________

Visiting Committee Reports available at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror

Visiting Committee Report 1915

Visiting Committee Report 1974

____________________________

Meeting of the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics with the Department, on Monday, January 10, 1944.

The Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics met with the Department at seven o’clock on Monday, January 10, 1944, at the Harvard Club in Boston. There were present for the Visiting Committee: Roger N. Baldwin, Albert F. Bigelow, Paul M. Herzog, George Rublee (chairman), Charles E. Spencer, and Orrin G. Wood. For the Department: John D. Black, H. H. Burbank, W. L. Crum, John T. Dunlop, Edwin Frickey, Seymour E. Harris, Arthur E. Monroe, Wassily Leontief, Abbott P. Usher, John H. Williams, and Edwin B. Wilson. Mr. Rublee presided.

 

Mr. Rublee called on Professor Burbank, the chairman of the Department of Economics, to make an opening statement.

Professor Burbank said that in previous years we had at these dinners talked about our teaching difficulties, especially those connected with the junior staff. Last year we discussed Professor Slichter’s experiment with the labor-union representatives. This year the Department had suggested to Mr. Rublee that we consider our most pressing problem of the present, as well as the immediate and long-run future. Fundamentally, this problem is concerned with the Department’s research. We must have a vigorous and effective program of research if we are to have a dominant Department of Economic in the University or, indeed, if the University itself is to maintain its high standing. The Department of Economics has recently appointed a Committee on Research Program. Professor Black is the chairman of this committee.

Professor Black then presented the following report:

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A department of economics in a large university has three functions to perform:

  1. To teach and train students,
  2. To contribute to an understanding of the current problems of private enterprise and public affairs,
  3. To help develop the science of economics.

In a small college a good job of teaching is about all that can be expected of a department of economics. In a great university the second and third functions are as important as the first.

Fortunately those three functions not only need not interfere with each other, but in a large university can be performed in such a way that each strengthens the other. This does not mean that all can be performed in the same time, but rather that each is better done if the other two are also being strongly carried. As a matter of fact, however, much time and energy is saved if all three are combined. Thus what is learned from the study of current problems can be used very effectively in the classroom and at the same time furnishes needed and valuable inductive material for the development of economic science. One’s teaching, in turn, especially one’s graduate instruction, is a constant source of ideas and suggestions to be developed in research. Only, therefore, if the staff of a department of economics is large enough and well enough financed so that it can work along all three of these lines, is it able to yield a large return upon the investment in it. Only if thus set up and thus functioning is it able to realize the possible economies of combination of these functions.

The Department of Economics of Harvard University has been performing on all of these fronts ever since it was organized. But in the period while the members of this committee have been associated with it, it has by no means measured up to its opportunities on the last two of them, and what is more important, unless some action is taken in the near future, it will miss out still more on its opportunities after the war. It will not only do less well the job it has been trying to do, for reasons to be indicated presently, but also will not reach out and encompass the larger needs of the years ahead. Needless to state, society and the nation are going to be faced with major tasks of adjustment in the years just ahead and over the next decade or two and likewise breath-taking possibilities for social advancement. So important is the role of economies in these developments that if the Department of Economies of Harvard University does not contribute its part to them, this alone will almost be enough to shrink Harvard University in toto into a second- rate institution. This, therefore, is a moment for stock-taking and laying out plans.

It is not part of the assignment of this committee to consider the teaching function of the Department. But some reference must be made to it for the reasons just given. the present course offerings and methods of instruction are not well fitted to the present and the impending future. The function of teaching in a field like ours is primarily to train students to apply economics, and the methods of economic analysis, to the situations which confront them after they leave college. For Harvard undergraduates, most of these situations are situations in private enterprise, although having important public relations. A limited proportion are assignments in the public service itself. The program of teaching needs to be organized in anticipation of the kinds of jobs, mostly private, that the graduates of Harvard University get to do. The graduate teaching program needs to envisage e wide range of working assignments, a large fraction of them in the public service. Training teachers of economics is only one of the functions of graduate teaching. Because the teaching is not organized as needed, there are some large gaps in the present program, and these gaps, it will appear presently, coincide with gaps in the research activities of the department.

The other two functions, contributing directly to an understanding of current situations, and developing economic science, are orginarily considered as research. There is considerably more to the first of these than just research, but since good research is basic to it, we will here consider them both as research and treat them under one head from this point on.

The deficiencies in the research activities of the Department of Economics, considered especially from the standpoint of the postwar can be designated under the following heads:

  1. Not enough research is being done
  2. There are gaps in it
  3. Some of it is not of enough significance.

The reasons for these deficiencies are as follows:

  1. Lack of resources to carry on the needed volume of research.
  2. This includes resources in research personnel as well as in the expenses of clerical assistants, field study, publication, and the like.
  3. Inadequate staff, or none at all, in some important fields.
  4. Very little in the way of leadership. Staff not organized in such a way as to promote research.

Let us now consider briefly these four reasons. When an economist does not have financial resources with which to do significant research, he may put in his spare energy on library work on the writings of his predecessors, the Congressional Record, and the like. For this he needs only someone to type his manuscript. If in addition, he has a little money to hire a computer, he may go to work on the census records and other official statistics. Those two descriptions about cover all the research now being done by the Harvard Department of Economics as such.

Lacking funds for anything more, two developments have followed. First, a goodly number of the staff members have taken on research or related assignments with other agencies. Merely to list these agencies tells the story. (We are purposely omitting the wartime agencies), the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Resources Planning Board, the Food and Nutrition Board, the Bureau of Economic Research, the League of Nations, the Twentieth Century Fund, the National Planning Association, the National Industrial Conference Board, etc. While most of those assignments are important, to have as many of them disorganizes the research and teaching of the Department. Also the Department as such does not get adequate recognition for work done under other auspices. Finally, there is great need for having research done that is largely independent of government agencies. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The second development has been that several members of the Department have started projects that they have not been able to complete thus far. They have learned by sad experience that they cannot swing ambitious projects without the help of trained younger associates who can direct the detail of the analysis and help with the writing. As a result, a number of important projects are now left suspended.

If the Department is to have a vigorous research program of its own, there must be funds with which to employ a dozen or two of these younger research associates, as well as funds for computers, clerical help, drafting, travel and field study.

The Committee is also disposed to think that a clearer recognition should be given to research duties in the total program of the Department. It would suggest that consideration be given to a plan which would differentiate teaching loads according to research carried. Staff members who do very little research, because not inclined that way, or having small capacity for it, would handle more classes under such a plan.

The nature of the gaps in the present program may be judged from a following incomplete survey of fields of research and teaching and the needs of each.

  1. Money and credit. Staff ample, but research associates, clerical and other help much needed. High time that a research showing be made.
  2. Business cycles. Staff ample. Funds to continue the program that was under way before the war.
  3. International economic relationship. Staff probably not entirely adequate and great need of developing a well-rounded research program suited to the postwar world. This program should include work on Inter-American relationships, development of resources of Latin America, international food supply and distribution and related population problems. Research associates and other financial help.
  4. Public finance. Staff ample. Research associates and other help needed.
  5. Economic history. A teaching as well as research associate needed. One professor now working alone in the field.
  6. Labor and industrial relations. The principle problem is to develop a workable program for using the research funds now available.
  7. Agriculture. A teaching associate needed, and probably two research associates with necessary supplementary funds.
  8. Commodity distribution. Needs complete staffing. An undergraduate and a graduate course are now being given on a makeshift basis. No research under way.
  9. Production economics. Courses now bracketed. Needs complete staffing.
  10. Forestry economies. A slight beginning has been made on a program in this field in collaboration with the Harvard Forest. An opportunity for an important contribution here. Needs a man to develop teaching and research with such financial support as required.
  11. Concerning the several other present fields of teaching and research in the Department, no statement is being made at this time.

The present research funds available for the Department are:

  1. A share with three other departments in the remnants of grant that will expire in June 1946. (About $40,000 left, most of which must be reserved for publication expenses.)
  2. Remnants of three other small grants, totaling about $6000, for special projects.
  3. The Wertheim fund, yielding about $3000 a year, for research in industrial relations, to be shared with other divisions of the University.

The committee suggests as a method of approach to the situation outlined that the Department set up a committee to draft a research program for the Department, and another one to develop a procedure for securing the necessary support for the program.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor Black added that in the natural sciences the idea of large laboratories is well established. In Economics also we need extensive laboratories and personnel therefor. Further, we need funds for field workers and for traveling expenses.

Mr. Bigelow asked whether there were any project being worked on in the School of Public Administration which could be coordinated with the research of the Economics Department. Professor Black answered that the idea of combining has already been carried as far as possible. The School of Public Administration funds are sufficient only to take care of the assembling of materials and other routine connected with the seminars.

Mr. Baldwin asked what the Department did with its research funds in the past when such funds were available. Professor Black answered that we made small grants to individual professors to help them finish projects in which they were engaged. These grants covered such activities as preliminary research, computing, and typing, but in general not much was available for field work or for traveling. Some eight or ten books have been published as a result of these projects. The publication of these books, as well as the research behind them, depended largely on research grants. Our research funds are now almost exhausted; we have very little money available for the future.

Professor Usher pointed out that in these earlier grants the modes and procedures were laid down by the donors. The Department did not have a free hand in organizing and planning research.

Mr. Baldwin asked whether the Economics Department today has a claim for research funds superior to that of other departments. Professor Burbank urged that a very strong case can be made out for such a position.

Professor Wilson observed that in days gone by great emphasis was laid on “inter-disciplinary” research. A second-rate “interdisciplinary” project would be given preference over a first-rate piece of restricted research. Professor Wilson further remarked that the research programs of the natural sciences were well set up thirty or forty years ago. Our social sciences, on the other hand, were for a long time treated as mere teaching departments. The movement away from this stand received a great impetus from an article by the late Professor Charles J. Bullock, in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for June 1915. This article called attention to the need of more generous and systematic provision for economic research. Our research program for Economics needs to be extended to a scale comparable with that of the natural sciences—unless, indeed, the United States government is to handle all the economic research in this country!

There was some discussion regarding the relation of university research in Economics to governmental research. Professor Usher pointed out that university research can be the basis for developing techniques of analysis which government bureaus can later put into “mass production.” Mr. Bigelow suggested that the development of techniques is more difficult in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. Professor Leontief predicted that the Economies Department’s research will set the direction for larger-scale governmental or “foundation” research, and emphasized that independent research, especially in its earlier stages, can never be reproduced in the “rough and tumble” conditions of governmental work. Dean Williams supported this view: a situation has been developing for some time—not just in connection with the War emergency—in which men are pulled out of university work to become mere administrators, to “run” projects; furthermore, working under governmental supervision may mean a certain loss of independence of thought, for consciously or unconsciously a men may be affected by considerations of “official policy.” Dr. Dunlop declared that you simply cannot do fundamental research under governmental auspices, there are always too many pressing current problems.

Mr. Herzog urged that the Department’s next step is to present cogent arguments to support its contentions regarding research needs. In this connection, it will be quite important to show people what contributions the Department has made in the past with the research grants allotted to it—what, for example, has resulted for practical use of the Government. Professor Burbank responded that we might take as an example the history of the statistical work on the Balance of International Payments. At the end of the last war the government and business men were vitally interested in this subject. Dean Williams was a pioneer in the field. Dean Williams briefly outlined the record. He began with an examination of the balance of payments for Argentina. Then, under the auspices of the Harvard Economics Society he, together with Professor Bullock and Mr. Tucker, made and presented a historical study of the Balance of Payments of the United States from 1789 to 1920. He kept this study up to date for several years and then turned it over to the Department of Commerce, working with them for a transition period of one year. The Department of Commerce has subsequently carried on the study currently.

As a suggestion regarding further possibilities of this sort, Professor Burbank referred to the problems connected with the incidence of taxation; these are most certainly current issues of the utmost importance. The country needs evidence for the formulation of governmental policy. We have in the Department a young man of high ability who has made a start on the investigation of these problems. We have no funds to help him, not even money for clerical and mechanical assistance.

Professor Burbank indicated that the Department would work a report along the lines of Mr. Herzog’s suggestion.

Mr. Wood urged that the Department visualize its projects and lay them out fully, with an indication of minimum and maximum amounts of money needed. Very little will be gained by talking in generalizations; the program must be concrete. Incidentally, with the Federal tax situation as it is, the present is a propitious time to obtain money for research—with reference both to individuals and to corporations.

Mr. Rublee raised question as to the exact significance of the title “Research Associate.” Professor Black answered that we have something in mind beyond a mere statistical clerk. Between the man in charge of a project and those doing the mechanical work, we need trained young economists who can assume the burden of direct supervision and also can help in writing up the results. Other Research Associates are needed to do traveling and field work. Professor Leontief suggested that the appointment of Research Associates is important for still another reason. Many of the young men thus appointed will become leaders in the economic developments of the future. The experience gained on our projects will be extremely valuable to them.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Mr. Rublee asked Dr. Dunlop to say a few words about the progress of the trade-union experiment which was described by Professor Slichter in this meeting last year. Dr. Dunlop said that this year we have gone ahead with the program, although of necessity on a reduced scale because of man power shortage in the various unions. We have six union representatives who, on the whole, are superior to the group we had last year. We have continued the development of techniques of instruction and we have widened our range of contacts with the unions. The unions are supporting the program and we are establishing new connections with certain important unions. In spite of the fact that the teaching staff has been somewhat depleted and we have had to furnish instruction on the basis of special arrangements, we feel that the year has been decidedly profitable and worth while, both for the union representatives and for us.

Mr. Herzog urged that by all means the work should continue, even though it had to be on a reduced scale. It is much easier to keep on with a going concern than to start afresh. He confirmed Dr. Dunlop’s impressions as to the high quality of the union personnel. He also reported the sincere testimony of a leading member of the labor-union group that the work at Harvard was felt to be highly worth while—to be a vital and crucial experience.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The meeting closed with general expressions of appreciation for Mr. Rublee’s work as chairman of the visiting Committee during the past few years and of the deep indebtedness which the Department feels to him for this work.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 25. Folder: “Visiting Committee Correspondence, 1943-45.”

Image Source: Cropped image of  John D. Black (1938). Harvard Library, Digital Collections.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland,  “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

Categories
Economics Programs Graduate Student Support Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chairman’s Report to the Dean. Harris, 1956

 

The previous post provided transcriptions of the annual reports to the Dean by the chairman of the economics department from 1932 through 1941. This post skips ahead to the middle of the 1950s to give us a glimpse of the post-war Harvard economics department. Seymour Harris’ big take-aways from his 45 year survey of undergraduate and graduate economics courses taught by Harvard economics faculty: (i) “the proportion of undergraduate courses given by full professors has fallen from 75 to 35 percent” and (ii) “graduate courses are relatively 5 times as numerous as they were in 1909-10.” (from July 3, 1956 cover letter to Dean McGeorge Bundy that accompanied the report transcribed below).

It is also interesting to note that the economics department’s continues to plead for more funds to compensate it for “…about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account[ing] for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis)…”. Harris wrote this report two decades after the Graduate School of Public Administration had opened for business.

____________________________

CONFIDENTIAL

June 30, 1956

Report to the Dean of the Faculty for the Academic Year 1955-56
by Seymour E. Harris, Chairman of the Department of Economics

Contents

Undergraduate Instruction

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1.
  2. Contents of Economics 1.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1.
  5. Economics Tutorial.
  6. High Honors Concentrators.
  7. Seminars for Honors Graduates.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa.
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  4. Table 1 – Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
  5. Table 2 – Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank.
  6. Table 3 – Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate.
  7. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction.
  8. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members of Faculty.
  9. Ibid., Statistical Summary.
  10. Number of Faculty by Rank.

Relations with G.S.P.A.

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A.
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A. to Economics Department.
  3. Overall Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money.
  3. Outside Fellowships.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowships for Potential Teachers.
  2. Research Projects.
  3. Financing of Pay of Director of Research Projects.
  4. Small Research Grants.
  5. Secretarial Help.
  6. Personnel Changes.
  7. Honors, etc.

 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Undergraduate Instruction

The Department is especially concerned with the problem of undergraduate instruction. Confronted with a trend away from economics the country over (see my Memo to the Alumni of the Harvard Graduate School in Economics, May, 1956, p. 4) and the competition of an unusually able corps of undergraduate teachers in competing fields at Harvard and notably in history and government we are paying increased attention to our undergraduate instruction. In the last year we have taken the following steps:

  1. More Mature Staff for Economics 1. We are using a larger proportion of instructors and assistant professors in Economics 1. We expect that half the Economics 1 staff will consist of instructors and assistant professors in 1956-57 as compared with 20 per cent in 1955-56.
  2. Contents of Economics 1. We are revising Economics 1 for 1956-57. Economics 1 has become too technical. One advantage of increasing the average age of the staff is that the older men are less inclined to teach the highly technical economics they get in graduate courses. Probably less than 20 per cent of those enrolled in Economics 1 are, or are likely to become, concentrators in economics; and no more than 1-2 per cent will become economists. Our major responsibility is to give the student in Economics 1 relatively simple economic theory and relate it to the major issues of public policy. We intend to devote more time to integrating our economics with history and political science. Macroeconomics will continue to receive a major part of our attention, but less time will be given to the economics of the firm.
  3. Staff Meetings of Economics 1. The Chairman now meets with the Economics 1 staff for 1½ hours every 2 weeks and in every possible way is trying to make the teaching fellow and other junior members, who contribute so much time and enthusiasm to our teaching program, feel as though they are an important part of our department staff.
  4. Lectures in Economics 1. This year we doubled our lectures in Economics 1 — a lecture every other week. In these lectures we try to go over ground not covered in the readings and also incidentally to give the undergraduate an opportunity to listen to some of the top economists in the country. We are now not disposed to increase the number of lectures further but we shall continue the experiment. Of this I am convinced — lectures are not likely to be as important in Economics 1 as in the elementary course in government and history (Social Science). The undergraduate probably gets much more from discussions of economics in small sections than from lectures.
  1. Economics Tutorial. Tutorial in economics is not as good as it ought to be. We are wrestling with this problem. We intend to have more meetings of tutors and to impress upon them the importance of tutorial. At one of our Executive Committee meetings, we had a frank discussion with the seven masters and several senior tutors concerning our tutorial work. Our Junior tests, tied to house tutorial, seem to be working well. This year we prepared an extensive reading list for Sophomore tutorial; and next year we intend to integrate tutorial and Economics 1 more than in the past. We hope that tutorial in the second half of the Sophomore year will deal with some of the theoretical problems that will be excluded from Economics 1.
  1. High Honors Concentrators. This year we had periodic meetings with all first and second group men in economics. At these meetings (one evening every two weeks) we try to encourage discussions of important problems in the seminar manner.
  1. Seminars for Honor Graduates. Economics 100 and 102 are two new courses (to be introduced in 1956-57 and 1957-58) to be open to Junior and Senior honors students. They will be run on a seminar basis, limited in enrollment, and will be integrated with tutorial. The student will get an opportunity to deal with theoretical problems and their empirical counterpart.

Allocation of Resources

  1. Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa. Here are some tables which throw some light on the allocation of resources between undergraduate and graduate courses. Generally courses for undergraduates and graduates are taken primarily by undergraduates, and courses for graduates primarily by graduates. Hence, we assume that the courses for undergraduates and graduates are in fact courses for undergraduates and courses for graduates are in fact courses for graduates. (In the spring term 1956 the percentage of Arts and Science graduate enrollment in courses for undergraduates and graduates was 14 or 1 per cent of the 1181 enrolled in these courses; the enrollment of undergraduates in courses primarily for graduates was 10 of 482, or 2 per cent).
  2. Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. Table 1 reveals relatively unimportant changes in the number of courses for undergraduates; and the net change in the number of courses for undergraduates and graduates (in fact undergraduate courses) in the last 40-50 years has not been large. In 1909-10, there were 10½ undergraduate courses (inclusive of half courses for undergraduates and graduates and exclusive of bracketed courses); in 1955-56, there were 14½ of such courses.
  3. Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. It is especially in graduate courses that the rise has been spectacular. In 1909-10 there were 1½ graduate courses in Economics (exclusive of bracketed ones); by 1929-30, there were 11; by 1939-40, there were 12½ courses; by 1949-50, there were 21½ courses; and by 1955-56, there were 24. All these totals include half courses.
  1. Table 1 — Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56*
    (Refers to Units of Full Courses)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 8 1 3 7 4 ½ 7 7 ¼ 16 ¾ 8 15 ¼ 5 18
Assoc. Prof. — — — — 3 3 3 ¼ 1 ¾ 1 3 ¼ 3 2 ½
Asst. Prof. 1 ½ ½ 3 ½ 2 ½ 1 — ½ — 2 ½ — 4 2
Instructor & Lecturer 1 — 3 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 3 3 2 ½ 1 ½
Total 10 ½ 1 ½ 9 ½ 10 ½ 10 11 12 ½ 19 ½ 14 ½ 21 ½ 14 ½ 24
  1. Table 2 — Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank*
    (Refers to Nearest Decimal point)
  1909-10 1919-20 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Rank U G U G U G U G U G U G
Full Prof. 76 66 32 67 45 64 58 86 55 73 35 75
Assoc. Prof. — — — — 30 27 26 9 7 14 21 10
Asst. Prof. 14 — 36 24 10 — 4 — 17 — 27 8
Instructor & Lecturer 10 34 32 9 15 9 12 5 21 13 17 7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

* U = “undergraduate” and “undergraduate and graduate”;  G = “graduate”.
Source: Compiled from Course of Study Volumes.

  1. Table 3 — Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate
Total No. of Courses % of Total Courses
(Exclusive of Bracketed Courses)
“Undergraduate” and
“Undergraduate & Graduate”		 Graduate
(Inclusive of G.S.P.A. Economics Courses)
1909-10 12 88 12
1929-30 21 56 44
1939-40 32 39 61
1949-50 36 41 59
1955-56 38½ 38 62

From 1909 to 1929-30 the percentage of graduate courses was up from 12 to 44 per cent; but since 1929-30 the rise has been less spectacular. In Table 2, we note the courses, both undergraduate and graduate, given by men of various rank, from 1909-10 to 1955-56. The following points should be noted.

  1. The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction. In 1909-10 there were but 1½ out of 12 courses, or 12 per cent, graduate courses. By 1929-30 courses were roughly evenly divided between graduate and undergraduate. By 1939-40 and 1949-50 the ratio was about 60 per cent graduate courses; and by 1955-56, 62 per cent of all courses were graduate courses, or 5 times as much relatively as in 1909-10.
  2. Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members Faculty. Whereas in 1909-10 full professors accounted for 76 per cent of undergraduate course work, by 1955-56 they gave only 35 per cent of these courses; and there has been a marked decline since 1949-50. The total of undergraduate courses taught by them dropped from 1949-50 to 1955-56 by 3, or 37 per cent, and of graduate courses rose by 2¾ or 18 per cent. A similar trend is evident for associate professors, though from 1949-50 to 1955-56, the percentage of undergraduate courses taught by associate professors rose. It is a striking fact that in 1955-56, full professors taught 37 per cent less undergraduate courses and 1700 per cent more graduate courses than in 1909-10. In the former year there were 4 full professors, each responsible on the average for 2 full undergraduate courses and ¼ graduate courses. In 1955-56, 13 full professors averaged 1/3 of 1 undergraduate course and 1.4 graduate courses. (All 13 were not on full time). It is clear that the trend is away from undergraduate teaching for permanent members of the Department.
  3. Ibid., Statistical Summary. As might be expected, the percentage of all graduate courses taught by full professors tends to rise and of undergraduate courses to fall — the latter courses taught by professors declined from 76 per cent in 1909-10 to 45 per cent in 1929-30, and to 35 per cent by 1955-56.
  4. Number of Faculty by Rank. In this connection, the number at different ranks is of some interest. The full professors account for a somewhat larger proportion (teaching fellows omitted) than 50 years ago; but permanent appointments are an increased percentage.
  1909-10 1929-30 1939-40 1949-50 1955-56
Professors 4 5 12 13 13
Assoc. Professors — 3 3 2 4
Asst. Professors 1 2 1 4 4
Lecturers and Instructors 3 2 3 4 3
Visiting, etc. Professors 2
(part-time)		 3
(part-time)		 — — 1
Total (excl. Visiting) 8 12 19 23 24
———— ———— ———— ———— ———— ————
% Full Prof. (excl. Visiting) 50 42 63 57 54
% Permanent (incl. Permanent Lecturers) 50 67 89 74 75

Relations with the Graduate School of Public Administration

  1. Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A. Our relations with the G.S.P.A. are of great importance. It is now close to 20 years since the G.S.P.A. was founded and yet the Department of Economics has never taken a long look at our relations. The Economics Department accounts for about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis).
  2. Contributions of G.S.P.A to Economics Department. The G.S.P.A. has made an important contribution towards the Economics Department. It provides some research and secretarial help, good physical facilities, useful library, central facilities for students and faculty, an opportunity to give our students excellent seminars, and to meet outstanding scholars and practical men in government.
  3. Over-all Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars. It may be that a decision should be made concerning the number of seminars. We tend to add one at a time, and the numbers now are at such a level that we may be putting a disproportionate amount of energy into these seminars. At any rate, net additions should be considered with care, given our available manpower. At present only 6 of the 18 permanent members of our faculty are not associated with the G.S.P.A.; and of the 6, Professors Dorfman and Duesenberry are about to participate. Of 27 courses to be given by permanent members of the Department, 7¼ will be as seminars in the G.S.P.A.

Library Problems

  1. Library Problems. Professor Arthur Cole retires this year. He has for many years been responsible for the acquisition of books in economics. Unless this responsibility is assumed by another, our economic collection will deteriorate. So far we have not been able to work out an arrangement acceptable to the Dean and the Director of the library. In my opinion, there is need for a central responsibility for library acquisitions in economics.

Fellowships

  1. Inadequate Fellowships. One of our most serious problems is fellowships. A study of fellowship funds announced as available to students suggested that Harvard was falling way behind. In a recent period of 5 years, five institution which are our strongest competitors had 30, 23, 20, 10, and 5 times as much money available for fellowships per Ph.D. granted in these five years. Increasingly we are losing the best students to rival institutions.
  2. Campaign for Additional Money. We have discussed this problem with Dean Bundy and Dean Elder, and also with our Visiting Committee. We have set up a committee consisting of Dean Mason, Professors Slichter, Dunlop and Harris to seek aggressively more fellowship funds. We are seeking these funds in the expectation that the major part of new funds will be available as additional funds for the Economics Department. Our goal is 6 fellowships at $2500 per year, or $15,000 per year additional. We discovered last year that by offering large fellowships to a limited number, we were more successful than in the past in attracting the more able candidates.
  3. Outside Fellowships. Our fellowship problem is eased by the availability of fellowships given by outside groups — governments, foundations etc. For example, Harvard received 5 of the 15 Wilson National fellowships for 1956-57. But it should be observed that there is often pressure to deny applicants access to the major universities and especially to Harvard. There is pressure to distribute widely, Moreover, a large proportion of these fellowship holders are often below our usual fellowship standards.

Research and Personnel Problems

  1. Competition of Research Fellowship Money for Potential Teachers. It is becoming increasingly easy for graduate students writing theses to receive fellowships that generally pay at least as much as a teaching fellowship. This year we lost 10 potential teachers as a result of these lucrative fellowships.
  2. Research Projects. Many of the Senior members of the staff are associated with large research projects, some of them of great significance. At least 9 of these projects may be classified as giant projects, three of them involving outlays of one half million or more dollars in the next 3-5 years. In 1955-56, Professor Leontief received almost one half million dollars to continue the projects of the Harvard Economic Group, and Dean Mason received $450,000 for a study of the New York Metropolitan area.
  3. Financing of Pay of Directors of Projects. It has always seemed to the Chairman, at least, that the foundations ought to pay part of the salary of the faculty members who direct these projects. When these projects are the major interest of those responsible for them, a case could be made for the foundation paying part of the salary of the relevant members of the faculty.
  4. Small Research Grants. It would be helpful to get some help from the Ford Foundation for small research projects especially for those who do not participate in the giant projects. I have had some preliminary discussion with the Ford Foundation, and I believe they would look with favor on an application for $25,000-30,000 per year for research help. Grants might vary from a few hundred dollars to $1,000-2,000 and be tied with specific projects. The great danger here is abuse of the privileges. Hence any such grant would have to be carefully administered – with some representation of outside economists on the committee.
  5. Secretarial Help. A related problem is that of secretarial help. Most of the Senior members, through administrative posts, control of seminars, editorial work, and research grants, manage to get the minimum amount of secretarial help. But 5 of our permanent members have virtually no access to secretaries and this is also true of most of our assistant professors. It would be helpful if some provision could be made for secretarial help for those without it. We realize this raises serious problems of finance.
  6. Personnel Changes. Professor Hansen retires this year and Professor Williams next year. We thus lose the best combination in money, cycles, and fiscal policy available anywhere. It is going to be difficult to fill this gap. Professor Black’s departure has also left a serious gap. We have added 2 very able assistant professors, Drs. J. Henderson and Valavanis, aside from two appointments (Drs. Moses and Conrad) in which the Economics Department shares one quarter of the cost. For 1957-58 and 1958-59, the Economics Department will have the services of Dr. E. Hoover for 3/7 of his time. We probably have the most able group of assistant professors in our history. It is not going to be easy to fill the gaps noted above, and make the most effective use of the young talent now in the Department. The Visiting Committee is again raising the question of a Professor of Business Enterprise, a matter to which we should give earnest attention. President Conant and Provost Buck were apparently prepared at the last discussion of this problem to provide an additional appointment for this purpose.
  7. Honors, etc. Dean Mason received an honorary degree from Harvard, and was a United States Representative at the United Nations Conference in Geneva on Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy.

Professor Hansen gave the Walgreen lectures at the University of Chicago.

Professor Harris served as Chairman of the Nor England Governors” Textile Committee,

Professor Galbraith advised the Indian Government on their Five Year Plan.

Professor Smithies was a Visiting Professor at Oxford and Professor

Kaysen at the London School of Economics.

 

Books:

Galbraith and Holton: Marketing Efficiency in Puerto Rico.

Harris: Keynes: Economist and Policy Maker.

Harris: New England Textiles and the New England Economy: Report to the Conference of New England Governors.

Kaysen: United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation: An Economic Analysis of an Anti-Trust Case.

Kaysen and Harris were two of the four co-authors of the American Business Creed.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2,  Folder: “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean, 1955-”.

Image Source: Seymour E. Harris in The Harvard Class Album 1957.

 

Categories
Computing Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Fields Harvard

Harvard. Discussed at Faculty Meeting. Computer Access and “Mathematical Economics and Econometrics” as Optional Field, 1959

 

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“.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard Radical

Harvard. Leontief and Galbraith report on conflict within department, 1972

In December 1972 the conflict about opening the Harvard economics faculty to include “broader and necessarily ‘softer’ questions of social structure, social functions and social reform” exploded beyond the confines of the economics department. This post provides two letters/memos sent to Harvard’s President Derek C. Bok written by Wassily Leontief and John Kenneth Galbraith, respectively, that supported curriculum reform involving the continued appointments of young radical economists. It would appear from Leontief’s account that a relatively silent majority of the younger mathematical economists in the department was able to block the recommendation of their more senior colleagues to expand course offerings to meet the demand of students for courses outside the confines of “orthodox technical economics”…a revolution that devoured its own parents.

_____________________

Background tip:

Talk presented by Tom Weisskopf “The Origins and Evolution of Radical Political Economics” (September 25, 2012).

_____________________

Photocopy Leontief to Harvard President Derek C. Bok

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Wassily Leontief
Professor of Economics

309 Littauer
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-2118

December 21, 1972

Mr. Derek Bok
President
Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall 1

Dear Derek:

I am writing in response to your request for my views on the conflict that for some time has been straining the relationships within the Executive Committee of our Department on the one hand and Executive Committee and the graduate student body on the other. It developed along rather familiar lines and finally broke into the open.

The controversy, as I see it, centers on the question whether the Department of Economics should widen the range of its intellectual concerns and of its teaching responsibilities beyond the narrowly delineated field of orthodox technical economics by inclusion of broader and necessarily “softer” questions of social structure, social functions and social reform: questions raised for example in the old Marxist and the new radical economics.

While a minority in the Executive Committee favors a move in this direction, arguing that it would reflect the natural growth and extension of our discipline, the majority opposes it on the grounds that this would amount to politicalization of the field and lowering of intellectual standards. Somewhat paradoxically, the minority favoring a change comprises mostly senior members of the Department while the core of the majority group consists of the younger mathematical economists. Needless to say, the students are on the side of the minority. While the minority did most of the talking, the majority was content with voting.

Last spring a mixed faculty-student committee appointed by the Chairman proposed a modest curriculum reform that would reflect the interest in the new subjects. After a stiff fight, the report was first accepted, then watered down, and finally scuttled.

The division within the Department was clearly reflected in a series of votes on new appointments. Three years ago, the junior staff contained four radical economists: Herb Gintis, Tom Weisskopf, Art MacEwan and Sam Bowles. All were let go. Gintis is now lecturer in the Department of Education, Tom Weisskopf was avidly acquired by the Department of Economics of the University of Michigan, Sam Bowles failed a week ago to receive a permanent appointment, and Art MacEwan was denied this week a second three-year appointment. The slate is clear except for Steve Marglin, who was elevated to full professorship before his interests had shifted into the field of institutional analysis and criticism.

Adverse votes are invariably based on lack of intellectual distinction and creditable contributions to knowledge by the candidate; this notwithstanding the fact that several permanent slots were filled in the past by scholars of admittedly indifferent stature on the ground that a vacancy had to be filled in some narrowly defined specialized field.

Reluctantly the minority on the Executive Committee came to the conclusion that its advice and counsel will be disregarded in the future as it was in the past; that crucial decisions will be made on the basis of an often silent, but invariably effective majority vote. The rising tension finally led to acrimonious exchanges at the last meeting of the Executive Committee.

The obvious frustration of the graduate students finds its expression in sharp verbiage used by the radical minority and sullen indifference and cynicism among the rest. I hardly need to add that the students are quite aware of the division within the Executive Committee.

This is where we stand now. At best one could observe that as a whole the senior teaching staff of the Economics Department is much less effective than one could have expected it to be considering the distinction of its individual members. At worst, the continuation of the conflict might result in resignations and damage all around.

After you called me up, Jim Duesenberry asked several members of the Department to serve on a committee that would review the intellectual problems involved and try to find some way out. The proposed composition of the committee (Arrow, Bergson, Dorfman, Galbraith and me) assures that its report will give full weight to the minority point of view.

I myself feel that nothing short of a clear-cut reversal in the present trend can prevent further deterioration of the situation. Needless to say, I will do all I can to bring about a constructive and peaceable solution of the difficult problems we are facing. Some counsel and some help from you and John [probably economist John T. Dunlop who was serving as Dean] most likely will be needed. Let me add that some of my colleagues who up to now held an opposing point of view have offered their full cooperation.

I have dictated this letter but had no time to proofread it since Estelle and I are leaving for London two hours from now. In case of need, please do not hesitate to call me. My secretary, Mary Conley, will know all the time where I can be reached.

With best wishes from Estelle and me to Sissele and you.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Wassily Leontief

WL:mc

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Carbon copy Galbraith to Harvard President Derek C. Bok

December 22, 1972

President Derek C. Bok
Massachusetts Hall

Dear Derek:

This I hope will diminish the concern you may have had following my telephone call of the other evening. My personal anger, as usual, has been difficult to sustain although I surely intend to stay with this problem until things are put right. I’ve met with the young radicals and I think they are persuaded that Toronto is not a good forum and that neither Arrow nor I is the man they most want to embarrass. John has operated with usual skill and panache. He accepts the idea of a commission to consider and act before things get worse, and I am drafting up the terms of reference for discussion with Jim Duesenberry. I’ve gone over the rough outlines with Wassily. With considerable approval, I’ve raised the question of conflict of interest with external corporate enterprises. I enclose a document on that subject.

In any case, a Merry Christmas.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:kv

Enclosure

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics, Discussion of appointments, outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Wassily Leontief from Harvard Class Album 1957.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Galbraith’s Proposal to Split the Economics Department, 1973

 

During the early 1970s the Harvard economics department went through an identity crisis in which the orthodox mainstream was challenged by a not-so-silent minority of proto-heterodox economists and a dissatisfied graduate student body. The following three artifacts from the discussion of that time come from John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers. I would not exclude the possibility that some/much of the December 26, 1972 memo from the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences was inspired, if not directly penned, by Galbraith.

Galbraith was incapable of writing even an intrauniversity memo without flashes of wit as both the draft and final versions of his memo clearly demonstrate. And yet, there remains an overwhelming pathetic, quixotic note to his proposal of dividing the economics department in order to save its diverse, social elements.

____________________________

When the Dean Asks
How to Fix the Harvard Economics Department

December 26, 1972

From: THE DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

To: THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A STUDY OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Recent developments and discussions suggest problems of some concern in the Department of Economics. In the belief that such problems, if attacked in timely fashion and a spirit of goodwill, will be more readily resolved than if allowed to persist and be aggravated, I am proposing action which I trust will meet with the approval of all concerned. I shall first identify those matters on which, I believe, there will be general agreement and then suggest terms of reference for the appropriate action.

  1. The Department of Economics has become very large. In the current catalogue I count 25 tenured members, 56 non-tenured members, 5 visiting professors and 13 economists in associated departments principally the Kennedy School, in addition to the large force of teaching assistants. It is not surprising that so large a body should have problems in maintaining a sense of common purpose and identity.
  2. There has of late been a deep difference of view on appointments in the Department. This has led to the suggestions that the Department, its size notwithstanding, is not emphasizing an adequate representation of diverse, socially unpopular or methodologically different positions, and that standards for promotion operate to exclude or minimize the representation of such views.
  3. There will be agreement that a majority may be less urgently seized of the need for representation of a minority view than the minority.
  4. In recent years there has been dissatisfaction among students, principally graduate students, with instruction in the Department. Again I state the fact without passing on the merits of the position. I do note that, historically, students have found satisfaction and pride in their association with the Department.
  5. The question has been raised whether some appointments are being appraised in accordance with contribution or non-contribution to or effect on corporate profit-making which, however useful and legitimate, is external to the scientific work and teaching of the Department.

In light of the foregoing I propose to ask the three past presidents of the American Economic Association together with the two American Nobel Prize winners who are engaged in active teaching (one of whom is also current President of the American Economic Association), together with the Chairman of the Department of Economics to examine the Department as a matter of urgency and to report. The following are the terms of reference for this examination:

  1. The group shall be denoted the Special Study Committee, and hereafter as the Committee.
  2. In its deliberations the Committee will consult to the fullest extent with students of the Department as well as with tenured and non-tenured members of the Department, and will discuss its provisional findings with students and faculty.
  3. The Committee will consider and report on whether the present personnel of the Department reflects an appropriately broad spectrum of method and view and, as necessary, on corrective steps. Corrective steps may specifically include recommendations for change in past action.
  4. The committee will consider whether the present teaching of economics is sufficiently broad, and specifically whether there should be a second and alternative track to a doctorate in economics embracing both course work and examinations and in which the primary emphasis would be on history of economic thought, institutional economics and socialist thought, or subject matter disciplines not required by the present framework.
  5. The Committee shall consider possible division or subdivision or other reorganization of the Department to provide greater knowledge of candidates for appointment or promotion, greater corporate responsibility for instruction and other possible gains from smaller size. In this connection special attention should be given to the relationship with the Kennedy School of Government.
  6. The effect of external corporate or other activities of Departmental members as these may bear on appointments, teaching or research, shall be examined with recommendations.
  7. The report of the Committee shall be made public and, in the absence of specific and fully-supported objection, it is my hope that its conclusions will be found acceptable to the Department. There is no intention to alter the constitutional arrangements by which tenured members, as now or in a suitably reorganized or subdivided Department, if that is the decision, are responsible for appointments and instruction.

____________________________

Galbraith Draft Statement (undated)
[handwritten additions in bold italics]

Draft #2

MEMORANDUM

MEMO:

The President
The Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Members of the Department of Economics

From: John Kenneth Galbraith

 

In these last weeks tensions long present in the Department of Economics at Harvard have come to the surface. The consequences are attracting interest and discussion well beyond the confines of the Department and the University. It is doubtful if anyone, and certainly any active participants, can state the issues with complete impartiality but some of the basic circumstances admit of agreement. They are.

(1) The Department has become very large—the current catalogue lists twenty-five regularly tenured professors, thirty-five nontenured professors, thirteen members in an adjunct relationship from other parts of the University and five visiting professors. In addition there are a large number of teaching assistants. The Department has become a parliamentary and not a corporate body. Long before the recent explosion I expressed my concern not only to my colleagues but also to the top management over our increasingly ungainly and ineffective mass and its dangers. I encountered little or no disagreement.

(2) The Department has for some years been deeply divided in its views. There has been an ineffective and mostly unchanging minority, and an effective and largely unchanging majority.

(3) While the basis of the division is diverse, including the polemical folk-tendencies of academic life, our learned delight in self assertion, our sensitivity to the intellectual shortcomings of others, differences in reaction to change, political attitudes, it is also a difference in the view of economics. I doubt that any statement of this difference can avoid prejudice. I shall content myself with being dull. It partly involves the acceptance or rejection of the established economic institutions; partly acceptance or rejection of accustomed preconceptions of economic thought, partly the trade-off between precision in established modalities and lesser precision in more innovative, critical or experimental work; partly it has to do with the degree of commitment to measurement and mathematics.

(4) While the underlying fact is a difference in the view of the subject (including the importance of representing the minority views) the argument over appointments invokes competence. Each side with no slight sense of moral righteousness defines competence in its own image. What is unscientific or soft to one side is irrelevant or unreal or unuseful to the other. Certainty in these positions is enhanced by the effect of professional esteem on ego. The members of the majority rightly reflect on the high regard in which precision and excellence of their work is held in their particular spheres of econometric, mathematical or applied work. The members of the minority rejoice similarly on their standing in the profession generally. Given these attitudes, the likelihood that one side will yield gracefully to the other is (if possible) even further reduced. Thus the absolute certainty of continued conflict.

(5) The difference comes to a head over appointments. This reflects a clear view of the reality. It is recognized by all that it is people who determine what is taught and investigated—and wholly so in such an unstructured environment as Harvard. The majority, not unnaturally, has prevailed. In this context a minority should not be expected to acquiesce. To do so is to accept eventual extinction. No one who is serious about his views or methods should countenance that.

(6) The students, once pridefully associated with the Department, are discontented. Their affiliation is largely, although by no means completely, with the minority. As a consequence some members of the majority hold or harbor the thought that the minority is acting less out of conviction than a desire to seek popularity or appease student opinion. Members of the minority react with a strong (and in my own case previously undisclosed) concern for the quality of our institution.

(7) There is a question as to the bearing of subjective judgments formed in connection with the business activities of members—or in consequence of those activities—on promotion of those whose disposition or work leads to criticism of cherished and remunerative economic institutions.

Aggravated problems sometimes allow of simple choices. This is so in the present case. One course is to continue as now, and enjoy the acrimony and continue to invite, by our public bickering, disesteem for the subject, the Department, the University, our students and ourselves. The other is to move to the obvious and forthright resolution, on which will be to the benefit of all concerned.

The solution is to divide the present vast Department into two parts. One part, a Department or Division of General Economics*, would reflect the specialized interests and scientific purpose of the majority, including those whose identification with the minority has been based not on identity of professional interest but concern for academic diversity. A second part would be the Department of Social Economics. This initially much smaller Department would consist of those tenured and untenured members whose active identification with the social issues of planning, economic structure, criticism, or socialism or institutionalism leads them to make the transfer. The new Department, born out of a need to ensure diversity, would itself be under the normal academic obligation to perpetuate diversity. It would develop an undergraduate and graduate curriculum and degree requirements compromising nothing in depth and rigor, in accordance with the interests of its members and of students. Subject to established ad hoc procedures—and its resources—it would make its own promotions and appointments.

*No difficulty should be made over a name. The parent Department could be called the Department of Economics.

The initial resources of the new Department would consist of the present financial commitment to those making the change. There would, some minor administrative costs apart, be no added burden on the University budget. I would make the transfer and make the revenues from the Paul M. Warburg Professorship, including the supporting research revenues (on neither of which I have drawn in net amount in recent years) available for a new professorial appointment. I believe, not without knowledge, that money for one or two added professorships as well as for research could be raised from sources not presently open either to the University or the Department. Scholarship funds would be divided in accordance with student demand. I am willing to commit a good share of personal time in the next year to money raising, a task in which, unlike my economics, my competence has been sufficiently established.

May I note in summary the advantages of the foregoing proposal.

(1) The basic cause of distress and conflict in the present Department of Economics would be removed. Each of the new Departments or Divisions will be in a position to develop the subject in full accordance with its own lights. Neither will be in the academically repellant position (however agreeable in practice) of imposing its standards or preferences on the other.

(2) The problem of excessive scale and consequent diminution in sense of communal responsibility for teaching, research and appointments is solved in the case of the new small Department or Division. It is alleviated for the larger parent Department.

(3) The Department of Social Economics if it is to attract, retain and place its graduate students, will have to demonstrate itself in competition with its older and more prestigious parent. This competition will be exceedinglyhealthy for both. This is an appealing point. While businessmen favor competition more often in principle than in practice, this is not an error into which any good economist will allow himself to fall.

(4) Undergraduate instruction in the new Department will benefit no alone from the members’ commitment to their subject matter but also from the greater sense of community as between teaching assistants, tenured and non-tenured faculty in a much smaller department and the present Department will be better. In the present Department not even all tenured and untenured members are known to each other. Teaching assistants are known only to a fraction of the faculty members and even less is known about their performance. And again in undergraduate teaching the vigorous competition of the new Department will be good for the older one.

(5) Problems associated with the corporate business activities of professors will be at least partly resolved. No question of concern for attitudes of business clients, however subjective, will be thought to influence those who are passing on appointments in the new Department. Subject no doubt, to appropriate safeguards the activities of present members of the Department with their potential for useful employment, income and information could perhapsremain.

(6) The two Departments through a coordinating committee might [illegible word] combine for the time being on the elementary course.

(7) The creation of the new Department with an admixture of old and new members intent on developing both old and new lines of inquiry will affirm, as nothing else, Harvard’s avidly proclaimed commitment to free inquiry by people of the highest calibre and to whatever result.

(8) Nothing is forever. If, after say ten years, there is demand for reunification, why not.

With so much to be gained—and also so much trouble to be avoided—I hope that we can proceed to consider this solution with a minimum of delay. Needless to say—perhaps on the basis of past departmental performance it is very necessary that I say—I am ready at any notice to lend a hand.

____________________________

Memo On Splitting the Harvard Economics Department
[Apparent Final Draft]

June 18, 1973

From:  JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

To:

PRESIDENT DEREK C. BOK
DEAN-DESIGNATE HENRY ROSOVSKY
PROFESSOR JAMES S. DUESENBERRY
MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

The Department of Economics is, I would judge, entering into a period of considerable calm and tranquility. The older dissidents and heretics in the Department will, with one or two exceptions, soon be retiring. And, in any case, they are now a harmless minority. Within a year or so the younger generation of dissidents will be safely gone. Thus the expectation of a period of scholarly calm.

My purpose in this memorandum is to suggest that the prospect is not as happy as these developments imply. And it is to suggest some steps which, without unduly disturbing the equanimity of the situation, the Department and the Administration would be wise to consider. May I note that these are matters on which I have no personal, as distinct from general, professional concern. I am one of those who will be contributing, however modestly, to a more seemly, tranquil and comfortable life by a comparatively early departure.

The problems remaining after the prospective changes are two. There is first the fact that, while faculty affairs have been generally arranged to the satisfaction of all, the students remain deeply dissatisfied. Let no one doubt this or seek, by the usual academic rationalizations, to explain it away. I was much exposed to this in the special seminar last autumn; I determined then to inform myself in a minor way during the spring, which I have done. The students, over a wide political spectrum, deeply dislike their work and the Department. This is especially true of the first-year students who, in a puzzling exercise in public relations reflecting an odd attitude toward education, are now blithely told at the outset to expect the worst year of their lives. Those who have been here two or three years also look back with discontent on their educational experience. My first year of graduate work was one of the most vital and interesting of my life. So, I believe it was with most of my generation.

The complaint of the students is straitforward. They are squeezed, especially in their first year but increasingly as a test in later work, into a narrow model-building, problem-solving, quasi-mathematical routine that they find boring and unrelated to the world in which they live. The emasculated careerist may accept the routine and do well. The student who thought that economics was a window on the problems of the world is abjectly disappointed.

These student reactions are heavily discounted by most although not all of the senior faculty. The rationalization is that such student attitudes are inevitable—that the modern student is inherently lazy, feckless, radical and dissatisfied. It is even suggested, not without scholarly vigor, that those who express concern about students are courting a student popularity in a sadly unscholarly tradition. As I say, this rationalization seems to me unwise and something that very soon will have a more practical consequence. A bad reputation in these matters is not easily kept a secret. It could happen that eventually the Department will have very few graduate students of indigenous origin of any consequence, a few committed careerists, mathematicians and model-builders apart. Numbers and quality of applicants will decline. In consequence, the ratio of faculty to active, teachable graduate students, which is now approaching one to one, will pass that point and will widen as a ratio of students to teachers. This is not hyperbole. A course was recently described to me by a graduate student in which he was the only participant along with three faculty members. We have a fair number of seminars with only a handful of students, sometimes but one. Faculty life will continue in comfort. Workshops will serve, as already now, to disguise the shortage of students. But still there will be nervousness.

There is another and more subjective danger. The harmony which one now foresees is based on a general commitment to neoclassical economics or its applied refinements. Accomplishment in model-building and refinement is, I think nearly all will agree, an increasingly stern requirement. We would not again hire a labor economist who, like Professor Dunlop or Professor Slichter, made his career out of a practical association with the unions and the problems of labor mediation. Professor Leontief, were he now showing the experimental tendencies that marked his early career, would be in trouble. Even his work, when firmly established, was not strongly supported. We would not have an economist who was too much preoccupied with the practical details of tax reform—unless he protected his flank by suitable theoretical or econometric exercise. My own past tendencies would certainly not be acceptable for promotion—although on the merits of this, with characteristic tact, I disqualify myself. What is not in doubt is that we are now very strong in the journals but much less strong in the obscenely practical matters on which many people, including many students, expect economists to be useful. This could be damaging to the reputation of the Department. The latter has always depended in appreciable measure not on the great scientists but on its vulgar practitioners.

Now let me say a word on reform. Mention of reform leads to thoughts of reform of the Department—so it is with faculty and also students. The present course of instruction is wrong. Let us find the right one. The problem is that no one line of graduate economic instruction can now serve all interests, reflect all points of view. Nor does it deal with the highly important fact that instruction is far less important than the inclination of the people who guide it. The Department is now a vast parliamentary body. So long as there is only one educational track, as a matter of course it will reflect the preferences of the majority. All of us, in the oldest of academic traditions, appraise excellence using ourselves as the yardstick. Reform requires that we begin to provide real choices as to teachers and as to work. Three possibilities occur to me:

  1. We should have in the Department of Economics two tracks to two Ph.D.’s. One of these would be in economics, another in (say) social economics. Professors in the Department would be grouped into two broad Executive Committees around these tracks. And each of these two Executive Committees would have responsibility not only for developing graduate work in its track and for examination therein but also for recruitment and promotion. This would broaden the choice for students; would mean that we would have two more nearly corporate bodies rather than one parliamentary body to guide instruction and appointments; would foster the kind of competition which all economists intrinsically and devoutly applaud; and would reduce by half the present parliamentary tendency to exclude the minority view. The first track would continue the present program with all of its neoclassical and model-building rigor. The second track would be experimental, humane and with a much stronger orientation to the emerging issues of our time. It would not, and this must be emphasized, involve any less effort.
  2. The second possibility would be to establish within the Department an institute—an Institute for Economic Innovation. This would enlist the members of the senior faculty so inclined, would develop a program purely of graduate instruction and would lead also to a degree which would reflect its own course of instruction. The purpose of constituting this as an institute would be twofold: to get the energy and attention of one man who would see the institute as the projection of his own efforts, and to use the institute as a device for raising new funds for both chairs and research. It is my near certainty, based on some experience as a medicant, that this enterprise, properly presented, would be very attractive to donors. I am not sure, however, that given the present size of the Department, it would not be wiser simply to allot some Graustein appointments to the Institute for the next few years.
  3. The third and final possibility would be to have two Departments of Economics—one Department of Economics and one Department of Social Economics. There are advantages to this—again the healthy competition in which all economists theoretically rejoice, elimination of the present diseconomies of scale, the much more clearly defined differentiation of purpose. It would not be as difficult a solution as seems at first glance. Those who approve of the Department as it is would remain with the Department of Economics. The rest would make the new Department. It would form its character from those who join it in the feeling that a more strongly innovative, humane and applied—in the modern sense—approach to economics is in order. The problem is, of course, that it involves the largest disruption in established institutional arrangements. That is not something to be undertaken lightly. Sometimes, though, that is good.

I am persuaded that in one or another of the above arrangements lies the only hope for a satisfactory future. For a while the tranquility that is in prospect will be greatly enjoyed. Given the sterile tendencies of the accepted economics and the attitudes of the students, it will be, if not the tranquility of the tomb, certainly that of a kind of somnambulant decay.

J.K.G.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Memorandum on Reorganization of the Department of Economics”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1958.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate economics concentrators dropped over 50% in 1950s.

 

This post provides some backstory to the next post that features the reading lists for Harvard’s junior year tutorial in macroeconomics (Arthur Smithies) and microeconomics (Edward Chamberlin) used in 1960-61. The following Harvard Crimson article describes the undergraduate program in crisis (as seen in the massive drop in economics concentrators). The fall in numbers was attributed to the observation that economics “instruction gyrates widely from verbal triviality to mathematical incomprehensibility”.  Now one might say that much economics instruction gyrates from verbal incomprehensibility to mathematical triviality.

Alfred Marshall tried to design his own Cambridge Curriculum to address two classes of students, those needing general economics training for leadership careers in business and government and those needing advanced training for research careers in economics. Integrated training of the two classes within a single program at Harvard appears to have reached its limits by the second half of the twentieth century. 

Marshall, Alfred. The New Cambridge Curriculum in Economics. London: Macmillan, 1903.

________________________

Economics: Undergraduate Program Undergoes Extensive Re-Evaluation
By Michael Churchill

The Harvard Crimson, November 14, 1959

C. P. Snow, British scientist and author, recently called attention to what he termed the problem of two cultures in our society–the gap in understanding between the traditional humanities and social sciences on the one hand and modern science and technology on the other. Both exist side by side, yet remain intellectually divorced in our modern society. This dichotomy serves well in considering the difficulties surrounding the discipline of economics, for its midway position in such a scheme is indicative of its problems.

The subject matter of economics is the productive system, with all its relations to the world of technology. The concern of economics, however, is this system’s role in society and its effect on men, their livelihood, and their institutions. Not an integrator of the two cultures, nevertheless it must span the separation.

The Economics Department is currently undergoing a crisis. It has failed up to now to accommodate both elements in a coherent program. The result is strikingly demonstrated by the flight of undergraduate concentrators from the field. In less than a decade the number has declined by over half; from 709 in 1949 to 340 in 1958. Although the decline may partially reflect a nationwide tendency, it also is the result of the confusion and frustration attending the undergraduate program here, as the instruction gyrates widely from verbal triviality to mathematical incomprehensibility.

Though economics stands mid-way between two cultures, it is its similarity to the natural sciences that causes the greatest problems. Professional economics shares with the sciences an analytic technique “remote from the common experience of the layman and a language that is principally mathematical,” to use the words the Bruner Committee applied to the natural sciences. And to judge from the current trend this will become increasingly so.

Another similarity with science is that the study of economics is often cumulative, thereby necessitating an extensive introduction to provide the requisite basic knowledge. These are the same problems with which the Bruner Report was concerned in the teaching of natural sciences in a liberal arts program. That report dealt primarily with the problem of the non-concentrator in science–the General Education courses in natural sciences. The Economics Department, however, because of the interest of its concentrators, encounters the same problems throughout its program.

Some of the concentrators are presumably economists, and the Department little wishes to discourage their interests. The vast majority, however, will be lawyers, doctors, and even, despite the Department’s hostility, businessmen.

A final similarity with the sciences lies in the difficulty both areas have in getting the proper senior faculty to teach undergraduate courses. Because of the vast gap between the level of professional work and the elementary nature of undergraduate work–a gap so great that the difference is not only of degree of sophistication but of content–many professors are either reluctant to teach undergraduates or incapable of making the transition.

The combination of the inherent difficulties in teaching economics in a liberal arts college plus the almost total neglect of the undergraduate program in past years has resulted in the precipitous decline in concentrators. The hope of halting that decline lies at the bottom of the Department’s plans to re-design the undergraduate program, which are now under way.

Arthur Smithies, Chairman of the Department, met frequently this summer and again this fall with a Department Committee on Undergraduate Education appointed last spring. Headed by Professor Dunlop, members of the group are Professors Chamberlin, Duesenberry, and Meyer, Assistant Professors Gill and Lefeber, and instructors Baer and Berman.

The results of this increased attention are already apparent in changes made this year in Economics 1 and Junior tutorial, Ec. 98. Historical and topical subjects have gained emphasis at the expense of some of the more theoretical and analytical material, which is now consigned to Sophomore tutorial. In former years economic theory was presented in a historical vaccum without any consideration of the evolution of the economic system from a local medieval subsistence economy to the modern international productive system. The first month of Economics 1 is now devoted to filling this gap. Other changes include an increased emphasis upon the problem of underdeveloped countries and the substitution of a three-week study of the economy of the Soviet Union for the former week’s survey of comparative economic systems.

Along with these changes in content have come those of organization. Gone is the “parade of stars” which formerly masqueraded as lectures. Instead there are now blocs of integrated lectures covering single aspects of the course, for example the series of lectures the first month that Professor Gill gave on economic history. Another long-standing distinguishing trait of the course, its extensive use of teaching fellows, is also on the way out.

The changes are clearly tending to make the course less an introduction into the Department and more a General Education course in the social sciences. The stress, in the attempt to interest the non-concentrator through presentation of historical and topical issues, is now upon political economy rather than upon economics. In a liberal arts college such a solution to the problems affecting the discipline seems to be the most logical and rewarding for an introductory course.

Faced, however, with the task of teaching its concentrators some of the methods and techniques of the economist, the department has moved towards increasing utilization of Sophomore and Junior tutorial for this purpose. The analytic material ejected from Ec. 1 has found refuge in Sophomore tutorial, while Ec. 98 (Junior tutorial) although heavily biased towards the empirical is the only course in the Department offering an overall view of the field.

But there is this year, in addition, an increased amount of attention towards policy questions and topical economic issues in both courses, a reflection of the prevalent belief that meaningful economics on the undergraduate level should relate, as Smithies said, “to the great public issues of the day.” In practice these two elements–the analytical tools and the social framework in which they must fit–still remain divorced in these courses, but at least the attempt is being made to integrate them.

The most perplexing problems facing the Department occur in the area of the middle group courses. To some extent they are aggravated by the Department’s quantative approach to the number of concentrators, with its concern to retain the marginally interested student within the Department. And again the nature of the field, with its disparity between advanced professional techniques and an undergraduate approach, intensifies the problem that confronts many other departments in the College–that of withstanding the polar attractions of pre-professional orientation or of superficiality. Concerning the middle course group area, Dunlop’s committee has only just begun its discussions, but the major alternatives are well known.

There is general agreement, according to Dunlop, that the undergraduate program as part of a liberal arts program should not be a pre-professional training. Disagreement, however, becomes manifest quickly after that statement. Many members of the department, for instance, feel that the best concentrators, the potential future economists, should be allowed to take courses on the graduate level, and indeed should be encouraged to do so. In effect these students would be obtaining a pre-professional training, but the supporters of this proposal feel that this is the only way whereby the interest of the economics-oriented student can be prevented from obstruction by the triviality of normal undergraduate economics courses. At present many undergraduates already take graduate level courses, but the new plan would make a sharper distinction between those who do and do not.

Another group in Department, however, voices the opinion that the College student should not clutter his schedule with pre-professional courses, but rather use his time to study such fields as music, literature, and mathematics. If a student does do graduate work later in economics he will have no trouble picking up whatever advanced analytic tools he needs at that time, while if he does not intend to do so there is no sense in wasting his time with a lot of specialized technique, this bloc maintains.

One proposal, approved by nearly all and sorely needed, is to introduce a greater flexibility into the program through increased use of half-year courses. Presently over half of the seventeen courses offered run from September to June. Many of these, it is admitted, could be pared down to a half-year.

This leads to the proposal for a new type course to replace the far-flung surveys. They would probe smaller areas, but penetrate deeper. Based on the combined desire to attract more students, and the premise that the goal is a more intelligent understanding of the public issues of the past and present, the courses would be designed around the topical approach. Examples would be courses on the corporation, on the economic impact of government activity, the present course on the Soviet Union, a half-year course on underdeveloped countries. In discussing this approach, Dunlop stressed that these would not be “watered down versions of the analytic approach but a new crosscut.” It should be noted that, while not analytical, these courses would still include some quantitative analysis or even simple economic models, but these methods would not become ends or major concerns of the courses.

Another proposal is to set up a core program in the Department. There is, in fact, almost one already. Ec. 141–Money and Banking, Ec. 161–Industrial Organization, and Ec. 181–Industrial Relations, cover the major areas of the field and at least two of them are necessary to handle Generals well. A real core program where all concentrators would progress from one level of the next has many advantages; it provides a common background which the lecturer can assume, gives a common training, and insures that a student will not neglect a vital aspect of the field. But it also has disadvantages, the primary one being the difficulty of handling non-concentrators who have not had this core. Separate sections in a course might be a simple answer here. A more difficult problem is that of time. Ec. 1, 98, and 99 already constitute three-fifths of the required courses. A central core program of another three semesters would aggravate the present lack of flexibility.

For the Economics Department this is a time of discussion, but it must soon reach the hour of decision. Certainly the present situation is not tolerable. By its over-concern with theoretical models and tools, the Department has separated itself from the true materials of a liberal arts education in economics. It should not, however, allow itself to reach the other extreme, in its quest for concentrators, of reducing the content of the courses to a point where an economics student is no more qualified to discuss and solve an issue of political economy than an intelligent government concentrator.

There is little question of the importance of economics today, with its strategic position between the technological productive system and the literary tradition of the social sciences, and with its unique combination of the empirical and theoretical. It remains only to be taught well.

 

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. Galbraith’s Special Tuesday Evening Seminar, 1973

 

One of the delights of working with the papers of John Kenneth Galbraith is that the man was simply incapable of writing a straight memo. Some flash of wit or felicitous use of the English language always breaks in. The following announcement gives us some insight into the sort of university service that Galbraith most gladly provided. Soft power was his instrument of choice for departmental politics.

___________________

SPECIAL TUESDAY EVENING SEMINAR

As in earlier years, Professor Galbraith will conduct a series of evening discussions for first year graduate students and others who are interested. Meetings will be in the Littauer Lounge at 7 o’clock, and participants are urged to arrive reasonably on time. They may leave when they wish. Following very brief introductory comments by Professor Galbraith and guests, the subject will be open for discussion. No competently presented argument, however inconvenient, will be denied a hearing. Discussion will continue as long as the audience or the supply of useful ideas endures. This year’s subject and dates are listed below. The guest list is still tentative.

 

October 2, 1973—THE ECONOMICS OF THE PRESENT INFLATION

Guests:
Hendrik S. Houthakker
James S. Duesenberry
John Dunlop

October 16, 1973—THE CORPORATION: IS IT RESPONSIBLE: HAS IT BOUGHT THE COUNTRY

Guests:
Theodore Levitt
Marc Roberts
Abram Chayes
Richard Caves

October 30, 1973—WHAT AND HOW SHOULD ECONOMICS BE TAUGHT AND A Ph.D. EARNED OR ACQUIRED

Guests:
Dale Jorgenson
Robert Dorfman
Sam Bowles
Art McEwan

November 13, 1973—WHAT ARE THE ECONOMICS OF SEX DISCRIMINATION, ARE WOMEN ECONOMIC ARTIFACTS

Guests:
Carolyn Bell
Betsy Munzer
Hazel Denton
Arthur Smithies
Lester Thurow

December 4, 1973—ECONOMICS AND THE PUBLIC PURPOSE

An evening for or against the book. (On this evening, a reasonable quantity of champagne of indifferent quality will be supplied from the accrued royalties, if any)

Guests:
John Kenneth Galbraith
Steve Marglin
Zvi Griliches

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 78. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Courses, Non-credit seminar1973”.

Image Source: John Kenneth Galbraith in academic regalia from the Harvard Class Album, 1968.

Categories
Funny Business Harvard M.I.T.

Harvard or MIT. Economics graduate student skit, ca. 1963.

 

Because of the reference to Jaroslav Vanek’s leaving Harvard, we are able to date the following script to 1962-63 since Vanek left Harvard to work at the State Department in 1963. Almost everything about this script would lead me to conclude that it was used in a Harvard graduate student skit that somehow wound up in the folder for the Graduate Student Association at the Department of Economics of M.I.T. The folder is otherwise filled with clearly M.I.T. skit material from the 1960s. One of the students is identified as “David” another “Bob” and the third looks like “Les”.  

Lester Thurow did get his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1964 and came to M.I.T. in 1968 so it is not inconceivable that the following transcription is indeed based upon his personal typed script copy with original pencil stage directions that made its way into the folder. 

One thing that I find rather surprising about the text is just how many Harvard professors’ names have been misspelled.

__________________________

D—This is a review with a message—a message no economist can afford to ignore. The year is 2000 A.D. 16 years have now passed since 1984, that Armageddon of the economics profession when Professor Wassily Leontief finally established that the world really was homogeneous of degree one. The then President of the United States, Mr. Norman Mailer, immediately issued the great Marginal Product Proclamation. Everyone was to receive their marginal product.

B— But there was nothing left over for the economists. Economists became the hand-loom weavers of the 20th. century.

L—Arthur Schlesinger Jr. vividly described their position in a 17-volume work entitled “The Coming of the Raw Deal.” Economists everywhere, after the first shock, set out upon new careers. Tonight we shall discover what happened to some of those whom we know and love.

D—Several of them went into the movie industry and we will now let you hear the soundtrack of the preview of one of their movies.

(Epic Music—Bruckner?)

[Insert: Stand]

L—Ladies and Gentlemen, 21st Century Fox are proud to present Arthur Smithies and Joan Robinson in….The Big Push, the story of the unbalanced growth of an economist….

B—Production by Karl [sic] Kaysen

D—Copyright by Edward Hastings Chamberlain [sic]

L—All labor disputes on location and with Elizabeth Taylor arbitrated by John Dunlop.

B—Continuity by Simon Kuznets

L—Editing by Seymour Harris, of course.

D—Costumes by Robert Dorfman.

B—This is the story of Ragnar Maynard von Eckstein (his parents had always wanted him to be an economist). After many struggles at last he got to Harvard Graduate School.

L—It is a tale of |horror. See him now at a seminar on the economics of Medical Care…..

D—This after-noon I am going to discuss the economics of Blood-banking. One of the crucial problems in this field is what proportion to maintain of liquid assets. In this category we have blood [Insert:   L. What about near blood] near-blood. We also have non-liquid assets—bonds in the form of pounds of flesh. Another problem is the current shortage of tellers, for we can only employ vampires with a strong liquidity preference. If we cannot get more it will clot up the flow of funds and reduce the velocity of circulation.

L—It is a tale of |ambition…..

B—Coming from a family whose marginal product was zero, Ragnar Maynard realized that to get on quickly he must publish something. But what? He had not written anything. But our resourceful hero saw a way out: he would publish his first book before it was written. It was called First Draft, a revised tentative, preliminary, provisional text. It was based on Photostat copies of his blackboard notes.

L—It is a tale of |love….

D—Ragnar Manyrd fell passionately in love with a beautiful capital theorist, played in the movie by ravishing Joan Robinson. His demand for her love was infinitely elastic; her supply could not meet him—at least not at his price. The price was to join him in his exhausting search over peaks and through troughs for the elusive U-shaped cost curve.

L—It is a tale of |excitement

B—See Ragnar Maynard trying to free himself from the dreaded liquidity trap.

Insert: D—It’s true, it really is thicker than water

L—All this and more you can see in this movie—The Big Push is a take-off point in the development of the motion-picture.

B—See the exciting attempt on Professor Leontief’s life (with a 202 rifle) to try to prevent him revealing his startling discovery of a constant returns world.

D—See the world’s largest input-output table which proved it—drawn by the Economic Research project in the sand of the New Mexican desert.

L—You cannot afford to miss this motion picture. Filmed in wonderful new—Solocolor. An introducing revolutionary—Rostowscope.

(concluding epic music)

[Insert: Sit]

D—But the movies could not accommodate everybody…

[Insert: Bob in middle]

[Insert: one illegible word]

L—Professor Leontief, having escaped with his life, and using his input-output table from Scientific American as a testimonial, got into the business of designing bathroom tiles.

B—Professor Duesenbery [sic] was well qualified to go into the demonstration business. He drove Cadillacs around low-income districts to stimulate demand. And changed his name to Jones so that it would be him that everyone was keeping up with.

D—In England many economists went to work for the government where they produced a remarkable effect. Before 1984 political speeches had sounded something like this.

B—Good evening; I’m the Prime Minister. My name is….. [insert: ad lib] etc.

D—But now all this has changed…

B—Good evening…[insert: ad lib] etc.

L—Professor Tom Schelling took up a career in Madison avenue. It was he who was responsible for some of the following products…

D—Ladies, now you can wear the most powerful and alluring perfume in the world—First Strike—the only perfume with complete credibility. It also contains the only deodorant with overkill.

B—Now at last there is a product to take away the smell of deodorant—it is called Counterforce. Only Counterforce gives you 24-hour protection against odorlessness. [Insert: 5120 or S120]

[Insert: STAND]

L—For years girls have been searching for a perfume which will attract the men and yet prevent them from taking liberties—now they have it in the form of Deterrence—the perfume which is effective [Insert: only] if you don’t use it.

D—He also introduced a city wide deodorant campaign under the title of Civil defence.

L—And the only really safe method of birth control—Early Warning.

B—Meanwhile Professor Dunlop had become a truck driver and a shop steward for Jimmy Hoffa.

D—And Professor Kuznets took to selling abacuses.

[Insert: Some economists, not from Harvard opened a cafeteria.]

[Insert: Bob-Les—come forward]

L—Professor Galbraith first thought of becoming a rice farmer. But he soon saw that since there was no more need for economists he could now come into his own. After a coup d’etat he took over the Littauer building and changed it into the department of Affluent Studies. The idea was the ultra-popularization of economics; the main qualification for admission was to be a good phrase-monger. The new department published books like…

B—The Economics of Sex, with an appendix on the second derivatives of Jayne Mansfield. A geometric interpretation with diagrams.

D—The department became identified with a new theory of economic decline, published as a non-Rostovian manifesto. All countries, it said, tend to decline, and their speed of decline is determined by their relative degree of economic advancement. Its five stages of decline started with the age of mass consumption, through the age of preconditions for decline, coming then to the crucial landing stage.

B—Other books appeared like ‘The Naked Truth about Public Squalor, and so on.

[Insert: Pause—back to audience]

L—Only one of the redundant economists took the highest calling of all. Let us now eavesdrop on a sermon by [Insert: his eminence] Archbishop Gerschenkron…

[Insert: seated]

B—You know, when I was an economist one of my graduate students wrote a very good paper for my course. Matthew, [Insert: I said] why don’t you publish this paper, no, really why don’t you publish. But you know youll have to change the title. What journal is going to publish a paper called ‘the First Gospel’? But you know it really was a very good paper. There was a lot of interesting material about the farm problem in Egypt and about the almost miraculous elasticity of supply of loaves and small fishes in Gallillee [sic]. Then there was a very good section about Christ throwing the money-changers from the temple. Well, you see, the rate of interest was very high then. Don’t you think that the real reason why Christ did this was to reduce the rate of interest and to stimulate investment. You see, I wanted Matthew to rewrite his paper for the Quarterly Journal and call it ‘Christ as a proto-Keynsian’ [sic] But no, he was a very strong-willed boy and he brought it out in a syposium [sic] edited by Seymour Harris, called the Bible, essays in honor of God. But, you know, it was still required reading for my course.

D—Professor Harberler [sic] took to song writing, and here is a sample…

[Insert: stand behind table]

(tune: God bless America)

[Insert: All:] God bless free enterprise,
[Insert: MOC or HOC or NOC] System divine,
Stand beside her and guide her,
Just as long as the profits are mine.
[Insert: Salute]
Corporations may they prosper
Big business, may it grow!
[Insert: MOC or HOC or NOC] God bless Free Enterprise,
The Status quo!

L—Well, David, I guess that’s it. Do you think they’ll throw us out?

D—I dont know. But I dont suppose we’ll ever be allowed to pass generals. There are still some jobs you can get without a Ph.D.

B—No chance at all is there? I mean about generals….

D—Well they were all in it weren’t they—all the generals board.

L—What about Professor Vanek? He emerged unscathed.

D—That’s true but he’s leaving.

B—That’s fair, of course.

L—Yes, he hasn’t done much since he’s been here really.

D—Half a dozen good articles…

B—4 books, or is it 5?

L—He’s become an acknowledged expert on at least two major fields of economics…

D—A clear and stimulating teacher…
And a nice guy…

L—Not much really. [Insert: Clearly not a Harvard type]

B—Not surprised they’re letting him go

D—Well, that’s it then.

B—One more thing actually…The perpetrators of this entertainment would like it to be known that any resemblance of characters in this review to any person or persons living or half-dead is purely intentional.

L—So be it.

All—In the name of the Holy Trinity:

D—Dorfman,

L—Samuelson,

B—and Solow.

All—Amen

 

Source:   MIT Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder “GEA 1961-67”.