Tag: Franklin Fisher

The following set of memoranda from the MIT economics department is found in a folder marked “Correspondence: Peter Temin” in Evsey Domar’s papers. The bulk of the material in the folder are letters of support that Domar solicited for the committee he chaired (which consisted of Domar, Charles Kindleberger and Frank Fisher) to review Peter Temin for tenure. It thus appears that Domar’s proposal to strengthen economic history at MIT in February 1967 was seen (at least by him) to have led later to granting Peter Temin tenure at MIT. See Peter Temin’s reflections on “The Rise and Fall of Economic History at MIT.”

In response to a request by the Head of the department, E. Cary Brown, for input to a long-range plan (1967-1975), we have here not only Evsey Domar’s response but also memos from Edwin Kuh (more econometrics!), Robert Solow (“poverty-manpower” or “a really high-class macro-numbers man”) and M. A. Adelman (energy economics).

Even Robert Solow’s intradepartmental memos sparkle with wit!

_________________________________

February 7, 1967

MEMORANDUM

 

To: Members of the Economics Department
From: E. Cary Brown
Subject: Long-Range Departmental Plans

President H. Johnson has asked that Departments submit long-range plans – by two-year intervals through the academic year 1974-5. The basic constraints, other than budgetary, are that the undergraduate student body is to remain fixed at its present level and that graduate students at M.I.T. Grow at only a 3% rate per year. The projection desired is of the expansion in existing fields, into new fields, the population of the department – faculty, staff, students, post-doctorals, and administration and supporting staff.

In order to get a dialogue started, I suggest that each of you send me a note on the need for new fields, the expansion of existing ones, and your views about our undergraduate and graduate size. I can then prepare an agenda for a meeting or two on this matter.

_________________________________

 

[Evsey Domar response]

1. New Fields, etc.
   1. Economic History. Could tie in very well with our economic developers. Also help to create a better balance in the Department.
   2. Economics and Technology (Mansfield, etc.) MIT should be just the place for it.
   3. I hope Max continues to be interested in South-East Asia. The US will be involved there for a long time. Any chances for a South-east. Asia Center or something?
2. Number of Students
   No strong feelings. A larger number of both faculty and students allows us to offer a greater variety of courses.

As you know, Economic History is my main concern.

_________________________________

 

[Edwin Kuh response]

February 13, 1967

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Professor E. Cary Brown
FROM:          Professor Edwin Kuh
SUBJECT:     Some Economics Department Needs in the Long Run

Let me first grind my own econometric axe. We need additional support in two econometric areas. The first pertains to support for quantitative theses; Frank Fisher, Bob Solow and I carry a heavy load in this connection, which is unlikely to diminish. Second, we ought to have more strength than we do in econometric time series analysis, an important topic not covered by existing faculty. Marc Nerlove, for instance, ranks high on both counts. Less senior individuals include David Grether who combines both aspects (Stanford Ph.D. going to Yale this fall) and possibly Joseph Kadane also at Yale, who is more the statistician. Jim Durbin and Bill Phillips would be fine, too, qua statisticians contributing to econometrics.

Next, suppose we are fortunate enough to attract both Ken Arrow and C. V. Wiesacker [sic] ; the net balance in favor of theory would then become heavy indeed. There will be no need to panic and for instance, proceed instantly to hire Arthur Burns. But even so, it will behoove the department to push relentlessly on expanding the more empirical side. Since all tenure slots by then will have been sewed up, I don’t see how this can readily be done.

Finally, the department ought to raise more finance for computation. The burden has been disproportionately assumed by the Sloan School, even though several Economics Department research projects have made highly welcome and substantial contributions to the installation downstairs. In this connection, the department should seriously consider acquiring the long run services of someone with a major interest [in] computer systems; very different and high qualified individuals such as Mark Eisner or Don Carroll come to mind. The department will lag behind seriously unless it expands in this direction.

This has not been a balanced presentation of needs. I shall leave that to more balanced individuals.

 

_________________________________

 

[Robert M. Solow response]

MEMORANDUM TO: E. Cary Brown, Head
FROM: Robert M. Solow
SUBJECT: Yours of February 7

 

1. Undergraduate program. I suppose basically we just passively accept as many majors as come along. We might attract more by improving the teaching and brightening up the course offering. So far we have got along just fine with a pretty dreary undergraduate program, and previous attempts to Do Something have petered out. Is history trying to tell us something? The only reason I can think of for trying again is this: if the department faculty is going to state bigger, especially among assistant professors, then we probably need some decent undergraduate teaching for them to do. (Not only them – I would volunteer to do some too.) Why not let the assistant professors do the planning – they probably have more ideas. Suggestions: new undergraduate subjects in mathematical economics, econometrics, “poverty”, transportation (or public investment); cancel one of the current Labor subjects (or convert to “poverty”), maybe cancel 14.06, 14.09; organize research seminar on one-big-project basis; keep 3 or 4 of the best seniors on as PhD candidates as a matter of course.

2. Graduate program. Does it have to expand to justify slightly enlarged faculty? If so, then accept universe, but fight like hell for adequate space, scholarships, research funds. If not, think carefully. If faculty enlarges and improves, we should be able to do better on admissions. There will always be some lemons admitted; but it is a question whether one would not prefer current size of enrollment with improved bottom half to enlarged enrollment with current quality. If we get Arrow and Weizsäcker, and keep half-dozen assistant professors, some growth of graduate student body probably inevitable. But I’d keep it slow, and in line with admission quality, space, scholarships, research money. Aim for entering class of 40 by 1975? Certainly no more.

3. New fields. If MIT goes into Urban Studies, I think we ought to move too. This means some joint research, perhaps offering a few fellowships specifically in urban economics, some new appointments (transportation, poverty, local finance), probably young guys. (I’d like to see Mike Piore and Frank Levy free to start something.) (Would Bill Pounds like to hire Joe Kershaw?) Maybe we ought to start looking next fall. This complex could be a major counterweight to theory. We could make a senior appointment, but I doubt we could find a good enough man. We also lack a really high-class macro-numbers man – like Art Okun or Otto Eckstein or George Perry. Should we try Les Thurow? Or try eventually for Steve Goldfeld? Goldfeld would help with Money, but Thurow would fit into poverty-manpower bit. I think I might seriously favor going for Thurow now if we can afford it.

_________________________________

 

[M. A. Adelman response]

March 16, 1967

Memorandum to:     Professor E. Cary Brown
From:                         M.A. Adelman
Subject:  President H. W. Johnson’s request to submit long-range plans: industrial organization field

1. Enrollment in the graduate course has declined to the point where it is best given in alternate years. Theses written have not decreased, and there are six now in preparation. I wish to use the time made available to teach the course on energy economics when Paul Rodan retires. The remaining time is best devoted to undergraduate teaching (see below).
2. Undergraduate enrollment seems to be on the increase in 14.02, 14.04, and 14.22. With the appointment of Robert Crandall, we are fully staffed. I would wish to have 14.02 taught exclusively by lecture and sections (teaching assistants) except where the undergraduates’ program will not permit it. Where we are compelled to fill in with three-recitation sections, I strongly urge that they should not be taught by teaching assistants. Since the transfer to lectures economizes manpower, these two changes should be offsetting, but will take more of my own time.
3. I have given a joint seminar with Harvard (Economics Department and Middle East Center) on Eastern Hemisphere Oil, and will repeat it next year. It is still an uncertain venture, however, in a sensitive area, and the fuss about CIA influence in academic research may kill it.
4. I join in concern over our weakness in economic history. East European economics might best be treated as an expansion of our current offering in Soviet economics, since there is sufficient unity of geography and practice. I wish some encouragement could be given to East Asian especially Japanese studies, where English sometimes suffices, but would not care to have it as a field of specialization.

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Evsey D. Domar papers, Box 7, Folder “Peter Temin” [apparently misfiled].

Image Source: MIT 1959 Technique (Yearbook).