Categories
Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Faculty skit. Robert Solow as the 2000 year old economist.

 

 

A skit in economics typically involves a humor transplant of some sort. The following script from the faculty contribution to an annual M.I.T. economics skit party (ca.  1979-80 which is when Luis Tiant pitched for the Yankees) took its inspiration from  two greats in American comedy, Carl Reiner & Mel Brooks, who sometimes performed as interviewer and 2,000 year-old man, respectively.

While it is fairly clear that Robert Solow performed and probably wrote the entire skit, the identity of the interviewer still needs to be established. Hint: there is a comment box at the bottom of this post. 

The script comes from a file of such Solovian skits that Roger Backhouse has copied during his archival research and has shared with Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

_________________

 

Q: You have probably all heard the interviews with the recently discovered 2000-year-old man. We are fortunate to have with us tonight another great find, the 2000-year-old economist, Robert M. Solow. By the way, Dr. Solow, just what does the M stand for?

A: Methuselah, dummy.

Q: Dr. Solow has seen so many skit parties in his life, that he was not very happy about appearing at this one. Do you remember the first skit party you ever went to?

A: No. Skit parties are like hangovers – best thing to do is forget ’em and swear never to do it again. I do have a hazy recollection of an early skit party, I think it was what the one where I first heard the joke about bordered determinants…

Q: What is the joke about border determinants?

A: I don’t know, but they sure laugh[ed] their fool heads off.

Q: Any other recollections about that skit party?

A: Well, you could hear them building pyramids in the background, I remember, and there was this Sphinx-like object, looked a lot like Dick Eckaus… You don’t suppose that, even then???? Nah, forget it.

Q: Turning to more serious issues, what is the biggest change in economics since the old days?

A: Mechanization, by cracky. First the electric typewriter, then the computer, then the Xerox machine [handwritten insert: but not fast enough for (3 or 4 illegible words)]. Nowadays people write papers at the rate they used to wipe their… glasses. I believe Feldstein has solved the problem of hooking the typewriter directly to the Xerox machine, and the whole paper is reproduced without being touched by human hands. There is even a rumor that he has a secret way of getting the paper written without human intervention…

Q: Come come, Dr. Solow, you don’t believe that.

A: Well, have you looked at any of Feldstein’s recent papers? Now in the good old days, stand-up roll-top desks, quill pens, the main-frame abacus, a man thought twice before he wrote a paper. At least he thought once. If only old Tom were here.

Q: Tom who?

A: Tom Gresham. You know: bad working papers drive out good. Not to mention Dave Hume, the inventor of the quantity theory of working papers. As Milton used to say: any way you slice it, it’s still baloney.

Q: Is that Milton Friedman?

A: No, Milton Horowitz, the inventor of the pastrami sandwich. I believe he appears in a footnote in Joskow’s classic mustard-stained work on the subject.

Q: Let’s come to your recent impressions. What do you see as the most important recent development in economics?

A: That’s easy – the increase in the mandatory retirement age to 70. Of course it’s got a long way to go before it does me any good, but I underestimate the DRI Mandatory Retirement Age Monitor estimates the retirement age to be rising at 1.73 years per year, so time is on my side.

Q: Apart from its effects on you personally, why do you think this is an important development?

A: It saves a lot of time at department meetings never to have to make a tenure appointment again. And you know what department meetings are like – even worse than skit parties.

Q: How do you think the change will affect students?

A: They’ll love it. Courses will be the same year after year. Reading lists will never change. Textbooks will go on and on and on. Can you imagine the 200th edition of Dornbusch and Fischer? I hope it’s printed on better paper than the low-grade papyrus of the first edition… I do wonder about Eckaus and that Sphinx…… Exams will be the same year after year. Students hate change. Look at what happened when you fellows tried to change 14.121 this year.

Q: Turning to economic theory, what has been the most important development you have witnessed in the last 2000 years?

A: The two-dimensional diagram.

Q: Be serious.

A: I am serious. Can you imagine Bhagwati, the Picasso of the Production Possibility Locus, trying to fit all those curves in a one-dimensional diagram, which was all we had in the old days? There wasn’t hardly room for anything besides the axis.

Q: Come, come. Bhagwati would find a solution for that little difficulty. Who needs an axis?

A: Maybe so, but can you imagine four-color one-dimensional diagrams? How could we have expensive textbooks without four-color diagrams? How could we have expensive professors without expensive textbooks? How could……

Q: OK, OK. What is the second most important development in economic theory in your lifetime?

A: The subscript.

Q: Don’t you know the difference between trivia and serious economic theory?

A: Sure. Trivia are worth remembering, but serious economics is OK to forget.

Q: Maybe we better stick to trivia…

A: I was just kidding. I really know the answer. There is no difference between trivia and serious economic theory.

Q: Tell us about the most interesting experience you ever heard of an economist having?

A: Easy. Happened to an agricultural economist I knew, feller named Samuelson, farm boy from Gary, Indiana. He was digging on the farm one day, checking out the law of diminishing returns, and he found a potato growing with a nickel in it. Marvelous thing. Folks came from miles away to see a potato with a nickel in it. Old Samuelson frittered away the rest of his life looking for another potato with the nickel in it. Never could find one. He did find a couple with three cents in them, but somehow it wasn’t the same. Never accomplished another thing, old Samuelson. Wonder whatever became of him? He’d be 2009, I reckon. By the way, whatever became of that other farmer, Weitzman?

Q: You mean Chaim Weitzman, the founding father of Israel? His last words were: you don’t have to convince me, Professor [Frank] Fisher, I’m Jewish too.

A: No, I mean Marty Weitzman, old quick and dirty, the lion of Levittown.

Q: Why do you ask?

A: Reminds me of the fellow I used to know, a Secretary of the Treasury named Hamilton……

Q: Reminds you of who? Oh, I get it, they both got killed in the dual.

A: Watch out, Buster – the agreement was that I tell the jokes and you prove the theorems.

Q: All right. Let’s get away from personalities. What do you think of recent macro theories?

A: Not much.

Q: What about rational expectations?

A: If there were any truth in that, it would have been thought up long ago.

Q: Not necessarily. The old-timers could have thought that someone would think of it, without thinking of it themselves.

A: That’s true, but the old-timers were too sensible to think that anyone would think a thought like that.

Q: How about the quantity theory?

A: Ingenious.

Q: Really?

A: Imagine saying that velocity is so stable that only money matters, and so unstable that no use can be made of the theory, and imagine getting away with both statements.

Q: But what is macroeconomics left with then?

A: Well, the old Ioto-Sigma Lamba-Mu [Greek for “IS-LM”] curves were good enough for Aristotle, it’s good enough for me.

Q: Would you care to comment on the theory of built-in stabilizers?

A: If you’re not going to be serious, we might as well go watch a ballgame. I understand Louis Tiant, the 2000-year-old pitcher is going for the Yankees.

Q: Use your 2000-year-old imagination. I’ll give you an example of built-in stabilization – Social Security.

A: How so?

Q: The less likely it is that anyone will ever be able to collect benefits, the likelier it becomes that they make even more money consulting on Social Security. Take [Peter] Diamond, for example.

A: You take Diamond.

Q: No thanks. Imagine a man leaving a perfectly good career in public finance to go into law and economics and make a hash out of both fields.

A: Stick to the straight-man lines, please.

[Handwritten insert begins here]

Q: What do you think of the proliferation of journals?

A: I think it is terrific. Of course it has been going on for a long time – ever since BJEA, the Babylonian Journal of Economic Analysis was challenged by the SEJ, the Sumerian Economic Journal.
What I particularly like is the increased specialization. Like JHR, the Journal of Human Regressions and JME, the Journal of Mathematical Existence.

Q: The Journal of Mathematical Existence – isn’t that the one that started with the famous 2-line proof: I count, therefore I am?

A: Yes and was followed by a 47 page proof that without continuity existence was still generic.
I also like this trend toward paired journals.

Q: Paired journals?

A: Yes, like the two Harvard journals – one publishes theory without measurement and the other measurement without theory.
And then there’s the 2 JPE’s – the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Private Enterprise.

[handwritten insert ends]

Q: What do you see as the greatest danger facing the economics profession?

A: The threatened extension of truth-in-lending legislation to truth-in-teaching. We could have the biggest rash of malpractice suits since Nicky Kaldor retired.

Q: I think you’re onto something there. How foresighted of this department to have hired an expert on malpractice like Marilyn Simon [joined faculty 1977-78 academic year], the world-famous author of Unnecessary Surgery – The View from the Inside.

A: Simon only writes about malpractice – [Jeffrey E.] Harris actually does it, I understand.

Q: You seem to have discovered a lot since you turned up around here. Anything else new on the malpractice front?

A: There’s a rumor that the University of Chicago has had to recall all the degrees issued during the last five model years.

Q: You mean…

A: Right. Defective transmission mechanisms.

Q: Gad. Are there any good defenses against malpractice suits in your long and varied experience?

A: You can hire a mathematician for the faculty.

Q: What good does that do?

A: How the hell would I know? All I can say is that every department seems to be hiring mathematicians these days. It’s got to be for something.

Q: I’m looking for some more tried and true defense.

A: There’s always the Long-and-Variable Lags defense. See the Supreme Court decision in Tobin versus Friedman, in which Friedman successfully argued that first it’s true, second he never said it, and third wait till next year.

Q-: How about the Roy Lopez Defense?

A: You mean P–K4, P-K4; N-KB3, N-QB3; B-QN5, P-QR3?

Q: No, I mean Roy Lopez, the middle line-backer for the Princeton Economics Department – anyone sues for malpractice, he breaks their legs.

A: Sounds good. There’s also the classic defense due to Stanley Fischer, that truth should be indexed. Today’s malpractice is tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

Q: Speaking of conventional wisdom, have you spoken with Professor Galbraith since your return?

A: No, but I have been reading his latest book: Why Are People Poor?

Q: I’ll bite; why are people poor?

A: Not enough income, according to Galbraith.

Q: Does he have a remedy?

A: Move to Switzerland.

Q: I see.

A: I can’t wait until the news reaches Calcutta.

Q: One last question, to return to the subject with which we started. Do you see any trends in student skits?

A: Longer.

Q: Longer and funnier?

A: Longer.

Q: Any final comment?

A: Let me ask you a question. What do you consider the most remarkable thing in this interview?

Q: That’s easy. We never mentioned IBM.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives. Papers of Robert M. Solow. Box 83.

Image Source:  Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks performing the 2000 year old man from NPR KNAU, Arizona public radio article “Could You Talk To a Caveman?” (May 9, 2013) .

Categories
Harvard Regulations Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate concentration in economics, 1953

 

In this post we find the requirements for a major in economics (Harvardspeak = “concentration”) and for graduation with honors 65 years ago at Harvard. 

Earlier posts here at Economics in the Rear-view mirror include the 1953 General Examination questions and a Harvard Crimson article that briefly summarized the requirements transcribed here.

This artifact was found in John Kenneth Galbraith’s personal files from Harvard University that are kept at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. His papers provide a treasure trove of economics department administrative memoranda, among other delights.

___________________

CONCENTRATION IN ECONOMICS
[February 1953]

Every concentrator in Economics is required:

  1. To complete a certain number of courses in Economics, Government, and History;
  2. To choose for more intensive work a special field within the general area of Economics;
  3. To submit a Plan of Study, fulfill the general requirements with respect to distribution, and participate in the departmental tutorial program;
  4. To pass one general written examination in Economics at the end of the senior year.

Every candidate for graduation with Honors is required in addition:

  1. To complete an honors thesis, and to take one more than the required number of courses in Economics. He is also to take three of the basic courses, including Economic Theory.

These requirements are discussed below under the Roman numerals indicated.

 

I. BASIC REQUIREMENTS IN ECONOMICS, GOVERNMENT, AND HISTORY

Every concentrator in Economics is required to complete as a minimum:

  1. That each concentrator is required to take Economics I and two of the five following basic courses:
    1. Money and finance (Econ. 141)
    2. Marketing organization and control (Econ. 161)
    3. Labor and social reform (Econ. 181a and b)
    4. Economic History (Econ. 136)
    5. Economic Theory (Econ. 101)
  2. Each non-honors concentrator will take a minimum of four courses in Economics while the minimum for honors candidates will be five courses. Ordinarily each undergraduate will take one general examination namely a departmental examination in his senior year. This examination is designed to test his knowledge of the general field of economics as it has been developed in course work and synthesized in tutorial.
  3. For both honors candidates and non-honors candidates, two full courses are required, or the equivalent in half-courses, in Social Sciences outside Economics—one such full course to be chosen from two of the three fields, History, Government, and Social Relation. In each of the two courses selected, such choice may be from either (a) courses administered by the Department in question, or, (b) courses in that field given under the heading of General Education, Second Group Courses.

II. SPECIAL FIELDS WITHIN ECONOMICS

Every concentrator is required to choose from the list below a special field for more intensive work.

Courses desirable as preparation in these fields should be selected in consultation with the student’s tutor or adviser. The written examination in the senior year will be arranged to encourage familiarity with the main questions in the whole field of the student’s choice, as well as intensive analysis of some segment of the field.

Economics courses directly relevant to the special field are listed. Other Economics courses are relevant in part.

(1) Economic Theory

Courses which fall definitely within this field are Economics 101 (Economic Theory and Policy), 104a (Mathematical Treatment of Economic Theory), and 115 (Economics and Political Ideas in Modern Times).

(2) Economic History

Economics 136 (Economic History of the Colonies and the United States), falls within this field.

(3) Money and Finance

This field covers money, banking, and business cycles; international trade, capital movements, and monetary problems; public expenditures, revenues, and credit. Related topics are some aspects of corporate finance and the investment process, financing of social security, inflexible prices and monetary policy, agricultural credit, and the like.

Within the field fall: Economics 141 (Money and Banking), 143a and 143b (International Trade and Economic Relations), 145a (Business Cycles), 151 (Public Finance).

(4) Market Organization and Control

The major topics in this field include the corporation; the structure and functioning of markets; business practices; and government control in industry, trade, agriculture, and public utilities. Related topics are international markets, corporate taxation, inflexible prices and monetary policy, and the like.

Economics courses directly in this field are: Economics 161 (Business Organization and Control), 171 (Economics of Agriculture) and 107 (Consumption, Distribution, and Prices).

(5) Labor Economics and Social Reform

This field covers labor problems; population, social stratification, distribution of wealth and income, social security; collectivism and other proposals for social reform. Related topics are taxation as an instrument of social policy, the financing of social security, the corporation and social stratification, and the like.

Economics courses directly in this field are: 181a (Trade Unionism and Collective Bargaining), 181b (Public Policy and Labor), 111b Socialism) and 186a (Social Security).

III. ADVISERS AND TUTORIAL INSTRUCTION: PLAN OF STUDY

(1) Every concentrator in economics is assigned to a tutor or, in the case of seniors who are not candidates for honors, an adviser. All concentrators except such seniors are required to participate in the tutorial program of the Department. In general, the purpose of tutorial is not to prime the student for examinations. Rather, it is to induce clearer thinking on a somewhat wider and more integrated range of problems than those discussed in the separate courses. A further purpose is to train students to organize and state their ideas in readable and cogent form.

Sophomores are assigned to tutorial groups of not more than six in the House of their residence. These groups meet with a tutor who is also a member of the House staff either once a week for approximately an hour or once every two weeks for approximately two hours. The objective of Sophomore tutorial is to give the student a sense of the relevance of economics as one of the social sciences and the relation of economics to the other social sciences as a factor in making policy decisions.

Juniors who are not candidates for honors are assigned to tutorial groups of not more than six which are organized in a manner similar to that of Sophomore tutorial. Juniors who are candidates for honors usually meet individually with tutors for a half hour once a week. Juniors who wish to become honors candidates meet in special groups. If their performance in tutorial at mid years warrants a grade of satisfactory or better, and if their course grades are adequate, they will be accepted as honors candidates at the beginning of the spring term.

Seniors who are candidates for honors will meet with tutors who will advise them in preparing and executing their honors theses. This will also include a liberal background of reading supplementary to the student’s course work in the field in which his thesis lies. Wide discretion is left to the individual tutor and student. Seniors who are not candidates for honors are assigned to advisers at the beginning of the fall term. The advisers consult with students an assist them to select courses. At the beginning of the spring term such seniors have the option of attending voluntary tutorial group meetings once every two weeks. The purpose of such tutorial is to synthesize the course work of the past three years. To the degree that the general examination also represents an attempt to synthesize course work, such tutorial will of necessity help prepare for the general examination, but such preparation will be merely incidental to the specific purpose of tutorial which will be rather to relate the fields of economics to a pattern of relevant judgment.

(2) Every new concentrator in Economics must file a Plan of Study in University 2 containing a selection of courses sufficient to meet the requirements for concentration and distribution as set forth in Rules Relating to College Studies. This Plan must be signed by the student’s adviser or some other representative of the Department of Economics. It is, however, merely a preliminary statement of intent and may be altered at a later date with the approval of the student’s adviser.

IV. THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION

This examination is given at the end of the senior year. The Departmental Examination is a three-hour written examination covering all phases of Economics. At the option of the Examiner, there may be given in addition an oral examination. This last is usually given when the mark of the student is in doubt. Furthermore, in determining whether a degree in Economics will be awarded and the level of the degree, performance in tutorial will be taken into account.

This examination has been established, not in order to place additional burdens upon candidates for the A.B., but for the purpose of securing better correlation of the student’s work, encouraging more effective methods of study, and furnishing a more adequate test of attainment.

V. CANDIDACY FOR HONORS, AND THE HONORS THESIS

Every candidate for the degree of A.B. with Honors in Economics will make application, not later than the beginning of his Senior year, at Holyoke 8. Acceptance of candidacy depends upon the over-all record of the student, and not upon grades alone; but in general it is expected that a B-minus average or better should have been attained in Economics course. It is required that a candidate recommended for honors attain a grade of C or higher in at least two-thirds of his other courses. In addition, to be eligible for honors, all candidates must maintain a grade of satisfactory or better in tutorial.

The candidate for honors will submit toward the close of his Senior year a thesis on some subject in economics chosen in consultation with his adviser. The thesis should evidence independent and effective work, and an integrated understanding of the general field in which the thesis subject lies: but the Faculty does not intend to call for research on a graduate level. The requirements are such that the degree with honors is attainable by a student of good ability. An honors candidate may, if he chooses, elect Economics 99 for one term only, in order to devote extra time to work on his thesis with his tutor. A penalty of five points will be imposed on all theses running over 40,000 words in length.

The grade of Honors which a student attains depends in part on the range and character of his work in Economics, History, and Government; but mainly on the average of his course grades in Economics, on his Departmental examination, and on the quality of his thesis. The usual grades of Honors are Honors (cum laude), High Honors (magna cum laude), and Highest Honors (summa cum laude). If the student’s work is judged unworthy of Honors, but worthy of a degree, he may be recommended for the degree without Honors.

 

Source:  John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. Personal Papers of John Kenneth Galbraith.Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 528, Folder: “Tutorials 9/17/51-9/57”.

Categories
Business School Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. (1923) alumnus and Columbia Business School Dean, J. E. Orchard Memo on Galbraith, 1946.

 

John Ewing Orchard (b. 19 July 1893 in Exeter, Nebraska; d. 28 January 1962 in Charlottesville, Virginia) wrote the following summary of a telephone conversation with his former boss, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (who supervised the work of John Kenneth Galbraith at the Lend Lease Administration during WWII) and incidentally went on to serve as the Secretary of State). From this memo it is clear that Galbraith’s name came up for consideration for the Deanship of the Columbia School of Business. Orchard, a Harvard economics Ph.D. (1923), might have had ulterior motives in entering this document into the record — it can be found in the papers of then chairman of the economics department, Robert Haig, that have been deposited in the Central Files of the Columbia University administration. We see below that Orchard himself was later appointed to the Deanship of the business school…coincidence?

In any event, in case there might be any doubt in somebody’s mind, John Kenneth Galbraith had done nothing in government service that would have enhanced his prospects to become an academic Dean. His comparative advantage was to be found in other endeavors. Whether John Kenneth Galbraith indeed had “poison in his soul” as noted by Stettinius is left to his legions of admirers and detractors to determine. However, given Galbraith’s life motto “Modesty is a most overrated virtue”, I presume Stettinius had confused poison with an ego of legendary proportion.

____________________

Kenneth Galbraith

Stettinius on Galbraith

Telephone conversation with Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., concerning Galbraith, October 23, 1946.

Galbraith worked with Stettinius on the National Defense Council in 1940. Stettinius stated that there was no question but that Galbraith was a brilliant economist, but he was a difficult person to work with. He seemed always to be taking a belligerent left wing position and never was in the middle of the road. I gathered that there was little give and take as far as Galbraith was concerned. Stettinius also said he seemed to have “poison in his soul”.

After Galbraith left OPA, Stettinius, as a result of considerable pressure, took him into the Lend Lease Administration. His experience with him there was not satisfactory, for after Stettinius had assigned him to a responsible position, Galbraith did not establish friendly working relations with his associates. He did not seem to be interested in the work or in the organization and after a couple of months he quit. Stettinius stated that he did not believe that Galbraith would make a good dean.

John E. Orchard

Source:  Columbia University.  Central Files. Box 386, Folder 7/7 “Haig, Robert Murray”.

____________________

John Ewing Orchard,
Harvard economics Ph.D. 1923

John Ewing Orchard, A. B. (Swarthmore Coll.) 1916, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1920.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Economic Resources. Thesis, “The World’s Coal Resources and some of their Influences on National Economy.” Instructor in Economic Geography, Columbia University.

Source:  Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1922-1923, p. 52.

____________________

Guggenheim Fellowship, 1931

JOHN E. ORCHARD
Fellow: Awarded 1931
Field of Study: Economic History
Competition: US & Canada

As published in the Foundation’s Report for 1931–32:

ORCHARD, JOHN EWING:  Appointed to study the transition that is occurring in China from agriculture and from household industries to modern manufacturing, investigations to be carried on chiefly in China; tenure, eight months from June 20, 1931.

Born July 19, 1893, at Exeter, Nebraska. Education:  Swarthmore college, A.B., 1916; Harvard University, M.A., 1920, Ph.D., 1923; University of Pennsylvania, 1917–18; University of Chicago, Summer, 1920.

Assistant in Geography and Industry, 1917–18, University of Pennsylvania; Assistant Mine Economist, United States Bureau of Mines, 1918–19; Instructor in Economic Geography, 1920–24, Assistant Professor, 1924–29, Associate Professor, 1929—, Columbia University.

Publications: Japan’s Economic Position: The Progress of Industrialization, 1920; chapter on Marine Insurance in Influence of the Great War on Shipping, by J. Russell Smith, 1919; chapter on Gold in Political and Commercial Geology, edited by J. E. Spurr, 1920. Articles in Quarterly Journal of Economics, Geographical Review, Journal of Geography, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

 

Source:  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Website. Fellow page: John E. Orchard.

____________________

Dr. Orchard New Business School Dean
[Columbia Daily Spectator, 9 January 1947]

Dr. John E. Orchard, professor of economic geography at Columbia and one of the country’s outstanding authorities on the Far East, will replace Dean Robert D. Calkins as director of the School of Business, it was announced yesterday by Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, acting president of the University.

Dean Calkins, who has been the head of the Business School since 1941, resigned in order to accept an appointment as vice president and director of the General Education Board in New York City.

Professor Orchard, a graduate of Swathmore and Harvard Universities, has been a member of the teaching staff of the School of Business since 1920.

Active In Government

From May 1941 until January 1946, he served as a member of several important government agencies in Washington D. C. He was senior assistant administrator to Edward Stettinius when the latter was Lend-Lease Administrator. Later Dr. Orchard was appointed special assistant to Mr. Stettinius when he was Under Secretary of State. Dean Orchard served as special assistant to William Clayton, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Affairs. His last Washington assignment was as senior consultant to the Foreign Liquidation Commissioner, Thomas B. McCabe. He spent the years of 1926-27, 1931-32, and 1938-39 in Asia and in 1930 published a book entitled “Japan’s Economic Problem”.

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LXIX, Number 34, 9 January 1947.

Image Source: John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Website. Fellow page: John E. Orchard.

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard-Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, 1950

 

 

According to her New York Times obituary, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain (April 24, 1918—April 1, 2013) became known as “the fairy godmother of women’s studies” during her time as program director at the Ford Foundation (1971-1981). But before beginning her highly successful career in research project sponsorship, she had taught at Connecticut College, the School of General Studies at Columbia University, and at Hunter College, having studied undergraduate and graduate economics at Radcliffe-Harvard. She was awarded in 1950 a Ph.D. for her thesis, “Investment Policy in Large Corporations”.

After listing her scholarship awards at Radcliffe along with the dates of her academic degrees, I include two items that provide the testimony of a few of those who knew her professionally and personally. We learn (among many genuinely important things) that towards the end of her long life, she was a regular reader of Paul Krugman’s New York Times columns and “for whatever reason[,] she wanted to see, meet, engage, or possibly hang out with men”. She was clearly an inspirational figure for many and that “she loved being an economist”.

________________________

From the Radcliffe College Annual Presidential Reports

Freshman Year

Marian [sic] Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of an “Emergency Award” from the Permanent Charity Scholarship Fund.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1935-36, p. 37.

 

Sophomore Year

Marion [sic] Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a Lois M. Parmenter Undergraduate Scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1936-37, p. 32.

 

Junior Year

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a partial Abby Y. Lawson Memorial undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1937-38, p. 31.

 

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a partial Permanent Charity Fund undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1937-38, p. 33.

 

Senior Year

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of an Ellen M. Barr undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1938-39, p. 30.

 

Mariam Kenosian Bachelor of Arts (June 1939) cum laude (Honors) in economics.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1938-39, p. 35.

 

Graduate School

Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, Master of Arts (March 1948).

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1947-48, p. 21.

 

Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, Ph.D.  (June 1950).

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Business Organization and Control. Dissertation, “Investment Policies of Large Corporations”.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1949-50, p. 20.

________________________

In Memoriam: Mariam K. Chamberlain, 1918–2013
Posted on April 3, 2013

Dr. Mariam K. Chamberlain, a founding member of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the founding president of the National Council for Research on Women, was the driving force behind the cultivation and sustainability of the women’s studies field of academic research. She is the namesake of IWPR’s prestigious Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship for Women in Public Policy, which trains young women for successful careers in research. Throughout her life, Dr. Chamberlain fought discrimination, established new roles for women, and championed the economic analysis of women’s issues. She passed away on April 2, 2013, at 94, just a few weeks shy of her 95th birthday, following complications from heart surgery.

A Lifetime of Lifting Up Women’s Voices in Academia and Research

The daughter of Armenian immigrants, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain was born and raised in Chelsea, Massachusetts, a working class suburb of Boston. Interest in the prevailing conditions of the depression led her to economics. She attended Radcliffe College on a scholarship and worked as a research assistant in the summers for Wassily Leontief, who later won the Nobel Prize in economics. During World War II, she worked at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), on the staff of a “brain trust” of economists and other social scientists assembled by General William (“Wild Bill”) Donovan to aid in the war effort. As part of the research and analysis branch, she worked on estimates of enemy, military, and industrial strength.

In 1950, Mariam Chamberlain received her Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, making her one of the few women of her generation to earn a Ph.D. in the field. In 1956, Dr. Chamberlain joined the Ford Foundation, where she served as a program officer in Economic Development and Administration, and then Education and Public Policy, until 1981. While at Ford, she spearheaded the funding of the academic women’s research and women’s studies movement; she is said to have provided nearly $10 million in support of new feminist initiatives. Her projects fostered a new analysis of women’s position in society, expanded women’s choices in the university, and supported the development of equality in law. She played a major role in building the academic infrastructure necessary to better understand women’s experiences and inform improved policies for women. In short, she paved the way for organizations like IWPR to thrive, and stocked the research pipeline with skilled women and men who have made important contributions to the study of women and public policy.

Economics and the elimination of discrimination against women around the world remained the heart of her wide-ranging activities. After leaving the Ford Foundation in 1982, she headed the Task Force on Women in Higher Education at the Russell Sage Foundation. The Task Force’s work culminated in a published volume, Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects. Before leaving Ford, she had funded an initial meeting of a group of women’s research centers. That meeting established the National Council for Research on Women, which unanimously elected her its first president. She served in that role until 1989, after which she continued to go into the office every day as Founding President and Resident Scholar.

A Legacy of Training the Next Generation of Women Policy Researchers

IWPR owes much to Dr. Chamberlain. In 1987, Dr. Heidi Hartmann founded IWPR out of a need for comprehensive, women-focused, policy-oriented research. Dr. Chamberlain, who dedicated her career to lifting up women’s voices in academia, recognized the importance of a policy research institute centered on women, grounded by social science methodology, economics, and rigorous data analysis. Applying academic research to inform better policies for women was a natural extension of Dr. Chamberlain’s work, and she became a founding member of IWPR and served on its Board of Directors for nearly 20 years.

IWPR endowed the Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship in Women and Public Policy to recognize the legacy of Dr. Chamberlain’s tireless efforts to open doors for the women researchers who came after her. Nearly 20 young women have gained valuable research experience as Fellows at IWPR since the beginning of the Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship. Past Mariam K. Chamberlain scholars have gone on to hold positions at government agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Congressional Research Service, earn advanced degrees from universities such as Harvard University, Columbia University, Stanford University, The George Washington University, and Brown University. Rhiana Gunn-Wright, IWPR’s current Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellow, was just recently named a 2013 Rhodes Scholar. The fellowship has allowed IWPR to expand its research capacity, strengthen its commitment to cultivating the next generation of women researchers and leaders, and ensure that a pipeline of experienced women researchers are at the policy-making table.

The fellowship helps sustain Dr. Chamberlain’s legacy, built on the belief that relying on credible data and research, rather than anecdote and bias, leads to better policies for working women, which in turn contribute to improved long-term outcomes for their families. May she not only rest in peace, but rest assured that, because of her efforts, there are many more women able to take up the torch she leaves behind.

Source:  Institute for Women’s Policy Research.  Blog post captured by the internet archive, Wayback Machine, on May 13, 2013.

________________________

Excerpts and selections from speeches at Mariam Chamberlain’s Memorial

From Florence Howe, founder of Feminist Press, blog post (July 15, 2013).

From the Eulogy by David Kenosian (nephew)

I got my first impressions of Mariam through my father, her younger brother Harry, who told me about her life as the daughter of Armenian immigrants in Chelsea, Massachusetts, as a student at Radcliffe, and as a pioneering career woman. He admired his sister because, I think, she epitomized what he saw as key Armenian values, education and hard work. She herself affirmed those values; she insisted that her older brother Tony was the scholar in the family who set the standards of achievement. But following Tony’s example meant overcoming poverty and possibly the reservations of her parents who, like many Armenian parents back then, assumed that their daughter would marry and have a family. In continuing her education Mariam took the best of Armenian culture to break free from its constraints, and later did the same on a larger scale. At Harvard she like other women had to use a different entrance to some buildings than men. She later committed herself professionally to opening doors for women across the country in decades of tireless work.

Mariam’s talents impressed her professor, Edward Mason, who helped build an economic research branch in the OSS. Last December, Mariam told my nephew Tom and me that Edward Mason took her and other assistants to a summit meeting in Canada to support the American delegation: without eight years of entering Radcliffe, Mariam had gone to a conference where Churchill and Roosevelt met. With characteristic modesty she added that she never saw Churchill or Roosevelt. As a woman, she had a better working relationship with her British counterparts than with the men in the American delegation. You can see the hallmarks of her later career; her determination to overcome barriers, her service in the cause of justice, and the collaborative and at times international spirit of her work…

 

Professor Lois Gray, “On Mariam Chamberlain”

I first met Mariam Chamberlain in 1959—fifty-four years ago—not in New York City where we both lived but in Jamaica, West Indies, where her husband, Neil Chamberlain, and I were invited as speakers at an International Conference on Labor. Neil, a leading scholar and writer in the field of industrial relations, was my professor at Columbia University where I was studying for my Ph.D. Both of us brought out spouses to the conference. Neil bonded with my husband who was a labor leader, and Mariam and I discovered our common interest in opportunities for working women. A long lasting friendship grew out of this chance encounter in the Caribbean. [Note: Mariam and Neil were married in 1942 and divorced in 1967?/1970?]

Over the years I came to know about and admire Mariam’s path-breaking role at the Ford Foundation where she was responsible for funding women’s studies programs in universities throughout the United States and other countries. At our occasional lunches she casually referred to experiences in Nairobi, Pakistan, Europe, and South America. I also witnessed her emergence as a leader in the American Economics Association, where she was able to bring feminist issues to the fore in a profession dominated by men. In the year 2000 we were both involved in a comparative analysis of women’s progress toward leadership recognition in various professions, ranging from military to corporate. I wrote the section on Women in Labor Unions, and Mariam, on Academic, for a book published by the American Woman. We had fun comparing notes on our findings. (Women do better in achieving leadership roles in academe than in corporations or unions.) Throughout my more than fifty years of knowing Mariam Chamberlain, I never ceased to be amazed—awed—by her any accomplishments in creating lasting institutions and programs for the advancement of women. Always unassuming and laid back, Mariam was a powerhouse who changed our world. Her life of selfless dedication is a role model for us all.

 

From Dr. Debra L. Schultz, “Remarks”

…Because of Mariam, I learned that as a woman, one simply obtained a PhD. I had no role models for this and she demystified it for me. If getting a doctorate in economics at Harvard as the girl child of Armenian immigrants during World War II was no big deal, what did I have to complain about?

Mariam loved being an economist. During our last visit in March, she reminisced about her time as a Radcliffe undergraduate, when her mentor, future Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief, would read the students chapter drafts sent over by John Maynard Keynes! For a moment, I felt her transform into that excited young woman intellectual and it was thrilling.

Averse to the touchy-feeling side of feminism, she nevertheless drew circles of adoring young women around her, by keeping track of our every personal and professional move. I’m proud to have followed in her footsteps to become a feminist in philanthropy—I never knew such a thing existed before Mariam and the Ford stories—and to work with women internationally, which Mariam did decades before it was trendy.

Mariam never seemed to inhabit a particular age, and she also had a slightly naughty twinkle in her eye. Very little got past that eye, even if she pretended not to notice slights or injustices that came her way. Her satisfaction came from supporting, connecting, and catalyzing. When I had the great opportunity to help start the first international women’s program at the Soros Foundation, Mariam told me ruefully that as a program officer, “you give away your best ideas and let others implement them.” She modeled a generous way of empowering others, not aggrandizing herself…

 

Marjorie Lightman, “Remarks”

…Since girlhood Mariam had probably regarded the people and opinions voiced around her with an alienated eye. She certainly set expectations for herself in line with an internal compass. After all, at 18, while her brother chose Boston College she chose Radcliffe.

Mariam often told me that she was fortunate to have always worked in organizations that were young and making their mark on the world. Who would not thrill at Harvard classes reading John Galbraith’s newest works in manuscript; or working at the OSS in Washington during the World War II, when Gen. Wild Bill Donovan brought together “best and the brightest” to outwit the enemy?

Her commitment to elite institutions on the rise never wavered. When she lived in New Haven with her husband, Neil Chamberlain, who was an economist at Yale, she became part of the Yale Growth Center – an economic think tank founded in 1961. After her divorce, she joined the Ford Foundation, which under McGeorge Bundy had the heady atmosphere of new possibilities and the kind of intellectual energy that made risk into an adventure.

Working under Marshall Robinson she became part of Ford’s audacious $40 million investment in reconceiving business education. The plan to effect change in undergraduate business education and to institute an academically acceptable Masters in Business administration privileged large and mostly elite institutions with funding that sometimes dwarfed mere mortals. Rarely have a foundation’s plans been so successful.

By the time women’s clamor for change had reached the ears of Ford in the early 1970s, Mariam had become a skilled program officer and absorbed lessons of success from the business education program. With a pot of money that was approximately ¼ that spent on business education, she sought out nascent organizations that could become long-lasting institutions and anchor women-centered research and education into the future.

She spread her funds among research centers, academic programs, and scrappy grass-roots organization and coalitions. Not surprisingly they included Stanford, Michigan, Wellesley, and two centers at Radcliffe – Schlesinger and the Bunting. However, risk was the nexus of her intellectual landscape. She was, after all, an economist who thought in algebraic equations. The unknown “x” factor was central to her calculations. And it was in this space – between the provable, the probable and the possible – that she made her most original decisions. She believed that the Feminist Press, IWPR, and the National Council for Research on Women would be the institutions of the future.

It was also in this space that our friendship thrived. We had very different kinds of minds and education. We often disagreed. Her conviction that economics was the queen of disciplines was never shaken. She would ask why I spent my time on history, let alone ancient history. Just recite the facts, she would say. I would respond that the facts had different interpretations. She would parry: not if you presented them properly. I liked life lived on the margins. She was unwavering in her conviction that change came through institutions. She wanted data; I insight. We were intellectual sparring partners who never were bored by our exchanges and who never were threatened by our differences…

 

From “Eulogy” by Mary Rubin

…In 1982, Mariam asked me to join her at the Russell Sage Foundation on a book project to examine progress and prospects for women in higher education, a companion assessment to an earlier book by Alice Rossi. Immediately she welcomed me into Russell Sage’s heady atmosphere of notable social scientists, and often invited me to tag along at elegant meals and meetings she hosted for prominent feminists. Today, whenever I invite a guest for lunch at the Harvard Club, I relish following the tradition she established.

Becoming a Resident Scholar at Russell Sage represented a crucial transition in Mariam’s life. She could have chosen to envelope herself in nostalgia for what Ford had enabled her to achieve. But that was never Mariam’s way. Instead, she stayed vigilant for opportunities. She maintained her accessibility to a steady stream of feminist scholars and practitioners who arrived seeking her advice and contacts in the foundation world. In these meetings, I learned to pay as much attention to what she didn’t say as to what she actually said.

Not only did she help me to find my voice in discourse with thinkers who’d completed their doctorates before I was born, she introduced me to Zabar’s coffee beans, elegant Italian leather boots by Galo, and the pleasures of eating only hot fudge sundaes for dinner. I had barely started working for her when she agreed to guarantee the lease on my first-ever apartment—a railroad flat on the Upper East Side with a claw foot bathtub in the kitchen. In characteristic fashion, she shared my delight, while simultaneously withholding her opinion of its truly miniscule size.

No matter how early I arrived at work, or how late I stayed, she was always ensconced in her office; however, she never pressured me to adopt the same schedule. She set high expectations, but rarely criticized. Hers was a quiet form of guiding and shaping. She taught me to listen intently, to ask probing questions, to be steadfast in advocating my perspective. Her goal always was to win others over, never to squash them. When a discussion moved in an unproductive direction, I watched how she lightened the atmosphere by describing a favorite New Yorker cartoon—and then resumed her line of argument. I’m guessing she used this technique frequently while at Ford…

 

Dorothy O. Helly, “Remarks”

I came into Mariam’s orbit in the late 1970s through Marjorie Lightman and the Institute for Research in History. We connected in the following years over a number of shared interests, one in particular being curriculum transformation, first at Hunter College and later among the faculty throughout the City University. She often urged me to “write it up,” for to Mariam, if it was worth doing, it was worth telling others about it. We traveled in the same groups that went to Nairobi and Beijing, and through these years of international women’s studies concerns, I became a “station” on the way for women from abroad seeking information about grants, coming to me at Hunter and being sent by me to Mariam, wherever she was located, from Russell Sage to Roosevelt House to the latest offices of the National Council for Research on Women.

Mariam, Florence, and Helene became a troika in my life as well, and they always surprised me with their delightful hostess gifts at the annual New Year’s party my husband and I gave to celebrate the Millennium and the decade that followed.

Mariam and I met up over the years at the conferences of National Women’s Studies Association and the Berkshire Conference on Women’s History, often having at least one dinner together to discuss whatever was the latest news or just to schmooze. Many times these dinners included at least one other woman, and I listened to their projects being presented to her for help and approval. I remember in particular the dinner with Heidi Hartmann when her policy organization was barely more than a gleam in her eyes.

I also remember being in the same university dormitory in Nairobi and chatting in the hallway before going to bed. We were in the same Swiss-run hotel in Beijing, seeing each other at breakfast and dinner. In other words, Mariam and Women’s Studies were intertwined in my life, a person with whom one could talk about the latest issues, particularly transforming the curriculum and the problems facing the new Ph.D. programs in Women’s Studies. I know that Mariam was an important sounding board for many people. It was a way for them and her to keep up with the latest activities in the field . It also provided a way to tap her suggestions, based on her wide, wide knowledge of who was doing what and, of course, where it might be possible to get project funding.

Mariam’s generosity was open and casually extended. When she had to cancel her trip to Australia for a meeting of the International Congress on Women, she offered me her prepaid room. I accepted, and then, in the same spirit, shared it with another woman who did not have a place to stay. Mariam, of course, wanted a full report when I returned.

We sat together, often literally, on the board of the Feminist Press, and across the table at Parnell’s with people like Marjorie and Blanche Cook. On the trip from Beijing, via Helsinki, we both accepted a $200 bribe from the airline to bump us off our flight to take another one three-hours later. That allowed us time to wander the Helsinki airport, window shopping, and my personal coup was to convince Mariam, who never seemed to buy herself any personal luxury, to purchase a large amber and silver ring. She wore that ring on occasions like Feminist Press and NCRW galas, and she was wearing it the last time I saw her this year. Like so many others, my life was touched by hers, and I have many happy memories by which to remember her.

 

From Lybra Clemons “Eulogy for Mariam”

…After graduate school and years of working at nonprofits, I began working at the National Council for Research on Women (the Council) in 2003. My office was next door to Mariam’s….

Towards the end, it was quite interesting to see Mariam. She had good days and not so great days. I have to say that her unpredictability was somewhat entertaining. I wonder if she was doing this for us….just to keep us on our toes and to get a giggle every now and then.

Honestly – I would walk in the door of Parnells (her favorite restaurant), and wonder what decade Mariam thought she was in today. Sometimes it was 1972….. and all of her stories would center around that decade. Then it was 1935…… But – we indulged her.

Again –there were days when Mariam was so sharp, that I felt downright stupid and couldn’t keep up. If you had not read and/or analyzed Paul Krugman, she was not amused.

One of our last outings together at Parnells was particularly interesting. Mariam, Gwen, Joan and I dined with Mariam and observed her becoming more concerned with the “lack of men”. She kept saying “where are the men?”… and pointing to people at Parnell’s. She would see a man and say “there’s a man”. Clearly she wanted to make sure we included men…. Well, I think that was the point. I love Mariam dearly, but for whatever reason she wanted to see, meet, engage, or possibly hang out with men – I knew that Parnell’s was likely the last place that we should look for sourcing these types of men. But – the point was well taken….

 

From “Remarks” by Helene Goldfarb

Good evening. My name is Helene Goldfarb and I am the President of the Feminist Press at CUNY. I am here to speak of Mariam as a friend for many years but also as a very important part of who the Feminist Press was and what it has become over the years because of her nurturing and caring. Mariam, who was a Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, was one of the first to make a grant to the Feminist Press. It was for $12,000 for Who’s Who and Where in Women Studies. Interestingly, she wouldn’t let us use computers because she “didn’t want to become involved with us” but she changed her mind and introduced us to Terry Saario also at Ford who gave us our first large grant for the “Women and Work” high school series. Mariam continued her interest in the Press and gave us a small grant to bring five women to Copenhagen in 1980 and to organize two weeks of workshops and panels on women’s studies.

Even after she left Ford in 1982, Mariam’s interest in the Press never flagged. She became a very active member of the Board of Directors of the Press and remained on our board until she passed away last month. While she was not as active as she would have liked to be this past year or so, whenever Florence and I met her for dinner at Parnell’s, the Press was always on her mind. I miss those dinners at Parnell’s and Sunday is a little lonelier for the lack of them.

It is always a little difficult to express thanks publically for the many years she contributed not only expertise to the Press but also donations. Without her support, our Galas would not have been as successful and we certainly would not have been able to print many of the books that are found in bookstores today…

 

Heidi Hartmann

Mariam Chamberlain was a cherished adviser to myself and to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. She was a founding member and a generous supporter from its inception in 1987. She served 18 years on our Board of Directors. She was knowledgeable and wise about the ways of foundations, and while she was unfailingly encouraging and supportive, I learned to pay attention to the rare instances in which she expressed skepticism about the likelihood of getting funding for some particular project or other. More often her suggestions of where to go and whom to meet with led to productive relationships for IWPR. She understood that nonprofits would actually sometimes have negative profits, and I recall one instance when several of IWPR’s board members were a bit agitated about a couple of years in the red in a row, when she said something like, “aren’t deficits normal for nonprofits?” and then she lent us funds so we could pay our bills until some expected grants arrived. Her general view seemed to be that if an endeavor was worthwhile it might go through some ups and downs but it would prove its worth in the long run. And she was in it for the long run.

Mariam and I both studied economics at similar institutions and knew many of the same people and, despite the difference of a generation, had had some of the same experiences in being a small minority in a male-dominated field. I believe I first met Mariam at a business meeting of the American Economics Association, probably in the early 1980s when a group of progressive members was trying to pass a set of resolutions. My cohort was sitting together, and when our resolutions would come up we would all raise our hands while the rest of the hands remained down, except for one, a small, older, very professional-looking woman. The content and the outcome of the motions are long forgotten, but I recall Mariam like it was yesterday. That event provided a hint of the deep and abiding radicalism that was Mariam.

I got to know Mariam better at the 1987 NWSA meetings held at Spellman College when we, both being frugal, stayed in the dorms and asked them to assign us a roommate and we got each other. Just then in the process of forming IWPR, I shared my dreams for IWPR and we shared some personal stories in late night discussions. My mother is virtually the same age as Mariam and came to America on her own in 1938, and so I like Mariam was an immigrant daughter. And like her I rose up from poverty through getting good grades and earning a scholarship to a top school. Perhaps because Mariam was so much like my mother (both very smart, courageous, kind, and persistent), I thought of Mariam as my intellectual mother, an intellectual version of my own working-class mother.

Mariam loved IWPR because we use economics to advance women and she knew how much difference having numbers makes in the policy world. She loved being part of that world through IWPR. She valued the fellowship we named after her in 2001. IWPR typically funds a young woman en route to graduate school to work at IWPR for an academic year to learn practical research skills in a policy setting. More than 100 young people apply every year, and thousands of graduating students learn about Mariam and the opportunity to use social science to help achieve social justice. I am very pleased to let you know that Mary Rubin and the Borrego Foundation have generously provided IWPR with a challenge grant of $95,000 to honor Mariam’s 95 years by expanding our Mariam K. Chamberlain fellowship to give an opportunity to a second fellow each year.

Mariam’s choice to recognize the Feminist Press, the National Council for Research on Women, and IWPR in her will reflects her lifelong commitment to the radical idea of considering women fully human. Many of us here share that commitment and share our love of Mariam….

 

Image Sources:  Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain from Radcliffe Yearbook, 1939 and New York Times obituary (April 7, 2013).

 

Categories
Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Economics Christmas skit with basketball theme, 1961

 

Spoiler alert: you are about to encounter one of the least funny economics skits in the history of the genre, so this artifact is regrettably low on entertainment value.  Still the six acts have a certain seven-acts-of-man structure: Act I (the department recruits), Act II ( advising the first-year student), Act III (graduate student complaints), Act IV (choosing guest speakers), Act V (general examinations), Act VI (job market). 

After reading the skit, you might need a palate cleansing or better: for that purpose here are a few links to the key word “Funny Business” at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror that take you to some of the greatest hits of economics skits.

____________________

ANOTHER TWO POINTS FOR THE FACULTY,
ANOTHER FOUL ON THE STUDENTS

A Christmas Drama (with suggestions for a cast), December 15, 1961

ACT I

(The curtain rises on a scene of [Edgar Cary] Brown, [Franklin Marvin] Fisher, [Charles Poor] Kindleberger and [Abraham J.] Siegel seated around a table reading applications.

SIEGEL: Here’s a guy who may be OK…No…the place is no good. A cow college. They average only 50 points a game.

BROWN:  Here’s a good one.

FISHER: What’s his record?

BROWN: Pretty darn good. Worth at least tuition plus $500. Maybe $750.

FISHER: What’s his record?

BROWN: Pretty darn good. He’s from Podunk. And they’re pretty good. He was the best they had.

FISHER: How did he score, for crying out loud?

BROWN: He’s six-feet-five, weighs 195 pounds, and fast; he averaged 23.7 points a game. He has a great set shot, never misses from the foul line, and superb off the backboard. He’s just what we need in Graduate Economics at M.I.T.

 

ACT II

(An office: Siegel is advising a student.)

SIEGEL: For the first year I would take pretty standard fare: theory, history, statistics, finance, and international, plus of course the workshop. There’s no use trying to take too much. Pace yourself.

STUDENT (perhaps [Stephen Herbert] Hymer?): I don’t have much math. Why do I need to take statistics?

SIEGEL: Ando is very good. He doesn’t always make things completely clear, but you have to take statistics if you want to be able to handle averages, to work out the point per game and point per shot records; and you need probability to help compute odds on all the league games. Statistics is a must.

STUDENT: Why the history, finance and international?

SIEGEL: International is important. You ought to know how to schedule the Harlem Globetrotters, and who has the best chance in the Olympics. One of our best graduates played on the Oxford team against Poland and Czechoslovakia. That was Chuck Cooper, and it got him a job as Walter Heller’s assistant at the Council. Finance is important. When the gamblers start bribing players you need to know how to invest the funds. And history is vital. On the general exams they always ask who was James Naismith, the man who invented basketball. That’s for every student. The good students they ask when it was invented…of course 1891. And the very best students they ask where…past, Springfield, Mass. Remember, it’s not Springfield, Illinois. That’s Abe Lincoln.

STUDENT: OK. But tell me about the last one.

SIEGEL: Theory isn’t much. [Paul Anthony] Samuelson teaches about how to make inputs for two points, and when to dribble.

STUDENT: Samuelson teaches drivel?

 

ACT III

(A group of students, griping.)

STUDENT 1 (Francis Michel Bator?): This place is no good. It’s theory, theory, theory all the way. Anyone knows that the way to win at basketball is to practice. Practice makes perfect. Theory makes perfect fools. All you do is study and take exams. “Who was James Naismith? Who was Adam Yea-Smith? When do you chop down the tree?” Bah! I say we ought to study policy. With a two-point lead and three minutes to go, should you freeze the ball or plop in an input for an output of two points?

STUDENT 2 ([Paul Narcyz] Rosenstein-Rodan?): They tell me [Robert Merton] Solow has been converted from theory to policy. He is no longer interested in questions like whether the best set shot is an inverted rectangular parabola, but real issues, like the queuing problem: how many substitutes does a team need to field five men for an hour, with one personal foul every six minutes and four personal fouls per man disqualifying. If you have too many players on the bench you get unemployment. The team needs growth. Maybe you ought to add a man and play six.

STUDENT 3 ([Robert] Evans?): What’s bad is to have to play far away from the Sloan building. Those workshops on top on Walker and over in the Armory are OK, but they are too far away. We need the Ford Foundation to give us a workshop right here.

STUDENT 1: Haven’t you heard? The talk is that the new building to go up in the back lot is a library. But as I see its dimensions unfold- 90 feet by 50 – and transparent backboards and netting and grandstands, I can’t believe it’s a library. It must be a basketball court.

 

ACT IV

(A meeting of the G.E.A.)

RALPH BULL (played by [Robert Lyle] Bishop?): Do any of you fellows have suggestions for speakers besides Cousy, Russell, Jungle Jim Lusketoff, and that 6.8 outstanding economist, [John Kenneth] Galbraith, who can stand with his head coming up through the basket?

STUDENT B: What about Milton Friedman? He is under the five feet which some say is the minimum allowable in a monetary theorist, but he sure is good at the far-fetched shot.

STUDENT B: Why not get Clifford Odets?

RALPH BULL: Clifford Odets? Why him?

STUDENT B: Don’t you remember the famous line in “Awake and Sing”? “My brother Sam joined the Navy. He don’t know from nothin’, that dumb basketball player.” I want to know whether the emphasis is “that dumb basketball player” or “the [sic] dumb basketball player”. Are there any smart basketball players?

 

ACT V

KINDLEBERGER: As chairman of this exam, let me tell you that you have the right to pick the order of your exam. Do you want to start with Theory, or Statistics?

STUDENT (Samuelson?): I think I’ll start by jumping against Fisher, your professorship, sir. Ando’s the smaller, so I’ll take him last when I’m tired.

KINDLEBERGER: All right. (Student and Fisher face each other. Kindleberger blows whistle and throws imaginary ball. Cheers of amazement from faculty.)

FISHER: Very well. I have decided to let you combine Theory and Economic History.

STUDENT: Hey, Ref, your Ph.D.ship, sir, I’m not responsible for History. Isn’t that a foul?

KINDLEBERGER: I didn’t see nuthin’.

FISHER: Consider the population explosion of the last 150 years. Discuss the relative roles of (a) men and (b) women in this affair.

ANDO [Albert Keinosuke] : Good shot. That’s two points for our side.

STUDENT: I don’t know that, your cap-and-gownship, sir, but I know the roles are neither reflexive, symmetric, or transitive.

KINDLEBERGER: (blows whistle) Foul. You used big words in a generals. That’s only permitted the faculty.

FISHER: I’ll give Albert my free throw.

ANDO: (taking the foul shot) Please discuss the role of the nearly decomposable take-off in the application of a priori oligopoly theory to the A&P case.

STUDENT: Hey! You guys are ganging up on me.

ANDO: Well, you outnumber us in class.

STUDENT: (driving hard for basket) It can be set up as a nine-dimensional matrix problem and the latent roots dispensed with. I think the take-off is fine if done along the turnpike, watching out for model changes in passing cars.

ANDO: Fantastic! (Faculty huddle.)

KINDLEBERGER: That was a good answer. We’ve decided to give you an Excellent minus for being a good scorer, but to ask you to leave the Institute for fouling out on personals.

KINDLEBERGER, ANDO, FISHER: Rah, team!

 

ACT VI

DOMAR [Evsey David]: Well, you have the degree wrapped up, and now want a job. Not bad. You got a good grade on the orals, and would have gotten a top grade if you hadn’t thought that Stilt Chamberlain played for the Celtics and failed to distinguish Slippery Sam Jones from Casey Jones. Your thesis was entirely satisfactory, on a good topic: How to Get to the Boston Garden from Madison Square Garden: An Application of the Turnpike Theorem. And you even did languages: basketball communication in the Ivy League, or basketball with a broad A. Now the job. What do you think? Big Ten? Ivy League? Small liberal arts? Girls’ rules like Wellesley or Vassar? Or maybe the real big time: Kentucky, Long Island University, St. Joseph’s in Brooklyn, Notre Dame. L.I.U. is to economics like M.I.T. was to economics.

STUDENT (perhaps [Max Franklin] Millikan?): I don’t now if I’m ready for the Big Time.

DOMAR: What about applying some of your basketballmetrics for the government? They need our graduates. Or for an oil company. Maybe you would like to take a ball and a whistle and go abroad, demonstrating technical assistance to underdeveloped countries. There are jobs like that.

STUDENT: No. I guess I’m fussy. What I’d like is just what all the gang would like, to stay here at Cambridge with Harvard and the Celtics, and to referee like you and [Robert Lyle] Bishop and Samuelson, always blowing off your whistle and shouting foul, going first class to conferences, and shouting foul, foul, foul at the students.

 

Source:  M.I.T. Archives. MIT Department of Economics records, Box 2, Folder “GEA 1961-67”.

Image Source:  Boston Celtics players Tom Heinsohn, Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman and Frank Ramsey in 1960. “Twelve of the greatest Celtics players of all time”  from Boston.com website (March 18, 2018)

 

Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Contemporary U.S. Economic History Seminar. Galbraith, 1973

 

 

Not really sure what was actually behind Galbraith giving up his “big course in the Social Sciences” for a cozy post-lunch seminar on Galbraith and the middle-two quarters of the twentieth century U.S. economic history. It seems that you could count the reasons on the middle finger of his right hand. But maybe it reveals nothing more nor less than a desire to simply reduce his teaching obligations to a delightful minimum. Still, not uninteresting to see how John Kenneth Galbraith chose to spend his Wednesday afternoons with a couple dozen Harvard undergraduates nearly a half century ago.

________________

March 16, 1973

Professor and Mrs. R. Paul Levine
Co-Masters, Currier House
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Ursula and Paul:

I’ve given up my big course in the Social Sciences and I’m going to give a smaller seminar in contemporary economic history. Unfortunately there are some reasons why the Department wishes that this be an Economics course—it is something of a problem that, in recent years, my courses have been outside the Department. I wonder, however, if I might schedule it over in Currier House, and I wonder whether, as a further idea, it might be possible to schedule it, say, at 2:00 p.m. on a Wednesday, with the understanding that I would meet beforehand with any students who would like to join me for lunch. I propose to limit the attendance to 20 or 25—always assuming that many want to take it—so the congestion would not be too great. Perhaps you would let me have your thoughts.

Meanwhile my best to you both.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:mjh
cc: James S. Duesenberry

________________

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Economics 2365. Seminar: The United States Since the Great Depression
Professor John Kenneth Galbraith

The Crash and the Slump. The reputable view of cause and cure in the current economic orthodoxy. The collapse of banks, utilities, railroads. The agricultural crisis. Unemployment and the old labor movement. Roosevelt and the rationale of the recovery program. The process of recovery and the impact of Keynes. Radicalism and the rise of the CIO. The approach of World War II. The nature of the wartime economic mobilization. The transition to peace and the rise of economic evangelism. The Fifties and the economics of euphoria. The high tide of the New Economics. The new orthodoxy and the role of conditioned irrelevance.

Half course (fall term). Wednesday, 2-4 p.m.
For Graduates and Qualified Undergraduates. Enrollment limited as necessary.

________________

ECONOMICS 2365
AUTUMN TERM 1973-74
PROFESSOR JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

MEETINGS: This course will meet on Wednesday afternoons. Each week at 1:00 there will be an informal lunch in the Currier House private dining room. Class will be from 2:00 to 4:00 in the Currier House Binghem Room. There will be no meeting on Wednesday, November 21st. The course will observe the reading period.

REQUIREMENTS: The major course requirement is a twenty-five page paper due on January 14, 1974. It should develop critically one or another of the subjects discussed in the course. It is expected that the paper will display an understanding of the material presented in class and in the readings; unfamiliarity with relevant lectures and readings, however concealed or explained, will be adversely scored. Each student is to submit the proposed title of his paper by November 21st. Office hours will be arranged in early November for that purpose.

PREREQUISITES: There are no formal prerequisites.

 *  *  *  *  *

I. INTRODUCTION (Sept. 26)

II. THE GREAT CRASH AND ITS CAUSES (Oct. 3)

J. K. Galbraith, The Great Crash 1929

III. THE NATURE OF THE DEPRESSION: DOMESTIC ASPECTS (Oct. 10)

L. Chandler, America’s Great Depression 1929-1941, Chapters 1-7.

IV. THE NATURE OF THE DEPRESSION: WORLD ASPECTS (Oct. 17)

A. Lewis, Economic Survey 1919-1939

V. THE LOGIC OF THE RECOVERY PROGRAM: I (Oct. 24)

A. Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, Chapters 1-10

VI. THE LOGIC OF THE RECOVERY PROGRAM: II (Oct. 31)

A. Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal, Chapters 16-25.

VII. THE IMPACT OF KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS (Nov. 7)

J. K. Galbraith, “How Keynes Came to America,” in Economics, Peace, and Laughter. ***
R. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, Chapter 9—“The Heresies of John Maynard Keynes.”
M. Stewart, Keynes and After, Chapters 4, 6, 11, 12.

VIII: THE NATURE OF WARTIME ECONOMIC MOBILIZATION (Nov. 14)

J. K. Galbraith, A Theory of Price Control
W. K. Hancock, British War Economy, chapters 11, 12, 17 ***

IX. THE NATURE OF WARTIME ECONOMIC MOBILIZATION: THE COMPARATIVE BRITISH AND GERMAN ORGANIZATION (Nov. 28)

B. Klein, Germany’s Economic Preparation for War, (Omit statistical appendix)

X. CRITIQUE OF THE NEW ECONOMICS (Dec. 5)

J. K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society, Chapters 9-25.

XI. THE ECONOMICS OF THE COLD WAR AND VIETNAM (Dec. 12)

P. B. Baran and P. M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, Chapter 7—“The Absorption of Surplus: Militarism and Imperialism.”
G. W. Domoff, “Who Made American Foreign Policy 1945-1963.” ***
J. D. Phillips, “Economic Effects of the Cold War.” ***
R. Eisner, “The War and the Economy.” ***

XII. INFLATION AND THE PRESENT CRISIS (Dec. 19)

J. K. Galbraith, “Inflation.”
B. Bosworth, “The Current Inflation: Malign Neglect” in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1973. ***
M. Ulmer, The Welfare State, Chapter 4—“The Anatomy of Inflation and Unemployment.” ***

All of these readings are required. Unless otherwise indicated, the entire book should be read. Readings which are in xeroxed form as well as in book form are marked with a triple asterisk***. Copies of all readings are on reserve in Lamont, Hilles, and Littauer libraries.

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers.  Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 522, Folder “Economics 294: Spring term, 1968 (2 of 2) [sic]”.

Image Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. Biographical Profile: John Kenneth Galbraith.

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
Harvard Radical Seminar Speakers Suggested Reading

Harvard. Critical Spirit in Economics, Grad student symposium, 1968

 

Fished out of miscellaneous items filed chronologically under the label “Harvard University Department of Economics” in John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers is the following early outline for a symposium organized by the Graduate Economics Club for the month of May, 1968. Faculty were invited to join in the discussions by the president of the Graduate Economics Club, David M. Gordon (New York Times obituary: March 19, 1996). I have yet to confirm whether any or all of the four Friday afternoon sessions actually took place. John Kenneth Galbraith sent his regrets less than a week before a session that was to consider the reception of the New Industrial State. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis were on the program that also included Hilary Putnam, a philosopher of science.

_______________________

Dear faculty member,

The Graduate Economics Club is sponsoring a series of discussion during the month of May, emphasizing certain broad questions of critical perspective in economic theory.

It is our hope that these discussions will initiate and promote an open discussion and exchange of ideas among students and faculty.

Enclosed you will find an outline of the first few of these round-table discussion. Central to the success of these discussions is the participation of the faculty. We cordially invite your attendance.

All meetings will be held in Littauer, the room to be announced.

Sincerely,

Graduate Economics Club,
Dave Gordon, Pres.

_______________________

THE CRITICAL SPIRIT IN ECONOMICS

  1. The Myth of an Objective Economics: The Separation of Positive and Normative Thought.
    Friday, May 3, 2:00 – 4:00.

    1. The Ideological Element in Conceptualization and Model-Building: Professor Hilary Putnam.
      Professor Putnam, a philosopher of science and logician at Harvard, will speak on the contributions of T. S. Kuhn and Karl Popper, after which the discussion will be opened to the group.
      Readings are (starred items are most important):

      1. *T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, esp. chap. 2, 4, 10, 12, 13. (72 pages)
      2. *Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, I, II; esp. pp. 27-30, 32-34, 40-42.
      3. *Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Author’s Preface (Xerox, pp. 9-15).
      4. *Milton Friedman, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics.
      5. Stephen Toulman, The Philosophy of Science, chap. 2, pp. 17-56.
      6. Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, chap. 2, pp. 18-32.
      7. Pratt, Raiffa and Schlaiffer, Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory, Appendix A3, esp. A3.4.
    2. Examples from Economic Literature: These readings are meant to illustrate points made in the above readings:
      1. *Roy Harrod, “Scope and Method in Economics”, Economic Journal, Sept., 1938.
      2. *Oscar Lange, “Marxian Economics and Modern Economic Thought”, Review of Economic Studies, June, 1935.
      3. *Robert Solow, “Son of Affluence”, The Public Interest, Fall, 1967.
      4. *Robin Marris, review of Galbraith’s New Industrial State, Am. Econ Review, March, 1968, pp. 240-247.
  2. Paradigms in Development Economics
    Friday, May 10, 2:00 – 4:00

    1. Tensions, Preferences and Economic Development: Sherman Robinson.
      1. *Sherman Robinson, “Tensions, Preferences and Development”, Xerox in Littauer Library.
      2. *Gunnar Myrdal, Prologue to Vol. I of Asian Drama.
    2. Development paradigms
      1. *H. Chenery, “Comparative Advantage and Development Policy”, AER, March, 1961. Reprinted in Surveys of Economic Theory, AEA
      2. *Paul Baran, “On the Political Economy of Backwardness”, in Agarwala and Singh
      3. Gunnar Myrdal, Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, chap. 2, “The Principle of Circular and Cumulative Causation,” and chap. 6, “National State Policies in Under-Developed Countries.”
    3. The Relevance of Economic Theory to Economic Development: Prof. Samuel Bowles.
      1. *Gunnar Myrdal, op. cit., chap. 4, “The Role of the State” and chap. 5 “International Inequalities”
      2. *Hla Myint, “Classical Theory of International Trade and the Underdeveloped Countries”, Economic Journal, June 1958, reprinted in Readings in Economic Development, T. Morgan, 1963.
      3. Hla Myint, “The Gains from International Trade and the Backward Countries”, REStud., 1954-55, pp. 29-42.
      4. Mason, Economic Planning in Underdeveloped Areas, chap. 2, sections 2, 5.
      5. Lenin, Imperialism.
      6. *Hobson, The Evolution of Modern Capitalism, chap. X, sections 9, 10.
      7. *Aron, Peace and War, Part II, chap. IX, “On Resources”, pp. 243-278.
  1. Welfare Economics and the Value of Efficiency Criteria: Herb Gintis.
    May 17, Friday, 2:00 – 4:00
    Professor A. Bergson has kindly agreed to participate.
    Readings to be Announced.
  1. The Role of the State in Economic Theory
    Friday, May 24, 2:00 – 4:00.
    Speakers and readings to be announced.

_______________________

Carbon Copy of Galbraith’s response

April 29, 1968

Mr. Dave Gordon
Graduate Economics Club
Littauer Center M-8

Dear Mr. Gordon:

Unhappily I will be in Italy on May 3rd, so I will not be able to attend the round-table discussion on that day. I am sorry.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

 

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

Image Source: David M. Gordon in Harvard Class Album, 1964.

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”.

 

Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Undergraduate microeconomics reading list. Marglin, 1969-70

 

 

In the year after being granted tenure at Harvard, Stephen A. Marglin taught an undergraduate microeconomics course to which he invited Professors Galbraith, Arrow, Gintis and Dorfman for a discussion with his students. He included a copy of his reading list in his invitation to Galbraith which are both transcribed below. 

Marglin’s biography was featured in a few Harvard Crimson articles over the years (the common theme to these articles is “What’s a nice radical economist like you doing in a place like this?”): May 12, 1975; March 12, 1980 ; May 21, 1982 ; June 1, 2009.

 

____________________________________

Invitation from Marglin to Galbraith to participate in a discussion with his microeconomics students in January 1970

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Stephen A. Marglin
Professor of Economics

1737 Cambridge Street, Room 410
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 868-7600 Ext. 3759

December 19, 1969

Professor J. Kenneth Galbraith
Littauer Center 207
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Dear Ken:

The “confrontation” you kindly agreed to participate in for the benefit of Ec 20 and Ec 21 students has been fixed for Friday January 9, 1970 2-4 PM, in Emerson 105. In addition to yourself Ken Arrow and Herb Gintis have agreed to participate. Bob Dorfman, who teaches Ec 21, has agreed to help guide the discussion.

The meeting will rely heavily on students’ questions, but not completely. To get the ball rolling, I am working with my section-men to prepare questions that they will ask in the beginning. These will hopefully elicit from each of your short statements on the issues we believe to be most important. I expect these questions and your answers will occupy the first 45 minutes or so of the meeting, with the rest of the time for the students.

I am enclosing a copy of the reading list to give you an idea of the scope and depth of the course. I appreciate very much your willingness to participate in this meeting. I expect it will be extremely worthwhile for my students, the teaching fellows, and for me personally.

Yours sincerely,
[Signed: “Steve”]
Stephen A. Marglin

cc: Robert Dorfman
SM:lw
(enclosure)

____________________________________

Harvard University
Economics 20a
Microeconomic Theory

Fall 1969-70
Professor Marglin

Reading List I

  1. Consumption
    1. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, pp. 29-50
    2. Baumol, Economic Theory and Operations Analysis, (2nd edition), pp. 169-202
  2. Production
    1. Dorfman, The Price System, pp. 14-42
    2. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, pp. 109-147
    3. Dorfman, “Mathematical or ‘Linear’ Programing: A Nonmathematical Exposition,” reprinted in Kamerschen, Readings in Microeconomics, (abbreviated DRK henceforth), pp. 547-576
    4. Coase, “The Nature of the Firm,” reprinted in Boulding and Spivey, AEA Readings in Price Theory, (henceforth abbreviated AEA), pp. 331-351
  3. Competitive Markets
    1. Dorfman, The Price System, pp. 76-88
    2. Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” reprinted in DRK, pp. 197-228, and in AEA, pp. 198-232
  4. Restricted Competition
    1. Sraffa, “The Laws of Returns Under Competitive Conditions,” reprinted in AEA, pp. 180-197
    2. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, pp. 319-337, 373-396
    3. Dorfman, The Price System, pp. 89-104
    4. Modigliani, “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” DRK, pp. 355-378
  5. Capital and Interest
    1. Fisher, The Theory of Interest, pp. 61-287
    2. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, pp. 189-216
    3. Duesenberry, Business Cycles and Economic Growth, pp. 49-133
  6. General Equilibrium
    1. Dorfman, The Price System, pp. 105-125
    2. Lange and Taylor, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, pp. 59-129
  7. Welfare
    1. Dorfman, The Price System, pp. 126-146
    2. Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition, pp. 338-370
    3. Bator, “The Simple Analytics of Welfare Economics,” reprinted in DRK, pp. 503-544
  8. Income Distribution
    1. Budd (editor), Inequality and Poverty, Introduction
    2. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ch. 5 (“Of Property”)
    3. Clark, J.B., The Distribution of Wealth, ch. 1
    4. Budd (editor), Inequality and Poverty, Part 1, pp. 1-49
  9. Criticisms of Conventional Theory
    1. Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, ch. 2, 4, and 5
    2. Galbraith, The Affluent Society, ch. 10 and 11.
    3. Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, Skim Book 1; read Book IV more carefully.
    4. Nordquist, “The Break up of the Maximization Principle,” reprinted in DRK pp. 278-295
    5. Veblen, “The Limitations of Marginal Utility,” reprinted in Mitchell (editor), What Veblen Taught, pp. 151-175
    6. Cohen and Cyert, Theory of the Firm, pp. 329-351
    7. Simon,” A Behavioral Model of Economic Choice,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955 (omit appendix). Reprinted in Simon, Models of Man, pp. 241-256
    8. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, pp. 1-36, 108-160
    9. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Part II, pp. 61-163
    10. Galbraith, The New Industrial State
    11. Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital
    12. Rawls, “Distributive Justice”, pp. 58-72, 79-82

 

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

Image Source: Stephen A. Marglin from Harvard Crimson June 1, 2009.