Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. The School of Chicago 1972 by Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977). IDs by Gordon, McCloskey & Grossbard

The 1500th artifact added to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror deserves to be a celebratory post for visitors. For this honor I have chosen a  pastiche drawn by a Chicago economics graduate student in 1972. Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977) was the principal, if not only, illustrator for the student-produced satirical publication P.H.A.R.T., an issue of which has been transcribed for an earlier post.

I first saw a copy of Roger Vaughan’s reworking of Raphael’s “School of Athens” added to a photo from a Tweet of a few years back. At that time it did not occur to me to engage in a serious search for the backstory to the drawing. And yet, serendipity turned out to be kind to me when, on a visit to the Harvard Archives last year, I stumbled upon a folded, mint-condition copy of  Vaughan’s “The School of Chicago 1972” in the papers of Zvi Griliches. Of course I had this masterpiece of economics funny business copied and it now has pride of place in my home study.

A few identifications of the figures seen in “The School of Chicago 1972” are obvious (e.g. Milton Friedman and George Stigler, duh) and others could be identified from other Vaughan caricatures that likewise are found in Griliches’ papers (e.g. Marc Nerlove, Stan Fischer, and Robert J. Gordon). Still, most of the renderings remained unidentified. My first idea was to seek out the artist himself, but alas I could only confirm that he had passed in October 2021. The next idea was to seek a living eye-witness to the Chicago economics department of a half-century ago. Here I was luckier, the Stanley G. Harris Professor in the Social Sciences at Northwestern University, Robert J. Gordon, responded to my inquiry almost immediately and as quickly forwarded my request for further information to Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Deirdre McCloskey, for her confirmation and further commentary. Following the initial posting of this artifact, Professor Shoshana Grossbard of San Diego State University spotted a few misspelled names (mea culpa), but, more importantly, was able to identify Margaret Reid by her beret(!).We can all be grateful to these colleagues for their identifications provided below. There remains one unidentified man in the back-row standing to George Stigler’s left plus a couple of yet-to-be identified graduate students. Peeps, Economic in the Rear-view Mirror needs your help! You can leave comments at the end of this post.

___________________________________

About the artist, Roger Vaughan

From his 1981 AEA Biographical Listing, p. 421

Vaughan, Roger J, 421 Hudson St., Apt. 406, New York, NY 10014. Birth Yr: 1946

Degrees: B.A., U. of Oxford, 1968; M.A., Simon Fraser U., 1970; Ph.D. U. of Chicago, 1977. Prin. Cur. Position: Dep.Dir., Off. Of Develop. Planning, State of New York, 1980-

Concurrent/Past Positions: Econ., Citibank, 1978-80; Econ. The Rand Corp. 1974-78. Research: Urban Policy, finance, taxation training.

Roger J. Vaughan’s Rand Reports,
1974-1980

• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 1, Overview 1980
• Federal Activities in Urban Economic Development 1979
• Recent Contributions to the Urban Policy Debate 1979
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 4, Population and Residential Location 1979
• Assessment of Countercyclical Public Works and Public Service Employment Programs. 1978
• Regional Cycles and Employment Effects of Public Works Investments. 1977
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 2, Economic Development 1977
• The value of urban open space 1977
• The Economics of Urban Blight. 1976
• Getting People to Parks. 1976
• Public Works as a Countercyclical Device: A Review of the Issues 1976
• The Use of Subsidies in the Production of Cultural Services. 1976
• The Application of Economic Analysis to the Planning and Development of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 1975
• The Economics of Expressway Noise Pollution Abatement. 1975
• The Economics of Recreation: A Survey. 1974

Source: Rand Reports. Published Research by Author, Roger J. Vaughan.

Sage. Research Methods.

Communicating Social Science Research to Policymakers
By: Roger J. Vaughan & Terry F. Buss
Published: 1998
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983686

___________________________________

Raphael’s Scuola di Atene (1509-1511)

For some explanation of what we see in the original, cf. “The Story Behind Raphael’s Masterpiece ‘The School of Athens'” by Jessica Stewart at the Modern Met Website.

___________________________________

Roger Vaughan’s Pastiche

Open the image in a new window to see a larger image

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129. Folder “Posters, ca. 1960s-1970s”.

Background

The statues standing in the upper alcove are of the President and Vice-President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon (holding a lyre, a sweet visual pun) and Spiro T. Agnew (with the pennant “Effete Snobs”, abridged from his description of self-characterized intellectuals as an “effete core of impudent snobs” in his  “Generation Gap” speech given in New Orleans on October 19th, 1969.)

1126” refers to the street address of the Social Science Research Building, 1126 E. 59th St.

MV=PT” inscribed in the center of the dome is the Equation of Exchange (cf. Irving Fisher’s The Purchasing Power of Money). Cf. at the left of the back-row of Chicago economists, Arnold Zellner is carrying papers with “MV=PY“. Milton Friedman’s vanity license plates on his red cadillac used “MV=PQ” for the Equation of Exchange. Everyone seems to have agreed on the notational virtues of “M”, “V”, and “P”. Does anyone know whether there was any substantive reason for differences regarding the choice of “T”, “Y”, and “Q” for the final term?

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Though his arm is blocking part of the equation, Zellner is clearly displaying the equation of exchange, MV = PY.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Underneath Nixon is Marc Nerlove pointing into the ear, by the way of insult, of Hans Theil the great Dutch econometrician (the four great econometricians at Chicago, which had included Zvi Griliches, who had just moved to Harvard, hated each other).”

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Robert J. Gordon served as an editor of the Journal of Political Economy (J.P.E.) from 1971-1973.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Stigler’s position corresponds to that of Aristotle’s in Raphael’s fresco. There Aristotle holds a copy of his own Nicomachean Ethics. Stigler is seen here holding a book by [Adam] Smith, presumably Wealth of Nations.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “George Tolley [is] in a garbage can because he did urban economics (Vaughan was his student).”

Shoshana Grossbard’s comment: “[Margaret Reid]…not only [wore] the dark beret, but also [has] her hair in a bun, under the beret. that was her typical look. She and I attended Becker’s workshop in applications of economics in the years 1974-76.”

And guess what a casual search just turned up…

Margaret Gilpin Reid, professor emeritus of Home Economics and Economics

Source:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07052, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror’s comment: On the high-resolution hard-copy hanging on my study wall, the beret looks sort of like an ink blot and I regreted that imperfection. But now, thanks to Shoshana Grossbard’s careful observation combined with her memory of Reid’s “typical look” and an archival sighting of said beret, I am convinced and grateful that we now have another positive identification!

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “D. Gale Johnson…has a pitchfork because he was an agricultural economist. ”

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: Ted Schultz […] is pointing down to say “This is where the true Chicago School is, where I am!”.

Foreground

The identification of Robert F. Pollard was made by Roger Vaughan’s work and life partner, Anna Nechai.

 

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “…Dick Zecher [is] sticking his finger through an IBM card because he was in charge of the Department’s mainframe computer access.”

Another visual pun: Harry Johnson is portrayed writing on a literal Edgeworth-Bowley-box, a two-dimensional representation of allocations that could be Pareto efficient exchange equilibria. The two tradeable goods are measured in Edgeworth and Bowley units, respectively.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Mary Jean Bowman, one of two tenured women in a small department; she did educational and demographic economics.  The other woman was Margaret Reid, the inventor of household economics…”

The triangle seen in the previous detail is Arnold Harberger’s measure of deadweight loss (efficiency cost resulting from a natural or policy induced distortion of markets).  See Robert J. Gordon’s historical photo of Al Harberger stripping down to reveal himself as “Triangleman” ca. December 1970. In Raphael’s fresco Harberger’s place was that of Euclid.

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “I think the bearded student is Dan Wisecarver

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “The woman holding the ball is Carolyn Mosby, the head of the department staff.”

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Northwestern

Northwestern. Robert J. Gordon selling Graduate Economics Program, 1977

 

The following soft-smile-hard-sell advertisement directed to potential applicants for the graduate economics program at Northwestern University was found in the economics department records of M.I.T. These notes were written by M.I.T. Ph.D. (1967) Robert J. Gordon who was then serving as the director of graduate admissions in economics for Northwestern in 1977-78. Gordon had been appointed professor of economics at Northwestern in 1973. This document provides a fascinating comparative glimpse of economics programs and locations as seen at that time.

Pro-tip:  Robert J. Gordon has shared his personal archive of “Photos of Economists”  on-line.

___________________

INFORMAL NOTES ON GRADUATE ECONOMICS AT NORTHWESTERN

Robert J. Gordon
Director of Graduate Admissions in Economics, 1977-78

To supplement the rather formal compilation of admissions and degree requirements contained in the pamphlet “Graduate Program in Economics, 1977-78”, I have put together a more informal set of observations on economics and graduate student life at Northwestern. Just as television commercials are no longer inhibited in naming competitors, I have included a few comparisons between Northwestern and some of the other departments to which you may be planning to apply. My comments on other departments are entirely personal based on my years as a student or faculty member at Harvard, M.I.T., and Chicago, and on the academic “grapevine” as regards other schools. In no sense do these subjective comparisons represent an “official view” of anyone in the administration of the Department of Economics or Northwestern University, nor would my colleagues necessarily agree with them.

I. WHO SHOULD APPLY TO NORTHWESTERN?

Universities in the United States are currently awarding roughly 2,000 M.A.’s and about 850 Ph.D.’s in Economics every year. Taking account of voluntary and involuntary dropouts, this suggests that about 2,500-3,000 candidates enter graduate school in Economics every year, and that the number of applicants is even larger. Both the applicants and the graduate schools are diverse in quality, and the admissions process can be described as an exercise in “matching” wherein the best schools attempt to select the best candidates, the next-best schools attempt to find the next-best candidates, and so on down the line. As long as a fee is charged for an admission application (currently $25 at Northwestern), potential applicants must carry out what economists call a “cost-benefit” analysis when deciding how many and which schools should be applied to. Too many applications may waste fees, but too few applications may lead to unanimous rejections. The best strategy is to realize that admissions committees are imperfect judges of your own “true quality”, and in some cases you also may over- or underrate yourself. To protect yourself against mistakes, it is best to apply not only to schools at your own perceived quality level, but also somewhat above and below. (In a recent survey 57 percent of the respondents rated themselves in the top ten percent of their class!)

Rating Department “Quality”

While a number of different characteristics are relevant to the final choice, faculty quality is the most important single criterion by which alternative graduate programs should be judged. Among the advantages provided by faculty members who are widely regarded in the profession as among the best in their field are not only correct and current courses, but also guidance in Ph.D. dissertations and knowledge of the most promising areas for student research, the ability to win research grants which in most cases provide funds for student research assistantships, and finally, widespread professional contacts to aid students in the job market.1

_______________

1By the way, there is currently no problem in finding jobs after graduate school in Economics. This contrasts with other disciplines, particularly the humanities, history, and sociology, where jobs are scarce and some Ph.D.’s are unemployed. The healthier job market in Economics is explained by the large demand for Ph.D. economists in business and government which supplements the demand by colleges for teaching posts.

_______________

The already high quality of the Northwestern faculty has been supplemented in the last few years by the arrival of three new full professors who are both relatively young and are regarded as among the top economists in their respective fields—Marc Nerlove (winner in 1969 of the American Economic Association’s John Bates Clark award for the best American economist under the age of 40), Frederick Scherer, and myself. Since the most recent official survey to determine the ranking of Northwestern relative to other economics departments is more than five years out of date, there is no accurate information available which is both objective and current.

As a substitute I can provide the results of my own subjective but detailed evaluation, which is current as of Fall 1976 (e.g., it takes account of the movements of J. Stiglitz from Stanford to Oxford and Michael Rothschild from Princeton to Wisconsin). In consultation with several highly regarded economists, all permanent faculty members in the top 18 U.S. departments have been rated with a “quality score” ranging from one (low) to 10 (superman), and the total scores in each department of the faculty members rating “5” or above have been added up.2 An attempt has been made to include members of business schools known to play a major role in graduate economics education. For most departments official faculty lists have been obtained to insure completeness.

_______________

2Note that this technique gives a premium to large departments, partially explaining the “victory” of Harvard over M.I.T.

_______________

Department

Rating Points

Citations3

1.

Chicago 152 (1574)
2. Harvard 147

(1472)

3.

M.I.T. 139 (1241)
4. Yale 122

(598)

5.

Northwestern 97 (401)
6. Princeton 96

(362)

7.

Pennsylvania 93 (509)
8. Wisconsin 85

(587)

9.

Berkeley 75 (420)
9. Stanford 75

(402)

11.

Minnesota 72 (209)
12. U.C.L.A. 70

(344)

13.

Rochester 43
14. Columbia 41

(454)

14.

Maryland 41 (276)
16. Michigan 40

17.

Carnegie-Mellon 38
18. Brown 23

_______________

3Numbers in parentheses are faculty citations in the 1973-74 Social Sciences Citation Index.

_______________

It would appear that there are four departments in the top category, and then a group of “next best” from ranks 5 through 12 which are very close together in total points. If you think rather highly of yourself, it is probably worthwhile to apply to at least one department in the “top four,” but keep in mind that the total number of first-year students in these departments is only about 135 out of the 2,500-3,000 students who enter graduate school in economics each year. Most students will want to apply to one or more of the “next best,” whether they are top students who want a safety valve, or whether they evaluate themselves at “next best,” or whether they think of themselves as “third best” but are willing to take a chance that an admissions committee in the second tier might overrate them.

Comparisons Among Departments

Selection of a choice among the “top four” depends on your abilities and tastes. M.I.T. is almost universally praised for the quality of its faculty, its devotion to the teaching of graduate students, and for its physical facilities, but it can accept only about 35 out of roughly 350 applications, and students without excellent mathematical training will feel left behind. Harvard has a senior faculty which is tops in fame and reputation but which is frequently criticized as aloof and inaccessible not only to students but even to junior faculty members; classrooms and faculty offices are in several buildings with no natural physical focal point for students; but on the other hand the attractions and convenience of Cambridge have appeal. At Chicago the faculty is better at teaching than at Harvard, is much more accessible, and in many fields of economics is more innovative than at M.I.T.; compared to M.I.T. Chicago’s disadvantages are huge first-year classes (55-80 is typical) and the neighborhood (crime is a problem, and also there is much less to do in Hyde Park as compared with Cambridge, so one is dependent on downtown Chicago, which is very difficult to reach by public transportation from Hyde Park at night). I lack personal experience at Yale—the problems which recur in “grapevine” conversations is the physical and social separation between the faculty in the Cowles foundation and in the rest of the departments, the aloofness of many faculty members, and the disadvantages of living in New Haven. On the other hand, some ex-graduate students claim that the Department/Cowles split does not affect them, even if it has disadvantages for faculty members.

How does Northwestern compare with its competitors in the “next best” group? Stanford, Berkeley, and U.C.L.A. are obviously superior in climate but suffer from other disadvantages. Because the Stanford campus is so vast, there is no university shopping district within easy walking distance, and the attractions of Palo Alto are uninterestingly suburban, with the delights of San Francisco 35 miles away and accessible only by car. Berkeley is a much better place to live, both more interesting by itself and closer to San Francisco, but the department itself is large and impersonal, with long corridors of closed office doors, and the mathematical economists are off across the campus in a separate building. Princeton is located in a posh expensive small town 45 miles from New York, which is therefore less accessible than Boston from Cambridge, San Francisco from Berkeley, or Chicago from Evanston. Pennsylvania is located in a relatively unattractive section of Philadelphia and faculty houses are widely dispersed (as is true at Harvard and M.I.T.), which inhibits the faculty from lingering after seminars and from giving post-seminar cocktail parties. I lack close familiarity with U.C.L.A., Penn, and Minnesota and won’t cast further aspersions, other than to note that they are all relatively large and impersonal universities.

Northwestern combines a number of advantages—a high-quality faculty which is extremely accessible to students both individually and in group seminars, together with a location which combines the best features of small-town and large-city living. Another significant strength is the relatively prosperous budgetary situation at Northwestern, which is currently allowing the Economics Department to embark on a major program of hiring new tenure and nontenure faulty members. It is likely that by the time current applicants arrive here, the relative ranking of Northwestern’s Economics Department will have risen even higher relative to the many universities which are currently suffering from tight budgets.

 

 II. ASPECTS OF GRADUATE LIFE AT NORTHWESTERN

Courses and Seminars

The Ph.D. program typically takes four years, divided into an initial two-year period devoted mainly to courses, followed by two additional years devoted to attending seminars, finding a thesis topic, and writing the dissertation. There is a single written general examination (“prelim”) in economic theory (three hours for macro and three hours for micro), which most students take after their first year of courses. The process of learning at Northwestern does not consist of rote learning or indoctrination, but rather a process by which the student is first trained in the tools of theoretical, mathematical, and statistical analysis, and then is exposed to the frontiers of economic science and urged to use his tools to help resolve controversies and contribute to the advance of knowledge.

The process by which a student arrives at a dissertation topic generally begins in the second year of class work. Unlike many graduate schools, where the general exam process continues to the end of the second year and sometimes beyond, at Northwestern most students enter the second year of classes with their general exam behind them and can concentrate on finding a special field of interest. Second year classes are usually small enough to allow students to participate actively in discussion and to encourage the faculty both to assign term papers and to read them carefully. Second-year term papers are a “proving ground” where students can experiment with possible thesis topics. Under a new system, students are required to give a paper in a field “workshop” after they are finished taking the courses their primary field sequence.

A formal requirement for admission to Ph.D. candidacy, in addition to the written general examination on economic theory, is an oral qualifying examination on the dissertation, which is usually taken during the third year. The purpose of the exam is to ascertain whether the dissertation topic chosen by the student is feasible. Usually the exam consists of a discussion of a brief written thesis proposal which a candidate submits to the faculty committee of examiners.

At many graduate schools there is no formal program for third and fourth year students, who simply “disappear” in the library or their homes and are unavailable for conversation and consultation with each other. At Northwestern, on the other hand, there is an active workshop program to provide forums where graduate students are exposed to new ideas and have a chance to see each other regularly. A centerpiece is the Tuesday night student- faculty seminar, where students present both early and finish versions of their dissertation research, with a substantial cross-section of the faculty attending regularly to provide advice and criticism. Research seminars in macroeconomics and labor, in applied micro economics, industrial organization and in mathematical economics (in collaboration with faculty members at the Graduate School of Management) meet regularly for presentation and discussion of papers by faculty, students, and visitors. These seminars are not only a major channel of communication between faculty and students, but are also an important method of intellectual interchange among faculty members. In addition, there is a regular visiting speakers program, in which well-known faculty members from other universities are invited to Northwestern to present talks on their research Evanston’s location also facilitates additional informal seminars by visitors who are traveling through the Chicago area.

Particular Strengths

Although the Economics Department teaches graduate courses in all of the major fields of economics, it has particular areas of strength in which faculty members are currently making a major research contribution:

Microeconomic Theory
Mathematical Economics
Econometrics
Theoretical and Applied Macroeconomics
Labor Economics
Public Finance
Managerial Economics and Industrial Organization
Transportation and Urban Economics
Economic History
Medical Economics
Economics of Population and the Family

Faculty and Student Accessibility

Faculty-student contact is unusually good at Northwestern for a number of reasons. Although the classes in economics theory in the first quarter are fairly large, since some management school students are required to attend, for the remaining two quarters of the first year the theory classes typically contain only 25. Second-year class enrollments are often in the range of 5 to 10, allowing a workshop atmosphere and considerable faculty attention to the individual student term papers and research projects. Most of the faculty live close to the Evanston campus and typically hold open cocktail parties in their homes after seminars by visiting speakers. After the Tuesday night faculty-student seminar, both students and faculty regularly adjourn to a local pub (this never happens at M.I.T., Harvard, or at other departments where faculty residences are located in distant suburbs). Many third-and fourth-year students have offices adjoining faculty offices and see their faculty neighbors regularly during coffee breaks. Another advantage promoting easy interaction is the relative youth of many of the tenured faculty, in contrast to the older “stars” at some other departments who spend more time consulting in Washington than talking to their students.

Easy contact among students is even more important than faculty-student contact in the first year, when students need to get to know each other and form into small study groups. This is facilitated at Northwestern by a graduate student lounge in the basement of 1922 Sheridan Rd. (the main economics building), where coffee is available and students are encouraged to study or talk between classes. Another convenience is the Library, completed in 1970 and about a 3-minute walk from the main department building. A special feature of the uniquely designed library is the divisional arrangement of books and journals in three research towers, one for the social sciences. On each of the circular levels of the research towers, ranges of books in specialized journals are placed in a radial pattern. At the periphery of each circle surrounding the collections is a repeating series of carrels, typing rooms, graduate and faculty studies, and seminar rooms in close proximity to the main body of printed materials needed by the various disciplines. (The computer center is also a great advantage, as it is relatively well-run and provides fast 15-20 minute “turnaround time” except in peak weeks at the end of the quarter).

Faculty and Courses in the Graduate School of Management

Although other universities also have business schools, of course, Northwestern’s provides a particular asset because of its unusual orientation toward economics and because of the unusually close contact between members of the Economics Department and the Management School. Economics topics covered in Management School courses include optimization theory and techniques, decision-making under uncertainty, models of production and technology, models of financial decision-making, and others. Management School courses are open to economics students, and dissertation committees often include Management School members.

Research Centers

Several “centers” headed by Department faculty members support and encourage research in their areas, provide offices and secretarial help, and arrange seminars by resident faculty, students, and visitors. Research Centers have been established in mathematical economics, transportation economics, and urban affairs.

 

III. ADMISSIONS AND FELLOWSHIPS

The formal admissions procedure is described in the “Graduate Program” pamphlet. Prospective applicants should note that they are required to submit scores from the Graduate Record Examination only for the verbal and quantitative aptitude tests and not for the advanced test in economics. This is consistent with our desire to encourage applications from those who have not chosen to major in economics as undergraduates. Our interest is in finding motivated, intelligent students with enough quantitative aptitude to understand economics theory and enough curiosity about the world around them to do creative economic research.

All available criteria are used by the Admissions Committee (myself and a few colleagues) to evaluate each applicant — undergraduate grade record, letters of recommendation, the applicant’s score on the Graduate Record Examination, and special factors. No arbitrary boundaries are established for grades or GRE scores. Applicant should encourage those writing letters of recommendation to be as specific as possible, a process which can be facilitated if applicants confer with the letter writers regarding their strengths and weaknesses. Applicants who have any unique qualifications or wish to explain “soft spots” in their grade record are encouraged to file supplementary statements with their applications.

Since first-year calculus is essential and second-year calculus is extremely useful for the study of economics, prospective applicants who have not yet taken these courses for credit are urged to do so at some time between now and their arrival at graduate school (wherever they choose to attend). The summer before arrival is an excellent time to take an extra course, and second-year calculus should receive top priority.

The selection of fellowship winners—for both university and department fellowships—is made by the Admissions Committee shortly after the admissions decision. A number of fellowships are also available under a Rockefeller-sponsored Northwestern Program in the Economics of Population and Household Behavior. To maximize their chances of receiving support, applicants are urged to apply for several of the fellowships awarded by outside foundations, businesses, and government agencies. Do not despair if you do not receive the fellowship, for there are several other alternatives. Most obvious is the student loan program, through which students can borrow money to cover most or all of their tuition (for details, see the Northwestern Graduate School Catalog). A substantial portion of the loan funds is available at three percent interest, which in these days of inflation represents a negative “real” rate of interest. Remember also that inflation reduces the real value of the principal to be repaid. Other sources are part-time academic year jobs, research assistantships for faculty members (usually reserved for students in the third and fourth year), and support from parents and/or spouse (now that women have been liberated, the Ph.T. Degree—“putting hubby through”—has been supplemented by the Pw.T,—“putting wife through”). We do not at present normally award teaching assistantships to first-year students.

 

IV. LIVING IN EVANSTON AND CHICAGO

Evanston

Evanston is the first suburb north of Chicago along Lake Michigan, and the Evanston-Chicago boundary is located 9.5 miles north of the Chicago “Loop.” Despite its proximity to Chicago, Evanston’s aesthetic attractions are immediately apparent when one crosses north over the city line. All of it streets are lined with unusually grand old shade trees; street lights are old-fashioned; the downtown shopping area is free of overhanging neon signs and decorated by city-maintained flowerbeds; and the lakefront is lined with the bicycle path, parks, and beaches where swimming is safe in unpolluted water.

With a population of about 80,000, Evanston is about the same size as Berkeley and Cambridge and shares their advantage of combining the convenience and call of a relatively small self-contained city with the entertainment and cultural attractions of a large urban center. Its residents include not only students and professors, but also sizable numbers of lawyers, architects, and other professionals who help to support groups and organizations in music, politics, and other areas. Student housing is available both in private and university-owned buildings (see the Graduate School Catalog for details), and most students are able to live within a short walk or bicycle ride from Northwestern’s lakefront campus.

Evanston’s downtown shopping area begins immediately south of the campus, with a group of books stores located across the street from the main university administration building. Shopping opportunities are unusually diverse for a city of Evanston’s size, with several branches of downtown department and specialty stores, large supermarkets and small “gourmet” food shops, and a variety of shops selling both standard and esoteric clothes, furnishings, and other items.

Transportation within Evanston is easy whether or not students own cars. Parking is available on side streets and in public parking garages downtown. Since most side streets are relatively free of traffic, many students prefer to rely entirely on bicycles for travel within Evanston. The public transit fare is subsidized by the City Council at 25¢ for travel within Evanston on four bus lines and on the rapid transit stations which shuttle at five-minute intervals along a north-south axis which skirts the western boundary of the campus and continue south to the Chicago border and on to downtown Chicago  (see below).

Many Evanston residents formerly lived in the Hyde Park and South Shore districts of Chicago—adjacent to the University of Chicago—but moved north to escape the South Side crime problem. Evanston is fortunate in its low crime rate, less than half the rates recorded in Berkeley and Cambridge in the 1970-73 period, and is a place where both students and faculty feel perfectly free to walk out at night. The only noticeable disadvantage of life in Evanston is the climate between November 15 and March 15, when the average daily high-temperature is about 35 degrees (i.e., five degrees colder than New York). Average annual snowfall is a bit more than in New York and a bit less than in Boston. The weather during the rest of the year similar to that in the northeastern quadrant of the U.S. Over all the weather is obviously no match for Berkeley, about the same as Boston and decidedly better than Madison or Minneapolis.

Chicago

From the Northwestern campus the center of Chicago is 25 minutes by car via Lakeshore Drive, and is almost easily accessible via rapid transit trains which stop twice at the western edge of the campus and reach the “Loop” in 30 minutes during rush hours, and about 40 minutes at other times. These times overstate the duration of travel to many restaurants, theaters, and clubs, the majority of which are located on the North Side of the city, i.e., between the “Loop” in the Evanston border. Trains run all night, and at most hours their frequency is every five to ten minutes.

Until six years ago I had never been to Chicago and had an irrational fear of the unknown Midwest, which may be shared by some prospective applicants from the East and West Coasts. My years of sampling Chicago’s attractions have converted me, and perhaps you will be interested in some personal opinions and comparisons:

    • The main aesthetic attractions are (1) the Loop and Near North Side, containing some of the best urban architecture in the world, in (2) the 20-mile bicycle path along the lake front, which is a continuous band of parks, beaches, and yacht harbors.
    • The major museums are all very large and among the top two or three in the country, including the Art Institute, the Field Museum of Natural History, the Planetarium, the Aquarium, and the Museum of Science and Industry, the latter having special appeal for any economist interested in the history of technical change and in “how things work.” There are smaller art galleries as well, and a local “school” of modern art, which I saw exhibited in Mexico City as “La Nueva Escuela de Chicago.”
    • In New York visiting concerts of Georg Solti with the Chicago Symphony have become, according to the New York Times, the “most eagerly anticipated musical events since Toscanini.” The Symphony plays three concerts a week during the academic year at Orchestra Hall in the “Loop” and frequent concerts during the summer at the Ravinia Festival in a suburb a few miles north of Evanston. The Lyric Opera presents a three-month season in the fall and shares with San Francisco the top rank among US opera companies outside of New York. There are several local chamber music groups and a long list of touring concert artists, including the major New York ballet companies, which perform throughout the year. There are also three full-time FM classical music stations.
    • The “club scene,” both night clubs and coffee houses, is unsurpassed among cities outside of New York, and the blues and folk music offerings surpass New York. Each Friday a free newspaper, the Reader, lists about 150 blues, folk, rock, and jazz acts appearing in local clubs.
    • Speaking of newspapers, the Chicago Tribune has dropped its conservativism of the Col. McCormick days and was recently named one of the country’s 10 best by Time. Its local news and features are excellent, although it still can’t compare for national and international news with the New York Times (the latter is flown in daily for purchase at Evanston newsstands or for home delivery).
    • In the restaurant category Chicago ranks after New York, San Francisco, and perhaps New Orleans. Its best are not as good as in those three cities, but that doesn’t matter much for students who can’t very often afford $50 French dinners. More important and interesting is Chicago’s strength, the hundreds of inexpensive “storefront ethnic” restaurants, many of which are in the north part of Chicago close to Evanston. Take your choice among German, French Provincial, East European Italian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean, Thai, Japanese, Indian, Mexican, Cuban, and Peruvian.
    • Cheap entertainment is available at the student-run film societies at Northwestern, other colleges, and the Art Institute, and at a number of commercial theaters on the north side of Chicago which only charge $.75 or $1.00 for a double bill of second- or third-run features.
    • While the quantity of live drama is no match for New York, there is a surprisingly broad offering by two accomplished professional repertory groups, a number of “off-Broadway” and experimental groups, and both pre- and post-Broadway touring shows. In recent years a number of shows have “graduated” to New York after starting here.

****

Obviously the preceding notes will only begin to answer your questions. Write me for any additional information you need. I’ll respond without delay if I know the answer or else I’ll find a colleague who can advise you. I can also arrange for a current graduate student to provide more information on student reactions.

 

Source: M.I.T. Archives. Records of the Department of Economics. Box 3, Folder “Quality Rating.”

Image Source: Robert J. Gordon at First Bank of Japan Monetary Conference, June 1983. Detail from picture with James Tobin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. “The Greatest Faculty Skit Ever Written”, ca. 1974

 

The following faculty skit comes from the M.I.T. department of economics when memories of the Senate Watergate Hearings (summer of 1973) were still very fresh in everyone’s memories.  This skit was likely presented at the 1973-74 annual skit party.  Frederick Mishkin received his B.S. in 1973 from M.I.T. and his first year as a graduate student at M.I.T. was in 1973-74. Other graduate students named were either second year or thesis-writers.

I presume “E. Hausman Hunt” was a blend of the names of the MIT econometrician Jerry Hausman and the Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt.

“Bob Dean” was likely a blend of the names of Robert Hall (who taught the course 14.123) and Nixon’s special counsel John Dean (wife’s name Maureen).

“Paul Colson” might have been a blend of the names of Paul Joskow and Charles Colson, Nixon’s man for “dirty tricks” and who claimed he would have walked over his own grandmother to get Nixon reelected.

“F.” would appear with the remark about not understanding “goyim” to have been Frank Fisher.

Roger Backhouse graciously made his copy of this skit available for transcription. I have corrected many typos in the original text. If I ever identify the author, I shall update this post. 

__________________

The Greatest Faculty Skit Ever Written
(in 1 hour, 15 minutes)

F. This here meeting will now come to order. Let the minutes show that this is the 732nd meeting of the Special Subcommittee of the Econometrics [sic] Society investigating the notorious Westgate affair.

M1: Mr. Chairman, a point of personal privilege—

F. Yes, Mr. Solow.

M2: I’ve been out of town testifying for IBM in Tulsa for the last 7 months. Could you fill me in on what’s been happening?

F. On the night of June 20, 1972 several graduate students were apprehended breaking into Gary Becker’s office. It appeared that these students were after Prof. Becker’s manuscript on a theory of marriage. Several pieces of evidence point [to] the fact that these students were after Prof. Becker’s manuscript on a theory of marriage. Several pieces of evidence point [to] the fact that a well known Eastern economist (with initials PAS) may have funded this break-in for as yet unknown reasons. This committee has been called to investigate this matter.

M1Thank you Mr. Chairman.

F. Will the first witness step forward to testify?
Please state your name.

EHH   E. Hausman Hunt.

F. What have you been doing for [the] last 3 months?

EHH.  I’ve spent the last 3 months in Charles St. Jail polishing up my lecturing technique. If I could only speak a little faster during my lecture, just think how much more material I could cover.

F. Is it true that you were in charge of organizing the burglary of Becker’s office?

EHH. Yes; I used several graduate students from MIT: my first choices were Rick Kasten and Roger Gordon but we had to reject them since we were afraid they were too talkative. However I finally settled on Rick Mishkin and Glenn Loury; Mishkin because he was so calm and organized; and Louryto comply with equal opportunities satisfy HEW.

F. Is it true that you write econometrics papers under a pseudonym?

EHH. Yes, I’ve just produced my 43rdpaper on the identification problem using the pseudonym “Franklin M. Fisher”

F. Well, I may be an old country bullfrog, but…
Next witness, please

(BH steps forward; Maureen sits in his lap; F. gives the eyebrows to the audience)

F. State your name, rank.

BD. I’m Bob Dean, special assistant professor.

F. And whom do you assist?

BD. Prof. Paul Anthony Samuelson, BA, PhD, L.H.D, L.L.D, Litt.D. (hon), LSD.

F. Can you describe briefly your part in the Westgate affair?

BD. Prof Samuelson was working on a theory of marriage at the same time as Prof. Becker. He had just succeeded in developing the formal first order conditions for the optimal marriage (using the LeChatelier principle) when he discovered Prof Becker’s work. He asked me to arrange for him to get a look at Prof. Becker’s manuscript.

F. Isn’t it true that you got married on or about this same period?

BD. Yes, that was also part of Prof Samuelson’s theory of marriage. He had also arranged for an empirical part of this work; after deriving the first order conditions, he hired a computer programmer to search for the optimal marriage in the department. Maureen and I were chosen. Pressured by Samuelson we agreed to get married.

F. How did you afford your honeymoon on an assistant prof’s salary?

BD. I borrowed some money from a departmental slush fund.

F. What is the source of this slush fund?

BD. It was accumulated for the sale of lecture notes from 14.123; why else do you think we sell those notes?

F. (eyebrows) I see. When did you again meet with Prof Samuelson?

BD. March 21, 1973;

F. What happened at that meeting?

BD. We received instructions from Prof. Samuelson on how to behave on our honeymoon. We asked Prof. Samuelson if it would be OK if our marginal utilities were not equalized; he said that “it would be wrong.”

F. Why was Prof Samuelson taking such an interest in your honeymoon?

BD. He wanted to be sure that his theory involved only “empirically refutable propositions”. He was also worried that we might behave too formally.

F. I don’t think I’ll ever understand you goyim.

F. Next witness. Please state your name.

PC. Paul Colson.

F. For what purpose were you hired by Prof Samuelson?

PC. I was supposed to ghost write the empirical part of the paper.

F. It says here (looking at notes) that you are one of the most dedicated of the applied econometricians?

PC. Yes, I’d run over my own grandmother to get a t-statistic greater than 2.

F. What were Prof. Samuelson’s instructions?

PC. As you know, Prof Samuelson was worried that Bob and Maureen Dean might be too formal on their honeymoon; I was sent along to collect data on their performance.

F. What happened? (eyebrows)

PC. As I peered into their motel room, I saw Bob come out of the bathroom dressed in pajamas and say to Maureen: I offer my honor. Maureen came out in her nightgown and replied I honor your offer.

F. (eyebrows) What happened next?

PC. From then on it was just honor and offer all night.

F. What went wrong?

PC. We forgot to check the second-order conditions and it was only a saddle point.

 

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

Image Source: Photo from U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. From left to right: minority counsel Fred Thompson, ranking member Howard Baker, and chair Sam Ervin of the Senate Watergate Committee.

Categories
Chicago Curriculum Fields

Chicago. Gordon, Fischer and Friedman Memos on Money Core Courses. 1972

When Milton Friedman went on leave from the University of Chicago in 1971-72, two assistant professors who had received their Ph.D.’s from M.I.T. were left minding the two core courses in “money” (a.k.a. “macroeconomics”) at Chicago. In this post I first provide the course listings and staffing for the core fields and then the transcription of an exchange of memos between Robert J. Gordon and Stanley Fischer (the two assistant professors just mentioned) on the one hand and their senior colleague Milton Friedman on the other.

The (then) young colleagues have tread most gingerly in the matter of overhauling the Chicago money courses. Friedman for his part has given them a “revise-and-resubmit” sort of response for their efforts. Perhaps Economics in the Rear-View Mirror will get lucky and receive a comment from Messrs. Gordon and Fischer about their memos’ ultimate impact on the Chicago core.

______________________________

 

Graduate Courses in 1971-72
Core Fields and Faculty

PRICE THEORY

300. Price Theory. McCloskey.
301. Price Theory. Becker, Evenson, Harberger.
302. Price Theory. Becker, H. Johnson
303. General Equilibrium Theory. Mundell.
307. Mathematical Methods in the Social and Administrative Sciences. Theil.
309. The Theory of the Allocation of Time. Ghez, Becker.

 

THEORY OF INCOME, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE PRICE LEVEL

330. Money: The Supply Side. Gordon
331. Money. Fischer, Telser.
332. Theory of Income, Employment, and the Price Level. Sjaastad, Zecher.
337.  Special Topics in Monetary Theory. Fischer.

 

 

 

Becker, Gary (Ph.D., Chicago, 1955; John Bates Clark Medal Winner, 1967). University Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1970).
Recent research: Investment in human capital; the allocation of time; household production functions and non-market behavior; marriage and fertility; law and economics.

Evenson, Robert E. [visiting faculty] (Ph.D., Chicago, 1968; Associate Professor of Economics, Yale).
Recent research: economic development and agriculture.

Fischer, Stanley (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1969). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1969).
Recent Research: Monetary growth models; lags and stabilization policy; trade and capital flows.

Friedman, Milton [on leave, 1971-72] (Ph.D., Columbia, 1946; John Bates Clark Medal Winner, 1951; President of A.E.A., 1967). Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service, Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1946).
            Recent Research: The optimum quantity of money; secular and cyclical changes in money and income; a theoretical framework for monetary analysis.

Ghez, Gilbert (Ph.D., Columbia, 1970). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1969).
Recent Research: A theory of life-cycle consumption; consumption and labor force participation; effects of education on consumption patterns.

Gordon, Robert J. (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1967). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent Research: Labor market theory and inflation; econometric models of wage and price determination; problems in measurement of capital.

Harberger, Arnold C. (Ph.D., Chicago, 1950). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1953).
Recent Research. Applied welfare economics; measurement of social opportunity costs of labor, capital, and foreign exchange; taxation and resource allocation.

Johnson, Harry G. (Ph.D., Harvard, 1958). Professor of Economics (Joint appointment with London School of Economics) (at Chicago since 1959).

Recent Research: Theory of international inflation; theory of effective protection; the two-sector model of general equilibrium; Keynesianism and monetarism.

McCloskey, Donald (Ph.D., Harvard, 1970). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent Research: Topics in the application of economics to British economic history; the Old Poor Law as a negative income tax; the economic effects of Britain’s move to free international trade.

Mundell, Robert (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1956). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1965).
Recent Research: Monetary systems and economic development; world inflation and unemployment; African currency systems; global trade policy.

Sjaastad, Larry A. (Ph.D., Chicago, 1961). Associate Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1962).
Recent research: Project evaluation in underdeveloped countries; economics of research.

Telser, Lester (Ph.D., Chicago, 1956). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1958).
Recent research: Theory of competitive markets; game theory; the theory of the core; economics of information; determinants of the returns to manufacturing industries; equilibrium price distributions.

Theil, Henri (Ph.D., Amsterdam, 1951). University Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1965).
Recent research: Econometric methodology and applications; mathematical and statistical methods in other social and administrative sciences.

Zecher, Joseph Richard (Ph.D., Ohio State, 1969). Assistant Professor of Economics and Director of the Undergraduate Program (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent research: Models of commercial banking; interest rates and expectations.

 

Source: Economics at Chicago (Departmental Brochure, 1971-72), p. 23, 26-30. This copy of the brochure found in the Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 194, Folder 4.

______________________________

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

May 22, 1972

 

To: Department of Economics Faculty
From: R. J. Gordon

Re: First Year Money Sequence

Stan Fischer, Dick Zecher, and I would like to propose the following reorganization of the topics taught in the first year graduate money-macro sequence. We have long felt that the present organization is suboptimal because (1) the student is taught two approaches to static income determination, one in 331 and one in 332, without sufficient coordination and integration of the two approaches, and (2) the separation between money supply in 330 and money demand in 331 does not work well, because money demand is involved in most of the topics covered in 330. The following reorganization puts static income determination of both the Quantity Theory and Keynesian varieties into course no. 1, in the sequence, then combines the money demand theory from the present 331 with the most important topics in the present 330 in course no. 2, and creates a third course devoted to dynamic topics.

We would like reactions, suggestions, and ideas. Presumably each course would be given twice on a staggered schedule.

 

COURSE NO. 1, to be called 331
taught in Fall and Winter

Static Income Determination in the style of Bailey and Patinkin
Elements of National Income Accounting
Doctrinal history and issues: General Theory, Patinkin vs. Friedman, Leijonhufvud
Theory of Consumption Function
Theory of Investment Behavior from Wicksell to Jorgenson

 

COURSE NO. 2, to be called 330
taught in Fall and Spring

Money demand theory
Tobin-Markowitz approach to portfolio allocation
Money supply theory
Financial intermediaries
Term structure and debt management
Modigliani-Miller and other issues in capital market theory

 

COURSE NO. 3, to be called 332
taught in Winter and Spring

Neoclassical nonmonetary growth models
Monetary growth models in the style of Foley-Sidrauski
Optimum Quantity of Money and welfare economics of inflation
Stability of inflation in Cagan-Mundell-type models
Multiplier-accelerator cycle models, simple inventory models
Models of Labor Market and Inflation
Simple models of open economies (could go in course no. 1)

 

______________________________

 

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date: July 20, 1972

To: Professor Robert J. Gordon, Department of Economics
From: Milton Friedman, Department of Economics

In re: Your Memo of May 22 on First-Year Money Sequence

 

I have been hesitant to react to your schedule of topics both because I believe a teacher must decide for himself what he is going to teach but also because my reactions naturally derive from my own experience in teaching these courses and I have not re-thought the question afresh, particularly not in the light of 330.

Nonetheless for what they are worth, let me give my offhand reactions. The basic thing that disturbs me about all three courses is that they are set up as a series of separate topics with no organizational structure in them. For both the monetary approach and the income expenditure approach there is a clear logical structure which it seems to me it is desirable to use in organizing the material. For money as for price theory the obvious structure is the demand for money, the supply of money and the equilibrium produced by their interaction. In Course 2 called 330 you have the elements of money demand theory and money supply theory, but they are put in as if they were on the same level as approaches to portfolio allocation, financial intermediaries, term structures, and the like. Obviously they are not. If financial intermediaries have any relevance to the theory of money it is because they partly enter into the money supply process; it is partly because they may affect the demand for money. Similarly, the Tobin-Markowitz approach to portfolio allocation is simply a fuller exploration of the individual decisions that underlie the demand for money. Similarly, in the income expenditure approach the logical organization has to do with aggregate demand on the one hand and aggregate supply on the other side and their interactions. Consumption theory and investment theories of income then become components of aggregate demand.

I can understand elements of national income accounting and institutional and descriptive material about the monetary and banking system coming early in the courses and preceding the kind of formal theoretical apparatus that I have been talking about, but I find it hard to see the optional history and issues coming where they do in your outline. It seems to me that the desirable thing in these courses is to teach, as best we can, the substance of what we know and believe to be the correct theory. The history of the thought enters in both in introducing and motivating the discussion; also it has always seemed to me desirable that so far as possible we should use the writings of the great men in the field to develop the points that remain valid out of their writings, and finally at the very end I can see where in discussing where we go from here and what the open issues are it is desirable to bring out the question of current and past controversies.

In connection with Course 3, that also seems to be a collection of topics. It is very hard for me to see the organizational structure that underlies it. Presumably what really is in the back of this is the notion that Courses 1 and 2 will deal with static equilibria opposition and Course 3 will deal with dynamic change. But yet that doesn’t quite fit the role of the optimum quantity of money and the welfare economics of inflation. What precisely is a logical structure underlying this? Indeed let me repeat that question for all three courses.

Needless to say, there is more than one organization that would be logically coherent and would be effective in teaching the material within these three courses, so I don’t mean to put any special weight on the one I outlined above, but I do believe that you need to bring the skeleton of your organization more clearly in the open than it is brought in the list of topics in these three courses. Incidentally, one minor item is that I do not see anywhere in any of the topics where quantity equations à la Irving Fisher, Marshall, and the early Keynes would be discussed at all.

(Dictated but not read)

MF:gv

______________________________

 

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date: July 26, 1972

To: Milton Friedman, Department of Economics
From: Bob Gordon and Stan Fischer, Department of Economics

In re: First Year Money Sequence

Thanks for your memo to Bob of July 20th. Before reacting to your comments in more detail, let us attempt to restate the aims of the proposed revision. There were two major problems with the previous arrangement: (i) overlap of material in 330 and 331, (ii) 332 as a separate course was taught either as a hodge-podge of topics or as Keynesian multipliers run riot – by the time students had got through 331 the excuse for a separate income-determination course was slim.

The basic organizational structure, which the memo admittedly did not spell out, is based on the use of a common static model, as in Patinkin, Bailey, and equations (9) – (14) of your 1970 piece – as a starting point for discussion of both monetary and income-expenditure approaches (in 331). Once the basic issues are discussed in the framework of the common model – and this will occupy much of the 331 course – the examination of the building blocks of the model will begin. Since more time is needed for the building blocks than remains in 331, some pieces had to be placed in another course and it seemed sensible to separate out money supply and money demand. This makes 330 a self-contained course with the unifying principle that each topic contributes to a model of the monetary and financial markets, whereas the building blocks allocated to 331 are those of the commodity market. The placement of the labor market in the third course is the most arbitrary decision; it should probably be shifted to 331 so that the interaction between aggregate supply and demand can be adequately developed. (Incidentally, we apologize for giving the impression that each topic mentioned is to be given equal weight – we had in mind precisely the considerations mentioned in the second half of your second paragraph in writing, for instance, “Money demand theory” followed by “Tobin-Markowitz….”)

The idea in course 3 is indeed to emphasize dynamic elements. Here the intention is to use a simple common dynamic model, which has naturally to involve expectations and intertemporal maximization, and examine its behavior under a variety of assumptions on expectations etc. This leads naturally into the other topics mentioned in 3 – with the exception of the multiplier-accelerator and inventory models which tend to be sui generis and hard to fit into the overall scheme. (The open economy models also do not fit in very well.)

On your specific comments:

  1. We also realize that each teacher decides what he wants to teach, but in view of the facts that these are the basic money courses and that students take them from different people, we feel it important to try to have some uniformity of coverage.
  2. On the history of thought: we too use this to introduce and motivate the theories and we intend that it permeate the courses rather than be discussed in the middle of 331, as our memo now indicates.
  3. The optimum quantity of money comes right out of discussions of intertemporal optimization by individuals (as in your article) and it does seem that the “Dynamic” course is a good place to discuss it.
  4. The early quantity theorist’ views will obviously be discussed in great detail in the demand for money side of 330, and also in 331; this was one of the sub-topics we intended to be included under the 331 heading “doctrinal history.”

We would very much appreciate your commenting on this since we ourselves discussed several alternative organizations for the courses, and are far from certain that our proposal is optimal. Indeed, in the light of the fact that, as you say, everyone teaches what he wants, we felt some diffidence in making our proposal. But we do think it important to have some generally-greed-upon division of material for the three courses, if only to be fair to the students faced with the Core exam.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder 5.

Image Source: Milton Friedman (undated). University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06230, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.