Categories
Duke Economics Programs

Duke. A history of economics instruction in Durham, 1996.

The following short history of economics instruction at Trinity College and Duke University in Durham, NC was written by the once chairperson of the Duke department (1957-74), Professor Frank T. de Vyver. [correction: This narrative was begun by Robert Smith (who died in 1969), expanded by Frank de Vyer in 1979, and updated by Forrest Smith in 1992.] From my trawling the internet archive The Wayback Machine, I was also able to preserve the iconic 1990s color bar separator found on the original webpage.

An earlier Duke-related artifact  from the pre-internet age transcribed for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror:

Career information for a quarter-century of Duke Economic PhDs, 1957.

After I completed this post I found the following expanded version of the material posted here (with a picture).

 

______________________

  History

In 1899-1900 Jerome Dowd, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, taught a two-semester course in “Economics” for juniors. Two years later Trinity College had a Department of History and Economics, and Professor John Spencer Basset gave three courses: “Principles of Political Economy,” “Principles of Finance,” and “Industrial Development of England and America.” Bassett, as everyone who ever attended Trinity knew, was the historian who aroused the wrath of many Southerners by comparing Booker T. Washington with Robert E. Lee.

William Henry Glasson, holding a Ph.D. from Columbia University, came to Durham in 1902 as Professor of Political Economy and Social Science and Head of the Department of Economics and Social Science. For many years Glasson was the Department. The number of economics courses listed in the catalogue soon jumped to ten, although it seems unlikely that all were offered every year. Juniors could take “Principles of Political Economy” and “Economic and Social History of England and the United States.” Seniors were offered “Social Science” and “Economics and Social Problems,” while “Money and Banking” and “Public Finance” were senior-graduate courses. Four courses were reserved for graduate students: “History of Political Economy,” “Development of Economic Theories,” “The State in Its Relations to Industry,” and “Socialism and Other Plans for Social Reconstruction.” In the 1903-04 curriculum the latter two courses were dropped in favor of “Modern Industrial Organization” and “Railway Transportation.”

In 1908 Glasson became head of the Department of Economics and Political Science, and “Principles of Political Science” and “Municipal Government” were added to the undergraduate curriculum. Apparently, no new staff appointment was made until Bascom W. Barnard came to Trinity in 1919 as assistant professor of economics. Four years later, when the number of courses in economics and government had increased to seventeen, the teaching staff included Professors William J. H. Cotton and Alpheus T. Mason, and Jesse T. Carpenter, a part-time instructor. In 1924 thirteen courses in the Department were listed under “Economics and Business Administration” and seven under “Political Science.”

In December, 1924, Trinity College became an undergraduate college of Duke University, and in the fall of 1926 the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences was inaugurated with Professor Glasson as Dean. A year earlier (1925) Calvin B. Hoover came to Duke as assistant professor of economics and Robert R. Wilson was appointed assistant professor of political science. In 1926 Charles E. Landon joined the Department as assistant professor of economics and John H. Shields became an instructor in accounting; in 1927 Earl J. Hamilton accepted the position of assistant professor of economics and Robert S. Ranking, assistant professor of political science. Professor Joseph J. Spengler joined the faculty in 1932. He was a central figure in developing the graduate program. Currently the Department’s graduate student association, the “Spengler Club,” honors his name.

Glasson served as Dean of the Graduate School until 1938 and as Chairman until 1939. Professor Hoover, who succeeded him in both positions, held the deanship until 1947 and the chair until 1957.

Professor Frank T. de Vyver, who came to Duke in 1935, served as chairman from 1957 to 1974. His successor, Professor Robert S. Smith, was chairman of the Department of Economics and Business Administration in 1964-67. In 1967, the University divided the Department of Economics and Business Administration into two departments, and Smith continued as chairman of the Economics Department until 1968.

Professor John O. Blackburn, following service to Duke University as its chancellor, assumed the chair of the Economics Department in 1968, serving until 1970. He was followed by Professor David G. Davies, 1970-73, Professor Allen Kelley, 1973-1980, and Professor T. Dudley Wallace, 1980-83. Following Professor Wallace as department chairperson were Professor E. Roy Weintraub, 1983-87, Professor John M. Vernon, 1987-89, and Professor Henry G. Grabowski, 1989-92. Professor Neil B. de Marchi was appointed chairperson of the Department of Economics in 1992. Professor Marjorie B. McElroy was Acting Chair from May 1995 through August 1996, while Professor de Marchi is on sabbatical; she has been appointed Chair through August 1999.

 

Graduate Studies in Economics

The history of graduate studies in Economics goes back to the turn of the century. The Trinity College Catalogue for 1899-1900 lists S. W. Sparger as a graduate student in Political Economy and English; and in 1900-01 Joseph P. Breedlove, for many years University Librarian, was also a graduate student in Political Economy and English. The following year Breedlove was a graduate student in Political Economy only and in 1902 was awarded the M.A. degree. Henry R. Dwire, who received his M.A. in 1903, was a graduate student in Social Science, Economics, English, and History; and A. B. Bradsher, an M.A. in 1905, was a graduate student in Political Economy, Chemistry, English, and Law. In 1911-1915 there were graduate students who combined Political Economy and Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, or (in one case) Greek, Latin, and Education.

Although Marion S. Lewis, who received his M.A. in 1921, was a graduate student in Economics, even after the opening of the Graduate School few students were enrolled in just one discipline. Jesse T. Carpenter was a graduate student in Economics, Philosophy, and English (1923-24), and Julian P. Boyd was a graduate student in Economics and Political Science (1925- 26). In 1926-27 Richard A. Harvill and Benjamin U. Ratchford were graduate students in Economics and History. Both received the M.A. degree in 1927. Harvill continued graduate work at Northwestern University, from which he received his Ph.D. in 1932. Ratchford, who retired in 1967 as Vice-President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, received his Ph.D. from Duke in 1932.

The emphasis on the level of post-graduate achievement in the department has vacillated. In the 1970s, virtually every student who matriculated did so with the intent of earning a Ph.D. Resultant class sizes then were predictably small: the entering class of 1978 consisted of only seven students. There are currently 87 students in the Ph.D. program, and 20 students working toward an M.A. Currently the graduate program offers specialized training in over a dozen fields and programs.

Since 1932, the Department has awarded over 407 doctoral and 255 Master of Arts degrees in Economics.

Frank T. de Vyver

Source: Duke University. Department of Economics History webpage (last revised, August 29, 1996). Archived at the Wayback Machine internet archive.

Image Source:  Duke University, 1938. Photographed by Frances Benjamin Johnston. From the Carnegie Survey of the Architecture of the South, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Duke Undergraduate

Duke. Reflections on the learning objectives for undergraduate economics majors. Bronfenbrenner, 1977

 

 

This is a transcription of a draft of a paper that was later presented at the New York meeting of the American Economic Association (December 28, 1977) by Martin Bronfenbrenner (Chicago Ph.D., 1939). A revised version was published in Atlantic Economic Journal, vol. 6 (1978), pp. 22-25. The revision sandwiched the text below between an introductory and concluding sections. The conclusion consists of his responses to “strenuous opposition” the paper received from radical economists and faculty from small, “self-consciously ‘proletarian’ institutions.” To document the year of the draft, I have appended the comments (with date) from the Duke department of economics chair, Allen Kelley.

What struck me first upon seeing this draft was the reflection of a sexist empirical reality expressed in the subtitle of the paper. Bronfenbrenner title refers to “the person majoring in economics” as opposed to meaning major as “a particular course of study”: the published version begins with the sentence: “I view the undergraduate economics major not as a potential economist but as a potential lawyer or businessman, politician or journalist, and likewise as a potential voter.”)  But the brief note is more interesting as an artifact, an older scholar’s reflections (in the late 1970’s) of what an undergraduate education in economics should be all about. 

From the perspective of today, Bronfenbrenner’s inclusion of doctrinal history, 3 semesters of historical and/or current policy applications, 2 semesters of “alternative economic ideas and institutions” sounds like an early call (about forty years early to be precise) for the CORE Project.

__________________________

THE ECONOMICS MAJOR—WHAT IS HE?
Martin Bronfenbrenner, 1977 draft

We have on undergraduate campuses “Junior Ph.D.,” “Fraternity Row,” and “Split Level” major programs in Economics. As an elitist (meritocrat, intellectual snob) I want Economics to become a “Junior Ph.D.” major, along with, e.g., Mathematics and most of the natural sciences. There are plenty of alternatives open, including individual Economics courses, to playboys doing nothing and to intellectual anarchists “doing their own things.”

And so I should like undergraduate economics concentrations to include at least:

(1) Two semesters (or equivalent) of intermediate-level macro- and micro-theory of the standard sort. Doctrinal history might also fit into this group.

(2) Three semesters of quantitative techniques (mathematics at full-blown university level, statistics, econometrics, computer science, accounting). Formal requirements, such as the calculus, should also apply to the intermediate theory courses under (1) to avoid postponement to the student’s final term (which makes them meaningless).

(3) Three semesters of courses applying (1-2) to a historical record and-or to significant current problems of the U.S. and international economies.

(4) Two semesters’ exposure to “alternative” economic ideas and institutions. Radical and institutional economics naturally belong here, along with comparative systems, economic anthropology, specific studies of non-capitalist countries, etc.

(5) (For honors candidates) A “small-group learning experience” of a semester seminar which includes an honors essay. The essay should not only overcome passivity and indicate competence in some facet of undergraduate economics, but demonstrate ability at expository writing.

I have minimized reference to specific courses, since Section 1 of Public Finance, say, under Professor Jones, may be all theory and belong in Group 1, while Section 2 (Professor Brown) may be all policy problems (Group 3) and Section 3 (Professor Johnson) may fit equally well in either category. Harassed Chairmen, Executive Officers, and Directors of Undergraduate Studies will have unavoidable problems with the “nuts and bolts” of such a major, if they take their duties seriously. These problems will be lessened, of course, insofar as superior students are allowed to do whatever they like regardless of formal rules.

But before writing this proposal off as “impossible” or “Utopian” (as well as “elitist,”) please consider a few “matters in mitigation.”

(a) Economics won’t, and shouldn’t, do it all. Credit toward all the above requirements should be allowed for work in other departments. Mathematics, Computer Science and Economic History (as viewed by historians) are obvious examples. Labor Law in the Law School, History of Politics of Africa or Latin America with strong “Economic Development” or “International Economics” loadings, the History of Socialism, inter-disciplinary studies of the U.S.S.R. or Modern China, are only a little less obvious.

(b) The prospective Economics major should be encouraged to read Principles on his own, and go directly into Intermediate Theory. Alternatively, he should be shunted into a one-semester version of Principles. (Need I add that some version at least of the Principles course should be open to Freshmen?) More controversially perhaps, I also believe that the Principles course should be aimed primarily at non-majors, and modeled more frequently on the legendary “Physics for Poets” than on cram courses for Ph.D. qualifying examinations.

(c) The seminar (5) would presumably always count simultaneously toward satisfaction of some other requirement (1-4).

(d) And finally, I think the universities yielded too much on course requirements to the student activism of 1967-71. Reduction of the standard 5-course load to 4 courses, I recall, was proposed to promote student creativity and student participation in the real-world off-campus community. Well, it didn’t work that way. (And thank God, say I, whenever I read a student newspaper!) The 5-course normal load, I accordingly suggest, should be restored at least for the Sophomore and Junior years. Freshmen in process of culture shock, and Seniors in process of job-hunting, might well be left alone with the 4-course load.

MARTIN BRONFENBRENNER
Duke University

__________________________

Comment on draft by Allen Kelley, Chairman of the Duke Department of Economics

Department of Economics
Duke University

Chairman [Allen Kelley]
August 31, 1977

Dear Martin,

Dave Davies passed along your draft of the comment for the Christmas meetings.

A couple of observations.

Why would you consider doctrinal history as a substitute for theory? I’d almost put it in your category 4.

Why so much quantitative training? Statistics I can see as a major requirement. But accounting, computer programming? The latter can be learned at a mini-pragmatic level in the stat course, where the student runs some regressions with standard packages (e.g., SPSS). Many excellent students will want to do more analytical work, and spending three of their courses on quantitative skills seems a bit excessive.

I like everything else, and especially your addition of 4. Of course, I believe in 5, and most of the students already do 3 in most majors.

A final point, one that can’t be resisted by a zealous chairman. Does the University of Colorado have to get such heavy credit—looks like a joint appointment. We Dukies want to internalize all of your great prestige!

I’ve not sent this to Japan, since it would take too long to forward back to Durham.

Welcome home.

[signed “Allen”]

Durham, North Caorlina 27706

(919) 684-2723

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Project. Papers of Martin Bronfenbrenner, Box 26, Folder “Misc”.