Tag: Knight

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. History of Economics Department. Luncheon Talk by Arthur R. Burns, 1954

The main entry of this posting is a transcription of the historical overview of economics at Columbia provided by Professor Arthur R. Burns at a reunion luncheon for Columbia economics Ph.D. graduates [Note: Arthur Robert Burns was the “other” Arthur Burns of the Columbia University economics department, as opposed to Arthur F. Burns, who was the mentor/friend of Milton Friedman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, etc.]. He acknowledges his reliance on the definitive research of his colleague, Joseph Dorfman, that was published in the following year:

Joseph Dorfman, “The Department of Economics”, Chapt IX in R. Gordon Hoxie et al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

The cost of the luncheon was $2.15 per person. 36 members of the economics faculty attended, who paid for themselves, and some 144 attending guests (includes about one hundred Columbia economics Ph.D.’s) had their lunches paid for by the university.

_____________________________

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

March 25, 1954

 

Dear Doctor _________________

On behalf of the Department of Economics, I am writing to invite you to attend a Homecoming Luncheon of Columbia Ph.D.’s in Economics. This will be held on Saturday, May 29, at 12:30 sharp, in the Men’s Faculty Club, Morningside Drive and West 117th Street.

This Luncheon is planned as a part of Columbia University’s Bicentennial Celebration, of which, as you know, the theme is “Man’s Right to Knowledge and the free Use Thereof”. The date of May 29 is chosen in relation to the Bicentennial Conference on “National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad” in which distinguished scholars and men of affairs from the United States and other countries will take part. The final session of this Conference, to be held at three p.m. on May 29 in McMillin Academic Theater, will have as its principal speaker our own Professor John Maurice Clark. The guests at the Luncheon are cordially invited to attend the afternoon meeting.

The Luncheon itself and brief after-luncheon speeches will be devoted to reunion, reminiscence and reacquaintance with the continuing work of the Department. At the close President Grayson Kirk will present medals on behalf of the University to the principal participants in the Bicentennial Conference.

We shall be happy to welcome to the Luncheon as guests of the University all of our Ph.D.’s, wherever their homes may be, who can arrange to be in New York on May 29. We very much hope you can be with us on that day. Please reply on the form below.

Cordially yours,

[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Chairman of the Committee

*   *   *   *   *   *

Professor Carter Goodrich
Box #22, Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University
New York 27, New York

I shall be glad…
I shall be unable… to attend the Homecoming Luncheon on May 29.

(signed) ___________

Note: Please reply promptly, not later than April 20 in the case of Ph.D.’s residing in the United States, and not later than May 5 in the case of others.

_____________________________

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

May 6, 1954

 

TO:                 Departments of History, Math. Stat., Public and Sociology
FROM:            Helen Harwell, secretary, Graduate Department of Economics

 

Will you please bring the following notice to the attention of the students in your Department:

            A feature of Columbia’s Bicentennial celebration will be a Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad, to be held May 27, 28 and 29.

            The final session of the Conference will take place in McMillin Theatre at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 29. The session topic is “Economic Welfare in a Free Society”. The program is:

Session paper.

John M. Clark, John Bates Clark Professor. Emeritus of Economics, Columbia University.

Discussants:

Frank H. Knight, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
David E. Lilienthal, Industrial Consultant and Executive
Wilhelm Roepke, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of International Studies, University of Geneva

 

Students in the Faculty of Political Science are cordially invited to attend this session and to bring their wives or husbands and friends who may be interested.

Tickets can be secured from Miss Helen Harwell, 505 Fayer.

_____________________________

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29th, 1954

President Kirk, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Department of Economics I welcome you all to celebrate Columbia’s completion of its first two hundred years as one of the great universities. We are gratified that so many distinguished guests have come, some from afar, to participate in the Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad. We accept their presence as testimony of their esteem for the place of Columbia in the world of scholarship. Also, we welcome among us again many of the intellectual offspring of the department. We like to believe that the department is among their warmer memories. We also greet most pleasurably some past members of the department, namely Professors Vladimir G. Simkhovitch, Eugene Agger, Eveline M. Burns and Rexford Tugwell. Finally, but not least, we are pleased to have with us the administrative staff of the department who are ceaselessly ground between the oddity and irascibility of the faculty and the personal and academic tribulations of the students. Gertrude D. Stewart who is here is evidence that this burden can be graciously carried for thirty-five years without loss of charm or cheer.

We are today concerned with the place of economics within the larger scope of Columbia University. When the bell tolls the passing of so long a period of intellectual endeavor one casts an appraising eye over the past, and I am impelled to say a few retrospective words about the faculty and the students. I have been greatly assisted in this direction by the researches of our colleague, Professor Dorfman, who has been probing into our past.

On the side of the faculty, there have been many changes, but there are also many continuities. First let me note some of the changes. As in Europe, economics made its way into the university through moral philosophy, and our College students were reading the works of Frances Hutcheson in 1763. But at the end of the 18th century, there seems to have been an atmosphere of unhurried certainty and comprehensiveness of view that has now passed away. For instance, it is difficult to imagine a colleague of today launching a work entitled “Natural Principles of Rectitude for the Conduct of Man in All States and Situations in Life Demonstrated and Explained in a Systematic Treatise on Moral Philosophy”. But one of early predecessors, Professor Gross, published such a work in 1795.

The field of professorial vision has also change. The professor Gross whom I have just mentioned occupied no narrow chair but what might better be called a sofa—that of “Moral Philosophy, German Language and Geography”. Professor McVickar, early in the nineteenth century, reclined on the even more generous sofa of “Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, Rhetoric, Belles Lettres and Political Economy”. By now, however, political economy at least existed officially and, in 1821, the College gave its undergraduates a parting touch of materialist sophistication in some twenty lectures on political economy during the last two months of their senior year.

But by the middle of the century, integration was giving way to specialization. McVickar’s sofa was cut into three parts, one of which was a still spacious chair of “History and Political Science”, into which Francis Lieber sank for a brief uneasy period. His successor, John W. Burgess, pushed specialization further. He asked for an assistant to take over the work in political economy. Moreover, his request was granted and Richmond Mayo Smith, then appointed, later became Professor of Political Economy, which, however, included Economics, Anthropology and Sociology. The staff of the department was doubled in 1885 by the appointment of E. R. A. Seligman to a three-year lectureship, and by 1891 he had become a professor of Political Economy and Finance. Subsequent fission has separated Sociology and Anthropology and now we are professors of economics, and the days when political economy was covered in twenty lectures seem long ago.

Other changes stand out in our history. The speed of promotion of the faculty has markedly slowed down. Richmond Mayo Smith started as an instructor in 1877 but was a professor after seven years of teaching at the age of 27. E. R. A. Seligman even speeded matters a little and became a professor after six years of teaching. But the University has since turned from this headlong progression to a more stately gait. One last change I mention for the benefit of President Kirk, although without expectation of warm appreciation from him. President Low paid J. B. Clark’s salary out of his own pocket for the first three years of the appointment.

I turn now to some of the continuities in the history of the department. Professor McVickar displayed a concern for public affairs that has continued since his time early in the nineteenth century. He was interested in the tariff and banking but, notably, also in what he called “economic convulsions”, a term aptly suggesting an economy afflicted with the “falling sickness”. Somewhat less than a century later the subject had been rechristened “business cycles” to remove some of the nastiness of the earlier name, and professor Wesley Mitchell was focusing attention on this same subject.

The Columbia department has also shown a persistent interest in economic measurement. Professor Lieber campaigned for a government statistical bureau in the middle of the 19th century and Richmond Mayo Smith continued this interest in statistics and in the Census. Henry L. Moore, who came to the department in 1902, promoted with great devotion Mathematical Economics and Statistics with particular reference to the statistical verification of theory. This interest in quantification remains vigorous among us.

There is also a long continuity in the department’s interest in the historical and institutional setting of economic problems and in their public policy aspect. E. R. A. Seligman did not introduce, but he emphasized this approach. He began teaching the History of Theory and proceeded to Railroad Problems and the Financial and Tariff History of the United States, and of course, Public Finance. John Bates Clark, who joined the department in 1895 to provide advanced training in economics to women who were excluded from the faculty of Political Science, became keenly interested in government policy towards monopolies and in the problem of war. Henry R. Seager, in 1902, brought his warm and genial personality to add to the empirical work in the department in labor and trust problems. Vladimir G. Simkhovitch began to teach economic history in 1905 at the same time pursuing many and varied other interests, and we greet him here today. And our lately deceased colleague, Robert Murray Haig, continued the work in Public Finance both as teacher and advisor to governments.

Lastly, among these continuities is an interest in theory. E. R. A. Seligman focused attention on the history of theory. John Bates Clark was an outstanding figure in the field too well known to all of us for it to be necessary to particularize as to his work. Wesley C. Mitchell developed his course on “Current Types of Economic Theory” after 1913 and continued to give it almost continuously until 1945. The Clark dynasty was continued when John Maurice Clark joined the department as research professor in 1926. He became emeritus in 1952, but fortunately he still teaches, and neither students nor faculty are denied the stimulation of his gentle inquiring mind. He was the first appointee to the John Bates Clark professorship in 1952 and succeeded Wesley Mitchell as the second recipient of the Francis A. Walker medal of the American Economic Association in the same year.

Much of this development of the department was guided by that gracious patriarch E. R. A. Seligman who was Executive Officer of the Department for about 30 years from 1901. With benign affection and pride he smiled upon his growing academic family creating a high standard of leadership for his successors. But the period of his tenure set too high a standard and executive Officers now come and go like fireflies emitting as many gleams of light as they can in but three years of service. Seligman and J. B. Clark actively participated in the formation of the American Economic Association in which J. B. Clark hoped to include “younger men who do not believe implicitly in laisser faire doctrines nor the use of the deductive method exclusively”.

Among other members of the department I must mention Eugene Agger, Edward Van Dyke Robinson, William E. Weld, and Rexford Tugwell, who were active in College teaching, and Alvin Johnson, Benjamin Anderson and Joseph Schumpeter, who were with the department for short periods. Discretion dictates that I list none of my contemporaries, but I leave them for such mention as subsequent speakers may care to make.

When one turns to the students who are responsible for so much of the history of the department, one is faced by an embarrassment of riches. Alexander Hamilton is one of the most distinguished political economists among the alumni of the College. Richard T. Ely was the first to achieve academic reputation. In the 1880’s, he was giving economics a more humane and historical flavor. Walter F. Wilcox, a student of Mayo Smith, obtained his Ph.D. in 1891 and contributed notably to statistical measurement after he became Chief Statistician of the Census in 1891, and we extend a special welcome to him here today. Herman Hollerith (Ph.D. 1890) contributed in another way to statistics by his development of tabulating machinery. Alvin Johnson was a student as well as teacher. It is recorded that he opened his paper on rent at J. B. Clark’s seminar with the characteristically wry comment that all the things worth saying about rent had been said by J. B. Clark and his own paper was concerned with “some of the other things”. Among other past students are W. Z. Ripley, B. M. Anderson, Willard Thorp, John Maurice Clark, Senator Paul Douglas, Henry Schultz and Simon Kuznets. The last of these we greet as the present President of the American Economic Association. But the list grows too long. It should include many more of those here present as well as many who are absent, but I am going to invite two past students and one present student to fill some of the gaps in my story of the department.

I have heard that a notorious American educator some years ago told the students at Commencement that he hoped he would never see them again. They were going out into the world with the clear minds and lofty ideals which were the gift of university life. Thenceforward they would be distorted by economic interest, political pressure, and family concerns and would never again be the same pellucid and beautiful beings as at that time. I confess that the thought is troubling. But in inviting our students back we have overcome our doubts and we now confidently call upon a few of them. The first of these is George W. Stocking who, after successfully defending a dissertation on “The Oil Industry and the Competitive System” in 1925, has continued to pursue his interest in competition and monopoly as you all know. He is now at Vanderbilt University.

The second of our offspring whom I will call upon is Paul Strayer. He is one of the best pre-war vintages—full bodied, if I may borrow from the jargon of the vintner without offense to our speaker. Or I might say fruity, but again not without danger of misunderstanding. Perhaps I had better leave him to speak for himself. Paul Strayer, now of Princeton University, graduated in 1939, having completed a dissertation on the painful topic of “The Taxation of Small Incomes”.

The third speaker is Rodney H. Mills, a contemporary student and past president of the Graduate Economics Students Association. He has not yet decided on his future presidencies, but we shall watch his career with warm interest. He has a past, not a pluperfect, but certainly a future. Just now, however, no distance lends enchantment to his view of the department. And I now call upon him to share his view with us.

So far we have been egocentric and appropriately so. But many other centres of economic learning are represented here, and among them the London School of Economics of which I am proud as my own Alma Mater. I now call upon Professor Lionel Robbins of Polecon (as it used sometimes to be known) to respond briefly on behalf of our guests at the Conference. His nature and significance are or shall I say, is, too well known to you to need elaboration.

[in pencil]
A.R. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Bicentennial Celebration”.

_____________________________

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

 

BURNS, Arthur Robert, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1938) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., teach., res.; b. 1895; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1920, Ph.D. (Econ.), 1926, London Sch. of Econ. Fields 5a, 3bc, 12b. Doc. dis. Money and monetary policy in early times (Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co., London, 1926). Pub. Decline of competition (McGraw-Hill 1936); Comparative economic organization (Prentice-Hall, 1955); Electric power and government policy (dir. of res.) (Twentieth Century Fund, 1948) . Res. General studies in economic development. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci., III, Dir. of Amer. Schol.

Source: Handbook of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4 (July, 1957), p. 40.

 

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. James Buchanan’s Dissertation Outline, 1947

James McGill Buchanan, Jr.’s Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago was awarded in the summer quarter of 1948. The title of his dissertation was “Fiscal Equity in a Federal State”. From the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution we have the following transcription of the mimeographed dissertation outline submitted by Buchanan that was discussed in the economics department faculty meeting of October 24, 1947. The agenda of that faculty meeting along with Milton Friedman’s handwritten additions (in square brackets) are included at the end of this posting. The procedure for admission to Ph.D, candidacy is described in a 1949 memo written by Milton Friedman to members of the Department’s Ph.D. Thesis Committee.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

 

2. Present Procedure
[1949, University of Chicago, Economics]

a. Admission to candidacy. As I understand it, we have no very formalized procedure or requirements. Students typically discuss possible thesis topics with one or more faculty members, construct outlines of the projected thesis, ordinarily get the reaction of one or more faculty members to it, revise it accordingly, and then formally submit the thesis topic and outline to the Department for approval and admission to candidacy. The submitted outline is occasionally extremely detailed, occasionally very general, and is sometimes accompanied by a general statement of objective and purpose, sources of material for the thesis, etc.

[…]

Source: Undated memo (early 1949) written by Milton Friedman to members of the Committee on Ph.D. Thesis Outlines and Requirements from Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 5 “University of Chicago Minutes, Ph.D. Thesis Committee”.

_____________________________________

Dissertation Outline, James M. Buchanan, October 1947

J. M. Buchanan

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL ADJUSTMENT

I. The Problem —

A. The federal political structure

1. Federalism in political theory. Varying degrees of dual sovereignty. The question of the finality of a federal structure. Is it a final point in political organization or merely a stage in an evolutionary process?

2. The historical development of federalism in the United States. Trends toward centralization and opposing tendencies. The expanding role of government on the whole. The expanding sphere of activity of the central as opposed to subordinate units. Projection of future trends.

3. The case for federalism as a permanent political structure in the United States. Its value as a means of a division of power, as a protection against a tyranny of the majority, etc.

4. Statement of viewpoint on federalism taken in this study.

B. The national economy —

1. The historical development of the expanding scope of the economy. The extension of the market, the trend toward economic centralization, in the sense that the nation has become the unit which defines the area of the allocation of resources.

2. The extent to which the economy is national — increasing specialization, increased resource mobility, etc.

C. Conflicts which arise in the financing of government due to the superimposition of a federated political structure on a national economy.

1. The heterogeneity of the subordinate units of government. Resource heterogeneity. Cultural, social differences. Income disparities leading to differentials in tax burdens and service standards. The basic fiscal inequity inherent in such a structure.

II.            A Theoretical Solution –

A. What is fiscal equity in such a structure?

1. Definition and limitation. For present purposes concept narrowed to that of “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals”. Abstraction from any attempt to determine equity as between unequals since such a concept not needed for problems considered.

B. Application of the concept —

1. Necessity of benefit calculation for any determination of equity among individuals in separate subordinate governmental units. Difficulties in benefit calculation, aside from special cases. Assumption of per capita general expenditure as best measure of benefit.

2. Definition of the “fiscal residuum” or “net tax” – Net value of services available less net value of taxes paid. Considerations of “government” as the total of all layers in structure, federal, state, and local.

C. Arithmetical Examples –

Examples illustrating possible application of the equity criteria in hypothetical cases. Illustration that “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals” will impose geographical financial neutrality upon the individual.

III.           A study of Comparative Fiscal Treatment of Similarly Situated Individuals in High Income and Low Income States –

A. Selection of states considered – one with high per capita income, one with low. (Tentatively have selected New York and Mississippi.)

B. Assumptions and abstractions –

1. Assumption of the State-Local fiscal problem as solved or non-existent. Application of criterion to 2-level structure only. State-local considered as one unit. Seek only interstate differentials, not intrastate here.

2. Assumption of money income as measure of economic position. Abstraction from non-pecuniary advantages of geographical location. Individuals considered in similar economic circumstances if money income, pproperty value, same. Physical property same. Family obligations same.

C. Selection of hypothetical individuals to be compared. Determination of income ranges to be covered.

D.            Expenditure pattern of individuals considered.

1. Proportion of income saved, spent at various income levels.

2. Distribution of expenditure at various income levels.

3. Property holdings at different income levels.

E. Determination of tax burdens of individuals considered.

1. Examination of tax structures of states in question.

2. Assumptions as to final incidence of state taxes. More than one set of assumptions can be made and results collocated.

3. Tax burden of hypothetical individuals in each income group in each state can be determined by application of assumptions as to incidence to expenditure patterns.

4. Indication that validity of the study does not depend upon validity of the assumptions as to incidence since no attempt is made to compare dissimilarly situated individuals. (Such a comparison will necessarily show in the computation, however, and for this reason the assumptions should be as realistic as possible.)

F. Determination of value of benefits of government service provided —

1. Necessity to use per capita general expenditure as best benefit measure.

2. Use of value input only not value output. Value output will differ as administrative efficiency of state varies.

G. Calculation of fiscal residua of similarly situated individuals considered —

1. Possibility of abstracting from federal taxes and expenditures since similarly situated individuals supposedly treated similarly by federal government.

H.            Calculation of the interstate differential in fiscal residua of the hypothetical similarly situated individuals considered.

IV.           Existing and proposed attempts at solution.

A. Vertical Integration

1. Examination of the various proposals made to integrate and unify the whole financial structure; plans for realignment of functions, central collection, local administration, complete centralization, etc.

B. Horizontal Integration and Coordination –

1. Readjustment of geographical boundaries, consolidation of non-efficient units. The “regionalism” approach.

C. The grant-in-aid as the adjusting device.

1. The existing structure of grants-in-aid in the United States – a short summary of the more prominent characteristics of the system.

2. Proposals for extension of the system –

a.            Further use of the conditional grant

(1)  Merits of the conditional grant

(2)  Drawbacks

(a)  Effects on budgetary independence of subordinate units.

(b) Central direction and interference.

b.            The concept of a “minimum standard”

(1)  Idea of the “national interest”

(2)  Attempts at defining “minimum standards”

(3)  Violation of equity criteria

(4)  Federal assumption of a function.

D.            Realistic Appraisal of Various Proposals from Standpoint of Political and Administrative Feasibility.

V.            Policy Implications of the Criterion of Equity Proposed in this study.

A. The practicability of direct application.

1. Difficulty of measurement

2. Political and administrative barriers.

B. Effect of the Acceptance of the Theoretical Validity of the Criterion upon Practical Policy.

1. Early elimination of matching requirements in grant-in-aid distribution.

2. Early abandonment of the concept of “minimum standards”.

3. Broadening of purpose for which grants are made.

4. Further extension of so-called “equalization” grants.

5. Elimination of the idea of “charity” in intergovernmental fiscal adjustment.

6. Greater federal reliance on the income tax as a source of revenue.

C. The proposals of the Canadian Royal Commission and Possible Application of Similar Proposals to the United States.

VI.           Possible Objections to the Equity Criterion Proposed and its Policy Implications.

A. Theoretical Objections

1. The central government as the adjusting unit.

2. The inclusion of fiscal treatment by government in the criteria for the optimum allocation of resources.

3. The nation as the economic unit.

B. Administrative Objections.

1. Violation of principle of fiscal responsibility.

VII.          Conclusion.

____________________________

 

Department of Economics
AGENDA
Friday, October 24, 1947, at 3:30 p.m. in SS424

I. Students’ Business

A. Admission to Candidacy for the Ph.D. Degree

James M. Buchanan

Subject: Equity Considerations in Intergovernmental Fiscal Adjustment.
Field: Government Finance
Committee: [Blough, chairman, Perloff, Knight]

Henry Woldon Hewetson

Subject: An Examination of the Distance Principle of Railway Freight rate making with references to Canadian Conditions.
Field: [Transportation]
Committee: [Sorrell, Koopmans, Friedman]

[Inserted:

Harriett D. Hudson.

Progressive Mine Workers of America
Committee: Douglas, ch; Nef; (illegible name) Lewis]

Norman Maurice Kaplan

Subject: Models for Socialist Economic Planning
Field:
Committee: [Marschak, ch.; ch. Harris; A. P. Lerner; Friedman

Raymond H. McEvoy

Subject: Effects of Federal Reserve Policies, 1929-36
Field: Money, Banking, and Monetary Policy
Committee: [Mints, Hamilton, Metzler]

Wallace E. Ogg

Subject: A Study of Maladjustment of Resources in Southern Iowa
Field: Agricultural Economics
Committee: [Johnson, Hardin (pol sci), Lewis]

B. Admission to candidacy for the Alternative Master’s Degree (without thesis.)

Raymond H. McEvoy

C. Admission to candidacy for the Regular Master’s Degree

Peter Senn

Subject: Federal subsidization of the Banks
Field:
Committee:

D. Petitions

Guy Black—for permission to substitute work in Mathematics for the regular requirement of a second foreign language.

Keith O. Campbell—for approval to take Political Science as one of the fields for the Ph.D. Degree.

Gershon Cooper—to substitute the following courses in math. for the German language requirement for the Ph.D. Degree: Mathematics 216, 220, and 228.

Bernard Gordon—to substitute a mathematical sequence of Calculus I and Calculus II in place of one of the language requirements for the Ph.D. Degree.

Dale A. Knight—to use Political science as one field for the Ph.D. Degree.

Chih-wei Lee—to take English as the second language.

[John K. Lewis]

II. Encyclopedia Britannica Economic Articles

III. Language requirements for Foreign students.

IV. Report of Master’s Degree Committee, Spring and Summer, 1947

V. New Business

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 79, Folder “79.1 University of Chicago Minutes Economics Department 1946-1949”.

Image Source: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Biography of James M. Buchanan.

 

Categories
Chicago Suggested Reading

Chicago. History of Economic Thought. Frank Knight, 1946

This is now the fifth course reading list  I have posted from the valuable collection of University of Chicago lecture notes taken by the economist Norman Kaplan. The other four syllabi are from courses taught by Douglas, Friedman, Lange, and Mints. Today we have the “Working Bibliography” that Frank Knight provided students taking his graduate course on the history of economic thought. I have managed to add a good number of links to the items he cited just as I have for the analogous course offered at Harvard by Joseph Schumpeter in 1940.

Incidentally, the distinguished economic historian Stanley Engerman is the person to whom we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude. Professor Engerman was a colleague and friend of Norman Kaplan at the University of Rochester. After Kaplan’s death Engerman helped sort through the papers left in his deceased colleague’s office, spotted the extraordinary collection of extensive student notes for Kaplan’s years at the University of Chicago and then had the notes shipped to the University of Chicago Archives. 

___________________________

[Course Announcement]

[Economics] 302. History of Economic Thought. Brief survey of the whole field of economic thought and a more intensive study of the “classical school” of British economists, whose doctrines are studied in relation to the problems and discussions of today. Prereq: Econ 301 or equiv. Win: TuThu 3:30-5; Knight.

 

Source:  University of Chicago, Announcements–The College and the Divisions, Sessions of 1945-1946, p. 216.

___________________________

 

ECONOMICS 302
HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT
Winter 1946

Working Bibliography

General Character of the Course: A very brief survey of economic thought prior to the “classical school,” with chief attention devoted to the latter, especially to the price and distribution theory of Smith, Ricardo, Senior and Mill. Limited reference to Historical or Socialistic Schools. Matter outside the classical doctrine to be obtained chiefly from reading.

General Works (“Manuals”)

Ferguson, John M., Landmarks of Economic Thought.

Gray, Alexander, The Development of Economic Doctrine.

Two recent books very readable, and excellent within their scope. Gray has nothing on the historical schools. Neither is adequate on the classical writers.

 

Roll, Erich, History of Economic Thought. Somewhat Marxist slant.

Haney, L. H., History of Economic Thought. The fullest book covering the field; table of contents gives a fairly good arrangement of authors into groups or tendencies.
[1920 edition]

Ingram, J. K., A History of Political Economy. Briefer than Haney, and usable.

Spann, O., History of Economics. Translated from the German. Valuable for its intense opposition to the viewpoint of the classical school in favor of an organismic or universalistic standpoint. [Original: Othmar Spann, Die Haupttheorien der Volkswirtschaftslehre, 17th ed. 1928.]

Schumpeter, Joseph, Epochen der Dogmen- und Methodengeschichte, contained in Grundriss der Sozialökonomik Vol. I. [English translation]

Oncken, A. Geschichte der National Ökonomie. (Down to Adam Smith).

Gide, C., and Rist, C., History of Economic Doctrines (in French, or Translated from the French). (Begins with the Physiocrats). A competent but uninspired book. Emphasis on French work and on the socialistic schools.

Scott, William A., The Development of Economics. Covers modern period, beginning with background of classical economics. Excellent summaries, notable omissions (esp. Mathematical economists).

Whittaker, Edmund, A History of Economic Ideas. The best book in the field in content but massive, confusing, and repetitious through organization on the topical principle. First half deals with institutional and intellectual history rather than analytical economic thought. [Cf. his Schools and Streams of Economic Thought. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1960.]

Heimann, Eduard, History of Economic Doctrines. An Introduction to Economic Theory. Oxford University Press, 1945. Pp. ix, 263 (245). More introduction than history.

Salin, Edgar, Geschichte der Volkswirtschaftslehre. Covers the field briefly in an interpretive, historical-philosophical manner.

Encyclopedias; esp. Palgrave, Dictionary of Political Economy. (Ed. Henry Higgs 1926) and the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences; on men and movements, and especially, Bibliographies. [Palgrave, 1912-1915.  Vol I (A-E), Vol II (F-M), Vol III (N-Z)]

See Bibliographical Notes in Haney (above) 3d Revised Edition, 1936, pp. 803-809.

 

On the Whole Period before the Classical School

Monroe, A. E. Early Economic Thought. Lengthy excerpts from some twenty important writers.

Oncken, A. See under General Works.

Sewall, H. R. The Theory of Value before Adam Smith, Publications of the American Economic Association, 1901.

Dunning, W. A., History of Political Theories, Ancient and Modern; also ibid. From Luther to Montesquieu. (Pre-classical economic thought being essentially political thought.)

 

Greco-Roman Economics

Simey, Miss E., article entitled “Economic Theory among the Greeks and Romans.” Economic Review, 1900. Copies on reserve. Best short account.

Laistner, M. L. W., Greek Economics. Valuable introduction and excerpts.

Calhoun, G. M., Business Life of Ancient Athens. Introduction and text valuable for background.

 

Medieval

Ashley, W. J. English Economic History and Theory, Vol. 1, pt. I, Chap. 3, and Vol. I, Pt. II, Chap. 6. Best general account.

O’Brien, Geo., An Essay on Medieval Economic Teaching. Highly important, especially because written from a Catholic point of view.

Tawney, R. H., Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Chapter One, on The Medieval Background

 

Mercantilism

Heckscher, Eli F., Mercantilism, 2 vols. [Volume One; Volume Two]

Horrocks, J. W., A Short History of Mercantilism.

Schmoller, Gustav, The Mercantile System. Ashley Economic Classics. Invaluable also as a specimen of the German historical economics. Inquire at desk. E11.

Ashley, W. J. The Tory Origin of Free Trade Policy, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 11. Also in Surveys Historical and Economic.

Johnson, E. A. J. The Predecessors of Adam Smith.

Mun, Thomas, England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade. Ashley Economic Classics

Furniss, E. S., The Position of the Laborer in a System of Nationalism.

Viner, J., English Theories of Foreign Trade before Adam Smith, in Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 38, nos. 3 and 4. Reprinted in Studies in the Theory of International Trade, Harpers, 1937.

 

Physiocrats
(Given very little attention in this course.)

Higgs, Henry, The Physiocrats.

Ware, Norman, article on “The Physiocrats” in American Economic Review, 1931.

Bloomfield, Arthur I., Foreign Trade Doctrines of the Physiocrats. American Economic Review, Volume XXVIII, no. 4, December 1938 (Reprint on Reserve).

Turgot, A. R. J., Formation and Distribution of Riches. (Ashley Economic Classics.)

 

Classical School

Whitaker, A. C., Labor Theory of Value in English Political Economy. Nearly essential, if obtainable (Purchase).

Bowley, Marian, Nassau Senior and Classical Economics (Purchase, alternative to Whitaker). Better, but more difficult.

Cannan, Edwin, Theories of Production and Distribution. Valuable, but laborious reading.

Cannan, Edwin, Review of Economic Theory. Used selectively, more available than his other book.

Taussig, F. W. Wages and Capital (London School Reprint).

Knight, F. H. The Ricardian Theory of Production and Distribution. Reprint from the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science.

Cannan, Edwin, (ed.), Lectures of Adam Smith.

Smith, Adam, Wealth of Nations.  Full text, Everyman’s Library (2 vols.) or Modern Library (Reprint of Cannan edition—1 vol.) most available. Abridged edition edited by W. J. Ashley gives portions covered in the course conveniently in one small volume.  Cannan edition (2 vols.) the definitive edition, but expensive and bulky for class use.

Ricardo, David, Principles of Political Economy. Available in Everyman’s Library (1 vol.)  Gonner edition best. (London, C. Bell and Sons: Bohn’s Libraries). [Sraffa edition]

Senior, N. W., Outline of Political Economy. Reprinted 1938, Allen and Unwin.

Mill, J. S., Principles of Political Economy. Ashley ed., Longmans, 1 vol.

 

Subjective Value or Marginal Utility School

Smart, Wm., Introduction to the Theory of Value.

Jevons, W. S. Theory of Political Economy.

Wieser, F., Natural Value.

Smart’s prefaces to Böhm-Bawerk’s two main volumes and to Wieser, Natural Value.

Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest and Positive Theory of Capital.

Weinberger, Otto. Die Grenznutzenschule.

Mises, Ludwig, Bemerkungen zum Grundproblem der subjektivistischen Wertlehre, contained in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Band 59, Heft 1.

 

Historical and Institutional and Socialistic Schools

See articles in Palgrave’s Dictionary of Political Economy and in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

 

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Norman Maurice Kaplan Papers. Box 1, Folder 10.

Image Source:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03516, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions

Chicago. Economic Theory Exams, A.M. and Ph.D. Summer 1949

The economic theory examination committee at the University of Chicago in the Summer Quarter of 1949  for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees was made up of F. H. Knight (chair), O. H. Brownlee, M. Friedman, and  L. A. Metzler.  49 students took Part I of the exam (33 were Ph.D. students, 16 were A.M. students, equally divided between economics majors and minors). Part II of the examination was taken by 14 Ph.D. students (no A.M. students).  It does not appear that Knight participated in the grading of Part II however.

Two minor notes: Students were assigned numbers, presumably to assure anonymity with respect to their examiners, but the “unlucky” number 13 was not assigned to anyone. The “grade sheet” for the exams is labelled the “Report on Written Examination” which is similar to the use of the word “report” by the registrar’s office on official University of Chicago transcripts (for this usage, see the Patinkin transcripts).

__________________________________________

ECONOMIC THEORY, Part I
[August 2, 1949]

Written examination for the Ph.D. and A. M. Degrees, Summer Quarter, 1949

Ph.D. candidates: Time: 3½ hours. Answer all questions

A.M. Major candidates: Time: 3 hours. Answer question #2 and two others.

A.M. Minor candidates: Time: 2 hours. Answer question #2 and one other.

 

  1. (a) Discuss and evaluate alternative theories of “Profits” as a distributive share.
    (b) It is frequently said that in a private enterprise economy the producers’ motive is to maximize “profits”. Discuss the meaning of “profits” in this connection in relation to your answer to (a).
  1. Write briefly on the meaning of the capital concept and its importance in interpreting economic growth or change. Relate your discussion to the case of a Crusoe economy and state whether (and if so how) the principles are different for the competitive pecuniary social order.
  1. With reference to federal legislation assuring to every resident in the U.S.A. medical care by the physician and hospital of his choice, free and with no special taxation: Appraise the proposal as to effects upon general welfare, assuming that the alternative is the sale of medical insurance, not subsidized, but with the same distribution of personal income effected by cash “relief”.
  1. Briefly discuss the familiar diagram of a family of short-run cost curves for a firm, with an “envelope” as a long-run curve. State the main “cases” for price-equilibrium under monopoly and under “perfect competition.” Explain why the point of tangency with both curves descending may be such an equilibrium-supply, and particularly why it locates the minimum cost for the corresponding output.
  1. Briefly outline or list the main features of the Ricardian theories of value and of distribution and contrast each point with a “sound” modern view.”

__________________________________________

ECONOMIC THEORY, Part II
[August 4, 1949]

Written examination for the Ph.D. Degree, Summer Quarter, 1949.

Time: 2½ hours.

  1. Assume an economic system in which real expenditure upon goods and services (real consumption, investment, government expense) is a function of real income and the interest-rate; show that the set of values which satisfy the conditions for equilibrium in the commodity market (make real savings and investment equal) need not contain the “full-employment” income level; i.e., that level of real income which would be produced when the quantity of labor supplied equals the quantity demanded, both the labor supply and labor demand being functions of the real wage.
    Evaluate the assumptions of this system on terms of their realism, citing the relevant evidence; and indicate modifications which would result in the inclusion of the “full employment” level of income as one of the values satisfying the condition for equilibrium in the commodity market.
  1. Under the so-called “security-reserve proposal” member banks would be required to keep a supplementary reserve against deposits over and above the reserves they are now required to keep in the form of a deposit with a Federal Reserve Bank. This supplementary reserve could be in the form of government securities.a. What is the main purpose, or purposes, of this proposal?
    b. What effect would it have on the ability of the banks to expand credit, and how?
    c. In the light of present economic conditions, what can you say about the urgency of such a “reform”?
  1. It is a common view today that an equal reduction of both taxes and governmental expenditure would contribute to an increase of the national income or counteract a tendency to depression. State your position and discuss carefully.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 76, Folder 10 “University of Chicago Econ. 300B”.

Categories
Chicago Courses Syllabus

Chicago. Economics From an Institutional Standpoint. Knight c.1934

Frank Knight’s teaching at Chicago covered four bases: core economic theory, the history of economics, social control of the economy and institutional economics. 

One truly can’t fault 1930’s Chicago economics for failing to be aware of the surrounding disciplines. On the other side of the political spectrum we witness the same breadth in Paul Douglas’ 1938 course, Types of Economic Organization.

The following course outline is out of place in the folder for Econ 304 in the Homer Jones Papers. Note that the “general alphabetical bibliography” mentioned in the outline was not in this folder.   The copy of the outline transcribed below apparently came from Homer Jones’ classmate, A.H. = “Alice Hanson”,  later his wife.

Milton Friedman’s 1976 remembrance of Homer Jones was reprinted in the St. Louis Fed’s Review November/December 2013, 95(6), pp. 451-54.

__________________

 Course Description

305. Economics from an Institutional Standpoint.—The relations between the classical-mathematical and institutional-historical views of economic phenomena; institutional factors as the framework and much of the content of the price economy; late nineteen century economic society as a complex of structural forms. Prerequisite: Economics 301 and some European economic history. C. 10:00, Knight.

Source:   Course description from the University of Chicago’s Announcement of courses for Summer Quarter 1934

_____________________________

[ penciled addition:] A. H. (n.d.)

Economics 305
Economics from Institutional Standpoint

Main Topics and Notes on Literature
(To be used with general, alphabetical bibliography)

I. American Institutional Economics

1. Veblen, Th. (Perhaps the one true example, except Handman, who has written little.)

a. The Place of Science in Civilization. (1919) Collected Essays. “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science,” 3rd paper, contains most of Veblen’s position. For his criticism of classical economics, especially “Professor Clark’s Economics” and “Limitations of Marginal Utility”; also three papers on “Presuppositions of Economic Science.” For V’s positive contribution, the title essay and second, on “Evolution of the Scientific Point of View” most important, to be followed with “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments,” “Gustav Schmoller’s Economics” and papers on Capital, Marx, and Socialism.

b. Economics in the Visible Future. A.E.R., 1925 (Cf. Discussion of J. M. Clark).

c. Other works: Instinct of Workmanship, Theory of the Leisure Class, and Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution most important. Theory of Business Enterprise social-critical, on line of Industrial and Pecuniary Employments. Later books (Nature of Peace, Higher Culture in America, Vested Interests, Engineers and Price System, Absentee Ownership, etc.) More satirical, and literary or controversial in appeal.

2. Handman, M. S.

3. Commons, J. R., Legal Economist. (Laws are not institutional in origin, but become institutions if long kept in force).

a. Legal Foundations of Capitalism. (Cf. Reviews, Mitchell, A.E.R., June, 1924 and Scharfman, Q.J.E., 1924-5.

b. “Institutional Economics,” A.E.R., Dec. 1931. (Corres. Regarding same, ibid., June, 1932.)

4. Mitchell, W. C. (Quantitative or statisticial economist, properly at opposite pole from institutionalism, but usually included in the movement. Has, like most economists, written some things of a really institutionalist character

a. “Quantitative Method in Economics” (Presidential Address) A.E.R., 1925. (His main position: not institutionalistic).

b. “Prospects of Economics.” (Leading Essay) in Tugwell, The Trend of Economics. (Institutional only in sense of being more or less critical of the older classical economists).

c. “The Role of Money in Economic Theory” (Institutional) A.E.R. 1916 Sup.; “The Backward Art of Spending Money.” A.E.R., 1912. “Human Behavior in Economics.”….Rev. of Sombart, Q.J.E. 1928-9; Bentham’s Felecific Calculus, P.S.Q., June, 1918.

d. On Mitchell’s main work on Business Cycles, see review by J. M. Clark, in Rice’s Case-Book, with Mitchell’s comment.

5. Copeland, Clark, Hale, Mills, Tugwell, Wolfe, etc., see Tugwell, (Editor) The Trend of Economics. Sometimes treated as an institutionalist manifesto, but with several “black sheep.” Cf. Review of the volume by A. A. Young, Q.J.E.

6. Other authors more or less sympathetic with the “movement,” see Boucke[sp?], Clark, Edie (uses the word for all recent economics he approves of) Hamilton.

 

II. Criticism of Institutional Economics.

1. Eva Flügge, in Jahrb. f. Nationalökon. u. Statistik, LXII, 1927. Important; on relations to German Historical School Position.

2. Homan, P. T. Essays on Veblen and Mitchell in Contemporary Economic Thought. Also Paper, A.E.R., Sup., Mar., 1932, and Discussion following, by various members. Cf. J.P.E., 1927 (Impasse, etc.) Q.J.E., 1928 (Issues, etc.)

3. Morgenstern, Schumpeter, Suranyi-Unger.

 

III. Earlier Historical Economics

1. Leslie, T.E.C. “The Philosophical Method in Political Economy” and “History of German Political Economy” in Essays in Moral and Political Philosophy.

2. Schmoller, The Mercantile System. (Example of an argument for the method. Cf. Veblen’s essay on Schmoller, under Veblen, above.

3. Ashley, W. J. Trans. of Roscher Program; also “The Study of Economic History” and “The Study of Economic History after Seven Years,” first two in Q.J.E., all in Surveys Historical and Economic.

4. Cohn, G., A.A.A., 1894 and Ec. Jour., 1905; Dunbar, Q.J.E. Vol. I (and in vol. Econ. Essays); Keynes, J.M., in Scope and Method of Pol. Econ.; Ingram, in History of Pol. Econ.; Nasse, Q.J.E., 1886; Rae, in Contemporary Socialism, pp. 193-221; Seager, J.P.E., 1892; Wagner, Q.J.E., 1886.

 

IV. The Neo-Historical School in Germany, and Related Work.

1. Parsons, T., Capitalism in Recent German Literature (Somart and M. Weber; best thing in English. For orientation see also Parsons, “Economics and Sociology” in Q.J.E., February, 1932).

2. Sombart, W., “Economic History and Economic Theory”, Ec. Hist. Rev.; Nationalökonomie u. Soziologie, Kieler Vorträge; also in G.D.S., Vol. III.

3. Diehl, Carl, Life and Work of Max Weber, Q.J.E. Vol.33.

4. Abel, Th., Chap. on Max Weber in vol., Systematic Sociology in German.

5. Weber, M., Protestant Ethic; and General Economic History.

6. Sombart, W., Die drei Nationalökonomien. Der modern Kapitalismus.

7. Weber, M., Essays in Ges. Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, esp. on Roscher und Knies, and Objektivität; finally, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (2 vols., in Grudriss d. Sozialökonomie).

8. Brinkmann, C., in Überbau etc., Schmollers Jahrb., 1930.; von Schelting, Zum Streit um die Wissenssoziologie, in Archiv. f. Sozialwiss. u. Sozialpol., v. 62, 1930. And references in both.

9. Related work in other countries. Tawney. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and other work; Simiand[sp?], La method positive dans l’économie politique (and French Neo-Positivism generally).

10. Another German movement closely related to neo-historism is the Universalistic economics of Spann. See in English his History of Economics. Also, C. Schmitt, Politische Romantik.

11. On the problem of Objectivity (Wertfreiheit) an essential issue throughout this movment, but especially under the influence of communism and fascism, see E. Spranger, Der Sinn d. Voraussetzungslosigkeit d. Wissenschaft (1930 and references.

 

V. ISSUES INVOLVED IN INSTITUTIONALISM

1. General Problems of Behavior (above bio-mechanics and chemistry and histology). Surveys, chiefly on level of physiology and animal behavior in Parmelee, Problem of Human Behavior; Allport, Social Psychology. Cf. Metchnikoff, Nature of Man; Wheeler, Ants; Emerson, Termites. Psychology Symposia, Clark University, Psychologies of 1925, also 1930; also, The Unconscious, sponsored Mrs. E. Dummer. Cf. Cooley, Dewey, Ellwood, McDougall, Sumner, Wallas. Survey of General Sociology, Park & Burgess, Introduction. Sociology from standpoint of society as a unit, Spann, Gesellschaftslehre; from that of personalities in relation, Hornell Hart.

2. History and Economic History. Müller-Lyer; Hobhouse, also Hobhouse, Wheeler & Ginsburg; Gras; E. Gross. On Economic Interpretation of History; Communist Manifesto: Engels; Labriola; See; Seligman. (Hanson; Knight; Matthews). History and Historical Method: Adams, G. B. [sp.?]; Adams, Brooks; Barth; Bernheim; Cheyney; Flint; Fueter; Teggart; Rickert; Windelband. (For Rickert-Windelband view of history, Chap. I of Park & Burgess Sociology with Bibliography. Cf. Small, Origins of Sociology.

3. Institutions. Besides Sociology, see Anthropology, works of (esp.) Lowie, Goldenweiser; also, Boas, Kroeber, Wallis, Wissler, etc.

4. Particular Institutions, (all more or less economic in basis and function). Language: Sapir; The Family; Westermarck, Calhoun; Law: Commons, Pound, Jenks, Holdsworth, Maine, Maitland, Vinogradoff. Religion: Barton, Carpenter, Carus, Cumont, Harnak, Simkhovitch, Sohm, Lagarde, Walker.

5. Economic Institutions, Specifically. Bibliographies in Sombart, Der modern Kapitalismus; use table of contents and index. Surveys of Economic History; Knight, Barnes & Fluegel, Economic History of Europe; H. See, Modern Capitalism (both with chapter bibliographies).

6. Methodology. See M. R. Cohen, “Social Science and Natural Science,” in Ogburn & Goldenweiser (Ed.) The Social Sciences in their Interrelations; also most of the 33 papers in the volume, all with bibliographies. Rice, S. A., (Ed.) Methods in Social Science, a Case-Book; 52 papers, mostly analyses of particular works or groups of works from methodological standpoint. Keynes, J. N., Scope and Method of Political Economy.

7. Idea of Style and Culture-Pattern. Compare Wöfflin, Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe; Sapir in Ogburn and Goldenweiser.

_____________________________

Source: Homer Jones Papers, Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Box 2, Folder “Frank H. Knight, Economics 304, lecture, notes, 1933, Oct.-1934.”

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03516, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

__________________

Other sources for this course:

  • F. T. Ostrander’s “Notes on Frank H. Knight’s Course, Economics from an Institutional Standpoint, Economics 305, University of Chicago, 1933-34,” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 23(B), 2005.
  • Earl Hamilton’s  Economics 305 notes in Summer Quarter 1935, (Frank Knight Papers, Box 38, Folder 8) are cited among other places in Malcolm Rutherford’s “Chicago economics and institutionalism” in The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics (Ross B. Emmett, ed.).
  • In the Hyman Minsky Archive at Bard College are notes Minsky took in Economics 305 during the Spring Quarter 1942.
Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Transcript

Milton Friedman’s Coursework in Economics, Statistics and Mathematics

Before Milton Friedman could be a teacher of economics, he was of course the student of many teachers. This list of his relevant coursework and teachers is complete. I merely add here that his transcript also shows three semesters of college French and four semesters of college German and that he entered Rutgers with advanced credits in French.

Rutgers University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
Dept. of Agriculture Graduate School

Rutgers University (1928-32)

Principles of Economics E. E. Agger 1929-30
Money and Banking E. E. Agger 1930-31
Statistical Methods Homer Jones 1930-31
Business Cycles Arthur F. Burns 1931-32
Economic Research Ivan V. Emelianoff 1931-32
Principles of Insurance Homer Jones 1931-32
College Algebra 1928-29, 1st term
Analytical Geometry 1928-29, 2nd term
Calculus 1929-30
Advanced Calculus 1930-31
Theory of Numbers 1929-30, 2nd term
Theory of Equations 1930-31, 1st term
Differential Equations 1930-31, 2nd term
Analysis 1931-32
Elliptic Integrals 1931-32, 2nd term

 

University of Chicago (1932-33, 1934-35)

Econ 301 Prices and Distribution Theory Jacob Viner Autumn Quarter 1932
Econ 302 History of Economic Thought Frank H. Knight Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 303 Modern Tendencies in Economics Jacob Viner Spring Quarter 1933
Econ 311 Correlation and Curve Fitting Henry Schultz Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 312 Statistical Graphics Henry Schultz Spring Quarter 1933
Econ 330 Graduate Study of Money and Banking Lloyd W. Mints Autumn Quarter 1932
Econ 370 International Trade and Finance Jacob Viner Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 220 Economic History of the United States, not taken for credit Chester Wright Winter Quarter 1935
Econ 220 Economic History of Europe, not taken for credit John U. Nef Autumn Quarter 1934
Labor (visited) Paul H. Douglas  1934-35
Theory of Demand (visited) Henry Schultz  1934-35
Math 306 Introduction to Higher Algebra  E. Dickson Autumn Quarter 1932
Math 341 Calculus of Variations  G. Bliss Autumn Quarter 1932
Math 324 Theory of Algebraic Numbers  A. Albert Winter Quarter 1933
Math 310 Functions of a Complex Variable (not taken for credit) L. M. Graves

 Master’s thesis: An empirical study of the relationship between railroad stock prices and railroad earnings for the period 1921-31.

 

Columbia University (1933-34)

Stat 111-12 Statistical Inference Harold Hotelling Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 117-18 Mathematical Economics Harold Hotelling Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 119 Economic History V. G. Simkhovitch Winter semester
Econ 128 Currency and Credit James W. Angell Spring semester
Econ 211-12 Business Cycles Wesley Claire Mitchell Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 315-16 Economic Theory Seminar John M. Clark, James W. Angell, and Wesley C. Mitchell Winter/Spring semesters
Social Economics (visited) J. M. Clark
Labor (visited) Leo Wolman
Theory (visited) R. W. Souter

 

Department of Agriculture Graduate School (1936-37)

Statistics 17-18 Adjustment of Observations

Source: Assembled from transcripts and course lists kept by Milton Friedman. Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 5, Folders 11, 13 (Student years).

Image Source: Columbia University, Columbia 250 Celebrates Columbians Ahead of Their Time.