Tag: Mason

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus, John Christopher Ise, 1914

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-09-07

The Ph.D. alumni of a department typically provide their alma mater with talent-spotting services for future graduate students. The University of Kansas professor (and Harvard economics Ph.D., 1914) John C. Ise spotted Edward S. Mason, Lloyd A. Metzler (cf. the ERVM post of the Metzler memorial service) and John Lintner and sent them to Harvard for graduate school in economics. Quite the rate of return!

_________________________________

John Christopher Ise
1996 Inductee of the Osborne County Hall of Fame

One of the foremost Kansas educators of the twentieth century was born June 5, 1885, in western Ross Township of Osborne County. Named after his maternal grandfather, John Christopher Ise was the seventh of twelve children born to Henry and Rosena (Haag) Ise on the homestead Henry had claimed in June 1871. As an infant John was stricken with polio, which caused his right leg to become withered and nearly useless. His parents decided early that his best chance at success in life was for him to become a scholar.

John attended the nearby one-room Ise School and learned to play the guitar and the violin. With the latter he occasionally gave recitals in the area. In 1902 he taught a term at the Prairie Bell School in Bethany Township, receiving thirty dollars a month in pay. Later he also taught at the Rose Valley School in Ross Township. In 1903 his damaged leg was amputated and he was fitted with an artificial one, after which he could walk almost normally.

Ise entered the University of Kansas (KU) and graduated with a degree in music in 1908. He followed this with Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Law degrees. In 1911 he was admitted to the Kansas bar. The next year he received his master’s degree from Harvard University, where in 1914 John also became a Doctor of Philosophy. He was an assistant professor of economics at Harvard and Iowa State College before joining the faculty at the University of Kansas in 1916. He became a full professor there in 1920.

Dr. Ise’s interest in natural resources economics made him internationally known and internationally debated. “As crusty as the Kansas sod, Ise had the self-imposed mission of shocking both students and the public from their intellectual lethargy,” wrote Clifford Griffin in his The University of Kansas: A History (1983). Then-radical ideas such as conserving national oil reserves against future shortages and restricting drilling and mining in national parks and other federal lands caused Ise to be branded a Communist by some. But as time went on his ideas and writings earned him lasting respect both as a resource conservationist and a prophet of the energy crisis of the 1970s.

On August 4, 1921, John married Lillie Bernhard in Lawrence, Kansas. They had two sons, John Jr. and Charles. John was an independent in politics and a charter member of the League for Independent Political Action. He also served as president of the American Economics Association, the Mid-West Economic Association and on the editorial board of the American Economic Review. He was given life membership in the Kansas Illustriana Society in 1933 and later was named to Who’s Who in America.

John was a member of several local organizations in the Lawrence area. He and his wife gave $25,000 in 1955 to the Lawrence Humane Society for an animal shelter in memory of their son Charles, who had died in a plane crash, and spent much more time with this cause. Dr. Ise’s efforts in this area were recognized in 1968 by the American Humane Association.

John’s eight books ranged in subject matter from a comprehensive test on economics to a collection of humorous comments on current condition, interspersed with the classic story of his pioneer family in Osborne County. The United States Forest Policy (1920), The United States Oil Policy (1926), and Our National Park Policy: A Critical History (1961) all reflected his economic views on the nation’s natural resources. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, better known as OPEC, was formed in 1961 based on Ise’s conclusions in his Oil Policy book. Economics (1940) was a classroom textbook by Ise that was used at KU and several other colleges and universities from 1940 to 1965. Sod and Stubble (1936), a look at his parents’ life on the Kansas prairie in nineteenth century Osborne County, is still in print over 75 years after its initial publication. Ise also edited Howard Ruede’s critically-acclaimed Sod-House Days: Letters from a Kansas Homesteader (1937). These latter two books are considered to be the finest literature ever written about homesteading life on the Great Plains of North America, and have made Osborne County a focal point for scholarly study of the region. Ise’s final book, The American Way, was actually a present to him by his colleagues at KU upon his retirement in 1955 and is a collection of his finest speeches and letters.

Ise kept in touch with his boyhood home in Downs, whether giving the commencement address at the high school graduation or just visiting old friends. It was also customary for him to hold in Lawrence a yearly dinner for all Osborne County students attending KU.

John retired in 1955 with more earned degrees than any other KU faculty member. Up to fifteen thousand students had passed through his classes in thirty-nine years of teaching. He retired a world-renowned economist and is considered one of the three greatest professors in University of Kansas history. Currently the John Ise Award is given annually to recognize the student with the most outstanding achievement by the University of Kansas Department of Economics. John continued in the post of professor emeritus and also taught as a visiting professor of economics at Amherst College in Massachusetts, Groucher University in Baltimore, Maryland, Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, and at Harvard University.

John Ise passed away March 26, 1969, at Lawrence and was buried there in the Oak Hill Cemetery. His legacy of teaching and his writings will continue to shape and inspire the world we live in for many years to come.

JOHN ISE
MEMORIES OF MY FATHER

“I was asked to write a brief summary of my father’s life as it pertained to Osborne County. Of his early life I know little beyond his own story of his parents’ life as set forth in his book Sod and Stubble. This book, which I understand is being reissued in 1996, delineates the hardships, sorrows, and joys experienced by Rosa and Henry Ise (nee Eisenmanger) as early settlers near Downs. It ends with the selling of the Ise farm and the move of the family to Lawrence following Henry’s death.

It became abundantly clear to me how much my father’s early farm life had affected him, since for as far back as I can remember (I was born in 1923, in Lawrence, Kansas) he always owned a couple of farms. These were both quarter-sections, one near Richland and the other near Doniphan. He let neighbors farm these in exchange for half the wheat crop, which I remember as yielding (at least during the 1930s) a modest negative return. And just after my brother was born, in March 1926, he moved our family from the rented house on Louisiana Street to a farmhouse a few miles west of Lawrence on Highway 40. His nostalgia for the farm had apparently overweighed my mother’s misgivings, but after about a year she prevailed and they moved back to 1208 Mississippi Street, where he spent the rest of his life.

He had extremely broad interests in life. Thus at KU he earned bachelor’s degrees from three schools – the School of Fine Arts in 1908 (in music), the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences in 1910, and the School of Law in 1911. He subsequently earned Master’s and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard in economics, which became his consuming interest from then on, particularly the study of conservation and farm economics. He wrote several books on these subjects, U.S. Oil Policy, U.S. Forest Policy, and U.S. National Park Policy, in addition to Sod and Stubble.

His early life on a Kansas farm had imbued him with several traits that I always found very admirable. He was scrupulously honest – I can remember once when he found that a sales clerk at the old Woolworth’s store on Massachusetts had given him a nickel too much change, whereupon he walked a block and a half in a light snowfall to return the nickel. This was not an easy task for a man who had to drag along a heavy artificial leg (prosthetics have come a long way since he had his withered leg cut off in 1903).

He loved animals with an unqualified love. He had worked his way through college by serving as a mounted officer for the Lawrence SPCA. His stories of how he had rescued dogs and horses from what seemed to my brother and me as incredible brutality and cruelty made a deep impression on both of us. After losing the use of his leg at the age of two to polio he had to get to school (half a mile) in a little wagon pulled by his faithful dog, Coalie. When my brother was killed in a light plane crash in 1955 my father donated money for the Charles Ise Animal Shelter in Lawrence.

And he seemed to have an uncanny way with animals. During the months that we spent on the farm west of Lawrence a neighboring farmer gave him a large and savage Airedale that had so badly bitten several of the farmer’s hired hands that he had to get rid of the dog. I can still remember Dad taking me and the dog by the scruff of the neck and saying, ‘Pal, this is Johnboy – you two are going to be friends.’ Not a growl from the fierce-looking dog, who did indeed become my fast friend, twice saving my life (as I still believe), once from a huge sow who had broken down her pen – this pig had actually eaten two of her own piglets – and once when I got stuck in quicksand in a wash near the farmhouse. These incidents may have hastened our move back to Lawrence!

My father was also a firm believer in the Biblical injunction ‘By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thy daily bread’ and he worked harder than anyone I knew. He would teach all morning ‘up on the Hill,’ come home for lunch and then immure himself in his office, or ‘Library,’ as we called it. This was the downstairs room in our three story house, which contained many hundreds of books, mostly in his own field. All the rooms of the house, except for the kitchen, had bookcases, all full and almost all read. Dad worked, grading papers, preparing lectures, or writing some book or other, all afternoon and for three or four hours after dinner. This was a daily routine, except on Saturday afternoon when the Metropolitan Opera was playing, or when my parents either went out to dinner at friend’s homes or entertained friends themselves. My mother was an excellent cook; once being written up in Clementine Paddleford’s Sunday column for her Black Walnut Cake, but no wine or liquor was ever served in her house. Her father had been a Methodist minister and she and her nine brothers and sisters had been raised quite strictly. Dad’s parents had actually drunk beer and wine on rare occasions, to the considerable embarrassment of all their eleven children, most of whom remained strict teetotalers.

There were many things Dad could not teach me and my brother, because of his artificial leg. Thus there was no ball throwing or family bicycling trips. But he showed us things that to me were more important. As a child in Kansas he had had to be very inventive in the matter of playtime activities. He had learned to whittle with his jackknife–I still have a little box in which he carried his flute, carefully crafted from about a dozen types of wood native to Kansas. He showed Charlie and me how to crack a long bullwhip, and how to make shingle darts, launched with a stick with a knotted piece of string which fit into a notch in the body of the dart. He was incredibly precise with those things, and could hit targets at fifty yards as well as my brother and I could with our BB guns. Because of his missing leg he had had to compensate by using his arms more and had such strength in his arms and hands that he could chin himself with one hand, holding onto the exposed ceiling joists, a feat that his athletic older brothers could not duplicate. But the most important things he could and did teach us were attitudes and beliefs. We learned to love the outdoors, what is now called ‘the environment.’ Summer vacations were always spent camping in the western national parks. We picked up a love of great art, good music and great literature. His favorite author was always Mark Twain. He was fiercely loyal to Kansas and to the United States, which belies his frequently controversial views about many things. He was widely considered to be a Communist sympathizer for many years and the chancellor and even the governor received occasional letters from Kansas businessmen complaining about “that radical John Ise, infecting the young minds in our University.” This amused Dad greatly, but infuriated me and my brother. And thanks to a tolerant administration he remained at KU for thirty-nine years and I believe he taught at least a few thousand students how to think for themselves.

During my postdoctoral Fulbright fellowship to France in 1950 I was working with Jean Daudin, then a leading physicist in the field of cosmic rays. He also happened to be one of the leaders of the Communist Party in southern France and we worked together at the Pic du Midi, on the Spanish border, where he frequently entertained Spanish Loyalists hostile to Franco. Dad was teaching that summer at a seminar in Salzburg, sponsored by Harvard University, and I can remember the bitter argument he had with Daudin about communism, when the two of them met in Paris, for by 1950 the grim reality of Stalin’s dictatorship was obvious to all. I had to translate for the two of them for Dad spoke no French and Daudin no English and it was difficult for me to translate Dad’s cusswords into the kind of French I had learned from Mademoiselle Crumrine at KU!

He was a very good economist, serving as president of the American Economic Association, and an excellent teacher. His textbook on economics was for a time used by the majority of state universities, and I am glad that I was able to take his course in Economics 90, although I was too shy to ever open my mouth in class. When he retired from the KU faculty in 1955 his colleagues expressed their admiration by publishing a collection of his essays in a book, The American Way. In 1963 he was very proud to receive KU’s highest honor, the Citation for Distinguished Service, awarded at Commencement exercises. He remained a true son of Kansas all his life, which was inexorably shaped by his early upbringing in Downs. In one short essay reproduced in The American Way, entitled ‘No Time To Live’, he recalled one episode of his college days, when the family was still living in Downs, in the following manner:

‘When we went to Lawrence to college we did not expect to make the trip in four hours but rode the unhurried Central Branch, changed trains a time or two, making connections if we were lucky – if not, lounging around the depot for some hours or perhaps all night. I remember well the evening my sister and I missed connections at Beloit and sat out behind the depot most of the night, reciting poetry and talking of our plans and ambitions and theories of the good life. It was full moon, and there was a mist on the field of ripening wheat across the fence, and the frogs were croaking from the creek nearby. Sister has been gone these many years, but I can still close my eyes and see that lovely, peaceful scene as if I had been there only yesterday. An interruption of our long journey which I, no doubt, cursed with vigor, had enriched my life with an unforgettable experience. It was enforced leisure, but how rich and enduring.’

One final remark he made about the early settlers among whom he was raised is still relevant: ‘They had what it took, and it took a lot.’ That about sums it up.” – John Ise, Jr., November 1995.

Source: The Osborne County Hall of Fame, Presenting The Notable Past and Present Citizens of Osborne County, Kansas. 1996 Inductees.

_________________________________

Excerpt from Edward S. Mason’s Autobiography

John Ise, then an Associate Professor of Economics, was a remarkable man and he came from a remarkable family. His father, Henry Eisenmenger, had come to this country from Wurttemberg, Germany in 1857. As his son later recounted, the father “joined the Union arising at the outbreak of the Civil War, helped guard the Mississippi, fought around Chattanooga, marched with Sherman to the sea, and at the close of the war, returned to Illinois, with a new name, ‘Ise’ – because the captain could not remember his full name.”* He moved west after the war, took up a “free” claim of 160 acres in western Kansas, made it into a thriving farm and, with the help of an indomitable wife, raised 12 children, of whom 11 lived. All of them attended college and a few became significant figures in the life of their communities. John was one of the younger ones. He was stricken with infantile paralysis in his youth but, although crippled, he was a powerful man and full of energy. He was also a most engaging teacher.

John Ise had taken his, doctor’s degree at Harvard in 1914 with a dissertation on the History of the Forestry Policy of the United States which foreshadowed later interest in natural resources and land policy**. Ise was much impressed by the Harvard Economics Department – a little too much impressed I later thought when studying under some of the same teachers and – it led him to send his good students there for graduate training. Among others, Lloyd Metzler, now Professor at the University of Chicago, and John Lintner, now Professor at Harvard, passed through his hands. Although Ise could not be called an eminent economist he was an eminent teacher and I received a thorough grounding in Alfred Marshall’s Principles that later stood me in good stead. But he was much more than a teacher and economist. He was a liberal influence in the University and throughout the state. Indeed his very effective speeches in public affairs acquired for him the reputation of having somewhat of a “socialist tinge” which was unusual, to say the least, in Republican Kansas. Whether socialist or not he was the only teacher I ever had who significantly influenced the course of my development.

*John Ise, Sod and Stubble: The Story of a Kansas Homestead. New York, Barnes and Noble, Inc. 1940, p. 10

**His dissertation was later published in part by the Ames iowa Forester. Among subsequent publications were: The United States Oil Policy, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1926. Our National Park Policy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1961. He also published a textbook, Economics, Harper, N.Y., 1946.

Source: Edward S. Mason, A Life in Development: An Autobiography (privately published by his son Edward H. L. Mason, 2004) p. 14. [Available in the Harvard University Archives Box 1 of Papers of Edward Sagendorph Mason

_________________________________

Ise’s account (1922) of the undergraduate principles of economics course

…Most departments of economics, nevertheless, follow the plan of giving an all-inclusive course in Elements or Principles to freshmen or sophomores, and make this course prerequisite to most other work in economics. This arrangement can probably be explained, if not excused, by the power of academic tradition. Not many decades ago, only one or two courses in economics were given in most universities — Principles of Political Economy, and perhaps one or two other courses. New courses were gradually added to the curriculum, but the course in Principles was retained as a fundamental introductory course. As long as there were only a few other courses, there was justification for a broad course in the Principles, even if there was little reason for making it the first course; but when enough advanced courses were added to cover the entire field of economics, the course in Principles represented little but duplication. It was not changed much, in character or in scope, as the other courses were added. This is revealed by examination of some of the textbooks used in the United States during the past half century or more. Wayland, Bowen, Amasa Walker, Perry, Meservey, Newcomb, Macvane, Osborne — all cover somewhat the same general ground. Wayland’s Elements of Political Economy, published in 1837, strikingly resembles many recent texts.

John Stuart Mill’s Principles is not very different from many texts now in use, except that it is somewhat superior to most of them.…

There has been a widespread appreciation of the fact that underclassmen do not have the basis of information necessary to a thorough grasp of the course in Principles ; and at least twenty institutions have provided one or two, or even as many as three courses, to precede the Principles and lay a foundation for it. The courses most commonly prescribed are largely historical or descriptive — Economic History of England, Economic History of the United States, Commercial Geography, Commercial Industries, Economic Resources, American Economy, The Economic Order, Modern Economic Life, Industrial Society, Industries and Commerce, Descriptive Economics, etc…

Source: John Ise. The Course in Elementary Economics. American Economic Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Dec. 1922), pp. 614-623.

_________________________________

Kansapedia article
[Yes, there is a Kansapedia]

John C. Ise

Born: June 5, 1885, Ross Township, Osborne County, Kansas. Married Lillie Bernhard, 1921.
Died: March 26, 1969, Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas.

John Ise was born June 5, 1885, in June 5, 1885, in Ross Township, Osborne County, Kansas, to Henry and Rosena (Haag) Ise, where the family had homesteaded in 1871. He was the eighth of 12 children.

Ise attended the University of Kansas and earned bachelor’s degrees in 1908, 1910, and 1911. He earned a master’s degree in 1912 and doctoral degree in 1914 from Harvard University. In 1916 Ise joined the faculty of the University of Kansas in the economics department and reached full professor status in 1920. He married Lillie Bernhard in 1921. They had one child.

Ise retired from the University of Kansas in 1955. He authored eight books that include humorous anecdotes, economics textsbooks, and pioneer family stories. Ise was a philanthropist who supported the animal shelter in Lawrence. He served on numerous boards related to economics and became known around the world for his work as an economist. He was still considered among the three greatest professors in the history of the University of Kansas for many years.

Sod and Stubble is Ise’s most well-known work. The story tells of pioneer life on the Kansas plains in the late 19th century. His mother inspired the character of the pioneer woman who at the age of 17 married a young German farmer and settled in north central Kansas and raised a large family.

Source: “Ise, John, C.” in Kansas Historical Society, Kansapedia. Webpage created June 2014 and modified December 2015.

_________________________________

From: John Ise Papers at the University of Kansas

…Over the course of his career he authored eight books, served as president of the American Economics Association and the Mid-West Economic Association, and served on the editorial board of the American Economic Review. Sod and Stubble is Ise’s best known work, recording his childhood as a child of homesteaders in Osborne County in the late 19th century. Other volumes written by Ise include Economics, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History, The American Way, The United States Forest Policy, and The United States Oil Policy.

Ise was also a generous philanthropist, notably supporting and for a time serving as president of the Lawrence Humane Society in Lawrence, Kansas…

Research Tip: Box 19 “Clippings, letters, published materials, class notes” would almost certainly have course materials from Harvard, but perhaps also from his own student days:

Source: Excerpt from short biography in University of Kansas Libraries, Kenneth Spencer Research Library. Guide to the John Ise Collection.

Image Source: The Osborne County Hall of Fame, Presenting The Notable Past and Present Citizens of Osborne County, Kansas. 1996 Inductees.

Tags Ise, Lintner, Mason, Metzler

Chicago Economists Harvard Yale

Harvard. Mason, Domar and Samuelson at Metzler Memorial Service, 1980

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-09-05

These memorial remarks for Lloyd Metzler come from Evsey Domar’s papers. Edward S. Mason and Evsey D. Domar’s remarks have been transcribed in full. I have only provided excerpts of those by Paul Samuelson that were published later in Vol. V of his Collected Scientific Papers. The common denominator of all three remembrances is that Metzler was an outlier among economists both with respect to his analytical abilities and contributions to economics as well with respect to his uncommon utter decency. It appears even back then, nice guys in economics attracted as much attention as an albino moose today. Samuelson’s speculative remark regarding Metzler’s assignment to the “Burbank ghetto” is priceless as is his recounting of Keynes’ less than sage advice to Sidney Alexander.

___________________

LLOYD A. METZLER
1913-1980
by Edward S. Mason

We are here to celebrate the life of Lloyd Metzler who gave comfort and pleasure not only to his family but to a host of friends. In the six short years he was at Harvard, he made a name for himself as a scholar of promise and a man to whom others turned for help and companionship.

Lloyd took his first degree at the University of Kansas and studied under a man who was my own teacher and who taught John Lintner and a number of others who later came to Harvard. I’d like to say a word about this man, John Ise, who left his imprint on Lloyd, on me, and on all those who passed through his hands. Ise was one of five children who grew up on the Kansas prairies just after the Sod House days that he later wrote about. All of these children went through the University and all made their mark in life. He was a strong man who fought for his unpopular opinions and encouraged his students to strike out for themselves. I know he impressed Lloyd as much as he did me.

After teaching two years at Kansas, Lloyd came to the Graduate School at Harvard in 1936. It was an interesting period in Cambridge and in the Department of Economics. The old guard was leaving the Department and a new crew coming in. Taussig, Carver, and Bullock retired; Ripley died; and Gay left for the Huntington library. These were the stalwarts who had dominated the Department since 1900. Early in the 1930s, Schumpeter, Leontief, and Haberler joined the Department and, later, Hansen, Schlichter, and Black. They were a vigorous crew. Lloyd early discovered his major interest in international trade and worked, in particular, with Hansen and Haberler. Harvard economics was also fortunate in attracting during that period a number of exceptional graduate students, a number of whom are here with us today. I am sure that Lloyd learned as much from them as from his teachers and, in the process, gave as much as he took.

The 1930s were also a period of upheaval in the country and in the University. In some respects it resembled the late 1960s though the protagonists and antagonists were not as strident or violent. It was a period when new ideas percolated the environment and questions of public policy were much to the fore. The influence of Keynes dominated the last few years of the decade, and Lloyd soon found himself in the middle of Keynesian controversies.

After leaving Harvard in 1942, he spent a year as a Guggenheim Fellow and then joined the Office of Strategic Services for a year. Although OSS had a good stable of economists, I am sure that he felt more at home at the Federal Reserve Board where he served from 1944 to 1946. After that a brief period at Yale, and then the University of Chicago where he was a distinguished member of the Economics Department for the rest of his life.

I leave it to others to comment on his considerable scholarly accomplishments, but want to say something about how Lloyd impressed me as a young man. He was obviously much more than an economist, with deep interests in music and literature. He was a cultivated man who in some respects reminded me of Allyn Young who also had a great interest in music and who, for a brief moment in the 1920s, shed his light on Harvard. Young looked more like a poet than an economist though I admit it is difficult for me to describe just what an economist is supposed to look like. Lloyd was a sensitive gentleman with a gift for friendship. Everyone who knew him like him and all of us join Edith in deeply mourning his departure.

ON LLOYD METZLER
by Evsey D. Domar

Last Sunday, The New York Times reviewed another book on President Truman. He is a gold mine for historians. A man of modest ability, yet a good president. Well, perhaps not quite so good… On the other hand, by comparison with our presidents in the recent past and, may I add, expected in the near future, a giant indeed… Many contradictions in his character and performance and so on. Could you find a better man to write about?

Lloyd Metzler does not offer such wonderful opportunities. As I look back over nearly forty years since I first met him, I don’t find contradictions either in his character nor in his actions; what stands out is a man of rare intellectual ability, remarkable modesty and much kindness.

Over my lifetime I have known a number of very bright people, including some economists; and a number of very modest and kind people, also including some economists. But I have never met one who could excel Lloyd in the combination of ability, modesty and kindness.

This was true at Harvard where he was finishing his thesis when I first met him in 194’ [sic]. If a visitor asked then, “Who is your brightest graduate student?” the answer, without any hesitation was “Lloyd Metzler, of course.” If the question was, “Who is your nicest graduate student?” the answer was once again, “Lloyd, of course.” Ant the same was true at the Federal Reserve where he spent a couple of years during the War. It was true in his office, in the cafeteria, in the afternoon math class which he gave for the staff, and outside of that marble building which has lately appeared several times on TV. (Hard to believe now that in those days the interest rate of government securities was something like 2½ per cent.)

As Solzhenitsyn said, he “was the one righteous person without whom, as the saying goes, no city can stand. Neither can the whole world.”

LLOYD METZLER
(April 3, 1913—October 26, 1980)
by Paul A. Samuelson

[Excerpts]

That we should hold this memorial service in the Harvard Yard is fitting. Widener Library was Lloyd’s first stamping grounds after he came to Harvard in 1937 from Kansas. Later, when the Littauer building was new, he switched his battleground to the other side of where we now meet. In my mind’s eye, I can still see Lloyd Metzler walking across the Harvard Yard, with his little dachshund in tow, engaged in animated badinage with Bob Bishop or Dan Vandermeulen. A young resident of Winthrop House, destined to be president of the United States [John F. Kennedy], used to be disturbed in his studies by our revels in Lloyd’s Winthrop House tutorial suite.

…To be near K.U., the family finally moved to Lawrence, Kansas. There the spellbinder populist, John Ise, rescued Lloyd from the swamp of the business school. Just as Ise had done with Ed Mason, and as he was to do with John Lintner, Challis Hall, and a host of other sons of the middle border, Ise sent Metzler on to his old graduate student at Harvard.

Harold Hitchings Burbank, noting the Germanic “z” in Lloyd’s name and recognizing his egregious talent, probably mistook him for a Jew…Like other able people Burbank didn’t favor, Lloyd was put in the galleys of Frickey and Crum, to serve as assistant in the undergraduate courses in statistics and accounting. Since I never had that honor, I can with good grace report that the cream of the graduate school, those who have won the Wells Prizes and top honors of our profession, all came from this Burbank ghetto.

…What is in order is to speak of Wassily Leontief and E.B. Wilson We few mathematical economists at Harvard were blessed by these great teachers…Wilson spotted Metzler’s genius. One of President Conant’s few stupid decisions was to retire Wilson at the earliest possible age, and this in a period of teacher shortages, thereby depriving the post-Metzler generations of the consumers’ surplus that Metzler, I, Bergson, Tsuru, Alexander, and some other happy few enjoyed.

That, however , was par for the critics of mathematical economics. In the year that Metzler came to Harvard, Sidney Alexander was Keynes’s last tutee at Cambridge University. Keynes seriously advised Alexander not to waste his time with mathematical economics…

…All in all, Lloyd Metzler added enormously to economic science. And that sense of humor and sweet nature lives on in our happy memories.

Note: Samuelson’s complete remarks at the memorial service were published in The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, Vol. V (Kate Crowley, ed.) pp. 827-830. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986.

Source: Duke University. Rubenstein Library. Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 6, Folder “Correspondence: Lloyd Metzler etc.”

Image Source: “Lloyd A. Metzler/Fellow: Awarded 1942/Field of Study: Economics”John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Webpage .

Tags Alexander, Bergson, Bishop, Black, Burbank, Domar, HallCh, Hansen, Ise, Leontief, Lintner, Mason, Metzler, Samuelson, Tsuru, Vandermeulen, Wilson, Young

Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Examination for Economics of Socialism, Mason and Sweezy, 1937 and 1939

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-08-02

The Harvard undergraduate course, The Economics of Socialism, evolved from Thomas Nixon Carver’s course, Methods of Social Reform, (exam questions from 1920) that had been introduced into the curriculum in 1902-03. The Economics of Socialism course was taught from 1935-36 through 1938-39 by Edward S. Mason and Paul Sweezy. The 1937-38 course outline and reading assignments along with final exam questions have been posted earlier. In this posting I have transcribed the final examination questions from the second terms of 1936-37 and 1938-39. I have not been able to locate a copy of the 1935-36 exam questions yet.

In subsequent years this course was taught by Sweezy, Schumpeter, and Taylor.

_____________________________

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 11b²

I
Write about one hour

If you were setting out to write a book on the Soviet economic system on what questions would you concentrate your attention? To what extent do the Webb’s provide adequate answers to these questions and in what respects do you regard their treatment as deficient?

II
Answer four questions

Discuss briefly Utopian Socialism and Chartism and indicate what, if any, relation they bear to each other and to the modern socialist movement.
For what types of economic problems would you consider the Marxian method of analysis superior to the orthodox (equilibrium) method?
To what extent, if at all, does Marx’s analysis of the decline of capitalism depend upon the growth of large scale enterprise?
What is Lenin’s theory of imperialism? How is it related to Marx’s analysis of capitalism?
“The proper goal for socialist economic planners is that disposition and use of resources which is supposed to be achieved by the perfectly competitive market.” Discuss.

Final. 1937.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations, History, History of Religions, … ,Economics, … , Military Science, Naval Science. Jan—June, 1937. (HUC 7000.28, vol. 79 of 284).

_____________________________

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 11b²

I
(Reading Period — one hour)

From your reading in the Webbs and your general knowledge of American conditions, what do you take to be the fundamental differences between the economic systems of the Soviet Union and the United States? Support your answer by justifying the criteria which you have selected for the purpose of judging what are the fundamentally significant characteristics of an economic system.

II
(Answer TWO — one hour)

What is the relation, if any, of Marx’s “Tendency toward concentration and centralization of capital,” to monopoly problems as now understood?
What elements of Marx’s thought impress you as having been influenced by the writing of his Utopian predecessors?
On the basis of Marxian analysis how would you judge the political future of a farmer-labor affiliation in the United States?

III
(Answer TWO — one hour)

“Take away the labor theory of value and the whole of Marx’s gigantic structure crashes to the ground.” Discuss.
In your judgment does the rise of fascism in post-war Europe tend to confirm or refute Lenin’s theory of imperialism?
“Mises is wrong; Lange and Taylor are right. But the whole dispute is very much a tempest in a teacup. It has very little to do with either the desirability or the workability of a socialist society.” What dispute? Do you agree that “Mises is wrong; Lange and Taylor are right”? What is your own judgment as to the importance of the dispute?

Final. 1939.

Tags Mason, SweezyP

Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Exam questions for Mason and Leontief’s Marxian economics course, 1937

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-28

Course listings and enrollment data for the course, “Karl Marx”, that was offered three times in the 1930’s at the Harvard economics department have been posted earlier along with Wassily Leontief’s own draft outline. Before posting below the only set of final examination questions for this course that I have been able to locate, I think it is most interesting to read what Leontief thought about Marx as expressed in his 1938 paper. I have highlighted a terrific obiter dictum in Leontief’s conclusion in which he characterizes much of present-day theorizing as “purely derivative”. Still, Marx hardly comes away unbloodied: “these theories in general do not hold water”.

__________________

Leontief’s conclusion to his 1938 article on Marxian economics

“Neither his analytical accomplishments nor the purported methodological superiority can explain the Marxian record of correct prognostications. His strength lies in realistic, empirical knowledge of the capitalist system.

Repeated experiments have shown that in their attempts to prognosticate individual behavior, professional psychologists systematically fall behind experienced laymen with a knack for “character reading.” Marx was the great character reader of the capitalist system. As many individuals of this type, Marx had also his rational theories, but these theories in general do not hold water. Their inherent weakness shows up as soon as other economists not endowed with the exceptionally realistic sense of the master try to proceed on the basis of his blueprints.

The significance of Marx for modern economic theory is that of an inexhaustible source of direct observation. Much of the present-day theorizing is purely derivative, secondhand theorizing. We often theorize not about business enterprises, wages, or business cycles but about other people’s theories of profits, other people’s theories of wages, and other people’s theories of business cycles. If before attempting any explanation one wants to learn what profits and wages and capitalist enterprises actually are, he can obtain in the three volumes of Capital more realistic and relevant first- hand information than he could possibly hope to find in ten successive issues of the United States Census, a dozen textbooks on contemporary economic institutions, and even, may I dare to say, the collected essays of Thorstein Veblen.”

Source: Wassily Leontief. “The Significance of Marxian Economics for Present-Day Economic Theory.” The American Economic Review 28, no. 1 (1938): 1-9.

__________________

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 117¹

Answer THREE or FOUR questions

“The totality of productive relations determines the economic structure of the society; it constitutes the real basis of its juridical and political superstructure which determines also the corresponding forms of social consciousness.” K. Marx, “Introduction to the Critic [sic] of Political Economy.” Interpret.
Marx does not attempt a general definition of a class. If he had given one what elements would he have emphasized?
“Revolution is the inspired frenzy of history.” Is this comment by Trotsky strictly Marxian or must we consider it another of his “deviations”?
Does the doctrine of the “withering away of the state” make the Marxian view of the ultimate form of socialism indistinguishable from anarchism?
Does Marx’s economic system stand and fall with his labor theory of value?
Is the Marxian explanation of the “surplus army of unemployed” essentially identical with the modern theory of technological unemployment?
Discuss the Marxian explanation of business cycles.

Final. 1937.

Tags Leontief, Mason

Courses Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Draft of Marxian Economics Course Outline. Leontief, ca 1935

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-27

Edward S. Mason and Wassily Leontief co-taught a semester course “Karl Marx” in the economics department of Harvard in the 1935-36 and 1936-37 academic years. There were few students enrolled in the course and it was not offered in 1937-38, but due to student demand for the course it was offered (it turns out for the last time) by Leontief and Paul Sweezy in 1938-39. The material was incorporated into the course Economics of Socialism.

From Leontief’s papers I have transcribed the undated handwritten outline that was apparently drafted for this course.

________________________

Outline of Marxian course.

Meetings 1 & 2 to be devoted to bibliography on Marx and the historical and intellectual setting of Marx’s works.—(Perhaps only the 1^st meeting)

Subjects of discussion.

Dialectical materialism.—

Theses on Feuerbach
Deutsche Idealogie
Engels’ Anti-Dühring
Engels on Feuerbach. —

Hook’s version (Towards an Understanding of Karl Marx)
Eastman—The last stand of dialectical materialism.

(Misère de la Philosophie)

Economic interpretation of history.

(a) Mode of production—productive relations—forces [of] production

(b) Concept of class—proletariat—

How class consciousness is acquired—{Relation of class to productive relations
Role of economic interests—
The class view of history—Marxian interpretation of particular events

Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie—
Texts from Marx’s writing. —

Equilibrium economics vs. Marxian economics

—Lange’s article. —methodology

Marx’s economic analysis—

(a) Theory of value and surplus value.

(b) Laws of capitalist development. —

Dictatorship of the proletariat and democracy. —
Marxian theory of revolution—

[second page]

Communist Manifesto

Capital 1^st vol. Entire. 800
Theses on Feuerbach. — 20
Comments Gotha Program 20
Anti-Dühring—Same parts— 150
Rev. & Counterrev. 150

or Civil War in France. {Letters—[unclear word] Publishers 300 pp.

Intro. to Critique.

______________

Hook— 100 p.

Eastman— 60

________________________

Links to Leontief’s Reading Assignments.

Marx, Karl. Critique of the Gotha programme, in Marx/Engels Seleccted Works Vol Three, pp. 13-30. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970.

Frederick Engels. Landmarks of Scientific Socialism “Anti-Duehring”. Austin Lewis, trans. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company. 1907.

Marx/Engels: Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company, ca. 1910.

Marx: Karl Marx. Capital.

Engels, Friedrich. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of classical German philosophy, by Frederick Engels (1886).

Marx, Karl. Revolution and counter-revolution. Or Germany in 1848. Ed. by Eleanor Marx Aveling. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1919.

Marx, Karl. The Paris Commune […including “The Civil War in France”], New York: New York Labor News Company, 1920.

Selected correspondence, 1846-1895 [of] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; [translated with commentary and notes by Dona Torr]. Published 1934 by Martin Lawrence Ltd. in London . New edition published in 1936. (The Marxist-Leninist Library, vol. 9)

Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy with an Appendix Containing Marx’s Introduction to the Critique. Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1904.

Source: Harvard University Archives. HUG 4517.30, Wassily Leontief Papers. Manuscripts and Research Notes 1930-1970, Box 5, Folder “Marx and Theory”.

Tags Leontief, Mason, SweezyP

Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Syllabus and Final Exam for Industrial Organization and Control. Edward S. Mason, 1939-40

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-14

Following the first term course Economics 61a (The Corporation and its Regulation) that he co-taught with Paul Sweezy, Edward S. Mason taught the following term course Economics 62b (Industrial Organization and Control) that was focussed on market structures and antitrust policies.

Besides being the co-director for the Department of Labor’s studies for the Temporary National Economic Committee (The Online Books Page provides links to TNEC publications), during the immediate period before the U.S. entered WWII he was a consultant for raw material problems for the Office of Production Management. In 1941 he joined the Office of Strategic Services where he served as the deputy director of the Research and Analysis Branch. This and some of his following government service is discussed in his Oral History Interview at the Harry S. Truman Library & Museum.

Fun Fact: John F. Kennedy took this course in the second semester of his senior year (1940).

______________________

Course Description, 1940-41

Economics 62b ²hf. Industrial Organization and Control. Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Professor Mason.
Economics 61a is a prerequisite for this course.

This course deals with the nature of monopolistic and competitive markets, the economic problems of large scale enterprises and combinations, the trust problem, and trust policy. Particular attention will be paid to recent changes in our system of industrial control.

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics Containing an Announcement for 1940-41, Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVII, No. 51 (August 15, 1940), p. 57.

______________________

Enrollment 1939-40

[Economics] 62b ²hf. Professor Mason.—Industrial Organization and Control.

Total 95: 1 Graduate, 20 Seniors, 53 Juniors, 13 Sophomores, 8 Other.

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College, 1939-40, p. 99.

______________________

Economics 62b
1939-40

Industrial Organization and Control
Outline and Assignments

Week of	Lectures	Assignment
I THE ECONOMICS OF THE FIRM
1. Feb. 5-10	1. Outline of field. 2. The decline of competition? 3. The problem of monopoly in law and economics.	Burns, Chs. 1, 9.
2. Feb. 12-17	1. The market position of the individual firm. 2. Costs and rate of output. 3. The relation of size to costs.	Hamilton, pp. 320-88, 395-429, 449-500.
3. Feb. 19-24	1. The flexibility of costs. 2. Vacation. 3. Section.	Structure of the American Economy, Chs. 7, 8.
II TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL MARKETS
4. Feb. 26-March 2	1. Cotton textiles. 2. [continued] 3. The problem of excess capacity.	Whitney, Chs. 2, 3.
5. March 4-9	1. Price discrimination. 2. Bsing point systems and other types of geographical price discrimination. 3. [continued]	Burns, Chs. 6, 7.
6. March 11-16	1. Markets in which sellers are few, agricultural implements. 2. Automobiles. 3. Examination.	Burns, Chs. 3, 4.
7. March 18-23	1. Aluminum. 2. Construction industries. 3. [continued]	Burns, Ch. 5. Price Research in Steel and Petroleum, Part II.
8. March 20-25	1. Competition between channels of distribution. 2. Non-price competition. 3. Section.	Burns, Ch. 8. Cassels, Q.J.E. Chain Stores—Final Report, pp. 23-49.
Vacation
III GOVERNMENT REGULATION
9. April 8-13	1. The anti-trust acts. 2. Mergers and restraints of competition. 3. Robinson-Patman Act.	Seager & Gulick, Chs. 17-20.
10. April 15-20	1. Federal Trade Commission. 2. Problem of unfair practices. 3. Bituminous Coal Commission.	Seager & Gulick, Chs. 21-23.
11. April 22-27	1. N.R.A. 2. N.R.A. 3. Section	National Recovery Administration, Chs. 20-24.
12. April 29-May 4	1. Fair trade legislation. 2. Issues in the Monopoly 3. Present status of the monopoly problem.	National Recovery Administration, Chs. 25-30.

Titles of books assigned.

A. R. Burns, The Decline of Competition.
Seager and Gulick, Trust and Corporation Problems.
W. Hamilton, Price and Price Policies.
Lyon and others, The National Recovery Administration.
S. Whitney, Trade Associations and Industrial Control.
J. M. Cassels, “The Marketing Machinery in the United States,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1936.
Federal Trade Commission, Final Report on Chain Store Investigation, Senate Document No. 4, 74^th Congress, 1^st Session.
National Resources Committee, The Structure of the American Economy.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Price Research in the Steel and Petroleum Industries.

Reading period assignment to be announced.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1). Box 2, Folder “1939-40 (2 of 2)”.

______________________

Reading Period Assignment

Economics 62b: Read one of the following:

Lloyd Reynolds, The Control of Competition in Canada.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Textile Markets.
B. Gaskill, The Regulation of Competition.
Pribram, Cartell Problems.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1). Box 2, Folder “1939-40 (1 of 2)”.

______________________

Course Final Exam

1939—1940
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 62b²

I
About 45 minutes

Write a critical appraisal of the book you read for the reading period assignment.

II
Answer both questions

Do you think that the use of a basing-point system of price quoting in the iron and steel industry eliminates price competition? Discuss.
How would you explain the fact that in the middle of the 1920’s competition in the automobile industry noticeably shifted from an emphasis on price to an emphasis on non-price factors?

III
Answer all questions

The Robinson-Patman Act is “an anti-competition statute slipped into the anti-trust laws.” Discuss.
Do you think that, as the Courts have interpreted the anti-trust acts, a different standard of legality has been applied to “integrated” than to “loose” combinations? Discuss.
Assuming that the preservation of competition is a desirable objective, what do you consider to be the largest gaps in our anti-trust legislation?

Final. 1940.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28) Box 5. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations: History, History of Religions,…Economics,…,Military Science, Naval Science. June, 1940.

Image Source: Webpage “Oral History Interview with Edward S. Mason. Harry S. Truman Library & Museum. Portrait of Edward S. Mason.

Tags Mason

Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Corporation and its Regulation. Syllabus and readings. Mason and P. Sweezy, 1939-40

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-13

The teaching duo of Edward S. Mason and Paul M. Sweezy taught a popular course on the theories of socialism at Harvard as well as the course of today’s posting that provides the syllabus and reading assignment for a one semester course on corporations. Also two problem sets discussed in the recitation sections were found filed with the course outline and are transcribed below.

This course was a prerequisite for Mason’s second term course “Industrial Organization and Control”.

______________________

Course Description, 1940-41

Economics 61a ¹hf. The Corporation and its Regulation. Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Professor Mason and Dr. P. M. Sweezy.

This course deals with the development of the modern business corporation, and corporate accounting, and financial practices. Particular attention will be paid to the internal organization of the corporations including the relation between security owners and management. State and Federal regulation of incorporation and security issue and the nature of the government corporation will form a part of the course.

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics Containing an Announcement for 1940-41, Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVII, No. 51 (August 15, 1940), pp. 56-57.

______________________

Enrollment 1939-40

[Economics] 61a ¹hf. Professor Mason and Dr. P. M. Sweezy.—The Corporation and its Regulation.
Total 169: 2 Graduates, 51 Seniors, 84 Juniors, 19 Sophomores, 2 Freshmen, 11 Other.

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College, 1939-40, p. 99.

______________________

Economics 61a
1939-40

Outline

Date	Lecture Subjects	Reading
Sept. 27-30	Introduction History of the Corporation	C. C. Abbott, “The Rise of the Business Corporation” [Ann Arbor, 1936]
Oct. 1-7	History of the Corporation Capital and Capitalization Financial Problems	Dewing I: 2-4
Oct. 8-14	Valuation and Depreciation Valuation and Depreciation Section	Dewing III:1-4, IV:3-5
Oct. 15-21	Corporate Reorganization Case Studies in Corporate Reorganization	Dewing IV:7-8, VI: 1-2
Oct. 22-28	Ownership, Management, and Control Case studies of individual companies Section	Berle and Means I:1-6, II: 5-6
Oct. 29-Nov. 4	The Economics of the Firm Size and Efficiency Examination	Clark, “Economics of Overhead Costs” Chs. 4,6; [Henry] Dennison, Management in [Recent Economic Changes in the United States, New York, 1929], Vol. 2
Nov. 5-11	Management Problems Corporation and the Theory of Profits Section	Knight “Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit” Chs. 7, 9, 12
Nov. 12-18	The Corporation and Private Property Case Study Corporate Concentration of Economic Control	Berle and Means IV:1-4; Structure of the American Economy, Chs. 7,9; Appendices 9-13
Nov. 20-26	The Stock Market Sale of New Securities Ownership of Securities	20^th Century Fund “The Security Markets” Chs. VIII, IX, XI, XIII
Nov. 27-Dec. 3	Ownership of Securities Holiday Section Meeting	“The Security Markets” Chs. III, IV, VI
Dec. 4-10	Institutional Investment Development of Corporation Law Development of Corporation Law	Berle and Means, Book II
Dec. 11-17	The Securities Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission The Government Corporation	4^th Annual Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission J. H. Thurston “Government Proprietary Corporations” Chs. I, VI

Economics 61a
Section Meeting
Oct. 13-14, 1939

Discuss the significant differences between the modes of raising capital of the following firms, as indicated by their capital stock and funded debt:
1. United States Steel Corporation (1934)

Common Stock	$870,000,000
Preferred Stock	360,000,000
Surplus	520,000,000
Bonds guaranteed by U.S.S.C.	50,000,000
Not guaranteed	40,000,000
Purchase Money Obligations	16,000,000
	$1,856,000,000

International Harvester Company (1937)

Common Stock	$170,000,000
Preferred stock	82,000,000
Surplus	75,000,000
	$327,000,000

Associated Gas and Electric Company (1937)

Capital Stock and Surplus	$148,000,000
Minority Interest	94,000,000
Convertible Bonds	49,000,000
Other Funded Debt	598,000,000
	$889,000,000

New York Central Railroad Company (1937)

Capital Stock	$562,000,000
Surplus	204,000,000
Equipment Obligations	31,000,000
Mortgage Bonds	513,000,000
Debenture Bonds	5,500,000
Collateral Trust Bonds	90,000,000
	$1,405,500,000

Discuss the influence of dividend policy on the interests of the following types of shareholder:
1. Common stock.
2. Non-participating, non-cumulative preferred.
3. Non-participating, cumulative preferred.
4. Participating, non-cumulative preferred.
5. Participating, cumulative preferred.
6. Debenture bond.
Until about 1930 the courts generally held that non-cumulative preferred shareholders had a claim against the company for dividends equal to the stated percentage in their shares provided such dividends had been earned but not declared. Does this mean, in effect, that no company could really issue non-cumulative preferred stock prior to 1930? Can you see any reason why the courts should take such a stand?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1). Box 2, Folder “1939-40 (2 of 2)”.

______________________

Reading Period Assignment
Jan. 4-17, 1940

Economics 61a: Read one of the following:

Kennedy, E. D., Dividends to Pay.
Flynn, J. T., Security Speculation
Gordon, Lincoln, The Public Corporation in Great Britain.
Crum, W. L., Corporate Size and Earning Power.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1). Box 2, Folder “1939-40 (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Edward S. Mason and Paul Sweezy from Harvard College Class Album 1937.

Tags Mason, SweezyP

Curriculum Economics Programs Yale

Graduate Training in Economics. Report of Panel Discussions at Yale. 1956

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-01

During the fall and early winter of 1954-55, Richard Ruggles and colleagues in the Yale economics department organized a series of interviews with representatives of business, government, international organizations, and universities to review the ultimate goals of a graduate education in economics and to identify future desirable directions the evolution of economics training might take. The interviews were followed by panel discussions in the Spring of 1955 attended by, among others, seven future economics Nobel prize winners. Today’s posting is a transcription of the final report printed in 1956.

I came across a preliminary draft of the report in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution Archives filed among his correspondence with Richard Ruggles and wondered whatever happened to the project. The report was never really published and survives as part of the “pamphlet literature”. Only recently did I find a printed copy of the final report in John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. The relative obscurity of this report can perhaps be attributed to its “Smoothie” style that has managed to blend panel member ideas and opinions into mere minutes of discussions sans quote or illustration. The report’s temporal proximity to the 1953 Bowen report (Graduate Education in Economics, AER, September 1953) could have left journal editors cold as well.

Since the primary goal of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is to assemble artifacts to help us follow the historical development of the education of economists in the United States, the Ruggles Report of 1956 is worth rescuing from its undeserved obscurity in archival vaults.

________________________________

[1]

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS
A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale
YALE UNIVERSITY
1956

[2]

A restudy of graduate education in economics has recently been undertaken at Yale, with the aid of a grant from the Ford Foundation. This study involved two steps. First, economists in universities, government, and business were interviewed to determine what they thought the major problems in training economists were at present. These views were summarized in the form of an agenda, which was then discussed by five panels of economists. This report presents the views of the panel members, as developed in these discussion groups.

The following people participated in the panel discussion and in the revisions of the report.

Panel members:

Robert Adams, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey
Sydney Alexander, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University
G.L. Bach, Carnegie Institute of Technology
William Baumol, Princeton University
E. G. Bennion, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey
Henry Bloch, United Nations
Howard Bowen, Grinnell College
Sune Carlson, United Nations
Gerhard Colm, National Planning Association
Ross Eckler, Bureau of the Census
Solomon Fabricant, national Bureau of Economic Research
Milton Friedman, University of Chicago
Albert Hart, Columbia University
Leonid Hurwicz, University of Minnesota
Dexter Keezer, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Simon Kuznets, Johns Hopkins University
Stanley Lebergott, Bureau of the Budget
Wassily Leontief, Harvard University
Ben W. Lewis, Oberlin College
John Lintner, Harvard Business School
Edward S. Mason, Harvard University
James Nelson, Amherst College
Donald Riley, Bureau of the Budget
Paul Samuelson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Strotz, Northwestern University
Clair Wilcox, Swarthmore College

Yale committee:

Richard Ruggles, Chairman
Wight Bakke
William Fellner
Kent Healy
John Miller
John Sawyer
James Tobin
Robert Triffin

[3]

The Role of Graduate Education in Economics

THE OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE EDUCATION IN ECONOMICS which were most frequently mentioned by the panel members were (1) to develop economists who can push back the frontiers of economics; (2) to prepare economists for teaching, not only at the undergraduate level but also in graduate economics departments and business schools; (3) to train individuals who are capable of carrying out research for business, government, labor, and other research organizations; (4) to develop economists who can serve in policy guidance positions in business, government, and labor unions. The panel members agreed that the curriculum of graduate education in economics can no longer be organized exclusively about scholars; it has become essential to produce economists who can do, not just know. Primary emphasis in the past has been placed upon the production of teachers, and although this is an important function, focusing on it may develop a more restricted concept of education than is appropriate today.

The frontier of economic knowledge.

The continual emergence of economists who are capable of contributing to the substance of economics is essential for the vitality of the field. Of course, every student who goes through a graduate school should not be expected to make such a contribution; many are needed to practice the art and science of economics for more immediate objectives in teaching, in applied economics in business and government, and in less basic research in the academic world, business, and government. Nevertheless, the graduate school program should be such as to encourage research of a basic nature and to acquaint students with it. Only by such investment can economics be expected to develop. Such an orientation is useful also for those who do not go on to make substantial new contributions. It provides a [4] necessary perspective as to the current status of economic knowledge and the bases on which it resets, and points up gaps in economic knowledge and the process by which the evolution of economic thought comes about. Accent on the encouragement of basic research should not be construed, however, as implying that large amounts of learning and scholarship should be the aim. Rather it implies that the creative talents of the individual should be stimulated, and that the individual be trained in the necessary tools to do such research. These aims are complementary to the other objectives of graduate training, not competitive with them.

Research training for business and government.

In recent years, there has been an increasing use of economists for research purposes in business and government. Projections of future demand, analyses of the impact of various market forces, problems of taxation and government expenditure, analyses of productivity changes, studies of business fluctuations, and various international problems related to trade and foreign economic policy all have required that a considerable amount of economic research be carried out. Graduate schools have not generally taken specific cognizance of the needs of these groups so that new Ph.D.’s going into these areas often require a considerable training period before they become useful to their organizations. When the organization does not have available senior staff capable of carrying out such training on the job, the result is that lower grade work is turned out. It is recognized, of course, that schooling cannot entirely substitute for experience, and that some training on the job will always be necessary, but the question still remains whether the present graduate school training is as appropriate as it might be for meeting the research needs of business and government.

Policy and administrative guidance in business, government, and labor.

Besides the technical research uses of economists in business, government, and labor, economists are needed in a more operating [5] capacity, where day-to-day decisions and advice are required without any formalized research work. Advisors are required at the policy level in large corporations. Banks, insurance companies, large manufacturing firms, and labor unions are employing more and more people in this capacity. Government and international organizations need trained economists to serve as administrators of various programs. These needs are growing in importance as the complexities of economic life increase. Again, most graduate schools have not been particularly attuned to meeting this sort of need.

Teaching.

To a very large degree, teaching is a derivative of the other purposes of economic training. Teachers should be expected to be able to teach those things which are useful in the training of economists. Thus, at the graduate level the objectives outlined above would be pertinent; teachers should be trained to meet these objectives. The problem of undergraduate teaching of economics may at first appear to pose somewhat different requirements, but closer examination indicates that its objectives should be closely allied with the objectives cited above, lest it become too academic and unrelated to the current practice of economics. Undergraduate teachers need to be trained broadly and to have a good general perspective about economics. The development of teachers who are interested in the furthering of economics as a science is necessary in order to prevent the teaching of economics from becoming a sterile academic exercise. The crucial question here is the ability to teach effectively, and to keep on doing it through time—to keep alive, stimulated and stimulating.

[6]

Requirements Posed by the Objectives of Graduate Training in Economics

THE OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS are largely complementary in the requirements they pose; there seems little ground for suggesting that individuals expecting to go into different areas of economics should have greatly different and unrelated programs. It was thought that the basic requirements common to all the objectives could be classified into four major categories: (1) a common core of economic knowledge; (2) the ability to present ideas coherently; (3) the ability to do research; and (4) the specialized training in the area of the student’s greatest interest.

No strong line of distinction can in fact be drawn between knowledge, on the one hand, and the ability to present ideas coherently and the ability to do research, on the other hand. A person who does not have the ability to express ideas coherently or the ability to do research cannot be said to possess knowledge of his subject. True knowledge is more than the capacity for parrot-like repetition of what this, that, or the other economist said, and what this, that, or the other formula is, and unless research is narrowly defined as the analysis of empirical data of a limited kind, really operative knowledge is included under either the ability to present ideas coherently or the ability to do research or both. Thus, the teaching involved in imparting the common core of knowledge (as well as that involved in specialized training) should be such as to produce in the student clarity of thinking which should make clear writing a necessary consequence; and, also, the teaching involved in imparting the common core of knowledge (and specialized training) should be such as to leave the student with a clear idea of what research means, and how the interplay of hypotheses with tests based on empirical data results in acceptable knowledge.

In spite of the obvious interrelationship of the four major [7] categories listed above, however, it will be useful to consider them one at a time.

COMMON CORE OF ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE

All economists should have a general acquaintance with the basic ideas in economics, and all should be equipped with the tools and the general empirical knowledge about modern economic systems that will provide a basis for economic research, policy guidance, and teaching. The common core consists of (1) a set of analytical tools, (2) a way of handling the tools in research and problem solving, and (3) certain institutional knowledge about the economic world. This common core is necessary not only to meet the above objectives, but also so that economists will be able to communicate with each other, and so that mobility among different uses of economists will be preserved. The substance of economics itself will be enriched if individuals can move freely from one area to another. For example, it is beneficial for the development of the profession if economists can move between business and government, on the one hand, and teaching, on the other. Similarly, research individuals should have the same sort of general background as those who are faced with administrative problems. The existence of a common core helps to ensure this, and is some protection against excessive compartmentalization and overspecialization in the profession. The problem of core training is one of balancing the desirability of having a number of essential requirements included in each student’s program with that of having the minimum amount of formal requirements.

With respect to the nature of the common core, there was fairly general agreement among those participating in the panels, and the conclusions reached are not strikingly different from the current practice in many graduate schools or the objectives expressed in the Bowen Report. There was a general feeling that some reorientation and redesign within the accepted framework might be in order, but that the general framework itself [8] need not be significantly altered. The content envisaged would include economic theory, economic history, mathematics, and statistics.

Economic theory.

The theory requirement in the common core should probably be the most intensive of all the requirements. At least one and probably two full years of formal classwork in economic theory were considered necessary, supplemented by outside reading to fill in gaps not taken up in the formal courses. The courses themselves would not be entirely devoted to a formal presentation of certain specialized areas of theory, but should give students the ability to use theory effectively in handling problems. The work should cover modern theory in most areas of economics, and it should also be tied in with both the history of economic thought in these areas and some of the historical and institutional background that provides the context for the theory.

Economic history.

Economic history as a core component should be distinguished from economic history as a special field. The purpose of the economic history requirement should be one of literacy, to insure that the student has some perspective with respect to how economics is related to various aspects of human development. This requirement can provide the thread of continuity and integration which is normal lacking from work at graduate level. The growth and development of economic institutions in the various specialized areas should be treated in relation to each other, together with the relation of social and political history to economic development and the role of geographic location as a determinant of economic development.

Mathematics.

The purpose of the mathematics requirement as a part of the core is partly to serve as a necessary tool for the mathematical economics and statistics, and partly for general literacy. It would [9] be desirable, of course, for students to have a proper mathematical background when they enter graduate school. Unfortunately, such a requirement is not easily enforced at this time, and it will generally be necessary for this deficiency to be made up either while a student is taking other work in graduate school or during the summers. In view of the specialized nature of the mathematics required for economists, it may well be that a specialized course drawn up specifically for economists or for social scientists would be the most efficient way to meet the need. Such a course would not be intended as a shortcut, but rather would attempt to give the student those areas of mathematics which are relevant to social science and to relate them to problems in economic theory, game theory, statistics, and econometrics. Literacy in the area of mathematics is important so that students will not be frightened by economics which is cast in symbolic terms. If there is to be communication among members of the profession, it is essential that all economists should have enough mathematics so that they can tell in a general way what articles in a mathematical form are about. This does not mean that those students who are not mathematically inclined should be forced to achieve mathematical fluency. However, all students should at least be required to have some minimum competence in mathematics.

Statistics.

As in the case of mathematics, statistics is partly a tool requirement and partly a literacy requirement. As a tool, students should be able to employ statistics for economic research. The traditional topics such as probability theory, statistical tests, and index numbers would all be covered. In addition, however, the student should learn how to handle basic empirical material in a systematic and orderly manner. The uses of accounting data, together with the meaning of various accounting classifications and accounting methods, should be studied. The student should also have a general knowledge of the sources of economic data, such as the kind of material contained in the various censuses of [10] the U.S., the national income statistics, and the types of economic information provided by the other agencies in the government. They should be familiar with the empirical work provided by non-governmental research institutions such as the National Bureau, and by international organizations. All of these are useful research tools, and they are also required for literacy in this area, so that the student will be able to appraise and evaluate empirical research.

Interdisciplinary training as related to the core of economics.

Considerable attention has been focused recently upon the desirability of having students know about fields other than economics, so that useful cross-fertilization can take place among the disciplines, and so that economics can be used more effectively in helping to handle public and private policy problems. It is argued that training in other disciplines will give the student greater breadth and make his economics training more meaningful. There was a general consensus among the members of the panels, however, that elementary survey courses in other disciplines would be of limited usefulness, and would expand the common core to a point where it would seriously infringe upon the freedom of students to follow lines of their own interest. Undergraduate training supposedly gives a student breadth; if it has failed in doing this the lack should be recognized as a gap in the student’s training. It is questionable, however, whether a graduate school should take formal cognizance of such gaps, as it does in the case of mathematics, and make provision in the graduate school curriculum for filling them. Where the gaps are extremely serious, the student should probably be encouraged to attend summer school, an/or do special reading, to make up the deficiencies. But it does not seem that the subject matter of interdisciplinary training and the deficiencies of preparation in the students are sufficiently clearly defined to make courses in them practical. Experiments might usefully be tried in this area, but they should be regarded strictly as experiments, [11] which might eventually yield elements that should be incorporated into the common core.

The extent and timing of the common core.

In terms of formal requirements, the common core should probably not exceed four or five year courses, depending upon whether or not the student can anticipate the mathematics requirement. In addition to this formal work, however, it might be desirable to provide for some sort of tutorial instruction to fill in gaps not covered in the courses and to follow up lines of special interest to the individual student. Such tutorial instruction would provide an element of flexibility not obtainable in formal classwork. With respect to timing, it seems logical that the major portion of the core would be covered in the first year, inasmuch as it provides tools used at later stages in graduate work. On the other hand, some time should be left in the first year for students to take courses of their own selection. Students should have an opportunity to sample several specialized areas before finally determining the area in which they are most interested.

The Ability to Express Ideas Coherently

The economist should have the ability to express his ideas coherently, and to move easily between the abstractions posed by economic analysis and the empirical elements of the problems with which he deals. This requirement is more than that of being able to write grammatical English; it involves training in the organization of ideas and the development of perspective. Rigor and clarity is essential if the profession is to serve its many potential functions. One of the major complaints of people who hire economists in business and government is that the products of graduate schools whom they hire do not have this ability to present their ideas coherently. They often express the opinion that economists who are intending to go into business and government should receive special training in this respect. However, [12] it is not any less important that individuals going into pure research or teaching should be trained to express their ideas coherently. Perhaps the reason teaching and academic research have not appeared to suffer as much in this respect lies in the lack of direct supervision of such individuals by supervisors who bear the responsibility for their written and oral presentations.

As already indicated, the ability to express ideas coherently is not merely a problem of correct grammar, but rather involves the organization of ideas in a meaningful manner. Unless a student can express an idea clearly, he does not really understand it. Thus, the ability to express ideas coherently is highly related to the problem of substance, and is properly the responsibility of a graduate school. Some students have difficulty in writing because they have little or nothing to say. They have not developed habits of creative thinking, and do not know how to approach a subject.

Because the economist usually crystallizes the results of his work in written form the writing itself is a tool, and is part of the basic methodology of the profession. In other disciplines such methodological tools are given explicit consideration. For example, in the sciences, students are thoroughly trained in laboratory work. In mathematics, students are drilled in working through problems. In law, briefs and case studies are written. In medicine, the internship trains the student in the handling of actual medical cases. Few graduate schools of economics, however, have considered writing explicitly as a tool of the profession, and therefore relatively little accent has been placed upon training the student adequately in this function.

The Ph.D. thesis, traditionally the masterpiece of a student being trained for the doctorate, does not fulfill this need. All too often it is instead a traumatic experience which leaves the student scarred but untrained. In a great many instances, furthermore, the thesis is done by the student out of residence, and the supervision of the writing of it leaves much to be desired. The student often attempts to write the thesis while he is pursuing another job on a full-time basis, and the writing may take [13] a period of five or six years. The hurdle is so great, as a matter of fact, that a large proportion of students who have completed everything but the thesis never finish it. Also, the moral pressure on professors to approve theses of students who have spent a large number of years on them is very great, with the result that the thesis itself need only show effort and length to be acceptable. In other words, the Ph.D. thesis is quite unsatisfactory for teaching students how to write, and because of the institutional considerations involved this failure cannot be corrected merely by exhorting students and teachers to greater effort and higher standards.

The members of the panels believed that the solution to the problem of training students to write coherently lies in the direction of more writing practice early in the graduate training program, and reliance on a larger number of shorter papers (5 to 10 pages) rather than a small number of major papers. This process should intimidate the student less, offer him more practice in organizing material, and make the task of criticizing and evaluating any given paper simpler.

One important aspect of training students to write, now largely neglected, is provision for revising and reworking papers. So much effort goes into the original writing of a lengthy paper, and the task of reworking it is so great, that most of the student’s writing tends to be a single-shot experience. In many cases the student never even seriously re-reads what he has written after he finishes it. In order to promote the reading and criticism of papers, it was suggested that some of the papers be duplicated and discussed in essay seminars attended by both students and faculty. Students should learn from such a procedure not only when their own work is presented but also from the problems encountered by other students. In this connection also, all papers need not be written in the confines of formal courses. The tutorial function spoken of in the previous section might well bear some of the brunt of criticizing short papers.

Courses involving group research would provide an opportunity for students to prepare papers in conjunction with each [14] other. Such joint papers would force the students to discuss the organization and presentation of the material, so that an agreed-upon version may be arrived at. This practice will prepare students for the sort of writing experience they are likely to encounter in business, government, or other group research.

If the writing of papers is to be stressed as a part of the graduate training program, it is only proper that it should assume a more significant role in the grading system. The student who can produce a first-class report at this own leisure, using the materials freely available to him, may well be a better economist than one who is more facile in showing his learning well in an examination but who may also be less proficient in turning out an independent piece of research. Present grading systems rely heavily upon examinations, which may test the student’s leaning ability but do not ordinarily test his ability to produce a well-conceived and well-executed report. The comprehensive examinations weigh very heavily in determining whether students are permitted to proceed and what kind of financial aid they are given. At both the course level and at the comprehensive examination level, it would be possible to give greater weight to written reports in the grading scheme. For the comprehensive examination, the student might be required to present what he considered the best two or three papers he had written. An evaluation of these papers would add a significant new dimension to the judgment of the abilities of students at this stage. By giving reports and papers a significant weight in the grading structure of the graduate school, students would be encouraged to revise and rework their manuscripts to a greater extent than they now do. Originality would be rewarded just as learning ability is now rewarded.

Research Competence

Because so many economists are required to do research of some sort in their work, and because all economists must be able to analyze and evaluate the results of such research, research [15] training is essential. The tools of economic research are, of course, necessary at least in some degree, but fully as important as the teaching of tools is the actual training of students to do research by doing it. The student emerging from graduate school should be able to carry through a piece of research in a systematic and meaningful manner. Students must be trained to set out a problem, design their work program with reference to this problem, carry out the basic work utilizing pertinent sources and appropriate methods, and finally, evaluate the results of this research, relating them to the original problem and appraising their validity.

A number of members of the panels felt that economic research generally suffered from a lack of respect for discipline and rigor. Casual empiricism, rather than scientific testing of hypotheses, is all too frequent. In many major pieces of research the sources and methods behind the results are not indicated adequately. These faults, they believed, are the result of inadequate teaching of research methods.

The misapplication of research tools, or the failure to apply suitable tools, is also widespread in much current economic research. The research worker may carry extremely unreliable estimates out to a number of decimal places, causing an inordinate amount of computational effort and lending a spurious appearance of accuracy. At the same time, this same research worker may gloss over important characteristics of his material which should have been tested for bias or general inconsistency by the use of fairly ordinary and straightforward statistical testing procedures.

The lack of research competence is also evident in the formulation of research problems. Often the reader of a research paper is at a loss to discover just what is being undertaken, and whether it was in fact achieved. This confusion often stems from a lack of clarity on the part of the original research worker in the conception of his problem, even more than from his presentation of it. It is very important that those embarking upon research recognize the importance in the research process of the original [16] conception of the problem and the design of the research to fit the problem.

These faults in economic research, combined with indecisiveness on the part of the individual research worker, lead to a considerable amount of floundering and waste motion. It is frequently necessary to re-do a piece of research because the formulation of the problem was inadequate. The failure to apply the proper tools at the proper time in the research process also may require that much of the work be redone, to make adjustments the need for which becomes obvious at a later stage in the research process. The prevalent lack of discipline and rigor makes all these revisions of portions of the research process extremely difficult, so that in fact the work usually must be completely redone, very often with quite different results.

In the light of these difficulties, research training should start early in the student’s graduate career and continue throughout its duration. Although in his first year the student will not have the necessary background and tools to do very much economic research, even at this early date practice with simple research problems would be useful in acclimating students to the various problems that research poses earlier in their careers rather than later. More of the student’s time can then be focused at a later stage on problems of a more substantive nature. It is well known that the greater part of time now spent on the Ph.D. thesis is spent in floundering around trying to select a problem and decide just how to carry it out. More and earlier practice in research might avoid much of this floundering.

The assignment of a larger number of short research subjects seems generally preferable, at least in the earlier part of the graduate training, to concentration on a few more substantial topics. If a number of different subjects are assigned, the student is faced again and again with the problem of how to formulate the research objectives and how to design the research. A larger number of projects also will serve to introduce the student to a number of different areas of economics, rather than to concentrate his attention solely in one direction. The question of [17] whether specific research topics should be assigned or whether the student should be allowed to choose his own is not an easy one to answer. Probably some of each approach should be used. Assignment of topics has the advantage of training the students to write for a customer. Freedom of choice in topics, on the other hand, has the advantage of allowing students to follow areas of special interest—and also gives them practice in arriving at a decision.

One of the major objectives of research training should be practice in the handling of empirical material of all sorts. The student should become used to dealing with historical material, economic statistics from all kinds of sources, and also material from other disciplines. He should gain experience in the critical evaluation of definitions and concepts, and in the manipulation and recasting of material.

The form of research training should probably differ at different stages of the graduate training process. In the early stages it may well take the form of special workshop courses, together with some for the work done for tutorial purposes. At a later stage, internship in various research projects within the university might be advisable. If possible, summer internship programs with business, government, or economic research foundations would also be desirable. Finally, individual research relationships with the faculty members on the basis of research assistantships or apprenticeships would serve a valuable role.

The Ph.D. thesis should serve a major function in research training, and should provide a test of whether the student has achieved research competence. But the primary research training should be begun much earlier in the student’s career; it should not fall upon the thesis alone. The thesis may well emerge as an outgrowth of some earlier research project.

Specialization

Specialized training in specific fields is necessary so that economists can usefully bring to bear both the more detailed knowledge [18] of the institutions pertinent to the special area and the latest developments of economic analysis in this area. Without special field training, a student will not approach the frontier of any field, and will not have any training in depth. Specialized training, therefore, not only serves to equip a student to handle problems in a special area, but it also gives him training in depth as a background for understanding the process of research and appreciating the development of economics in general. In many special fields, economics alone will not be sufficient. Other disciplines are often required to enable the economist to deal with the specialized problems. In the area of corporate finance, law and accounting may be necessary. Law may also be necessary for public finance, labor, and international trade. Psychology or sociology may be pertinent to studies of consumer demand and labor. Each special field will necessarily entail the study of those portions of other disciplines which are germane to the set of problems encountered.

Under present circumstances specialization often tends to be somewhat superficial. The first year of graduate work is usually spent on the basic tool courses or general survey courses, and specialization is possible only during the second year of course work. A cumulative build-up of work within a special area is often impossible since the student finishes his term of residence at the end of the second year. Specialization may thus consist of one or two courses taken concurrently in the second year of graduate study.

The charge is often made that the areas of specialization offered tend to be too academic. Theory is extolled, and the actual work done by the student is largely confined to the library. Knowledge of the institutional setting of the special field tends to be slighted. There is little or no opportunity for internship in the special field during the period of graduate work.

Specialization may be conceived of as a highly detailed study of some small segment of economics or it may be conceived of as embracing a general area of problems for which other disciplines besides economics may also be relevant. Unfortunately, [19] present graduate training seems to emphasize only the first conception of specialization, but if the products of graduate schools are expected to serve as professionals in these areas the narrow concept of specialization must give way to the broader concept.

Finally, it is argued by representatives of both business and government that graduate training does not prepare students for the kind of work required in business and government. Unlike the conclusion in the previous sections with respect to the common core of economics, the ability to express ideas coherently, and the ability to do research, where it was concluded that the requirements are the same irrespective of whether the student wants to go into academic work, business, or government, additional training will depend upon the field the student decides to enter. The criticism that graduate schools at the present time do not offer appropriate specializations for students interested in business and government in the role of professional economists appears to be justified. The kinds of courses that would be required for such a specialization would cover such topics as projections, studies in demand and cost, and general economic accounting.

In order to correct the tendency toward superficiality, the student should customarily take two or three courses in a given special area, over a period of at least two years. This would provide the student with an opportunity to work in the area over a longer period, and so would permit a cumulative build-up.

Research work involving the handling of empirical material and/or field work should be undertaken simultaneously with the course work. Such research work might be part of an internship program, a workshop course, or an apprenticeship as a research assistant. In some cases, suitable summer employment might serve as part of the program.

As already indicated, training in related disciplines should accompany the work in the special field. Generally speaking, survey courses in related disciplines will not meet the need. Either courses especially designed to suit the area being studied or relatively advanced work within the other disciplines would be [20] appropriate in giving greater breadth to the program of specialization.

In order to meet the needs of business and government, a number of courses in fields not now generally offered could usefully be added. Such things as the problems of making projections, studies in cost and demand analysis, operations research, and economic accounting are all appropriate subjects, which could serve either as specialties in their own right or as valuable tool adjuncts in such fields as industrial organization, labor, and international trade.

The Role of the Ph.D. Thesis

In viewing the Ph.D. thesis as both a test of and a means of acquiring core knowledge, clarity of expression, and research competence, the panel members felt that the form of the thesis required some reconsideration.

The desirability of having the thesis written in residence is well recognized. Furthermore, the panel members generally agreed that it would seem sufficient as a requirement if students could turn out an article-length paper which would be of publishable quality. Such a short thesis could be examined and criticized in greater detail by the faculty, and, if needed, revised more often and more basically by the student. This does not mean that long Ph.D. theses should be prohibited; a student should have the right to undertake any task he wants to. Still, it does not seem unreasonable to require that even in the case of a long thesis the student shall, in order to meet the thesis requirement, present some piece of material not longer than 30 to 50 pages which can stand as an independent piece of writing, aside from possible appendices on sources and methods. Whatever he wants to do over and above this, of course, he can. It may well be argued that the short thesis should not be compulsory, but that it may be enough to announce to students that short theses are not only acceptable but encouraged. Several panel members felt that the short thesis might be inappropriate [21] for specific topics, and that the way should be left open so that the student could write a longer thesis if he chose to do so. There is danger in this approach, however, in that students may take the safe way out and write a long thesis much on the same basis that they write long answers to exam questions covering every possible facet of the question. In such a case the tendency to judge theses by the pound might continue.

If the requirement that the thesis be of publishable quality is seriously intended, it might be desirable to consider having the university undertake the actual publication, in the form of an annual series. If the theses are in fact held to a length of 30 to 50 pages, the cost of publishing them would not be excessive. Such an arrangement would have several advantages. First, it would tend to make the students more careful of what they offer, since in most instances it would represent their first published work. Second, it would provide the student with copies of his thesis at nominal cost in the form of reprints. This would be very useful for job applications. Even when prospective employers were not sent a reprint by the student they would be able to obtain the thesis series from most libraries, and so could have access to a sample of the student’s work. Furthermore, the faculty would feel more conscientious with respect to the supervision of theses, since it would be evident to other institutions and members of the profession generally what caliber of work was being done. Finally, the work involved could be arranged to accord the students themselves with experiences in publishing in much the same way a law review does in law school. The argument against such a series is that the better theses or redrafts of them will be worth publication in the regular professional journals, and that this would be much preferable. There is also no guarantee that the university series would offer any substantial incentive to high quality, but may well have the opposite effect.*

[22]

The General Form of Graduate Instruction in Economics

These requirements partially dictate the general form of graduate education in economics. For one thing, a certain degree of formality will be required in education at the graduate level. This formality comes about because the entering graduate student usually does not possess the background necessary for graduate work in economics. Unlike the sciences and medicine, it is not practical to require that all entering students possess training in specific areas. The decision by students to become economists almost invariably is made very late in their undergraduate careers, so that it is usually impractical for them to acquire more advanced training in this area while they are undergraduates. Students should, of course, be encouraged to acquire the background at the undergraduate level insofar as possible, and the graduate curriculum may be modified to accelerate students who are adequately prepared. Nevertheless, there will still be a considerable area of the common core to which almost all students should be subjected.

Students who are capable of good work in one direction but find some other area extremely difficult may perhaps be permitted to waive certain of the requirements. The exceptional students, furthermore, need not necessarily be only those brilliant students who excel in economic theory. Students of more specialized interests, such as those primarily interested in the filed of labor, economic history, or corporation finance, should be given consideration fully as much as the theorists.

To a considerable extent, flexibility of graduate training can be secured by more individual attention in the form of some sort of tutorial and/or internship training in graduate school. Such a tutorial and/or internship would make the individual needs of the students known to the faculty, and it would give the student more opportunity to go his individual direction, either filling in gaps in his knowledge or pursuing lines of special interest. It would not always be necessary that senior faculty members be used as tutors. Younger staff members who [23] were themselves more recently graduate students may make more suitable tutors, in that they are closer to recent graduate training and are generally freer with their time.

Finally, it seems necessary to maintain some form of certification as a function of graduate education, as long as the number of students trained is substantial. People hiring students will want to know the kind and caliber of work done by the student in question. It has been suggested that the certification problem can be lessened by relying for purposes of recommendation and scholarship evaluation on more lengthy comments written by the student’s supervisors.

The Period of Graduate Training

It is the present practice of many graduate schools to concentrate the tool courses in the first year of graduate studies. Such an arrangement tends to make a somewhat regimented, formal, and uninspired first year of graduate work. The beginning student is left little room to follow lines in which he is interested or to explore areas to see whether he would find them interesting.

The specialization that takes place in the second year, as noted in the preceding section, often means only a single course in the special field. As a result, a survey course within an area is considered advanced work in that area. This specialization, furthermore, occurs at the same time the student is preparing for his comprehensives, and usually more attention is given to the comprehensives than to the specialization.

The thesis is often not started until after the student has finished his second year of graduate work and passed his comprehensive examinations. As a result, not only the writing of the thesis but the conception of it as well may be done after the student has served his time in residence and left. The consequent lack of supervision, the relegation of the thesis to a part-time task, and the prolongation of the thesis period to a number of years all tend to reduce the quality and usefulness of the thesis.

[24] The panel was generally agreed that the distinction in timing between tool courses, specialization, and the thesis should be less sharp than is current practice. In the first year, the student should be allowed to do some browsing. Some of the tool courses should be postponed until the second year, so that more of a cumulative development in the tools themselves would be possible.

The preliminary work on the thesis should not be put off until the third year of graduate work, and the thesis itself should be completed while the student is in residence. Initial work might start in a thesis seminar in the second year of graduate study. Rather than spending full time on the thesis at any point in his graduate work, the student would be expected to work on his thesis along with other course or seminar work.

Internships, research assistantships, and other such programs may mean that the student will interrupt or prolong the period of graduate work, or he may spend some of his summers in such activities. Programs such as these, however, should be planned in terms of the student’s total graduate training, and should be carried out as part of it. They should not be devised solely in terms of the faculty’s manpower needs—as at present is sometimes the case.

These requirements indicate that a minimum of three years in residence will be required by graduate students to complete the work. Generally speaking, four years will be more usual, so that the student can get practical experience as well as formal training into his graduate training. For the student’s own good, a period of more than five years in residence between entrance and the obtaining of the doctorate is probably undesirable. Should the student contemplate a more ambitious program than this, it should be of a post-doctoral nature. It would be useful for this purpose if universities could set up programs whereby post-doctoral students could obtain internships in business and government for a year, and then return to the university in a teaching position for a year following the internship. Such an arrangement would encourage business and government to take [25] students on an internship basis, and would at the same time give the individual student an opportunity to get established after having served his internship.

Summary and Conclusions

The familiar concept of giving all graduate students in economics basic training in a common core appears to be a useful device, and should be kept as an integral part of graduate training in economics. This common core, if properly conceived, has the advantage of providing some breadth to the student’s training, not only making him more literate, but also giving him a better perspective within which to place his more specialized training. The common core also makes it easier for economists to communicate with each other insofar as they have had the same type of general training. Finally, mobility within the profession is promoted, so that it is possible for economists to move between business, government, and academic work to a much greater extent than might otherwise be so.
The inadequacy of the current training of economists in writing and research was considered to be one of the greatest gaps in graduate training. The ability to express ideas coherently and the ability to carry through research work in a skillful manner should both be considered major tools of the economist. The graduate program, therefore, should take account of both these needs early in the period of graduate training, and attention should continue to be directed to them throughout the graduate program. Both writing and research should be weighted more than is done at present in the grading structure of the graduate program. One of the primary objectives of graduate schools should be to produce people who do not just know, but who can do as well, and the grading structure should be changed to assist in bringing this about. Special programs to promote research training, such as internships in the university or outside of it, should be developed to give the student more research experience under supervised conditions.
Specialization in graduate school should equip the student [26] with more advanced training in various areas. It is important that this training not be too narrowly conceived nor too superficial. Instances where a single advanced course and little outside work is supposed to make a student a specialist are all too frequent. Specialization requires a longer build-up of cumulative work, and may involve going into related areas outside of what is generally considered to be economics. Graduate schools should give more careful attention to the specialized training students receive and whether this training does in fact meet the requirements for genuine specialization.
Graduate training normally takes place over a very extended period. Students often work part time while trying to get their doctorate. It is thought that much would be gained if, as in the case of the professional schools, graduate training in economics could take place in an unbroken period of concentrated effort. If the common core is to be retained as is suggested in item 1 above, and more emphasis is to be placed upon writing, research, and specialization, as suggested in items 2 and 3 above, it seems very probable that the total effort going into graduate training in economics by the student will have to be increased. The concentration of studies into a period of three or four consecutive years on a full-time basis will do much to increase the efficiency of the students’ training and permit these objectives to be met. Summer programs of research or internship training may also be of considerable aid in fulfilling these objectives without extending graduate training further.
The present form of the Ph.D. thesis is not an optimal device for achieving these objectives. It was thought that short theses, which could be reworked more easily and which could generally be made available in published form, would be more manageable and would provide a more effective training device. Such a thesis could be integrated into the graduate training program, and could generally be expected to be written while a student was still in residence; the doctorate would be granted directly upon completion of the period of residence and the thesis.

___________________________________

*One panel member has suggested that in cases where a mediocre short thesis is written only an M.A. be granted, and the Ph.D. reserved for theses of exceptional quality.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. Personal Papers of John Kenneth Galbraith, Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 517, Folder “General Correspondence 8/7/56—12/10/57”.

Tags Alexander, Arrow, Bach, Bakke, Baumol, BowenH, Colm, Fabricant, Fellner, Friedman, Griffin, HartAG, Healy, Hurwicz, Kuznets, Lebergott, Leontief, LewisBW, Lintner, Mason, MillerJ, NelsonJ, RugglesR, Samuelson, SawyerJ, Strotz, Tobin, WilcoxC

Agricultural Economics Economists Harvard

Harvard. Memorial Minute for Agricultural Economist, J. D. Black, 1960

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-05-09

John Kenneth Galbraith was the chairman of a committee commissioned to write a faculty minute in honor of John D. Black (1883-1960) who taught courses in the economics of agriculture at Harvard from 1927 through 1959. Anyone familiar with Galbraithian prose can see that this minute was overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, the work of Galbraith. I do not think it an exaggeration to see in Galbraith’s praise of this or that aspect of Black’s career and scholarly style a projection of Galbraith’s own creed for academic life. Admiration, gratitude (Black pushed hard to get Galbraith promoted to a full professorship at Harvard), and affection all shine through this memorial minute, a genuine positive outlier in the art of the obituary.

Willard W. Cochrane wrote a profile “Remembering John D. Black” that was published in Choices (Magazine published by the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association in the 1st Quarter 1989 issue) pp. 31-32.

______________________

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

At a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on October 18, 1960, the following minutes were placed upon the records.

JOHN DONALD BLACK

John D. Black, Henry Lee Professor of Economics, was the nation’s leading student of the economics of agriculture, and, to a greater extent than any other man, he gave the modern dimension and form to this branch of economics. His books, monographs, and papers were more widely and attentively read than those of any other scholar in the field; he was a premier source of ideas and a leader in research; his students have held and still hold a large proportion of the professorships in this subject; they have been equally influential in the United States Department of Agriculture and influential also in the colleges and departments of agriculture in foreign countries; and Black himself had a marked influence on the agricultural legislation passed in 1933 and thereafter. The price paid for milk in this community is set in accordance with a complex formula devised by Black. Not the least of his achievements was to make Harvard, an institution with no very intimate ties to farming, a major center during his lifetime of agricultural research and instruction.

Black’s first interest in life was as a teacher of advanced students — students who would find their career in one or another branches of his subject. His teaching had little style; preparation was at best an afterthought. But his students soon came to realize that they were, incomparably, the most important people in his life. They could count, literally, on his unlimited time and his impersonal but equally unlimited affection. And they discovered that beneath his formless lecturing were solid theoretical premises, a strong scientific attitude, and a profound contempt for anything suggestive of cant or pretense. He was immensely tolerant of students of average ability and was content if they became, in his hands, a little better than average. But he rejoiced in his good students and saw in all their achievements his own. Black’s students were his students for life. He knew them all by name; he expected to be consulted when they changed jobs; and he liked to be informed on their personal life. He was deeply concerned with the quality of instruction in agricultural economics not alone at Harvard but throughout the country. High level instruction he identified, not inaccurately, with this own students. So for many years he carried with him a small black book containing a list of former students and in his mind a list of college and university departments where he felt his influence could be enhanced. A vacancy in any of these institutions led promptly to a recommendation of a man who could be counted upon to extend what he did not hesitate to call “the Black point of view.”

Though subordinate in its claim on his time (during his nearly thirty years at Harvard his door was always open to students from nine until five) Black’s research and writing was of first importance and was prodigious in volume. His Production Economics, published in 1926, though unfinished in some respects, was a landmark in the development of the production function and in the theory of the competitive firm. It led Black to develop an entirely new approach to farm management research and instruction, one that reflected far more adequately the conceptual character of the farm firm and which in time largely supplanted the older methods based on comparative accounting data. Marketing, agricultural co-operation land tenure, land economics, price analysis, forestry, population theory, food and nutrition, farm labor, and national policy were among the subjects which engaged his attention at one period or another. A selection from his writings published last year by the Harvard University Press was from nearly three hundred books, papers, pamphlets, congressional submissions, reports, and manuscripts. Black had little patience with refinement in economic theory or method; he made no effort to conceal his opinion that much discussion of finer points was pretentious nonsense. He spoke often of the need to “open up a subject”—to initiate investigation and to offer the preliminary findings. This repeatedly he did. The results were never well formed or polished. But they were always supremely relevant, and they usually paved the way for the more detailed efforts of less original men.

Throughout his life Black was a trusted adviser on a wide range of matters concerning agricultural policy. He could not be readily typed either as a liberal or as a conservative. But he was sympathetic and pragmatic. He mistrusted the men who resolved matters on general theoretical grounds, and he was profoundly interested in results. Thus during the thirties, when many economists opposed the farm legislation of the period as an improper interference with the free market, Black was concerned only with how it might be made to work. Similarly on other matters. As a result, he was called on constantly by a succession of Secretaries of Agriculture, by agricultural officials, farm leaders, congressional committees and, especially in recent years, by foreign governments.

John Donald Black was born in 1883 in the log house on the original family homestead in Cambridge, Wisconsin. He was fourth in a family of talented children — one that include three teachers, a distinguished chemist, and a leading businessman. Black made his way through normal school, became a high school teacher of algebra, botany, and physical geography and the coach of the high school athletic teams. With earnings from teaching, he proceeded to the University of Wisconsin and to a degree in English. He taught English first at Western Reserve University and then for four years at the Michigan College of Mines (as it then was) on the upper Michigan peninsula. This latter college was in a raw and bitter community; in the neighboring copper mines bitterness and strife were endemic. He became impressed, especially after a long strike in 1915, with the urgency of the social problems. It seems likely, also, that he had become increasingly less impressed by the urgency or even the feasibility of teaching English grammar to these engineers for, in any case, he had begun to smuggle economics into his courses in the form of assignments in English composition. But on returning to study labor economics at a University of Wisconsin summer school, his attention was caught by the fledgling work in farm economics of Henry C. Taylor. He turned to this subject and took his Ph.D. degree with a thesis on land tenure in Wisconsin. On completion of his degree in 1918, he went to the University of Minnesota. His academic progress there may well serve as a model for the ambitious young scholar. He was assistant professor for six months, associate professor for two years, and the head of his department from the beginning.

In the ensuing ten years, the University of Minnesota became by far the most interesting center for research and discussion of the social problems of agriculture in the United States. A brilliant group of scholars gathered to work with Black. From them came a striking series of pamphlets and monographs — those on empirical methods and the nature of market supply responses were especially noteworthy. Before long, Black had a disproportionate share of both graduate students and budget — a development which he never found it in his heart to deplore.

By the late twenties his work was widely known and, at the behest of Thomas Nixon Carver, he was invited to visit Harvard for a term. This he did in 1927, and the visit was soon followed by an offer of a professorship. Now the students came to Cambridge instead of St. Paul. Few of them had funds to afford Harvard tuition, and by an incredible exercise of energy and resourcefulness Black found them money with which to study and do research. In 1929 and the years following the Social Science Research Council awarded one hundred twenty scholarships to improve the level of teaching and research in agricultural economics and rural sociology. Of the recipients, no fewer than forty-five came to Harvard to work with Black. In some subsequent years as many as a quarter of all the students in economics belonged to what came to be called “the Black Empire.”

In 1917 Black married Nina Van Steenberg, a woman of serene good humor and keen intelligence who, with their three children — Guy, Margaret, and Alan — survives him. The Black house in Belmont was for hundreds of graduate students nearly as much a part of Harvard as were his rooms in Widener or (later on) in Littauer. Black, to the wonder of all who knew him, worked prodigiously, imperturbably, and without evident strain. The serenity, charm, and quiet good humor of his household is surely a part of the explanation.

In his relations to colleagues and university, Black was the epitome of the inner-directed man. His view of what he needed and wanted was extremely clear. Since, in the end, it invariably prevailed, the Department eventually adopted the wise course of acceding to his wishes at the outset. Where he found university rules inconvenient, he unhesitantly ignored them. The rule that members of the faculty, though sound in body and mind, should retire at some specified age, struck him as especially absurd. He continued to teach until last December when he was seventy-six. He had a certain quiet pride in the devices by which he accomplished this defeat of authority, and it was his belief that no one in the modern history of the university had approached his record.

Black was an early President of the American Farm Economic Association and one of the life Fellows of that organization. He had a founding role in the organization of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and in 1955 he was President of the American Economic Association.

Last January he was stricken by the first of a series of severe heart attack. He died on April 12.

Edward S. Mason
Arthur Smithies
John Kenneth Galbraith, Chairman.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. LVI, No. 7 (October 29, 1960), p. 36-8. Copy in the Papers of John Kenneth Galbraith (Box 527), John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.

Image Source: Harvard University. Class Album 1945.

Tags BlackJD, Galbraith, Mason, Smithies

Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Exam Questions for “The Corporation and its Regulation”, 1935

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-04-22

While the Harvard archives collection of printed final examinations has a few serious gaps and is sometimes incomplete (especially with respect to the mid-year exams for year-long courses), it is truly a great resource, especially when the exams get paired to the corresponding syllabus/reading-list found elsewhere in the archives. I’m am now roughly a third of the way in matching exams to course syllabi/reading-lists that I have already posted. Once I catch up, I’ll be posting the combinations regularly from thereon out.

Today takes us back to the extremely popular (in the mid-1930s) Harvard course co-taught by Messrs. Crum, Mason, and Chamberlin on the corporation and its regulation. It is interesting to note that Henry Simons’ pamphlet “A Positive Program for Laissez-Faire” (1934) while not be included in the reading list was important enough to account for 50% of the examination (Q. 1) below.

_____________________________

Final Examination
The Corporation and its Regulation

Professors William Leonard Crum, Edward Sagendorph Mason, and Edward Hastings Chamberlin

1934-35
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 4a¹

1. Note: Allow about an hour and a half for this question. Discuss any two of the following proposals:

A recently published programme for a liberal economic policy proposes in part:

That no corporation which engages in the manufacture or merchandising of commodities or services shall own any securities of any other such corporation.
That corporations may issue securities only in a small number of simple forms prescribed by law, and that no single corporation may employ more than two (or three) of the different forms.
That investment corporations (including holding companies) shall hold stock in operating companies without voting rights, and shall be prohibited from exercising influence over such companies with respect to management.

2. Write on any three of the following:

“The Securities Act is merely an attempt to make the corporation lawyer and financier the scapegoats of the depression.” Discuss.
“It is not possible in a modern corporation to discover who performs the entrepreneurial function, nor to apply to a modern corporation any theory of profits based on the assumption that individual proprietorships and partnerships are the typical forms of business enterprise.” Discuss.
Distinguish between earned and capital surplus. What is the importance of the distinction? In what various ways may a capital surplus arise? Discuss the declaration of dividends out of surplus.
“One of the largest textile mills in the United States found itself in 1932 with $2,000,000 cash, no bonds, and hardly any current obligations. Its stock was quoted at $30 a share, though the corporation had nearly $35 in net quick assets. Accordingly, it purchased some of its own shares. Obviously, by whatever course of reasoning we proceed, this was of advantage not only to the corporation, because it reduced the number of shares upon which it must pay dividends in order to maintain its investment credit, but also to the great body of stockholders, because it increased the available equity of each share. We may add that it was of advantage to the individual shareholder who was forced to sell his shares, in that it increased the number of purchasers.” Discuss.

Final. [February] 1935.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Examination Papers—Finals, 1935 (HUC 7000.28, 77 of 284).

Image Source: Crum, Mason and Chamberlin from Harvard Album 1934.

Tags Chamberlin, Crum, Mason

John Christopher Ise 1996 Inductee of the Osborne County Hall of Fame

JOHN ISE MEMORIES OF MY FATHER

Excerpt from Edward S. Mason’s Autobiography

Ise’s account (1922) of the undergraduate principles of economics course

Kansapedia article [Yes, there is a Kansapedia]

John C. Ise

From: John Ise Papers at the University of Kansas

LLOYD A. METZLER 1913-1980 by Edward S. Mason

ON LLOYD METZLER by Evsey D. Domar

LLOYD METZLER (April 3, 1913—October 26, 1980) by Paul A. Samuelson

[Excerpts]

1936-37 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 11b2

I Write about one hour

II Answer four questions

1938-39 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 11b2

I (Reading Period — one hour)

II (Answer TWO — one hour)

III (Answer TWO — one hour)

Leontief’s conclusion to his 1938 article on Marxian economics

1936-37 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 1171

Answer THREE or FOUR questions

Outline of Marxian course.

Dialectical materialism.—

Economic interpretation of history.

Equilibrium economics vs. Marxian economics

Marx’s economic analysis—

Dictatorship of the proletariat and democracy. —

Marxian theory of revolution—

[second page]

Links to Leontief’s Reading Assignments.

Course Description, 1940-41

Enrollment 1939-40

Economics 62b 1939-40

Industrial Organization and Control Outline and Assignments

I THE ECONOMICS OF THE FIRM

II TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL MARKETS

III GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Titles of books assigned.

Reading Period Assignment

Course Final Exam

1939—1940 HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 62b2

Course Description, 1940-41

Enrollment 1939-40

Economics 61a 1939-40

Outline

Economics 61a Section Meeting Oct. 13-14, 1939

Reading Period Assignment Jan. 4-17, 1940

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale YALE UNIVERSITY 1956

Panel members:

Yale committee:

The Role of Graduate Education in Economics

The frontier of economic knowledge.

Research training for business and government.

Policy and administrative guidance in business, government, and labor.

Teaching.

Requirements Posed by the Objectives of Graduate Training in Economics

COMMON CORE OF ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE

Economic theory.

Economic history.

Mathematics.

Statistics.

Interdisciplinary training as related to the core of economics.

The extent and timing of the common core.

The Ability to Express Ideas Coherently

Research Competence

Specialization

The Role of the Ph.D. Thesis

The General Form of Graduate Instruction in Economics

The Period of Graduate Training

Summary and Conclusions

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

JOHN DONALD BLACK

Final Examination The Corporation and its Regulation

Professors William Leonard Crum, Edward Sagendorph Mason, and Edward Hastings Chamberlin

1934-35 HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 4a1

John Christopher Ise
1996 Inductee of the Osborne County Hall of Fame

JOHN ISE
MEMORIES OF MY FATHER

Kansapedia article
[Yes, there is a Kansapedia]

LLOYD A. METZLER
1913-1980
by Edward S. Mason

ON LLOYD METZLER
by Evsey D. Domar

LLOYD METZLER
(April 3, 1913—October 26, 1980)
by Paul A. Samuelson

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 11b²

I
Write about one hour

II
Answer four questions

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 11b²

I
(Reading Period — one hour)

II
(Answer TWO — one hour)

III
(Answer TWO — one hour)

1936-37
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 117¹

Economics 62b
1939-40

Industrial Organization and Control
Outline and Assignments

I
THE ECONOMICS OF THE FIRM

II
TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL MARKETS

III
GOVERNMENT REGULATION

1939—1940
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 62b²

Economics 61a
1939-40

Economics 61a
Section Meeting
Oct. 13-14, 1939

Reading Period Assignment
Jan. 4-17, 1940

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS
A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale
YALE UNIVERSITY
1956

Final Examination
The Corporation and its Regulation

1934-35
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 4a¹