Tag: Mitchell

NBER. Mitchell to Burns about Friedman. 1945

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-22

Reading the letter written by Wesley Clair Mitchell, the Director of Research at the NBER, to Arthur Burns in which Mitchell offers discouraging words regarding an appointment at NBER for Milton Friedman in 1945, it is interesting to see how Milton Friedman and his wife report on the controversy that very clearly influenced Mitchell’s personal opinion of Milton Friedman. What is not yet clear is whether Arthur Burns ultimately made an offer to Friedman or whether it was perhaps the timely offer arranged by George Stigler for Milton Friedman to teach at the University of Minnesota that made a NBER appointment a moot point.

_______________________________

The Friedmans Remember

The publication of the NBER book by Simon Kuznets and Milton Friedman Incomes from Independent Professional Practice (1945) was delayed four years in part because of the new demands for statistical and economic analyses due to World War II. In Milton Friedman’s judgment the delay was caused “mostly by a controversy about one part of the manuscript” that attributed half the observed excess average income of physicians over dentists to “the difference in ease of entry, produced at least in part by the success of the American Medical Association in limiting entry into medicine.” (pp. 71-72) A member of the special reading committee of directors appointed to evaluate the manuscript, C. Reinhold Noyes, did not agree and wrote “I suggest that the subject of freedom of entry is a hot poker and be dropped.” Friedman described how he and Kuznets wrote eighty pages worth of memos in response to this and other criticisms of Noyes. In his account of the controversy, Milton Friedman has nothing but praise for Wesley Clair Mitchell: “Three years of back and forth discussion followed, with Wesley Mitchell…supporting the scientific freedom of bureau authors…In later years I came to appreciate how rare is the combination of toughness and diplomacy that Mitchell demonstrated in defense of our scientific freedom.” (pp. 74-76)

Rose Friedman wrote about her worries about her husband’s job prospects after World War II ended.

“Presumably he could have gone back to the Treasury but that was the last thing he wanted to do. A government career was never Milton’s choice. He could always return to the National Bureau, but I knew that too was not Milton’s preference. An academic career was what he wanted. By early September, when we moved back to our apartment in Manhattan, Milton had received no offer for the fall. As an inveterate worrier always fearing the worst, I was not happy. I remember very well a visit from the Burnses and Arthur’s attempt, while Milton was temporarily out of the room to reassure me by telling me that Milton was very gifted and would make it to the top and that I had no reason to be concerned.” (p. 147)

Source: Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Two Lucky People: Memoirs (Chicago, 1998).

_______________________________

Letter from Wesley Clair Mitchell to Arthur Burns

Huckleberry Rocks
Greensboro, Vermont

August 27 1945

Dear Arthur

Milton offers a problem that is painful indeed, but we ought to face it squarely. You know how highly I value Simon’s [Kuznets] judgment as well as your own. Both of you have longer + more intimate acquaintance with M. than have I. I am sure both of you try to be objective about him. So do I. That we differ must be due to the unlike weights we attach to qualities we agree, or admit, he possesses.

We agree about his acute mind, about his thorough training in mathematical statistics + mathematical economics, about his creative powers at least in the first of these fields and probably in the second, about his personal likeability, + about his honesty of intention. We must admit that he has fooled himself, unwittingly, + thereby fooled all three of us who were so predisposed to accept his findings. Do you remember that first paper in which M. argued that the incomes of physicians run substantially higher than those of dentists, + the criticisms Fred Mills made of the averages on which M. rested his conclusion? Simon was annoyed by Mills; you were annoyed by him; I was a little annoyed; but Mills was right in large part. Then came the second + graver case brought out by Noyes’ rather brutal attack which enlisted my sympathies as well as yours + Simon’s warmly on Milton’s side. M. drew up a table that seemed to settle the critical issue in his favor. It was made from data he had collected + studied. We knew nothing about these materials in detail. Simon accepted the results. You accepted them. I accepted them with pleasure. Noyes’ second set of criticisms forced a more searching examination. I put in more than a month of careful study + concluded that M. had misused his data in several ways + reached an indefensible conclusion. The best thing about that sad affair was that M. frankly admitted his errors.

I think Milton’s troubles arose from accepting a conclusion about the monopolistic practice of the medical societies, feeling sure that restriction of entry must tend to increase the incomes of medical practitioners, + so accepting at face value any statistical evidence that pointed in the direction he knew to be right. We are all of us subject to this type of error. We examine far more critically evidence that appears to run counter to our hypotheses than evidence that supports them. But M. seems to me worse than most of us on this respect.

Another weakness that I think hurts Milton is lack of interest in and appreciation of non-rational factors that influence, + sometimes dominate, economic behavior. They cannot be handled effectively by the calculus of economic theory concerned with what it is to the interest of men to do. Milton’s clever appraisal of the effect of the higher costs of medical than of dental education is a brilliant specimen of this sort of theorizing. Of course he knows his argument is most unrealistic + says so. Under pressure of criticisms he stressed his qualifications still further. What does such an analysis really add to our knowledge of how men choose their occupations? Can’t the simple bits of truth in the proposition that high costs of training limit the number who enter a profession be put better in simpler form? Why work out an accountant’s estimate in detail when you have to add that few men are able to do such work correctly; that still fewer possess the concrete evidence needed to give the estimate some air of reality; that a man clever enough to do the job + possessed of the factual data would realize that conditions might well change by the time he or his son was ready to set up in practice, + that no one should suppose that choices are really made in this way?

I wish I could share your intuitive faith that M. “has more to contribute to economic science than any man of his generation.” If only we could find the man of whom this remark is true + draw him into the National Bureau, I should be happy indeed! Whoever he may be, he has more insight into human nature than Milton has been blessed with.

Nor do I think you would be wise in taking on a man whom you would have to follow through all the details of his work to make sure that his deficiencies, genuine or problematical, would never again embarrass us. As director of research, you need colleagues who know a great deal more than you will have time to learn about the materials they are severally handling. The kind of watching M. needs is not critical examination of his statistical methods + general reasoning, but detailed study of his data + the way he uses them. That is a time consuming job. None of us did that for M. until far too late. I must accept primary responsibility for this error of omission. I don’t want to see you put in a position where your conscience will force you to spend weeks in making good the guarantee you suggest.

You know that I am grieved to write as I do. To me it seems that you are letting admiration for Milton’s technical proficiencies + personal liking warp your judgment. Loyalty to the aims we both cherish requires me to be candid, though at cost to your feelings as well as mine. If you can produce genuine evidence that my present opinions are wrong, I shall be glad. In the meantime, please do your best to give proper weight to my misgivings.

[…]

Ever yours

[signed]

Wesley C. Mitchell

Source: Arthur F. Burns Papers at the Economists’ Papers Archives. Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Library. Box 2, Folder “Correspondence: Wesley Clair Mitchell 1911-1945”.

Image Source: Columbia 250 Website: Arthur F. Burns, Milton Friedman. Foundation for the Study of Cycles Website: Wesley Clair Mitchell.

Tags BurnsAF, Friedman, Mitchell

Chicago Economists

Chicago. Simons urges the recruitment of Milton Friedman, 1945

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-05-21

The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki was less than two weeks history and the declaration of the surrender of Imperial Japan only five days old. Nothing says “back to business as usual” at the university better than active lobbying on behalf of one’s preferred candidate for an upcoming vacancy, as we see in the following memo for the 33 year old Milton Friedman written by Henry C. Simons to the Chicago economics department chair, Simeon E. Leland. The copy of this memo comes from the President’s Office at the University of Chicago. Simons’ grand strategy was to seamlessly replace the triad Lange-Knight-Mints with his own dream team of Friedman-Stigler-Hart. He feared that outsiders to the department might be tempted to appoint some convex combination of New Dealer Rexford Tugwell and trust-bustin’ George W. Stocking Sr., economists of the institutional persuasion who were swimming on the edges of the mainstream of the time.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror also has transcribed excerpts from an earlier 77 page (!) memorandum (10 April, 1945) to President Robert M. Hutchins from Simeon E. Leland entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics–A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

____________________________

Henry C. Simons Urges his Department Chair to Recruit Milton Friedman

August 20, 1945

To: Simeon E. Leland Economics

From: Henry C. Simons Economics

If Lange is leaving, we should go after Milton Friedman immediately.

It is a hard choice between Friedman and Stigler. We should tell the administration that we want them both (they would work together excellently, each improving what the other did), Friedman to replace Lange, Stigler to replace Knight and to be with us well ahead of Knight’s retirement. We might also say that we want Hart to replace Mints at Mints’s retirement, and also to be with us in advance, but are happy to have him financed by C.E.D. [Committee for Economic Development] for the present.

Yntema evidently is thinking of getting Friedman shortly. We should exploit this possibility. Milton has now a great yen for a University post and would probably turn down an offer from C.E.D., even at much financial sacrifice, if a good academic post were the alternative (as it might be, at Minnesota or elsewhere). He is rather footloose—not anxious to go back either to the Treasury or to the National Bureau. We should grab him now, offering temporary joint appointment with C.E.D. and full-time, permanent appointment when he is through with C.E.D.

Friedman is young, flexible, and available potentially for a wide variety of assignments. He is a first-rate economic theorist, economic statistician, and mathematical economist, and is intensely interested over the whole range of economic policy. He has been outstanding in every organization where he has worked—here with Henry Schultz, at the National Bureau, at the Treasury, and now recently in the Army project at Columbia. Moreover, he is one of those rare cases of able young men who have enjoyed large experience and responsibility in Washington without being at all disqualified thereby for academic work.

The obvious long-term arrangement is a joint appointment with the Cowles Commission. Marschak would, I’m sure, like to have him; and Milton would like to settle into a major project of empirical research, e.g., on enterprise size and productional efficiency. Bartky may be expected strongly to support the appointment, for its strengthening of the University in statistics. The School of Business could well use Milton, to give its few advanced courses in statistics, if Yntema continues to price himself out of the University. Moreover, Milton probably would be delighted to work partly in the Law School, and be extremely useful there. In the Department, he would be available for statistics, mathematical economics, pure economic theory, taxation, and almost any field where we might need additional courses.

If University officers want outside testimony, they could get it from Randolph Paul or Roy Blough (as regards the Treasury), from Arthur F. Burns (National Bureau), from Abraham Wald, Allen Wallis, and Barky (as regards war research), and from Bunn at Wisconsin (as regards possible usefulness to the Law School)—not to mention George Stigler, Harold Groves, Wesley Mitchell, Simon Kuznets, Erwin Griswold, et al.

Perhaps the best thing about Milton, apart from his technical abilities, is his capacity for working as part of a team. He is the gregarious kind of intellectual, anxious to try out all his ideas on his colleagues and to have them reciprocate. He would doubtless be worth his whole salary, if he neither taught nor published, simply for his contribution to other people’s work and to the Department group as a whole. But he is also intensely interested in teaching, and far too industrious not to publish extensively. Our problem would be not that of finding ways to use him but that of keeping him from trying too many tasks and, especially, of leaving him enough time for his own research.

It would, I think, be good policy and good tactics to submit a major program of appointments, including [Frank W.] Fetter, Friedman, Stigler, Hart, and an economic historian (Innis or Hamilton), in the hope of getting them all within a few years, some on joint appointments with, notably, the Cowles Commission, the Law School, the School of Business (?) and, temporarily, the C.E.D. Research Staff. Such a program would serve to protect us against administration pressure for less good appointments (e.g., Stocking [George Ward Stocking, Sr., Ph.D. Columbia, 1925]), and from Hutchins’s alleged complaint that, while he wanted to consider major appointments in economics, the Department simply would not make recommendations. We should, in any case, err on the side of asking for more appointments than we can immediately get. Otherwise, available funds may go largely elsewhere—e.g., into Tugwell-like, lame-duck appointments, and into Industrial Relations, Agricultural Economics, and other ancillary enterprises, at the expense of the central field of economics.

There is, I trust, substantial agreement within the Department, on the men mentioned above. This fact, if fact it is, should be made unmistakably clear to the administration.

Incidentally, if we are going to explore possibilities of an appointment in American economic history (and I’m probably alone in opposing), we should do so only in co-operation with the History Department and with (from the outset) joint plans for joint appointments.

HCS-w

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., 1943-45”.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07613, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags Blough, FetterFW, Friedman, Groves, Hamilton, Hart, HartAG, Innis, Knight, Kuznets, Lange, Leland, Marschak, Mints, Mitchell, SchultzH, Simons, Stigler, Tugwell, Wald, Wallis, Yntema

Economists Fields Harvard

Harvard. Thirteen Economics Ph.D. Examinees, 1908-09.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-02-25

This posting lists the five graduate students in economics who took their subject examinations for the Ph.D. at Harvard from March 12 through May 21, 1908. The examination committee members, academic history, general and specific subjects are provided along with the doctoral thesis subject, when declared. Lists for 1903-04, 1904-05, 1905-06, 1907-08, 1915-16, and 1926-27 were posted previously. In the same archival box one finds lists for the academic years 1902-03 through 1904-05, 1906-07 through 1913-14, 1915-16, 1917-18 through 1918-19, and finally 1926-27. I only include graduate students of economics (i.e. not included are the Ph.D. candidates in history and government).

Titles and dates of Harvard economic dissertations for the period 1875-1926 can be found here.

________________________________________

DIVISION OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D.

1908-09

Edmund Thornton Miller.

General Examination in Economics, January 7, 1909.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Taussig, Gay, Sprague, and Mitchell.
Academic History: University of Texas, 1897-1901; Harvard Graduate School, 1902-03, 1907-09; A.B. (University of Texas) 1900; A.M. (ibid) 1901; A.M. (Harvard) 1903. Instructor in Political Science, University of Texas, 1904-; Austin Teaching Fellow (Harvard), 1908-09.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History to 1750. 3. Economic History since 1750. 4. Money, Banking and Transportation. 5. Public Finance and Financial History. 6. History of American Institutions.
Special Subject: Public Finance and the Financial History of the United States since 1789.
Thesis Subject: “The Financial History of Texas.” (With Professor Bullock.)

Charles Edward Persons.

General Examination in Economics, February 25, 1909.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Carver, Gay, MacDonald, and Ripley.
Academic History: Cornell College (Iowa), 1898-1903; Harvard Graduate School, 1904-05, 1906-09; A.B. (Cornell College) 1903; A.M. (Harvard) 1905. Instructor in Economics at Wellesley College, 1908-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History to 1750. 3. Economic History from 1750. 4. Sociology and Social Reform. 5. Transportation and Foreign Commerce. 6. History of American Institutions.
Special Subject: Industrial History of the United States.
Thesis Subject: “The History of the Ten-Hour Law in Massachusetts.” (With Professor Taussig.)

Frank Richardson Mason.

Special Examination in Economics, May 3, 1909.
General Examination passed May 8, 1907.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Bullock, Ripley, Mitchell, and Sprague.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1901-05; Harvard Graduate School, 1905-08; A.B. (Harvard) 1905; A.M. (ibid) 1906. Austin Teaching Fellow (Harvard), 1906-08.
Special Subject: Economic History of the United States.
Thesis Subject: “The Silk Industry in America.” (With Professor Taussig.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Taussig, Bullock, and Sprague.

Robert Franz Foerster.

Special Examination in Economics, May 12, 1909.
General Examination passed May 21, 1908.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Peabody, Carver, Ripley, and Bullock.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1902-05; University of Berlin, 1905-06 (Winter Semester); Harvard Graduate School, 1906-09; A.B. (Harvard) 1906. Assistant in Social Ethics (Harvard), 1908-09.
Special Subject: Labor Problems.
Thesis Subject: “Emigration from Italy, with special reference to the United States.” (With Professor Taussig.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Taussig, Ripley, and Gay.

David Frank Edwards.

General Examination in Economics, May 13, 1909.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Carver, Ripley, MacDonald, Mitchell, and Sprague.
Academic History: Ohio Wesleyan University, 1899-1903; Harvard Graduate School, 1905-06; A. B. (Ohio Wesleyan) 1903; A.M. (Harvard) 1906. Teacher, High School of Commerce (Boston), 1907-.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Labor Problems and Industrial Organization (and Social Reform). 3. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises. 4. Commercial Geography and Foreign Commerce. 5. Transportation and Foreign Commerce. 6. History of American Institutions.
Special Subject: International Trade and Tariff Problems.
Thesis Subject: “The Glass Industry in the United States.” (With Professor Taussig.)

Harley Leist Lutz.

General Examination in Economics, May 14, 1909.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Carver, Gay, MacDonald, and Sprague.
Academic History: Oberlin College, 1904-07; Harvard Graduate School, 1907-09; A. B. (Oberlin) 1907; A.M. (Harvard) 1908. Assistant (Oberlin), 1906-07; Austin Teaching Fellow (Harvard), 1908-09.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History to 1750, with especial reference to England. 3. Sociology and Social Reform. 4. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises. 5. Public Finance and Financial History. 6. History of American Institutions.
Special Subject: Public Finance and Financial History of the United States.
Thesis Subject: “State Control over the Assessment of Property for Local Taxation.” (With Professor Bullock.)

Joseph Stancliffe Davis.

General Examination in Economics, May 17, 1909.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Carver, Bullock, Ripley, Mitchell, and Dr. Tozzer.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1904-08; Harvard Graduate School, 1908-09; A. B. (Harvard) 1908; Assistant in Economics (Harvard) 1908-09.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Sociology and Social Progress. 4. Money, Banking, and Industrial Organization. 5. History of American Institutions, especially since 1783. 6. Anthropology, especially Ethnology.
Special Subject: Corporations (Industrial Organization).
Thesis Subject: “The Policy of New Jersey toward Business Corporations.” (With Professor Bullock.)

James Ford.

Special Examination in Economics, May 19, 1909.
General Examination passed May 16, 1906.
Committee: Professors Carver (chairman), Peabody, Ripley, Taussig, and Bullock.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1901-04; Harvard Graduate School, 1904-06, 1907-09; A.B. (Harvard) 1905; A.M. (ibid) 1906. Robert Treat Paine Travelling Fellow, 1906-07; Assistant, Social Ethics (Harvard), 1907-09.
Special Subject: Social Reform (Socialism, Communism, Anarchism).
Thesis Subject: “Distributive and Productive Coöperative Societies in New England.” (With Professor Carver.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Carver, Peabody, and Taussig.

Edmund Ezra Day.

Special Examination in Economics, May 20, 1909.
General Examination passed May 23, 1907.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Taussig, Ripley, Munro, and Mr. Parker.
Academic History: Dartmouth College, 1901-06; Harvard Graduate School, 1906-07, 1908-09; S.B. (Dartmouth) 1905; A.M. (ibid) 1906. Instructor in Economics, Dartmouth College, 1907-.
Special Subject: Public Finance and Financial History of the United States since 1789.
Thesis Subject: “The History of the General Property Tax in Massachusetts.” (With Professor Bullock.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Bullock, Taussig, and Ripley.

Clyde Orval Ruggles.

General Examination in Economics, May 20, 1909.
Committee: Professors Ripley (chairman), Carver, Taussig, Gay, and MacDonald.
Academic History: Hedrick Normal School, 1895-96; Iowa State Normal School and Teachers’ College of Iowa, 1901-06; State University of Iowa, 1906-07; Harvard Graduate School, 1907-09; A. B. (Teachers’ College) 1906; A.M. (State Univ.) 1907.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Sociology and Social Reform. 3. Statistics. 4. Economic History to 1750, with especial reference to England. 5. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises. 6. History of American Institutions.
Special Subject: Money and Banking.
Thesis Subject: “The Greenback Movement with especial Reference to Wisconsin and Iowa.” (With Professors Andrew and Mitchell.)

Edmund Thornton Miller.

Special Examination in Economics, May 21, 1909.
General Examination passed January 7, 1909.
Committee: Professors Bullock (chairman), Taussig, Mitchell, and Sprague.
Committee on Thesis: Professors Bullock, Taussig, and Mitchell.
(See first item for Academic History etc.)

Emil Sauer.

General Examination in Economics, May 21, 1909.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Carver, Gay, Mitchell, Munro, and Ripley.
Academic History: University of Texas, 1900-03, 1904-05; Harvard Graduate School, 1907-09; Litt.B. (University of Texas) 1903; A.M. (Harvard) 1908.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Economic History since 1750. 3. Statistics. 4. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises. 5. Transportation and Industrial Organization. 6. History of American Institutions.
Special Subject: Economic History of the United States.
Thesis Subject: “The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 and the Relations between the United States and Hawaii, 1875-1900.” (With Professor Taussig.)

Charles Edward Persons.

Special Examination in Economics, May 24, 1909.
General Examination passed February 25, 1909.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Peabody, Bullock, Ripley, and Sprague.
Committee on Thesis: Professors Taussig, Bullock, and Ripley.
(See second item for Academic History etc.)

Carl William Thompson.

General Examination in Economics, June 2, 1909.
Committee: Professors Carver (chairman), Taussig, Sprague, Ripley, Cole, and MacDonald.
Academic History: Valparaiso College, 1899-1901; University of South Dakota, 1902-03; Harvard Graduate School, 1903-04; A.B. (Valparaiso) 1901; B.O. (ibid) 1901; A.B. (South Dakota) 1903; A.M. (ibid.) 1903; A.M. (Harvard) 1904. Professor of Economics and Sociology, University of South Dakota.
General Subjects: 1. Economic Theory and its History. 2. Sociology and Social Reform. 3. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises. 4. Transportation and Foreign Commerce. 5. Labor Problems and Industrial Organization.. 6. History of American Institutions.
Special Subject: (undecided).
Thesis Subject: (undecided.)

Arthur Norman Holcombe.

Special Examination in Economics, June 7, 1909.
General Examination passed April 8, 1907.
Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Ripley, Bullock, Cole, and Munro.
Academic History: Harvard College, 1902-06; Harvard Graduate School, 1906-09; A.B. (Harvard) 1906; Assistant in Economics (Harvard), 1906-07; Rogers Travelling Fellow, 1907-09
Special Subject: Public Service Industries.
Thesis Subject: ”The Telephone Situation.” (with Professor Taussig.)
Committee on Thesis: Professors Taussig, Ripley, and Munro.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. (HUC 7000.70), Folder “Examinations for the Ph.D. 1908-09”.

Image Source: Harvard Gate, ca. 1899. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.

Tags Bullock, Carver, DavisJS, Day, EdwardsDF, Foerster, Ford, Gay, Holcombe, LutzHL, MasonFR, MillerET, Mitchell, Peabody, Persons, Ripley, RugglesCO, Sauer, Sprague, Taussig, ThompsonCW

Chicago

Chicago. Soliciting Contributions of Alumni/ae to Fund for Graduate Fellowships, 1931

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-01-12

Scarcely a week goes by for anyone with a Ph.D. these days that does not bring some sort of request for a financial contribution from the one or other alma mater. I can easily imagine that the sort of letter transcribed below from the head of the department of economics at the University of Chicago was still something of a novelty in 1931.

Looking at the list of the former Chicago economics fellows from whom contributions had been requested, I noticed that the first four names are alphabetically arranged, the next four names are likewise alphabetically arranged, the next four names (with one exception) are also so arranged as are the next two and the final three. The facts, that (i) the sample letter (December 16, 1931 to Trevor Arnett) was addressed to the 13th person on the list and (ii) dated only two days before the cover letter to University of Chicago Trustee James Stifler was sent, lead me to conclude that Chairman Millis had a response rate of two for the dozen letters he first sent out. I am somewhat surprised he even sent off his letter to James Stifler before receiving at least one positive response. Maybe Millis was told something like “Why don’t you folks write to some of your earlier fellows and ask for money” and he just wanted to show for the record that he had tried.

___________________________________

The University of Chicago
Department of Economics

December 18, 1931

Dr. James M. Stifler
The President’s Office
Faculty Exchange

Dear Mr. Stifler:

I enclose a carbon copy of a letter written to Mr. Arnett, one of the former fellows in Economics, and a list of the seventeen persons to whom such letters were sent. For your information, I may say that to date I have had only two replies, both of them in terms of “I regret.”

Sincerely yours
[signed]
H. A. Millis

HAM-W
Encl.

___________________________________

December 16, 1931

COPY

Mr. Trevor Arnett
General Education Board
61 Broadway
New York City

Dear Mr. Arnett:

I have talked over an idea I have had for some time with a few men who have held fellowships in Economics at the University of Chicago, and, finding a favorable reaction to it, now write you. The idea is this: that those of us who feel so inclined should contribute at our convenience some part of all of the stipend received when fellows to a fund to finance fellowships in Economics at the University. The underlying thought is that there is a good case for those of us who were fortunate enough to have assistance at a crucial time in our training to lend help to others in the generation following us. The need for well trained men is great; many very promising young men and women cannot get the necessary training without some financial aid. Last year, for example, our Department had 175 applications for fellowships and scholarships. Twenty of the applicants for fellowships, and twenty-seven altogether, we graded as A-1, but, with some funds secured from the outside, we were able to grant fellowships to only six of the twenty. From the information I have, it would appear that more than one-half of the remaining fourteen have had to forego entirely or postpone their program of work leading to the doctorate in Economics here or elsewhere. Next year we shall have less fellowship money from the sources available this year.

Do you feel inclined to join some of us in this plan? If you do, will you not write me and state to what extent you wish to contribute and when? In making your decision, you will, of course, keep in mind that there is no desire to exert pressure upon any one, and that there is no thought that a fellowship granted has not been fully earned.

Sincerely yours,
H. A. Millis

HAM-W

List of those written:

1.	Professor Henry Rand Hatfield	Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, California
2.	Dr. Simon J. McLean	Board of Railway Commissioners, Ottawa, Canada
3.	George G. Tunell	The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, Railway Exchange Building, Chicago, Ill.
4.	Professor Henry P. Willis	Columbia University, New York City
5.	Professor C. A. Arbuthnot	Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
6.	Dr. Earl Dean Howard	Hart, Schaffner & Marx, 36 South Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois
7.	Professor W. W. Swanson	Department of Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
8.	Miss Anna Pritchitt Youngman	97 Columbia Heights Post Office, Brooklyn, New York
9.	Professor H. G. Moulton	The Brookings Institution, 744 Jackson Place, Washington, D.C.
10.	Professor W. C. Mitchell	c/o D. H. MacGregor, Oxford University, Oxford, England
11.	Professor Duncan A. MacGibbon	Board of Grain Commissioners, Winnipeg, Canada
12.	Professor James A. Moffat	University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana
13.	Mr. Trevor Arnett	General Education Board, 61 Broadway, New York City
14.	Professor Stephen B. Leacock	McGill University, Montreal, Canada
15.	Professor Spurgeon Bell	Department of Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
16.	Miss Hazel Kyrk	University of Chicago, Faculty Exchange
17.	Professor Sumner Slichter	School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

___________________________________

[Carbon copy]

December 21, 1931

Dear Mr. Millis:

I have received and read with great interest the letter which you sent to Mr. Trevor Arnett. It seems to me to be an excellent letter and I do not see how anybody could object to it.

I fancy that you may receive some further regrets but I hope that there may be a considerable number who will feel that they can fall in with the plan.

Faithfully yours,

James M. Stifler

Mr. H. A. Millis
Department of Economics
Faculty Exchange

___________________________________

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 72, Folder “Economics Dept, 1929-1931”.

Image: Social Science Building, University of Chicago.

Tags Arbuthnot, Arnett, Bell, Hatfield, Howard, HP Willis, Kirk, Leacock, MacGibbon, McLean, Millis, Mitchell, Moffat, Moulton, Slichter, Swanson, Tunell, Youngman

Columbia Curriculum Fields

Columbia. J. M. Clark on Teaching “modern tools of economic thinking”, 1942

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-12-03

In my examination of department archives I have been somwhat surprised at the relative scarcity of paper traffic with regard to curriculum reform. Here a short note from Maurice Clark to the executive officer of the economics department (i.e. chairman) Robert M. Haig about Columbia’s hiring strategy and whether two “math. Ec’ist[s]” aren’t enough for the task of teaching the “modern tools of economic thinking.” Looking at the faculty list for that year, I presume Clark meant Harold Hotelling and Abraham Wald. The note sounds as though Clark is looking for a way to get out of the “Current types of economic theory” course that he had taken over from Wesley Clair Mitchell and to teach instead a core theory course again.

_____________________________________

COPY

January 9, 1942

Dear Bob [R. M. Haig]:

I heard Lange’s paper. Impressions very favorable per se: but he’s one more high-power mathematical economist, and with three, wouldn’t we be unbalanced? And if it takes a math. Ec’ist to do the job of “modern tools of economic thinking” we had in mind, aren’t two enough?

Another unmatured impression: that part of the gap we’re thinking of would be met by a development and more up-to-date and adequate treatment of the sort of thing I used to do in the course I quit giving when I took Mitchell’s “Types” course:–more specifically, the second half-year where I dealt with the concepts of demand, supply and cost curves in an attempt to relate them to actual behavior. I adumbrated the possibility of treating the distinction between competition and monopoly in terms of slopes of “individual demand schedules” (before Chamberlin’s book). Had ‘em read Foster & Catchings to get the “Income-flow” approach, before Keynes’ books appeared. (I note Neisser of Penn. still finds use for F. & C. in teaching.) Suggested the discrepancy between saving and investment (without, I freely admit, seeing the significances that Keynes developed). And of course I had played with “multipliers”.

A course in which I ruthlessly condensed what used to be my first half-year into two or three lectures, and developed the other kind of material more adequately and systematically, might be considered, while we’re considering things.

Yours,

J. M. Clark

_____________________________________

January 13, 1942

Professor John Maurice Clark,
Fayerweather Hall.

Dear Maurice:

Many thanks for your note of January 9^th. I am assuming that you have no objection to my showing it to Mitchell, Angell, and Goodrich.

Faithfully yours,

[R.M. Haig]

_____________________________________

January 13, 1942

Memorandum to Professors Angell, Goodrich and Mitchell
from Professor R. M. Haig:

You will be interested in the enclosed comments from Maurice Clark

_____________________________________

Source: Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Faculty. Box 2. Folder “Department of Economics—Faculty Beginning January 1, 1944 (sic)”.

Image Source: John Maurice Clark at The History of Economic Thought Website.

Tags Angell, ClarkJM, Goodrich, Haig, Mitchell

Columbia Economists

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

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-07-17

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

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

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

_____________________________

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

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

March 25, 1954

Dear Doctor _________________

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

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

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

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

Cordially yours,

[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Chairman of the Committee

* * * * * *

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

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

(signed) ___________

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

_____________________________

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

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

May 6, 1954

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

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

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

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

Session paper.

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

Discussants:

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

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

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

_____________________________

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29^th, 1954

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[in pencil]
A.R. Burns

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

_____________________________

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

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

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

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

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

Tags Agger, Anderson, Burgess, BurnsAF, BurnsAR, BurnsEM, ClarkJB, ClarkJM, DorfmanJ, Douglas, Ely, Goodrich, GrossJD, Haig, Hollerith, JohnsonA, Knight, Kuznets, Lieber, Mayo-Smith, McVickar, Mills, Mitchell, Moore, Ripley, RobinsonEVD, Roepke, SchultzH, Schumpeter, Seager, Seligman, Simkhovitch, Stocking, Strayer, Thorp, Tugwell, Weld, Wilcox

Columbia Economists

Columbia. Wholesale Price Indexes. Wesley Clair Mitchell, 1921.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-06-25

I’m an index number junkie. But this blog is not about me, though it will from time to time reveal my preferences, the perogative of the blogmeister.

The kind folks at FRASER provide us really great material. Here the link to Index Numbers of Wholesale Prices in the United States and Foreign Countries : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 284, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, October 1921. Chart 1 between pages 14 and 15 is to die for!

Aggregation is the game, and Mitchell was his name, Wesley Clair Mitchell.

Tags Mitchell

Berkeley Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. Wesley C. Mitchell’s Methodological Thoughts, 1928.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-05-16

The following excerpts from a typed copy of a letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark dated August 9, 1928 come from Mitchell’s papers with a hand-written note at the top of the first page, “Revised Feb 11, 1929”. The copy was made by Clark and perhaps given to Mitchell for further comment.

Mitchell begins with a longish response to a question posed by Clark regarding Mitchell’s own professional revealed preference for empirical investigation. This is followed by shorter responses to questions about the origin of his interest in business cycles, the relationship of “analytical description” to “causal theory”, and finally Mitchell’s confessed own perceived shortcomings in the use of statistical techniques for trend and seasonal analysis.

_____________________________________

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

_____________________________________

Letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark
9 August 1928 (excerpt)

[…]

Concerning the inclination you note to prefer concrete problems and methods to abstract ones, my hypothesis is that it got started, perhaps manifested itself would be more accurate, in childish theological discussions with my grand aunt. She was the best of Baptists, and knew exactly how the Lord had planned the world. God is love; he planned salvation; he ordained immersion; his immutable word left no doubt about the inevitable fate of those who did not walk in the path he had marked. Hell is no stain upon his honor, no inconsistency with love.—I adored the logic and thought my grand aunt flinched unworthily when she expressed hopes that some back-stairs method might be found of saving from everlasting flame the ninety and nine who are not properly baptized. But I also read the Bible and began to cherish private opinions about the character of the potentate in Heaven. Also I observed that his followers on earth did not seem to get what was promised them here and now. I developed an impish delight in dressing up logical difficulties which my grand aunt could not dispose of. She always slipped back into the logical scheme, and blinked the facts in which I came to take a proprietary interest.

I suppose there is nothing better as a teething-ring for a child who likes logic in the garden variety of Christian theology. I cut my eye-teeth on it with gusto and had not entirely lost interest in that exercise when I went to college.

There I began studying philosophy and economics about the same time. I found no difficulty in grasping the differences between the great philosophical systems as they were presented by our text-books and our teachers. Economic theory was easier still. Indeed, I thought the successive systems of economics were rather crude affairs compared with the subtleties of the metaphysicians. Having run the gamut from Plato to T. H. Green (as undergraduates do) I felt the gamut from Quesnay to Marshall was a minor theme. The technical part of the theory was easy. Give me premises and I could spin speculations by the yard. Also I knew that my “deductions” were futile. It seemed to me that people who took seriously the sort of articles which were then appearing in the Q.J.E. might have a better time if they went in for metaphysics proper.

Meanwhile I was finding something really interesting in philosophy and in economics. John Dewey was giving courses under all sorts of titles and every one of them dealt with the same problem – how we think. I was fascinated by his view of the place which logic holds in human behavior. It explained the economic theorists. The thing to do was to find out how they came to attack certain problems; why they took certain premises as a matter of course; why they did not consider all the permutations and variance of those problems which were logically possible; why their contemporaries thought their conclusions were significant. And, if one wanted to try his own hand at constructive theorizing, Dewey’s notion pointed the way. It is a misconception to suppose that consumers guide their course by ratiocination – they don’t think except under stress. There is no way of deducing from certain principles what they will do, just because their behavior is not itself rational. One has to find out what they do. That is a matter of observation, which the economic theorist had taken all too lightly. Economic theory became a fascinating subject – the orthodox types particularly – when one began to take the mental operations of the theorists as the problem, instead of taking their theories seriously.

Of course Veblen fit fitted perfectly into this set of notions. What drew me to him was his artistic side. I had a weakness for paradoxes – Hell set up by the God of love. But Veblen was a master developing beautiful subtleties, while I was a tyro emphasizing the obvious. He did have such a good time with the theory of the leisure class and then with the preconceptions of economic theory! And the economists reacted with such bewildered soberness! There was a man who really could play with ideas! If one wanted to indulge in the game of spinning theories who could match his skill and humor? But if anything were needed to convince me that the standard procedure of orthodox economics could meet no scientific tests, it was that Veblen got nothing more certain by his dazzling performances with another set of premises. His working conceptions of human nature might be a vast improvement; he might have uncanny insights; but he could do no more than make certain conclusions plausible – like the rest. How important were the factors he dealt with and the factors he scamped was never established.

That was a sort of problem which was beginning to concern me. William Hill set me a course paper on “Wool Growing and the Tariff.” I read a lot of the tariff speeches and got a new side-light on the uses to which economic theory is adapted, and the ease with which it is brushed aside on occasion. Also I wanted to find out what really had happened to wool growers as a result of protection. The obvious thing to do was to collect and analyze the statistical data. If at the end I had demonstrated no clear-cut conclusion, I at least knew how superficial were the notions of the gentlemen who merely debated the tariff issue, whether in Congress or in academic quarters. That was my first “investigation” – I did it in the way which seemed obvious, following up the available materials as far as I could, and reporting what I found to be the “facts.” It’s not easy to see how any student assigned this topic could do much with it in any other way.

A brief introduction to English economic history by A. C. Miller, and unsystematic readings in anthropology instigated by Veblen reinforced the impressions I was getting from other sources. Everything Dewey was saying about how we think, and when we think, made these fresh material significant, and got fresh significance itself. Men had always deluded themselves, it appeared, with strictly logical accounts of the world and their own origin; they had always fabricated theories for their spiritual comfort and practical guidance which ran far beyond the realm of fact without straining their powers of belief. My grand aunt’s theology; Plato and Quesnay; Kant, Ricardo and Karl Marx; Cairnes and Jevons, even Marshall were much of a piece. Each system was tolerably self-consistent – as if that were a test of “truth”! There were realms in which speculation on the basis of assumed premises achieved real wonders; but they were realms in which one began frankly by cutting loose from the phenomena can observe. And the results were enormously useful. But that way of thinking seem to get good results only with reference to the simplest of problems, such as numbers and spatial relations yet men practice this type of thinking with reference to all types of problems which could not be treated readily on a matter-of-fact basis – creation, God, “just” prices in the middle ages, the Wealth of Nations in Adam Smith’s time, the distribution of incomes in Ricardo’s generation, the theory of equilibrium in my own day.

There seem to be one way of making real progress, slow, very slow, but tolerably sure. That was the way of natural science. I really knew nothing of science and had enormous respect for its achievements. Not the Darwinian type of speculation which was then so much in the ascendant – that was another piece of theology. But chemistry and physics. They had been built up not in grand systems like soap bubbles; but by patient processes of observation and testing – always critical testing – of the relations between the working hypotheses and the processes observed. There was plenty of need for rigorous thinking, indeed of thinking more precise than Ricardo achieved; but the place for it was inside the investigation so to speak – the place that mathematics occupied in physics as an indispensable tool. The problems one could really do something with in economics were problems in which speculation could be controlled.

That’s the best account I can give offhand of my predilection for the concrete. Of course it seems to me rather a predilection for problems one can treat with some approach to scientific method. The abstract is to be made use of it every turn, as a handmaiden to help hew the wood and draw the water. I loved romances – particularly William Morris’ tales of lands that never were – and utopias, and economic systems, of which your father’s when I came to know it seemed the most beautiful; but these were objects of art, and I was a work man who wanted to become a scientific worker, who might enjoy the visions which we see in mountain mists but who trusted only what we see in the light of common day.

* * * *

Besides the spice of rationalizing which doubtless vitiates my recollections – uncontrolled recollections at that – this account worries me by the time it is taking, yours as well as mine. I’ll try to answer the other questions concisely.

Business cycles turned up as a problem in the course of the studies which I began with Laughlin. My first book on the greenbacks dealt only with the years of rapid depreciation and spasmodic war-time reaction. I knew that I had not gotten to the bottom of the problems and wanted to go on. So I compiled that frightful second book as an apparatus for a more thorough analysis. By the time it was finished I had learned to see the problem in a larger way. Veblen’s paper on “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments” had a good deal to do with opening my eyes. Presently I found myself working on the system of prices and its place in modern economic life. Then I got hold of Simmel’s Theorie des Geldes – a fascinating book. But Simmel, no more than Veblen, knew the relative importance of the factors he was working with. My manuscript grew – it lies unpublished to this day. As it grew in size it became more speculative. I was working away from any solid foundation – having a good time, but sliding gaily over abysses I had not explored. One of the most formidable was the recurring readjustments of prices, which economists treated apart from their general theories of value, under the capitation “Crises.” I had to look into the problem. It proved to be susceptible of attack by methods which I thought reliable. The result was the big California monograph. I thought of it as an introduction to economic theory.

* * * *

This conception is responsible for the chapter on “Modern Economic Organization.” I don’t remember precisely at what stage the need of such a discussion dawned upon me. But I have to do everything a dozen times. Doubtless I wrote parts of that chapter fairly early in other parts late as I found omissions in the light of the chapters on “The Rhythm of Business Activity.” Of course, I put nothing in which did not seem to me strictly pertinent to the understanding of the processes with which the volume dealt. That I did not cover the field very intelligently, even from my own viewpoint, appears from a comparison of the books published in 1913 and 1927. Doubtless before I am done with my current volume, I shall be passing a similar verdict upon the chapter as I left it last year.

* * * *

As to the relation between my analytic description and “causal” theory I have no clear ideas – though I might develop some at need. To me it seems that I tried to follow through the inter-lacing processes involved in business expansion and contraction by the aid of everything I know, checking my speculations just as far as I can buy the data of observation. Among the things I “know” are the way in which economic activity is organized in business enterprises, and the way these enterprises are conducted for money profits. But that is not a simple matter which enables me to deduce certain results – or rather, to deduce results with certainty. There is much in the workings of business technique which I should never think of if I were not always turning back to observation. And I should not trust even my reasoning about what business men will do if I could not check it up. Some unverifiable suggestions do emerge; but I hope it is always clear that they are unverified. Very likely what I try to do is merely carrying out the requirements of John Stuart Mill’s “complete method.” But there is a great deal more passing back and forth between hypotheses and observation, each modifying and enriching the other, than I seem to remember in Mill’s version. Perhaps I do him injustice as a logician through default of memory; but I don’t think I do classical economics injustice when I say that it erred sadly in trying to think out a deductive scheme and then talked of verifying that. Until science has gotten to the stage of elaborating the details of an established body of theory – say finding a planet from the aberrations of orbits, or filling a gap in the table of elements – it is rash to suppose one can get an hypothesis which stands much chance of holding good except from a process of attempted verification, modification, fresh observation, and so on. (Of course, there is a good deal of commerce between most economic theorizing and personal observation of an irregular sort – that is what has given our theories their considerable measure of significance. But I must not go off into that issue.)

* * * *

[…] when writing the first book about business cycles I seem to have had no clear ideas about secular trends. The term does not appear to occur in the index. Seasonal variations appear to be mentioned only in connection with interest rates. Of course certain rough notions along these lines may be inferred; but not such definite ideas as would safeguard me against the errors you point out. What makes matters worse for me, I was behind the times in this respect. J. P. Norton’s Statistical Studies in the New York Money Market had come out in 1902. I ought to have known and make use made use of his work.

That is only one of several serious blemishes upon the statistical work in my 1913 volume. After Hourwich left Chicago, and that was before I got deep into economics, no courses were given on statistics in my time. I was blissfully ignorant of everything except the simplest devices. To this day I have remained an awkward amateur, always ready to invent some crude scheme for looking into anything I want to know about, and quite likely to be betrayed by my own apparatus. I shall die in the same sad state.

[…]

Ever yours,
Wesley C. Mitchell.
(Copy by J.M.C.)

Source: Columbia University Archives. Wesley Clair Mitchell Collection, Box 8 “Ch-Ec”, Folder “Clark, John Maurice: v.p., 8 Apr 1926 & 21 Apr 1927. To Wesley C. Mitchell 2 a.l.s. (with related material)”.

Image Source: Foundation for the Study of Cycles.

Tags Adolph Miller, ClarkJM, Hourwich, Mitchell, Veblen, William Hill

Chicago Economists

Chicago. 25th anniversary of Dept of Political Economy, 1916

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-05-07

In 1916 the department of political economy of the University of Chicago celebrated its 25^th anniversary (coinciding with that of the university) with a privately printed pamphlet in which were listed the names of the 38 members of the instructional staff, 12 assistants, 98 fellows, 637 graduate students and 31 Ph.D.’s of its first quarter century. Note: some names are listed in more than a single category. Appended to the end of the pamphlet is a statistical record of instructional staff, graduate students and political economy course registrations annually for the period.

___________________________________

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

DEPARTMENT
OF
POLITICAL ECONOMY.
1892-3.

OFFICERS OF INSTRUCTION:

J. LAURENCE LAUGHLIN, Ph. D.,

Head-Professor of Political Economy.

ADOLPH C. MILLER, A. M.,

Associate-Professor of Political Economy.

WILLIAM CALDWELL, A. M.,

Tutor in Political Economy.

___________________________________

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN
Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy
1892-1916

CHICAGO
PRIVATELY PRINTED
MCMXVI

___________________________________

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN
Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy, 1892-1916.

* * *

Edith Abbott

Special Lecturer in Political Economy, 1909-10.

William George Stewart Adams

Lecturer on Finance and Colonial Policy, 1901-2.

Trevor Arnett

Lecturer in Accounting, 1909-13.

John Graham Brooks

University Extension Lecturer in Political Economy, 1893-97.

William Caldwell

Instructor in Political Economy, 1892-94.

John Bennet Canning

Special Assistant in Political Economy, 1914; Assistant, 1914-15; Instructor, 1915-

John Maurice Clark

Associate Professor in Political Economy, 1915-

Carlos Carleton Closson

Instructor in Political Economy, 1895-96.

John Cummings

Reader in Political Economy, 1893-94; Assistant Professor, 1903-10.

Herbert Joseph Davenport

Instructor in Political Economy, 1902-4; Assistant Professor, 1904-7; Associate Professor, 1907-8.

Ernest Ritson Dewsnup

Professorial Lecturer on Railways and Curator of the Museum of Commerce, 1904-7.

Garrett Droppers

Professorial Lecturer, 1906-7.

Carson Samuel Duncan

Instructor in Commercial Organization, 1915-

Jay Dunne

Assistant in Accounting, 1913-14; Instructor, 1914-

James Alfred Field

Instructor in Political Economy, 1908-10; Assistant Professor, 1910-13; Associate Professor, 1913-

Worthington Chauncey Ford

Lecturer on Statistics, 1898-1901.

Frederic Benjamin Garver

Assistant in Political Economy, 1911-13; Instructor, 1913-14.

Elgin Ralston Lovell Gould

Professor of Statistics, 1895-96.

Stuart McCune Hamilton

Instructor in Political Economy, 1914-16.

Walton Hale Hamilton

Assistant Professor of Political Economy, 1913-15.

Henry Rand Hatfield

Instructor in Political Economy, 1898-1902; Assistant Professor, 1902-4.

Frank Randal Hathaway

Reader in Statistics, 1892-93.

William Hill

Associate in Political Economy, 1893-94; Instructor, 1894-97; Assistant Professor, 1897-1908; Associate Professor, 1908-12.

Isaac A. Hourwich

Docent in Statistics, 1892-94.

Robert Franklin Hoxie

Instructor in Political Economy, 1906-8; Assistant Professor, 1908-12; Associate Professor, 1912-

Alvin Saunders Johnson

Associate Professor of Political Economy, 1910-11.

John Koren

Professorial Lecturer on Statistics (Political Economy and Sociology), 1909-10.

Leon Carroll Marshall

Assistant Professor of Political Economy, 1907-8; Associate Professor, 1908-11; Professor of Political Economy, 1911-

Hugo Richard Meyer

Assistant Professor of Political Economy, 1903-5.

Adolph Caspar Miller

Associate Professor of Political Economy, 1892-93; Professor of Finance, 1893-1902.

Wesley Clair Mitchell

Assistant in Political Economy, 1900-1; Instructor, 1901-2.

Robert Morris

Instructor in Political Economy, 1904-7.

Harold Glenn Moulton

Assistant in Political Economy, 1910-11 ; Instructor, 1911-14; Assistant Professor, 1914-

Frederic William Sanders

Lecturer in Statistics, 1896-97.

Frederick Myerle Simons

Assistant in Industrial Organization, 1913- 15; Instructor, 1915-

Thorstein B. Veblen

Reader in Political Economy, 1893-94; Associate, 1894-96; Instructor, 1896-1900; Assistant Professor, 1900-06.

Chester Whitney Wright

Instructor in Political Economy, 1907-10; Assistant Professor, 1910-13; Associate Professor, 1913-

* * *

[Assistants]

Clarence Elmore Bonnett

Assistant in Political Economy, 1910-11.

Ezekiel Henry Downey

Assistant in Political Economy, 1909-11.

John Franklin Ebersole

Assistant in Political Economy, 1909-10.

Edith Scott Gray

Assistant in Political Economy, 1915-

Homer Hoyt

Assistant in Political Economy, 1915-

Edgar Hutchinson Johnson

Assistant in Political Economy, 1909-10.

John Curtis Kennedy

Assistant in Political Economy, 1908-11.

Robert Russ Kern

Assistant in Political Economy, 1908-9.

Hazel Kyrk

Assistant in Political Economy, 1913-14.

Duncan Alexander MacGibbon

Assistant in Political Economy, 1912-13.

Ernest Minor Patterson

Assistant in Political Economy, 1910-11.

Leona Margaret Powell

Assistant in Political Economy, 1915-

___________________________________

FELLOWS

Edith Abbott (1903-05)

William Harvey Allen (1897-98)

Eugene Charles deAndrassy (1913-14)

Charles Criswell Arbuthnot (1901-03)

Leon Ardzrooni (1910-13)

Trevor Arnett (1899-1900)

Edward Martin Arnos (1912-13)

Otho Clifford Ault (1913-14)

Edward Donald Baker (1912-14)

Sturgeon Bell (1906-07)

Clarence Elmore Bonnett (1912-13)

Donald Elliott Bridgman (1905-07)

Howard Gray Brownson (1906-07)

Francis Lowden Burnet (1912-13)

George Chambers Calvert (1894-95)

John Cummings (1893-94)

Rajani Kanta Das (1914-16)

Herbert Joseph Davenport (1897-98)

Katharine Bement Davis (1897-98; 1899-1900)

William John Alexander Donald (1911-12)

James Alister Donnell (1902-03)

Ezekiel Henry Downey (1908-09)

Ephraim Edward Erickson (1911-12)

Katharine Conway Felton (1895-96)

Albert Lawrence Fish (1899-1900)

Ralph Evans Freeman (1915-16)

Hamline Herbert Freer (1892-93)

Frederic Benjamin Garver (1910-11)

Marshall Allen Granger (1915-)

Homer Ewart Gregory (1915-)

Gudmundur Grimson (1905-06)

Willard Neal Grubb (1908-09)

Charles Kelly Guild (1911-12)

William Buck Guthrie (1900-01)

William Fletcher Harding (1894-95)

Sarah McLean Hardy (1893-95)

Henry Rand Hatfield (1897-98)

Chauncey Edward Hope (1912-13)

Albert Lafayette Hopkins (1905-06)

John Lamar Hopkins (1899-1900)

Earl Dean Howard (1903-05)

Robert Franklin Hoxie (1893-95; 1902-03)

Homer Hoyt (1913-15)

Howard Archibald Hubbard (1909-12)

Walter Huth (1912-13)

John Curtis Kennedy (1907-09)

Robert Russ Kern (1907-08)

Benjamin Walter King (1913-14)

William Lyon Mackenzie King (1896-97)

Delos Oscar Kinsman (1898-99)

Hazel Kyrk (1912-13)

Manuel Lippitt Larkin (1911-12; 1913-14)

William Jett I.auck (1903-05)

Ferris Finley Laune (1915-)

Stephen Butler Leacock (1900-02)

Mary Margaret Lee (1907-08)

Svanto Godfrey Lindholm (1900-02)

Simon James McLean (1896-97)

James Dysart Magee (1909-10)

Basil Maxwell Manly (1909-10)

Howard Sherwood Meade (1897-98)

Albert Newton Merritt (1905-06)

Frieda Segelke Miller (1912-15)

John Wilson Million (1892-93; 1894-95)

Harry Alvin Millis (1898-99)

Wesley Clair Mitchell (1896-99)

James Ernest Moffat (1915-)

Harold Glenn Moulton (1909-11)

Walter Dudley Nash (1901-02)

Robert Samuel Padan (1900-01)

Eugene Bryan Patton (1905-08)

Clarence J. Primm (1908-10)

Yetta Scheftel (1913-14)

D. R. Scott (1911-12)

Frederick Snyder Seegmiller (1909-10)

George Cushing Sikes (1893-94)

Selden Frazer Smyser (1901-02)

Lewis Carlyle Sorrell (1915-)

George Asbury Stephens (1908-09)

Worthy Putnam Sterns (1897-1900)

Henry Waldgrave Stuart (1894-96)

Laurence Wardell Swan (1914-15)

William Walker Swanson (1905-08)

Archibald Wellington Taylor (1909-12)

John Giffin Thompson (1903-04)

George Gerard Tunell (1894-97)

Helen Honor Tunnicliff (1893-94)

Victor Nelson Valgren (1911-12)

Cleanthes Aristides Vassardakis (1911-12)

Thorstein B. Veblen (1892-93)

Merle Bowman Waltz (1895-96)

Samuel Roy Weaver (1911-12)

Victor J. West (1908-09)

Henry Kirke White (1893-94)

Murray Shipley Wildman (1901-04)

Henry Parker Willis (1895-98)

Ambrose Pare Winston (1893-94; 1896-97)

Anna Pritchett Youngman (1905-06; 1907-08)

___________________________________

GRADUATE STUDENTS

Abbott, Edith

Agate, William Richard

Akers, Dwight La Brae

Allen, William Harvey

Alvord, Clarence Walworth

Andrassy, Eugene Charles de

Apel, Paul Herman

Appell, Carl John

Apps, Elizabeth

Arbuthnot, Charles Criswell

Ardzrooni, Leon

Arnett, Trevor

Arnos, Edward Martin

Atcherson, Lucile

Ault, Otho Clifford

Bacon, Margaret Gray

Baker, Edward Donald

Balch, Emily Greene

Baldwin, James Fosdick

Ball, Ernest Everett

Barden, Carrie

Barnes, Jasper Converse

Barnes, Mabel Bonnell

Baron, Albert Heyen Nachman

Barrett, Don Carlos

Barrett, Roscoe Conkling

Bassett, Wilbur Wheeler

Bealin, Nella Ellery

Beall, Cornelia Morgan

Belknap, William Burke, Jr.

Bell, Hugh Samuel

Bell, James Warsau

Bell, Spurgeon

Bender, Christian Edward

Bengtson, Caroline

Benson, Madison Hawthorne

Berghoff, Lewis Windthorst

Bernstein, Nathan

Beyle, Herman Carey

Bischoff, Henry J.

Blachly, Clarence Day

Black, John Donald

Blankenship, Harry Alden

Bliss, George Morgan

Blotkin, Frank Ernest

Board, Willis Marvin

Bolinger, Walter Allen

Bond, William Scott

Bonnett, Clarence Elmore

Borden, Edwin Howard

Bosworth, William Baeder

Bournival, Phillippe

Bouroff, Basil Andreevitch

Boyce, Warren Scott

Boyd, Carl Evans

Boyd, Charles Samuel

Boyd, William Edington

Bozarth, Maud

Bradenburg, Samuel Jacob

Bradley, Frederick Oliver

Bramhall, Frederick Dennison

Brandenberger, William Samuel

Breckinridge, Roeliff Morton

Breckinridge, Sophonisba Preston

Bridgman, Donald Elliott

Bridgman, Isaac Martin

Briggs, Claude Porter

Brister, John Willard

Bristol, William Frank

Bristow, Oliver Martin

Brooks, Samuel Palmer

Brown, Fanny Chamberlain

Brown, Samuel Emmons

Brownson, Howard Gray

Bryant, William Cullen

Buchanan, Daniel Houston

Buchanan, James Shannon

Buechel, Fred A.

Bulkley, Herman Egbert

Bullock, Theodore Tunnison

Burnet, Francis Lowden

Burnham, Smith

Bushnell, Charles Joseph

Butts, Alfred Benjamin

Byers, Charles Howard

Byram, Perry Magnus

Cable, Joseph Ray

Calhoun, Wilbur Pere

Calvert, George Chambers

Cammack, Ira Insco

Canning, John Bennet

Capitsini, George Peter

Carlton, Frank Tracy

Carmack, James Abner

Carroll, John Murray

Carroll, Mollie Ray

Cartwright, Lawrence Randolph

Cassells, Gladys May

Catterall, Ralph Charles Henry

Chamberlain, Elizabeth Leland

Chapin, Lillian

Chen, Huan Chang

Chen, Po

Cheng, Pekao Tienton

Cheu, Beihan H.

Church, Clarence Cecil

Church, James Duncan

Clark, Fred Emerson

Clark, Henry Tefft

Clarkson, Matthew Alexander

Cleveland, Frederick Albert

Clifford, Wesley Nathaniel

Cole, Warren Bushnell

Collicott, Jacob Grant

Collins, Laurence Gerald

Colton, Ethan Theodore

Colvin, David Leigh

Colvin, William Elmer

Conover, William Bone

Cordell, Harry William

Cox, William Edward

Craig, Earl Robert

Cross, William Thomas

Crowther, Elizabeth

Cummings, John

Curran, James Harris

Cutler, Ward Augustus

Daniels, Eva Josephine

Darden, William Edward

Das, Rajani Kanta

Davenport, Frances Gardiner

Davenport, Herbert Joseph

Davidson, Margaret

Davis, Blanche

Davis, Katharine Bement

Davison, Leslie Leroy

Davison, Madeline

Dawley, Almena

Day, James Frank

DeCew, Louisa Carpenter

Dies, William Porter

Dodd, Walter Fairleigh

Dodge, LeVant

Donald, William John Alexander

Donnell, James Allister

Downey, Ezekiel Henry

Duncan, Carson Samuel

Duncan, George Edward

Duncan, Marcus Homer

Duncan, Margaret Louise

Dunford, Charles Scott

Dunlap, Arthur Beardsley

Dunn, Arthur William

Durand, Alice May

Durno, William Field

Duval, Louis Weyman

Dye, Charles Hutchinson

Dyer, Gustavus Walker

Dymond, Edith Luella

Dyson, Walter Mitchell

Easly, Walter Irving

Easton, William Oliver

Ebersole, John Franklin

Edwards, Anne Katherine

Eidson, Lambert

Ellis, Charles Hardin

Ellis, Mabel Brown

Elmore, Edward Bundette

Engle, John Franklin

Erickson, Ephraim Edward

Eslick, Theodore Parker

Eyerly, Elmer Kendall

Felton, Katharine Conway

Fine, Nathan

Fish, Alfred Lawrence

Fitzgerald, James Anderson

Fleming, Capen Alexander

Fleming, Herbert Easton

Fleming, William Ebenezer

Flocken, Ira Graessle

Foley, Roy William

Forrest, Jacob Dorsey

Fortney, Lorain

Foucht, Pearl Leroy

Francis, Bruce

Franklin, Frank George

Frazier, Edgar George

Freeark, Frederick Aaron

Freeman, Helen Alden

Freeman, Ralph Evans

Freer, Hamline Herbert

Galloway, Ida Gray

Galloway, Louis Caldwell

Gamble, George Hawthorne

Gardner, Emelyn Elizabeth

Gardner, William Howatt

Garver, Frederic Benjamin

Gebauer, George Rudolph

Geddes, Joseph Arch

Genheimer, Eli Thomas

Gephart, William Franklin

Glover, Ethel Adelia

Going, Margaret Chase

Goodhue, Everett Walton

Goodier, Floyd Tompkins

Graham, Theodore Finley

Granger, Marshall Allen

Granger, Roy T.

Grant, Laura Churchill

Gray, Edith Scott

Gray, Helen Sayr

Gray, Victor Evan

Green, Martha Florence

Gregg, Eugene Stuart

Gregory, Homer Ewart

Griffith, Elmer Cummings

Grimes, Anne Blanche

Grimson, Gudmundur

Griswold, George C.

Gromer, Samuel David

Grubb, Willard Neal

Guice, Herman Hunter

Guild, Charles Kelly

Guildford, Paul Willis

Guthrie, William Buck

Hagerty, James Edward

Hahne, Ernest Herman

Hall, Arnold Bennett

Hamilton, John Bascom

Hamilton, Robert Houston

Hammond, Alva Merwin

Hand, Chester Culver

Hanks, Ethel Edna

Harding, William Fletcher

Hardy, Eric West

Hardy, Sarah McLean

Hargrove, Pinkney Settle

Harris, Estelle

Harris, Ralph B.

Hastings, Cora Walton

Hatfield, Henry Rand

Haynes, Fanny Belle

Hearon, Cleo Carson

Hedrick, Wilbur Olin

Herger, Albert August Ernst

Herndon, Dallas Tabor

Herron, Belva Mary

Hewes, Amy

Hidden, Irad Morton

Hill, Harvey Thomas

Hinton, Vasco Giles

Hitchcock, William

Hodgdon, Mary Josephine

Hodge, Albert Claire

Hodgin, Cyrus Wilbur

Holman, Guy

Holmes, Marion

Honska, Otto James

Hope, Chauncey Edward

Hopkins, Albert Lafayette

Hopkins, John Lamar

Horner, John Turner

Hotchkiss, Irma Helen

Hourwich, Isaac A.

Howard, Earl Dean

Howe, Charles Roland

Howerth, Ira Woods

Hoxie, Robert Franklin

Hoyt, Homer

Hubbard, Howard Archibald

Hughes, Elizabeth

Humble, Henry William

Humphries, Louis Kyle

Hunt, Duane Garrison

Hunter, Estelle Belle

Huntington, Ellery Channing

Huth, Walter

Ito, Jiniro

Jacobson, Henry Anthony

Jalandoni, Jose Ledesma

Johnson, Edgar Hutchinson

Johnson, Edna Margaret

Jones, Austin Franklin

Jordan, Elijah John

Juchhoof, Frederik

Jude, George Washington

Kaiser, Arthur

Kammeyer, Julius Ernest

Karsten, Eleanor G.

Keeney, George Albert

Kelley, James Herbert

Kellor, Frances Alice

Kelly, Arthur Caryl

Kennedy, John Curtis

Kern, Robert Russ

Kerr, Robert Floyd

Kester, Roy Bernard

Kibler, Thomas Latimer

Kilpatrick, Elizabeth Smith

King, Benjamin Walter

King, Harriet Gertrude

King, James Alexander

King, James Stanhope

King, William Lyon Mackenzie

Kinsman, Delos Oscar

Kirkham, Francis Washington

Kling, Henry Frank

Kobayashi, Kaoru

Koepke, Frank Oswald

Kyrk, Hazel

Lamar, Clyde Park

Lamborn, William Henry

Landis, George Butts

Lane, Elmer Burr

Lang, Ellen Flora

Lange-Wilkes, Friedrich Fred

Larkin, Manuel Lippitt

La Rowe, Eugene

Latourette, Lyman Ezra

Lauck, William Jett

Lauder, Charles Edward

Laune, Ferris Finley

Lavery, Maud Ethel

Leacock, Stephen Butler

Learned, Henry Barrett

Leavitt, Orpha Euphemia

Le Drew, Henry Herbert

Lee, Mary Margaret

Leff, Samuel

Lefler, Shepherd

Legh, Sydney Cornwall

Lenhart, Harry Hull

Lennes, Nels Johan

Leonard, Walter Anderson

Lewis, Henry

Lewis, Neil Madison

Lindholm, Svanto Godfrey

Lippincott, Isaac

Lipsky, Harry Alexander

Lobdell, Charles Walter

Logan, Harold Amos

Logan, John Lockheart

Loomis, Milton Early

Loveless, Milo James

Lowry, Russell

Lucas, William Hardin

Luehring, Frederick William

Lurton, Freeman Ellsworth

McAfee, Lowell Mason

McClintock, Euphemia E.

MacClintock, Samuel Sweeny

McCord, Robert Bryan

McCrimmon, Abraham Lincoln

McCurdy, Raymond Scott

McCutchen, George

McDonald, Julius Flake

McDonald, Neil C.

McElroy, Charles Foster

McGaughey, Hester Grier

McGee, Walter Scott

MacGibbon, Duncan Alexander

Machen, John Gresham

McIntosh, Donald Howard

McKenzie, Floyd Stanley

McKinley, Alexander Daniel

McKinley, Gertrude

Kinney, Winfield Scott

McLean, Earl

MacLean, Murdoch Haddon

McLean, Simon James

Maclear, John Fulton

McMullen, Samuel

MacQueary, Thomas Howard

Magee, James Dysart

Magee, James Edward

Mangold, George Benjamin

Manly, Basil Maxwell

Mann, Albert Russell

Marsh, Benjamin Clarke

Martin, Asa Earl

Martin, William Chaille

Marxen, William Bartenick

Matheny, Francis Edmund

Mather, Arlen Raymond

Matlock, Ernest

Maw, Vung Tsoong

Maynard, Archibald Benton

Meade, Edward Sherwood

Meek, James Rariden

Menge, George John

Merrell, Oscar Joe

Merritt, Albert Newton

Merry, Paul Horace

Miller, Christian A.

Miller, Clarence Heath

Miller, Edmund Thornton

Miller, Frieda Segelke

Miller, Roy Newman

Miller, Wiley Austin

Million, John Wilson

Millis, Harry Alvin

Mills, Florence Howland

Mitchell, James Ennis

Mitchell, Wesley Clair

Moffat, James Ernest

Monroe, Paul

Montgomery, Louise

Montgomery, Stafford

Moore, Blaine Free

Moore, Stephen Halcut

Morris, Robert

Mosser, Stacy Carroll

Moulton, Harold Glenn

Mumford, Eben

Munn, Glenn Gaywaine

Nagley, Frank Alvin

Nash, Walter Dudley

Naylor, Augustine Francis

Neff, Andrew Love

Neill, Charles Patrick

Nesbitt, Charles Rudolph

Newton, John Reuben

Nida, William Lewis

Niece, Ralph Harter

Northrup, John Eldridge

Norton, Elvin Jensen

Norton, Grace Peloubet

Nourse, Edwin Griswold

Noyes, Edmund Spencer

O’Brien, Charlotte Louise

O’Dea, Paul Montgomery

O’Hara, Frank

Okada, George F.

Olin, Oscar Eugene

Padan, Robert Samuel

Paden, Thomas Hosack

Parker, Bertrand De Rolph, Jr.

Parker, Norman Sallee

Parker, Robert Lincoln

Parker, Ulysses Simpson

Parish, Charles O.

Paschal, Rosa Catherine

Patterson, Ernest Minor

Patton, Eugene Bryan

Pattrick, John Hezzie

Payne, Walter A.

Peabody, Susan Wade

Pease, Theodore Calvin

Pease, William Arthur

Perrine, Cora Belle

Peterson, Otto Edward

Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell

Pierce, Paul Skeels

Polzin, Benzamin Albert

Porter, Nathan Tanner

Potts, Charles Shirley

Powell, Bert Eardly

Powell, Leona Margaret

Prescott, Arthur Taylor

Price, Maude Azalie

Primm, Clarence J.

Putnam, James William

Putnam, Mary Burnham

Quaintance, Hadley Winfield

Rabenstein, Matilda Agnes

Radcliffe, Earle Warren

Rainey, Alice Hall

Reasoner, Florence

Reed, Ralph Johnston

Refsell, Oscar Norton

Reighard, John Jacob

Remick, Mary Ethel

Remp, Martin

Renninger, Warren Daub

Reticker, Ruth

Rice, Dorothy Lydia

Richardson, Russell

Richey, Mary Olive

Richter, Arthur William

Riley, Elmer Author

Ristine, Edward Ransom

Robertson, James Rood

Rogers, May Josephine

Rosenberg, Edwin J.

Rosseter, Edward Clark

Rygh, George Taylor

Sanderson, Dwight

Sandwich, Richard Lanning

Schafer, Joseph

Scheftel, Yetta

Schloss, Murray L.

Schmidt, Lydia Marie

Schmidt, Otto Gustave

Schmitt, Ella

Schoedinger, Fred H.

Schroeder, Charles Ward

Scott, D. R.

Scott, Edward Lee

Scott, James M.

Seegmiller, Frederick Snyder

Selian, Avedis Bedros

Sellery, George Clark

Senseman, Ira Roscoe

Seward, Ora Philander

Shaw, George Washington

Shelton, William Arthur

Shepherd, Fred Strong

Shoemaker, Lucile

Shue, William Daniel

Sikes, George Cushing

Simons, Frederick Myerle

Sinclair, James Grundy

Singer, Martin

Skelton, Oscar Douglas

Slemp, Campbell Bascom

Smith, Almeron Warren

Smith, Gerard Thomas

Smith, Guy Carlton

Smith, Roy

Smith, Walter Robertson

Smyser, Seldon Frazer

Snavely, Charles

Sorenson, Alban David

Sorrell, Lewis Carlyle

Sparks, Edwin Erle

Spencer, Simpson Edward

Splawn, William Marshall Walter

Sproul, Alexander Hugh

Stark, William Belle

Stearns, Tilden Hendricks

Steiner, Jesse Frederick

Stephens, George Asbury

Stephenson, George Malcolm

Sterns, Worthy Putnam

Stevens, William Spring

Stone, Raleigh Webster

Stoneberg, Philip John

Stoner, Thurman Wendell

Stowe, Frederick Arthur

Stuart, Henry Waldgrave

Styles, Albert Frederick

Sullivan, Margaret Veronica

Sundstrom, Ingeborg

Sutherland, Edwin Hardin

Swan, Laurence Wardell

Swanson, William Walker

Swift, Elizabeth Andrews

Sydenstricker, Edgar

Tajima, Kazuyoshi

Takimoto, Tanezo

Tan, Chang Lok

Tanner, Alvin Charles

Tarr, Stambury Ryrie

Taylor, Archibald Wellington

Taylor, William G.

Temple, Frances Congdon

Teng, Kwangtang

Textor, Lucy Elizabeth

Thomas, David Yancey

Thompson, Carl William

Thompson, Charles Sproull

Thompson, Edwin Elbert

Thompson, John Giffin

Thorne, Florence Calvert

Thornhill, Ernest Algier

Thurston, Henry Winfred

Tiffany, Orrin Edward

Tilton, Howard Cyrus

Towle, Ralph Egbert

Towne, George Lewis

Treleven, John Edward

Tunell, George Gerard

Tunnicliff, Helen Honor

Turner, Mary

Updegraff, Elizabeth

Valgren, Victor Nelson

Varkala, Joseph Paul

Vassardakis, Cleanthes Aristides

Veblen, Thorstein B.

Vernier, Chester Garfield

Vogt, Paul Leroy

Vondracek, Olga Olive

Waldo, Karl Douglas

Waldorf, Lee

Waldron, George Burnside

Walker, Edson Granville

Walling, William English

Walrath, Albert Leland

Waltz, Merle Bowman

Wardlow, Chester Cameron

Ware, Richard

Warren, Henry Kimball

Warren, Worcester

Watson, Robert Eli

Watts, Cicero Floyd

Weaver, Samuel Roy

Webster, Arthur Ferdinand

Webster, William Clarence

Weisman, Russell

Wells, Emilie Louise

Wells, Oliver Edwin

West, Max

West, Victor J.

Westlake, Ruby Moss

Weston, Jessie Beatrice

Wethington, Joseph Francis

Whipple, Elliot

Whitaker, Hobart Karl

Whitcomb, Adele

White, Francis Harding

White, Henry Kirke

White, Laura Amanda

Whited, Oric Ogilvie

Wilcox, William Craig

Wildman, Murray Shipley

Willard, Laura

Williams, Arthur Rowland

Williams, Charles Byron

Williams, Frank North

Williams, John William

Williams, Pelagius

Willis, Henry Parker

Wilson, Eugene Alonzo

Winans, Clarence Henry

Winston, Ambrose Pare

Winston, James Edward

Wirt, William Albert

Witmer, John Earl

Woods, Erville Bartlett

Woolley, Edwin Campbell

Wright, Helen Russell

Yahn, Harold George

Yeisaku, Kominami

Youngman, Anna Pritchett

Zaring, Aziel Floyd

Zee, Treusinn Zoen

Zimmerman, John Franklin

___________________________________

DOCTORS OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Edith Abbott (1905)

A Statistical Study of the Wages of Unskilled Labor in the United States, 1830-1900.

Charles Criswell Arbuthnot (1903)

The Development of the Corporation and the Entrepreneur Function.

Donald Elliott Bridgman (1907)

Economic Causes of Large Fortunes.

John Cummings (1894)

The Poor Law System of the United States.

Herbert Joseph Davenport (1898)

The French War Indemnity.

Katharine Bement Davis (1900)

Causes Affecting the Standard of Living and Wages.

William John Alexander Donald (1914)

The History of the Canadian Iron and Steel Industry.

Henry Rand Hatfield (1897)

Municipal Bonding in the United States.

Earl Dean Howard (1905)

The Recent Industrial Progress of Germany.

Robert Franklin Hoxie (1905)

An Analysis of the Concepts of Demand and Supply in Their Relation to Market Price.

Edgar Hutchinson Johnson (1910)

The Economics of Henry George’s Progress and Poverty.

Stephen Butler Leacock (1903)

The Doctrine of Laissez Faire.

Isaac Lippincott (1912)

The Industrial History of the Ohio Valley to 1860.

Duncan Alexander MacGibbon (1915)

Railway Rates and the Canadian Railway Commission.

Simon James McLean (1897)

The Railway Policy of Canada.

James Dysart Magee (1913)

Money and Prices: A Statistical Study of Price Movements.

Albert Newton Merritt (1906)

Federal Regulation of Railway Rates.

Harry Alvin Millis (1899)

History of the Finances of the City of Chicago.

Wesley Clair Mitchell (1899)

History of the United States Notes.

Harold Glenn Moulton (1914)

Waterways versus Railways.

Edwin Griswold Nourse (1915)

A Study in Market Mechanism as a Factor in Price Determination.

Robert Samuel Padan (1901)

Studies in Interest.

Eugene Bryan Patton (1908)

The Resumption of Specie Payment in 1879.

Oscar Douglas Skelton (1908)

An Examination of Marxian Theory.

George Asbury Stephens (1909)

Influence of Trade Education upon Wages.

Worthy Putnam Sterns (1900)

Studies in the Foreign Trade of the United States.

William Walker Swanson (1908)

The Establishment of the National Banking System.

George Gerard Tunell (1897)

Transportation on the Great Lakes of North America.

Murray Shipley Wildman (1904)

The Economic and Social Conditions Which Explain Inflation Movements in the United States.

Henry Parker Willis (1898)

A History of the Latin Monetary Union.

Anna Pritchett Youngman (1908)

The Economic Causes of Large Fortunes.

___________________________________

A STATISTICAL RECORD OF GROWTH
1892-1916

Source: James Laurence Laughlin, Twenty-Five Years of the Department of Political Economy, University of Chicago. Chicago: Privately printed, 1916.

Image Source: “JLL” initials from the title page, ibid.

Tags Adolph Miller, Arnett, Brooks, Caldwell, Canning, ClarkJM, Closson, CummingsJohn, CW Wright, Davenport, Dewsnup, Droppers, Duncan, Dunne, Edith Abbott, Field, FM Simons, Ford, Garver, Gould, Hatfield, Hathaway, Hourwich, Hoxie, HP Willis, Koren, Kyrk, Laughlin, MarshallLC, MeyerHR, Mitchell, Morris, Moulton, Sanders, Skelton, SM Hamilton, Veblen, WGS Adams, WH Hamilton, Wm Hill

Harvard

Harvard. Economics Seminary Schedules. 1929-32.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-01-11
2 Comments on Harvard. Economics Seminary Schedules. 1929-32.

An earlier posting provides lists of presenters for the Economic Seminary for the years 1891-1908. This posting provides the lists of announced presenters for the final three years of the seminary.

____________________________

Seminary Meetings in 1929-30
Professor Bullock

Sept. 30 Harvard Union

Oct. 14 S.E. Harris, “Monetary Policy of the British Dominions since 1914.”

Oct. 28 W. E. Beach, “Bank Policy and Gold Movements in England from 1880 to 1914.”

Nov. 4 J. P. Wernette, “Fiscal Reorganization in the United States of Colombia.”

Nov. 25 F. W. Taussig, “German Economic Periodicals and Works of Reference.”

Dec. 9 H. D. White, “International Balance of Payments of France.”

Feb. 3 W. Z. Ripley, “Railroad Consolidation.”

Feb. 17 C. S. Joslyn, “A Proposed Statistical Measurement of Vertical Occupational Mobility.”

March 8 T. J. Kreps, “The Chemical Phase of the Industrial Revolution.”

March 31 D. V. Brown, “Family Allowances.”

April 28 J. H. Williams, “Reparations and the International Flow of Capital.”

______________________________

Seminary Meetings in 1930-31
Professor Gay

Sept. 29 Harvard Union

Oct. 15 University Film Foundation, “The Availability of Motion Pictures for Instruction in Economic History and Economic Resources”.

Oct. 29 O. H. Taylor, “The Present Position and Prospects of Economic Theory”.

Nov. 5 Professors Bullock, Ripley, and Black, “Graduate Study and Research in Economics”.

Nov. 19 H. D. White, “The American Rayon Industry, a Product of Protection”.

Dec. 3 Professor Schumpeter, “Financial Policy of Germany since 1919″.

Dec. 17 Professor W. E. Eckblaw, Professor of Economic Geography, Clark University, “Russia To-day”.

Jan. 7 A. E. Monroe, “Land as a Consumers’ Good”.

Jan. 21 (Reading period)

Feb. 4 (Exam. period)

Feb. 18 D. H. Wallace, “The Aluminum Monopoly in the U.S.”

March 4 W. C. Mitchell, “Cyclical Behavior of Factors in Business”.

March 11 L. B. Currie, “The Commercial Loan Theory of Banking”.

March 25 Dr. B. M. Squires, “The Administration of Public Employment Offices”.

April 1 Dr. J. J. de Stoop, “The Merger Movement in Belgium”.

April 8 Dr. Mabel C. Buer, Lecturer in Economics at the University of Reading, England, “The Relation between Industrial Development and Vital Statistics in England”.

April 22 Major Lyndall Urwick, Director of the International Management Institute at Geneva, “The International Organization of Economic Study”.

April 29 Professor T. S. Adams, Yale University, “The Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses under the Federal Income Tax”.

May 6 Professor J. D. Black, “Interregional Competition in Production”.

May 20 (Reading period)

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950 (UAV 349.10), Box 25. Folder “Economics Seminary 1925-33”.

______________________________

Seminary Meetings in 1931-32
Professor Carver

Second and fourth Monday of month

Oct. 5 Members of teaching staff

Oct. 19 Dr. E. Dana Durand, United States Tariff Commission, “The Business Depression”.

Oct. 26 Mr. J. P. Wernette, “Politics and Finance in Peru”.

Nov. 9 Mr. J. B. Crane, “Aviation”.

Nov. 23 Professor W. Z. Ripley, “National Economic Planning.”

Dec. 14 Dr. J. F. Normano, “South America Today: An Attempt at an Economic ‘Characteristique’.

Jan. 11 Dr. L. B. Currie, “The Nature of Credit”.

Feb. 8 Dr. B. C. Hunt, “The English Joint Stock Company 1800-1862”.

Feb. 15 Dr. Mordecai Ezekiel, Assistant Chief Economist of the Federal Farm Board, “Stability vs. Flexibility as Means to Economic Adjustment”.

Feb. 29 Dr. C. J. Ratzlaff, “The Theory and Practice of the International Labor Organization of the League of Nations”

Mar 14 Dr. Leontief, “Postive and Normative Approaches in Economic Theory”

Mar 28 Mr. K. L. Anderson, “Thornstein Veblen’s Economics”.

Apr. 11 Mr. Ejnar Jensen, “International Monetary and Technological Influences on European Agricultural Development since 1870”.

Apr. 18 Dr. Wilhelm Kromphardt, A. O. Professor of Economics, University of Münster, “The Relation of Economic Evolution to Economic Theory and Its Application”.

Apr. 25 Mr. N. R. Danielian, “Recent Developments in the Electric Light and Power Industry in the U.S.”

May 9 Professor Charles S. Collier, Professor of Law in George Washington University, “Public Utility Valuation.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950 (UAV 349.10), Box 25. Folder “Economics Seminary 1925-33”.

Tags BlackJD, Bullock, Carver, Currie, Gay, Harris, Leontief, Mitchell, Monroe, Normano, Ripley, Schumpeter, Taussig, White, Williams

The Friedmans Remember

Letter from Wesley Clair Mitchell to Arthur Burns

Henry C. Simons Urges his Department Chair to Recruit Milton Friedman

DIVISION OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D.

1908-09

List of those written:

[Carbon copy]

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

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

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

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

Session paper.

Discussants:

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon May 29th, 1954

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark 9 August 1928 (excerpt)

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 1892-3.

OFFICERS OF INSTRUCTION:

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy 1892-1916

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy, 1892-1916.

[Assistants]

FELLOWS

GRADUATE STUDENTS

DOCTORS OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

A STATISTICAL RECORD OF GROWTH 1892-1916

Seminary Meetings in 1929-30 Professor Bullock

Seminary Meetings in 1930-31 Professor Gay

Seminary Meetings in 1931-32 Professor Carver

DIVISION OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D.

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

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

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29^th, 1954

Letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark
9 August 1928 (excerpt)

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

DEPARTMENT
OF
POLITICAL ECONOMY.
1892-3.

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN
Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy
1892-1916

JAMES LAURENCE LAUGHLIN
Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy, 1892-1916.

DOCTORS OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

A STATISTICAL RECORD OF GROWTH
1892-1916

Seminary Meetings in 1929-30
Professor Bullock

Seminary Meetings in 1930-31
Professor Gay

Seminary Meetings in 1931-32
Professor Carver