Tag: Nef

Categories
Budgets Chicago Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Economics Department Budget Proposal for 1944-45 by Simeon Leland, Feb 1944

The 1944-45 budget file for the department of economics consists of a three page spreadsheet, is followed by fifteen pages of line item justifications for changes signed by the chairman of the department Simeon E. Leland and a one page budget memorandum by the assistant comptroller (Lincicome) to the Vice President (Filbey). This is an informationally rich document.

For this posting I have converted the item rows of the budget spreadsheet into individual columns for the items. The separate items have then been paired with the line item justifications.

An excerpt from a 1945 development plan by Chairman Leland for the department has been transcribed and posted.

___________________________________

Named in the Instructional Budget, 1944-45

Bloch, Henry S.

Buchanan, Daniel H.

Burns, Robert K.

Douglas, Paul H.

Harbison, Frederick H.

Johnson, Gale

Knight, Frank H.

Krueger, Maynard C.

Leland, Simeon E.

Lange, Oscar

Lewis, H. Gregg

Marschak, Jacob

McGuire, Christine H. (Mrs. Jules Masserman)

Meyer, Gerhard E. O.

Mints, Lloyd W.

Nef, John U.

Schultz, Theodore W.

Simons, Henry C.

Viner, Jacob

Wright, Chester W.

___________________________________

The University of Chicago
Budget and Appointment Recommendations
1944-45

Division of the Social Sciences
Department of Economics

February 21, 1944

Departmental Recommendations

In presenting the Budget for 1944-45, I am transmitting the recommendations of the Professors in the Department of Economics as decided upon at their meeting February 15, 1944. The specific recommendations, save as to dissents where their own welfare was involved, were unanimous. For convenience, the recommendations are presented in two divisions: (I) The college; (II) The Department. An attempt is also made to consider problems of the future development of the Department.

  1. The College

Recommendations concerning those members of the College staff who have status in the Department will be appended hereto when they are received from Dean Faust. As in the past, the Department has no responsibility in connection with the College and hence does not assume responsibility for recommendations in the College. The Department is glad to incorporate in its budget or transmit through customary channels any recommendations Dean Faust desires to make.

  1. The Department

The recommendations of the Professors in the Department can be classified under four convenient headings: (A) Advancements in Rank and Increases in Salaries Related Thereto; (B) Recommendations as to Changes in Salaries; (C) Appointments ;(D) Future Development of the Department; (E) Recommendations as to Service and Equipment.

Instructional Budget Account
Item No. 1-20
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $54,600)
Proposed
Chairman $65,550)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [….]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Items requiring no change
in rank or salary

Professor Jacob Viner
Item No. 1
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Viner, Jacob, Prof.
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $10,000
Proposed
Chairman $10,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor T. W. Schultz
Item No. 4
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Schultz, T.W., Prof.
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $9,000
Proposed
Chairman $9,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Jacob Marschak
Item No. 6
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Marschak, Jacob, Prof.
([Paid by] Commission
Tenure
Present Expira. Dec….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3 [in Economics]
4 [in Cowles]
If part-time, approx. % 50% [Economics]
50% [Cowles]
Salary Level
1943-44 $7,500 Total
From Economics $3,750
From  Cowles $3,750
Proposed
Chairman $7,500 Total
From Economics $3,750
From  Cowles, $3,750
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Paul H. Douglas
Item No. 7
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Douglas, P.H., Prof.
(On leave, 10/1/42—enlisted)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 ($7,000)
Proposed
Chairman ($7,000)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Assistant Professor Frederick H. Harbison
Item No. 13
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Harbison, F. H., Asst. Prof.
(On leave [to 9/30/44] Government Service)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 45
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 ($4,000)
Proposed
Chairman $4,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [4,000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

  1. Advancements in Rank and Increases in Salaries Related Thereto

[Note: All departmental recommendations for an advancement in rank were rejected by the President’s Office.]

___________________________________

Associate Professor Lloyd W. Mints

[11] The Department recommends that the rank of Lloyd W. Mints be changed from Associate Professor to Professor of Economics. Mr. Mints has been a member of the staff since 1920, rising successively from Instructor to Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. He has earned the respect of students and colleagues for the thoroughness of his teaching and for his insight into economic and monetary theory. He has been a willing worker and has carried a heavy load of administrative routine for many years in connection with the advising of students. The Department has considered this recommendation on several occasions within the last few years and expected to make the recommendation at a time when Mints’ book on A History of Banking Theory would appear. Through no fault of his own the publication of this work — the fruition of several years’ research — has been delayed due to the war and the shortage of paper. Harper and Brothers have the manuscript in their possession and have agreed to publish it, but because of market difficulties plus rationing of paper stocks actual publication will probably be postponed for some time. It does not seem fair to delay this promotion in hope of finding a strategic occasion for its presentation. If one looks ahead to retirement and the possibility of accumulating a satisfactory annuity, the earlier this promotion is given the greater will be its worth to Mr. Mints. On the other hand, delay may tend to impair morale and produce discouragement, especially when the length of Mints’s service to the University is considered. It is recommended that Mr. Mints’s salary be increased $1,000.

Item No. 11
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Mints, L. W., Prof.
(Assoc. Prof.)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 45
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $4,000
Proposed
Chairman $5,000
Dean Ac. Prof.
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$4,500]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Associate Professor Henry C. Simons

[10] The Department recommends the promotion of Henry C. Simons from Associate Professor to Professor of Economics. Simons has earned the reputation here and among his peers at other institutions of being a brilliant economist. His powers of theoretical analysis are equaled by few men: his scintillating suggestions as to public policy in the fields in which he has written have been widely recognized and favorably quoted; his writings have an originality and style which matches the subjective contributions of his works. Simons’ opinions on many economic subjects are eagerly sought. The Department recommends that his salary be increased $1,500. The recommendations as to advancement in rank and increase in salary will also be supported by the Law School, to which Simons devotes ono-third of his time.

See the Law School recommendations, Item 12. Since the present contract for the Civil Affairs Training Program does not extend throughout the year 1944-45, provision must be made in the regular budget for the salary if a new appointment is to be made from the budget.

Item No. 10
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)

Simons, H.C., Prof.
(Assoc. Prof)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. % 67 (Econ.)
33 (Law School)
Salary Level
1943-44

$4,500 (Total)

$3,000 (Econ.)
$1,500 (Law School)
Proposed
Chairman $6,000
$4,000 (Econ.)
$2,000 (Law School)
Dean [Ac. Prof]
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Ac. Prof]
Salary Level [$5,000 (Total)]
[$3,333 (Econ.)]
[$1,667 (Law School])
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Instructor H. Gregg Lewis

[14] The Department proposes that H. Gregg Lewis be promoted from Instructor to Assistant Professor and that his salary be increased $500, effective upon his return to the University at the close of the war. His work merits this recognition. By the time he returns, it is believed that Lewis will have received his Ph.D. His dissertation is in final stages of preparation.

The leave must be extended if the salary is not to be included in the budget totals.

Item No. 14
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)

Lewis, H. G. Asst. Prof.

(Instructor)
(On leave, Govt. Serv. To 9-30-44 to be extended to 9/30/45)
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 44
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. 3
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 ($3,500)
Proposed
Chairman ($4,000)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Instructor]
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45 [$4,000]

___________________________________

Lecturer Robert K. Burns

[15] The Department desires to recommend the appointment of Robert K. Burns as Assistant Professor, to serve the University on a half-time basis at a stipend of $2,000 per annum. Burns, who holds the title of Lecturer, has carried the bulk of the work of the Department in the field of labor during the past two years. Not only has he carried a heavy instructional load but he has supervised class research, and dissertations as well. Burns has been Regional Director of the War Labor Board in Chicago and has recently been transferred to the Washington office to direct certain new activities of the Board. This promotion came as a recognition of outstanding work. How soon Burns could assume increased responsibilities in the University is not known, but any time his services can be made available the Department is in a position to utilize them effectively. With Harbison and Douglas also in the field of labor, it is believed that a half-time appointment for Burns is all that is now required.

Item No. 15
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Burns, R. E., Asst Prof.
(Lecturer, part time).
Tenure
Present Expira. June, 44
New appointment
From 7/1/44
Yrs. 3
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. % 50
Salary Level
1943-44 $1,400
Proposed
Chairman $2,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Lect]
Salary Level [$2000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

  1. Changes in Salaries

Professor Frank H. Knight

[2] The Department, over the protest of Frank H. Knight, recommends to the Division that Knight’s salary be increased $1,500 so as to place his compensation on the $10,000 level. If a Distinguished Professorship is available, Knight should receive it; if such a Professorship is unavailable, Knight should receive a stipend as though he were so honored. He is known throughout the world as one of its outstanding economists. His reputation and scholarship extend to the fields of philosophy, ethics, religion, and history, to name but a few. His fellow economists have honored him on many occasions; he has represented them for many years on learned societies. He has been tempted with offers from other institutions. He has been made a Professor of the Social Sciences in recognition of the breadth of his competence. Honor is bestowed on him everywhere; only the University can give him the freedom from financial ills he sorely needs and deserves. His present salary is an embarrassment to the Department, even though it is all charged against the Division.

Item No. 2
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Knight, F. H., Prof.
(also Soc.Sci.Div.Instr.
Tenure
Present Expira. June….
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $8,500
From Econ. ….
From Soc.Sci.Div. $8,500
Proposed
Chairman $10,000
From Econ. ….
From Soc.Sci.Div. $10,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level From Soc.Sci.Div. [$9,000) 4]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor John U. Nef

[5] The Department would like to recommend an increase in salary of $1,000 for John U. Nef, but Nef says that he will not hear of it nor accept an increase in compensation. The Department believes that such an increase is well deserved and wants its recommendation to be recorded even if Mr. Nef declines to receive what is manifestly his due.

Item No. 5
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Nef, J.H., Prof.
(also History
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept….
New appointment
From [10/1/44]
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3 [in Economics and History]
If part-time, approx. % 50% [Economics]
50% [History]
Salary Level
1943-44 $7,500 Total
From Econ. $3,750
From  Hist. $3,750
Proposed
Chairman $8,500 Total
From Econ. $4,750
From  Hist., $3,750
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$8,000 Total]
[From Econ. $4,250]
[From  Hist. $3,750 (4]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Oscar Lange

[9] The Department recommends an increase in salary of $500 for Oscar Lange. When Lange returned to the University of Chicago after a year’s leave at Columbia, he did so at a distinct financial sacrifice. Any continuation of that disadvantage should be removed. It is the opinion of the Department, too, that Simons and Lange should be treated equally with respect to salary and rank. In view of the salary proposed for Mr. Simons, this increase is doubly appropriate.

Item No. 9
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Lange, Oscar, Prof.
Tenure
Present Expira. June….
New appointment
From [7/1/44]
Yrs. [Ind]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $5,500
Proposed
Chairman $6,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$6000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

  1. Appointments

Professor Simeon E. Leland

The new appointment information should be inserted for the position of Chairman.

Item No. 3
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Leland, S.E., Prof. and Chairman
(also Political Sci.
Tenure
Present Expira.

June….

[As Chairman Jun 44]
New appointment
From [7-1-44]
[As chairman 7-1-44]
Yrs. Ind [as Prof]
3 yrs [as chairman]
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3 [in Economics and Pol. Sci.]
If part-time, approx. % 50% [Economics]
50% [Political Sci.]
Salary Level
1943-44 $8,000 Total
From Econ. $4,000
From  Pol.Sci. $4,000
Proposed
Chairman $8,000 Total
From Econ. $4,000
From  Pol.Sci. $4,000
Dean $9,000 Total
From Econ. $4,500
From  Pol.Sci. $4,500
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$9,000 Total]
[From Econ. $4,500]
[From  Pol.Sci. $4,500 (4]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Professor Chester W. Wright

[8] At the end of the present year Chester W. Wright becomes Professor Emeritus. Up to the present time the Department has been unable to fill Professor Wright’s post. Outstanding scholars of American Economic History are few; promising young men are scarce. Professor Wright’s health and energy are unimpaired. He is at the peak of his career. His recently completed Economic History of the United States is an outstanding achievement. The Department believes that Professor Wright should be invited to remain at the University during the coming year on a half-time basis. The continuance of his work and his presence here will make easier the finding as well as the appointment of a successor. As long aa Professor Wright is in the city the University will be the beneficiary of his work on Library acquisitions. His painstaking labors in the Library over a period of years is reflected in the excellence of the collections of books in Economics and Social Sciences — collections which include rare books, historic volumes and current issues, making our Library one of the best of university libraries.

The desirability of the renewal of Professor Wright’s appointment is strengthened by the fact that Mr. Harold Innis of the University of Toronto, to whom a Professorship in the Department has been offered, has declined our offer for the duration due to his feeling of responsibility toward his own institution in the present emergency. Innis has indicated that when the war is over he will be glad to reconsider our offer. Due also to his great regard for Professor Wright, the renewal of Wright’s appointment for the duration (on a year-to-year basis, as may be required) will be an important factor in inducing Innis to come to the University of Chicago. Probably more than any one person, Wright may be able eventually to induce Innis to join the staff.

If Innis does come to the University of Chicago, he will doubtless wish to devote his attention to Canadian economic history and only gradually devote his energies to continental developments. It will be necessary, therefore, to bring in a young man to teach United States economic history. As has been indicated, promising candidates are hard to find and the Department is unable to recommend a person for appointment at this time. Both Professors Wright and Nef emphasize the difficulties of this task. And, if a recommendation is to be made, the candidate must enjoy the support of senior professors in this field. All of which strengthens the recommendation of the Department for the continuance of Professor Wright’s teaching.

Is the proposed salary to be in addition to the retiring allowance at $3,000 per year?

Item No. 8
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Wright, C. W., Prof. Emer.
(Prof.)
[(also Retiring Allowance
(Total Salary]
Tenure
Present Expira. Sept. 44
New appointment
From [10/1/44]
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 3
If part-time, approx. % 50
Salary Level
1943-44 $6,500
Proposed
Chairman $3,250
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank [Retire 10/1/44]
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45 [$1625]

___________________________________

Instructor Henry S. Bloch

[16] It is recommended that the appointment of Henry S. Bloch as instructor be renewed. Bloch at present is devoting his time exclusively to the CATS program, where his salary is charged. Should that training program be liquidated, Bloch’s services can be transferred immediately to Departmental teaching, research, and assistance in advising students. During the past year such needs have arisen, but because of the demands of the military program Bloch has not been able to assist the Department in its civilian program. Attention is called to the fact that Bloch’s salary is on a four-quarter basis.

Our payroll department states that the present appointment for Mr. Bloch at $2,200 per year is charged to the Economics budget and expires June 30, 1944. There is no record of the appointment chargeable to the Civil Affairs Specialists Training Program. Will you please check your records. Also, since the Training Program contract does not cover 1944-45, it is assumed that any salary for next year must be included in the department totals.

Item No. 16
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Bloch, H. S., Inst.
(also CATS).
Tenure
Present Expira. 9/30/44
New appointment
From 10/1/44
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $3,600 (CATS)
Proposed
Chairman $3,600 (CATS)
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$3,600 (CATS)]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Visiting Professor D. H. Buchanan

[12] D. H. Buchanan of the University of North Carolina is a Visiting Professor assisting in the military training program of the University. It is our understanding that his appointment is for the duration or during the continuance of the military training program. Mr. Buchanan’s salary has been charged against the CATS budget and I presume his appointment will continue at the same rate and so long as this program continues. Buchanan is included in this budget only for the sake of completeness.

Item No. 12
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Buchanan, D. H., Vis. Prof.
(also CATS
Tenure
Present Expira. Aug. 44
New appointment 9/1/44 (CATS)
From 10/1/44
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $8,000 (CATS)
Proposed
Chairman $8,000 (CATS)
Dean

[Do not appoint]

[illegible word]
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Research Associate Gale Johnson

[18] The appointment of Gale Johnson as a Research Associate in Agricultural Economics at a four-quarter stipend of $3,700 was recommended during the current year to provide research assistance for Professor T. W. Schultz. Johnson’s appointment will commence as of April 1, 1944.

Item No. 18
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Johnson, Gale, Res.Assoc. in Agri. Economics
Tenure
Present Expira. 6/30/44
New appointment
From 7/1/44
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $3,700
Proposed
Chairman $3,700
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Lecturer John K. Langum

[17] The Department recommends the appointment of John K. Langum, Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in charge of the Bank’s economic research and statistics, as Lecturer in Banking and Banking Policy. The Department would like to appoint Langum as a Lecturer, with the expectation that the arrangement would continue for many years to the mutual advantage of both institutions. A stipend of $500 is proposed, in return for which Langum would be invited during two Quarters of the academic year to give a seminar or series of evening lectures on current topics in banking and banking policy. These lectures should greatly strengthen the work of the University in the field of banking, a defect in our training and research of which we have long been cognizant. We are anxious to make the appointment at an early date, but will make the expenditure of funds contingent upon adequacy of registrations.

The Langum appointment should bring credit to the University. He is well and favorably known in economic and banking circles. He holds his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. He is the author of numerous articles in his field. Recently he has prepared a monograph which the Committee on Economic Development is to publish.

Item No. 17
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Langum, J.K., Lecturer
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From 1/1/45 (Winter and Spring Quarters)
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters 2
If part-time, approx. % Pt.
Salary Level
1943-44
Proposed
Chairman $500
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$500]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Items 12a, 13a, 15, 1, and 16a are inserted since the individuals have appointments extending beyond June 30, 1944.

Professor Maynard C. Krueger
Item No. [12a]
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [Krueger, M. C. As Prof.
(also College]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept. 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$4,000]
Proposed
Chairman [$4,000) 4]
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$4,000]
Amount 1944-45

___________________________________

Assistant Prof. Gerhard E.O. Meyer
Item No. [13a]
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [Meyer, G.E.O. As. Prof.
(also College]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept. 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$2,700]
Proposed
Chairman [$3,500) 4]
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$4,000]
Amount 1944-45

From the spreadsheet it is not clear about the breakdown of source of funding between the Department of Economics and the College.

___________________________________

Instructor/Dean of Students Christine McGuire Masserman

Note: items 15a and 16a refer to the same person. Christine H. McGuire (who married the psychiatrist Jules H. Masserman).  Christine H. McGuire is listed in the U.S. National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel, 1921-1970 as having received a master’s degree in 1938. She later moved from teaching economics to

Item No. [15a]
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [McGuire, Christine (Mrs. Jules H. Masserman), Inst.
(also College and Dean of Students]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs. 1
Service Basis
Number of quarters 4
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$2,000
Proposed
Chairman
Dean [$2,000 Total
College (?) $1,500 )4
Economics (?) $500)4]
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$2,000 Total
College (?) $1,500 )4
Economics (?) $500)4]
Amount 1944-45
Instructor C. H. Masserman
Item No. 16a
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 [Masserman, H. H., Inst.]
Tenure
Present Expira. [Sept 44]
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 [$2,000]
Proposed
Chairman
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45


___________________________________

 

  1. The Future Development of the Department

 

From time to time the Department has called attention to its future needs. It has appraised its deficiencies and has projected problems certain to arise with the retirement of its staff. Some of the problems are still unsolved; one has been solved with brilliance and good fortune.

1. Agriculture

During the past year one of the long standing weaknesses of the Department was cured with the appointment of T. W. Schultz as Professor of Agricultural Economics. With his coming, two important developments can be undertaken. First, a plan for joint degrees in Agricultural Economics cooperatively undertaken by a few selected land grant colleges can be developed. Already we are negotiating with Purdue University to see if we can agree on the details and administration of such a plan. Second, we hope to introduce Agricultural Economics as a field to be studied by undergraduates in the typical four-year college program. At the present time economics departments throughout the country do not call the attention of students to the problems of agriculture either in the so-called “applied economics” courses or in their general survey courses. This is partly due to the fact of specialization, in which work in agriculture and in agricultural economics has been developed almost exclusively in the land grant colleges. It is also due to the fact that few students as part of their graduate education have been exposed to courses In Agricultural Economics. The Department is offering courses in Agricultural Economics to students as part of a general educational program and as part of their training for advanced degrees. Eventually this should bring to the student in urban colleges of liberal arts, where our students are employed, a better understanding of the problems of agriculture. Sooner or later the general courses in economics should deal with agricultural questions just as they now give attention, for example, to the problems of labor, capital, transportation, taxation, or business organization. It is believed that our Department is pioneering in this field, thanks to the active support and encouragement of the University.

2. Transportation

In times past the Department has called attention to the need for strengthening the work offered in Railroads and Transportation. Chicago is the strategic place for the development of advanced training and research in these related fields. It is the railroad center of the United States; it is its central airport; it is a dominant market for railroad equipment and supplies, and during the war has become an important airplane parts manufacturing center. Motor bus and truck-line activities teem in and around Chicago. To meet this opportunity, the University boasts of but one professor whose interests are largely centered in railroad freight rates and who in recent years has typically been on leave. More emphasis in the future should be given to transportation by motor vehicles and airplanes. A major professorial appointment should be contemplated in the field of transportation.

3. Trusts and Monopolies

The retirement of Professor Wright raises the question as to what should be done with respect to teaching and research in the field of Trusts, Monopolies and Business Combinations. Once each year Professor Wright has given a course in Trusts which from the point of view of training of graduate students has been adequate. The decrease in student enrollment during the war has not made the problem critical. The renewal of Professor Wright’s appointment will solve the question for another year.

The field of Trusts alone is not one of sufficient importance, It is believed, to justify a full-time staff appointment. It could easily be combined with Public Utilities or the Control of Business, depending upon the interests of possible candidates for appointment, but some provision should be made to cover this field in the near future.

4. Public Utilities and Control of Business

The offerings of the Department in the field of Public Utilities has been scant, if courses and research over the years are listed. This is true even if the offerings of other Departments and Schools are taken into account. Prior to the depression, efforts were made to make a professorial appointment in this field. Unfortunately, the nominees of the Department could not be induced to join the faculty. Visiting professors were employed on several occasions but with the advent of the depression this practice had to be discontinued. It may be doubted whether Public Utilities is as important a field as it was over a decade ago. Emphasis now has shifted to the Control of Business, with the regulation of public utilities, the dissolution of trusts and the reduction of competition as phases of larger general problems. The control of business by government (and perhaps by other institutions) has long been of interest to economists and political scientists, as well as business men. It has likewise been the concern of lawyers.

The field is of increasing importance in the future. An outstanding professorial appointment would greatly strengthen the University as a whole.

5. Advanced Statistical Theory

In proposing a joint professorship with the Mathematics Department for Professor Abraham Wald, the Department gave expression to a long-felt desire to expand the work of the University in the field of advanced mathematical theory as applied to statistics. Such an appointment with mathematical advice and consultation available to the faculty on their own research and teaching problems would be invaluable. On the whole, the training of students is secondary to this need and service. By such an appointment our research could be strengthened greatly. It offers the opportunity, too, to develop graduate work in the field of statistics far beyond present limits. It is believed that this view and this conception is shared by the Mathematics Department.

As a matter of University policy a closer integration of courses, training and research in the field of statistics would seem to be desirable. The Institute of Statistics has made progress in this direction. More and more the foundations and advanced training in the field should center in the Mathematics Department, with applications being taught in other Departments and Schools. A major appointment such as the one proposed for Wald would strengthen and facilitate these developments.

Although Wald declined our offer, the Department hopes to join Mr. Bartky, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Associate Dean and Dean of Students in the Division of the Physical Sciences and Chairman of the Institute of Statistics, and Mr. Lane, Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, in presenting another recommendation for an outstanding appointment in this field. Such an appointment is a University need which the Department of Economics shares. The Department will help in any way it can to bring about a noteworthy appointment.

6. Joint Appointments with Other Departments

In suggesting appointments in the fields of Trusts and Monopolies, Railroads and Transportation, Public Utilities and the Control of Business, Advanced Mathematical and Statistical Theory, the Department is cognizant of the fact that University resources are limited and that at any time only the most urgent or most important things can be done. Other Departments and Schools, as well as our own, have problems and claims for financial support. Without attempting to weigh the importance of alternative claims or uses for funds, the recommendations of the Department have been made because we think they are important. They represent a portion of a program oriented toward the future.

In making the suggestions enumerated, appointments to the Department of Economics are not being urged per se. Most of the problems also concern other Departments and Schools. In these fields joint appointments are in order. Thereby other parts of the University as well as our own Department would be strengthened. An appointment in Trusts and Monopolies concerns both the Law School and the Department of Political Science, as well as Economics; Railroads and Transportation also concerns the School of Business; Public Utilities and Control of Business should involve Law, Political Science, Business, and Economics; Urban Planning involves the Departments of Geography, Political Science, Economics and the Schools of Law and Business; Social Legislation affects Social Service Administration, Law and Economics. If the University is interested in furthering this suggested development, the Department is ready to take the initiative. Joint appointments will help us improve our Department, its research and teaching.

7. Visiting Professors

Whenever a need arises or a deficiency becomes evident, the easy solution is to suggest “an outstanding appointment.” This may also be the most costly solution even though it may temporarily increase the size, the number of course offerings or the ego of particular departments. It tends to increase the emphasis on less important aspects of particular branches of knowledge. It expends the applications, or the applied courses, rather than the basic elements of theory or science. The growth and strength of certain departments may be increased by concentrating on the development of the fundamental aspects of their subject matter by the regular full-time members of their faculty and by funds spent on increasing the eminence of this central group, the requisite diversification of teaching or research being secured by means of visiting professorships, continuously utilized to cover first one peripheral subject and then another. By bringing to the Department various men for one or two quarters a year, the best they have to offer both in instruction of students and stimulation of faculty colleagues can be secured at relatively low cost. As different men are brought to the Department the gains from this policy can be extended first to one field and then to another. If it is pursued regularly, it will soon become a tradition that new people with unique contributions to supplement those of the regular staff are always in residence in the Department of Economies at the University of Chicago. The Visiting Professorships should be chosen quite as much for their ability to stimulate and educate their faculty colleagues as to enrich the graduate program, though it is hard to see how one could take place without the other.

Next year may not be the time to inaugurate this policy due to difficulties connected with the war and the possible decrease in exceptional graduate students who would profit most from it, but it is urged that the plan be given a careful trial over a period of several years, within which the Department be allowed to experiment freely to see what could be accomplished. It is suggested that $5,000 per annum be placed at the disposal of the Department for 3 to 5 years to see what it can do for itself and the University in the execution of this policy. If it can not demonstrate the gains from this policy, it should be held to account for its failure.

8. Departmental Lectures

A similar line of thought prompts the Department to ask in addition for the sum of $600 per annum for expenditure on occasional lectures to be given by individuals doing new and unique things about which staff members and their best students would otherwise remain ignorant. Such lectures would have little popular appeal and would attract few outside of the Department, but they would give the faculty the benefit of discoveries, hypotheses an ideas before they become current in the profession. Such Iectures could find their way into print via the Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, or otherwise, as might be determined. The $600 requested would probably provide only two or three such lectures a year due to the payment of expenses and honoraria.

9. A Special Fund for Student Assistance

The suggestion has been made that there be included among the worthy projects to be submitted to prospective donors proposals for the creation of Departmental Funds for the Assistance of Brilliant Students, such as the Littauer Fund now available at Harvard. This would not be a loan fund but a source of grants-in-aid to supplement fellowships, scholarships, loans and other assistance and would be administered by the respective departments which are close to students, and are, therefore, familiar with their needs. A study of the results attained by the Littauer Center might well justify the search for a similar fund.

  1. Recommendations as to Service and Equipment

The Department is unanimous in recommending an increase in salary of at least $35.00 per month for Mrs. Margaret Finnamore who by vote of the faculty has been acting as Secretary of the Department. If it is possible to have this title confirmed and a new salary classification adopted so as to give effect to the work now being performed by Mrs. Finnamore, the wishes of the Department will be carried out. [“]In running the Department, Mrs. Finnamore is the most essential person.”

The Department feels that it is appropriate to increase the salary of Mrs. Marian Woodyard from $145 to $150 per month.

With the continued increase in members of the Department and the increase in their scholarly output, present clerical and stenographic facilities are inadequate. The situation was eased somewhat last year by the addition of $500 to our Equipment and Expense Account. This sum has been utilized to provide additional typing service for staff members but the need can only be met by the addition of one full-time clerk-stenographer. To provide this assistance and to take care of the salary changes recommended above an increase of $2,040 is needed in our Service Account. (I have reduced our Equipment and Expense Account by $500.)

Item No. 21
Account No. 2624 Service
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $3,960)
Proposed
Chairman $6,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [$6,000]
Amount 1944-45

Equipment and Expense

Item No. 22
Account No. 2625 Equipment and Expense
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $1,360
Proposed
Chairman $860
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45

An independent check on the present volume of office and stenographic work, as well as its work-program for the future, would be welcomed to test the reasonableness of this recommendation.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed] Simeon E. Leland

___________________________________

Three items crossed out of economics departmental budget by President

Visiting Professors

Item No. 19
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Visiting Professors
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From  
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44
Proposed
Chairman $600
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [….]
Amount 1944-45

Lecturers

Item No. 20
Account No. 2621 Instruction
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)		 Lecturers
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44
Proposed
Chairman $5,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level [….]
Amount 1944-45

 

Agricultural Economic Research & Development

Item No. 23
Account No. 2626 Agricultural Economic Research & Development
Name and Proposed Rank
(Old rank in parenthesis if change recommended)
Tenure
Present Expira.
New appointment
From
Yrs.
Service Basis
Number of quarters
If part-time, approx. %
Salary Level
1943-44 $5,000
Proposed
Chairman $5,000
Dean
President’s Recommendation
Rank
Salary Level
Amount 1944-45 [In Division Budget]

 ___________________________________

Source: University of Chicago Library. Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 284, Folder “Economics, 1943-1947”.

Image Source: Portrait of Simeon E. Leland. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03716, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Image colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Chicago Courses Curriculum Fields Graduate Student Support

Chicago. Program of advanced instruction and research training in economics. 1956-57.

To gauge the scale and scope of economics departments it is useful to have copies of the annual announcements/brochures. In this post we add a transcription of the announcement for advanced instruction and research in economics at the University of Chicago for 1956-57.

Some previous posts:

Chicago, 1892

Wisconsin, 1893-94

Chicago, 1900-01

Chicago, 1904-05

Wisconsin, 1904-05

M.I.T., 1961

Harvard, 1967

___________________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
announces
Advanced Instruction
and Research Training
in
ECONOMICS:

Price Theory
Money and Banking
Economic History
Statistics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Agricultural Economics
Government Finance
International Economic Relations and Economic Development
Economics of Consumption
Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

SESSIONS OF 1956-1957

___________________________

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Officers of Instruction

Theodore William Schultz, Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Economics and Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor of Economics.

Frank Hyneman Knight, Ph.D., Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the Social Sciences.

John Ulric Nef, Ph.D., Professor of Economic History.

Earl J. Hamilton, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Milton Friedman, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Lloyd A. Metzler, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Margaret G. Reid, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

W. Allen Wallis, A.B., Professor of Economics and Statistics.

D. Gale Johnson, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Bert F. Hoselitz, A.M., Dr. Jur., Professor of the Social Sciences.

Hans Theil, Ph.D., Visiting Professor of Economics.

Harold Gregg Lewis, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Arnold C. Harberger, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Albert E. Rees, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Carl Christ, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Simon Rottenberg, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

George S. Tolley, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Robert Lloyd Gustafson, A.M., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Phillip David Cagan, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Martin Jean Bailey, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Chester Whitney Wright, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Hazel Kyrk, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Economics and Home Economics.

Lloyd W. Mints, A.M., Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Mary Barnett Gilson, A.M., Assistant Professor Emeritus of Economics in the College.

Fellows, 1955-56

Richard King, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Economy.

Yossef Attiyeh, A.M., Falk Foundation Fellow,

Milton Frank Bauer, A.M., Canadian Social Science Research Council Fellow.

John Allan Edwards, A.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

Lawrence Fisher, A.B., Earhart Foundation Fellow.

B. Delworth Gardner, S.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

Hirsh Zvi Griliches, S.M., Social Science Research Council Fellow.

Marc Leon Nerlove, A.M., Earhart Foundation Fellow.

Hugh Oliver Nourse, A.B., Woodrow Wilson Fellow.

Walter Yasuo Oi, A.M., Owen D. Young Fellow.

Boris Peter Pesek, A.M., Ford Foundation Fellow.

Duvvuri Venkata Ramana, A.M., Ford Foundation Fellow.

Jean Reynier, Diplôme D’études Supérieures De Doctorat, University of Paris Exchange Fellow.

Robert Oliver Rogers, A.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

John William Louis Winder, A.M., Edward Hillman Fellow.

___________________________

Introductory

                  The Department of Economics views the central problem of economic science as that of understanding the social organization of human and other scarce productive resources: principally the allocation of these resources among alternative uses by a system of exchange. The purpose of the Department is both to train economic scientists and to advance economic science.

                  The Department offers programs of instruction and research training not only for students seeking an advanced degree in economics at the University of Chicago but also for students working on an advanced degree at another institution who wish to complement the training available to them there and for students not seeking an advanced degree but who wish to pursue advanced study in economics at either the predoctoral or the postdoctoral level. Instruction is provided in all of the major fields of economics affording opportunity for well-rounded training in economics. Additional facilities in other parts of the University, including those in the other social sciences, mathematics, statistics, business administration, law, and philosophy, permit students wide choice among supplementary areas of study.

                  Courses of instruction at three levels of advancement are offered by the Department:

                  1. Intermediate courses (numbered in the 200’s) for those completing their work for the Bachelor’s degree and for others preparing for advanced training in economics.

                  2. Courses in economic theory, statistical inference, economic history, and economic analysis related to problem fields (numbered in the 300’s) that provide the strong theoretical foundation and related applied knowledge required of all candidates for advanced degrees in economics as preparation for economic research. Students are urged before entering these courses to acquire a command of the rudiments of the differential calculus.

                  3. Courses (including seminars, workshops, and other research working groups, and individual instruction) that provide arrangements for research and research supervision (numbered in the 400’s). These courses apply and seek to teach students to apply the foundations of economic analysis to research on particular economic problems.

THE ECONOMICS RESEARCH CENTER

                  The Department devotes a large proportion of its resources to research in economics and to the training of student research apprentices. The purpose of the Economics Research Center is to co-ordinate the research and research training activities of the Department. The Center supplies essential clerical, computing, and reference library services, assists in the organization of research seminars and working groups, and publishes the major research output of the Department in its series: “Studies in Economics.”

                  Some of the research training in the Center is organized on a continuing basis by one or more faculty members working with associates and students in research groups. (The staffs and research projects of these groups for the academic year 1955-56 are listed below.) Research training and facilities for research are available, however, to all qualified students, both those associated with a research group and those engaged in individual research.

Projects and Staffs of Research Groups, 1955-56

Workshop in Money and Banking

Faculty: Professors Cagan and Friedman.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Yossef Attiyeh, Hugh Roy Elliott, Duvvuri V. Ramana, and Robert E. Snyder.

Project: The role of monetary and banking factors in economic fluctuations.

Office of Agricultural Economies Research

Faculty: Professors Gustafson, Johnson, Schultz, and Tolley.

Research Associates: John A. Dawson, Cecil B. Haver, William E. Hendrix, Lester G. Telser, and Joseph Willett.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Marto Ballesteros, Michael Joseph Brennan, Donald S. Green, Hirsh Zvi Griliches, Vaughan Stevens Hastings, Roy J. Kelly, Edward Franklin Renshaw, James A. Rock, and Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.

Projects: (1) Agricultural inventories. (2) Conservation and development of natural resources. (3) Technical assistance in Latin American countries. (4) Developments affecting Negro farm families. (5) Soviet agriculture. (6) Technological growth in agriculture (hybrid corn). (7) Growth in output per unit of input in the United States and in agriculture.

Research Group in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

Faculty: Professors Lewis, Rees, Rottenberg, and Seidman.

Projects: (1) The American worker as a union member. (2) Labor in the Mexican economy. (3) Real wages in the United States, 1890-1914. (4) Population, the labor force, and labor supply.

Research Group in Public Finance

Faculty: Professors Bailey and Harberger.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Meyer L. Burstein, Lawrence Fisher, Yehuda Grünfeld, Marc Leon Nerlove, William A. Niskanen, Jr., and Walter Y. Oi.

Projects:
(1) Resource allocation effects of federal taxes and of agricultural price supports.
(2) Sources and methods of controlling cyclical instability in the American economy.
(3) The capital market effects of federal taxation, expenditure, and regulatory policies.

Research Group in Economics of Consumption

Faculty: Professor Reid.

Research Assistant: Juliette Rey.

Project: Trends in, and factors determining, consumption levels.

Research Group in Economic Development

Faculty: Professors Hamilton, Harberger, Hoselitz, Rottenberg, and Schultz.

Projects: (1) Problems in the economic development of Chile. (2) Historical research in money, banking, prices, and interest rates, their interrelationship, and their role in the economic development of leading countries. (Note also projects (3), (6), and (7) of the Office of Agricultural Economics Research and project (2) of the Research Group in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations.) The Research Group in Economic Development works closely with the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change of which Mr. Hoselitz is the director. The Center engages in research and publishes the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change.

                  Three members of the faculty of the Department are associated with research groups organized in other parts of the University: Mr. Hoselitz with the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change; Mr. Nef, with the Committee on Social Thought; and Mr. Wallis, with the Committee on Statistics. In addition, other members of the economics faculty are engaged in individual research projects not associated with a research group: Mr. Metzler on the theory of international adjustment under conditions of full employment and high demand: and Mr. Christ on econometric research on economic growth and technological change.

FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS,
AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS

                  Students who wish to pursue a program of advanced instruction and research in economics at the University may compete not only for the regular University Fellowships and Scholarships described in these Announcements (see pp. 22-27) but also for the fellowships listed below:
[Note: The announcement transcribed here is a reprint of the Department of Economics section of the Announcements of Graduate Programs in the Divisions. Cross-references are to that publication]

Postdoctoral Fellowships:

Postdoctoral Fellowship in Political Economy awarded upon recommendation of the Department of Economics.

Postdoctoral Fellowships in Money and Banking awarded by the Workshop in Money and Banking in co-operation with the Department of Economics.

Predoctoral Fellowships:

Awarded upon recommendation of the Department of Economics:

Frank H. Knight Fellowships, Marshall Field Fellowship, Edward Hillman Fellowship Awarded upon recommendation of the Office of Agricultural Economics Research for students specializing in agricultural economics:
Sears, Roebuck Foundation Fellowships in Agricultural Economics

Stipends for the predoctoral fellowships, including the regular University fellowships, range generally from $1,000 to $3,000 per annum. Stipends for the postdoctoral fellowships range up to $4,000 per annum. Application blanks may be obtained from the Department of Economics or from the University Committee on Fellowships and Scholarships.

Research Assistantships

                  Research assistantships and associateships are available to qualified students who have research interests in particular problem areas. Application blanks for these positions may be obtained from the Economics Research Center.

ADVANCED DEGREES

                  The Department of Economics offers programs leading to both the A.M. and the Ph.D. degrees in Economics. The following paragraphs summarize briefly the major Departmental requirements for advanced degrees for students holding a four-year Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. (The following paragraphs are not intended as an exhaustive statement of the requirements for advanced degrees; for the details of the requirements students should consult with the Departmental counselors.)

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

                  The Departmental requirements for the Master’s degree in Economics for students holding the traditional four-year Bachelor’s degree include: (1) satisfactory performance on two of the written field examinations in economics required for the Ph.D. degree; (2) a satisfactory command of the principles of economic theory; and (3) acceptance of a paper or report on a problem approved by the Department,

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

                  The Departmental requirements for admission to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics include: (1) satisfactory performance on written field examinations in price theory and monetary theory and banking and in one other field that, with the approval of the Department, may be a field outside of economics; (2) a well-rounded command of the subject-matter of the major fields of economics; (3) effective reading knowledge of French or German or some other foreign language approved by the Department; and (4) acceptance of the candidate’s thesis prospectus.

                  The Departmental requirements for the degree include in addition to the preceding requirements for admission to candidacy: (1) effective reading knowledge of a second foreign language or completion of an approved substitute program of study; (2) departmental approval of the completed thesis; and (3) satisfactory performance on a final oral examination on the field of the thesis.

SUMMER PROGRAM
FOR COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ECONOMICS

                  The Department of Economics will give particular attention in its Summer Quarter 1956 program to the interests of college teachers of economics, both those working for the Ph.D degree at another institution and others who wish to renew or to complement their training and experience in economics. A limited number of tuition and half-tuition scholarships will be available for teachers who do not hold the Ph.D. degree. (Application blanks for these scholarships may be obtained from the Department of Economics.) For those who hold the Ph.D. degree in Economics or related fields the Department invites application for guest privileges.

Courses of Instruction

INTERMEDIATE COURSES

208. A, B, C. The Elements of Economic Analysis. Aut (208A): Rees; Win (208B) Rees; Spr (208C): Cagan.

209. Intermediate Price Theory. Prereg: Math 150A or equiv. Aut: Lewis.

210. Index Numbers, National Accounting, and Economic Measurement. Prereq: Soc Sei 200A and Econ 209, or equiv. Aut: Christ.

213. Introduction to Mathematics for Economists. Prereq: Econ 209 and Math 150A, or equiv. Sum: Staff; Win: Theil.

220. Economic History of the United States. Spr: Hamilton.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. Win: Staff.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. Prereq: Econ 208A and 208B, or equiv, Spr: Johnson.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. Prereq: Econ 208A and 208B, or equiv. Win: Bailey.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. Aut: Hoselitz.

299. Undergraduate Thesis Research. Prereq: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

ADVANCED COURSES

I. Price Theory

300. A, B. Price Theory. Prereg: For 300A, Econ 209 or equiv, and Math 150A or equiv, or consent of instructor; for 300B, 300A. Aut (300A): Friedman; Win (300A): Wallis; Spr (300B): Friedman.

301. Price and Distribution Theory (= Social Thought 382). Prereq: Econ 209. Sum: Knight.

302. History of Economic Thought (= Social Thought 381). Prereq: Econ 301 or equiv. Spr: Knight.

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereg: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

305. Economics and Social Institutions (= Philosophy 305). Prereg: Econ 301 and some European economic history. Sum: Knight.

308. Welfare Economics. Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Sum: Johnson.

309. Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 213 and Econ 300A, or equiv. Win: Theil.

310. Special Topics in Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 309, Math 150C, and the rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Theil.

II. Monetary Theory and Banking

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereg: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

330. Money. Prereg: Econ 208C or equiv. Aut: Staff.

331. Banking Theory and Monetary Policy. Prereg: Econ 330; Econ 335 desirable. Win: Cagan.

334. The Development of Monetary and Financial Institutions. Prereq: Econ 222 or 208C. Spr: Hamilton.

335. The Theory of Income, Employment, and the Price Level. Prereg: Econ 208A, B, C or equiv. Spr: Christ.

362. Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Prereg: Econ 208C; Econ 330 and 335 desirable. Spr: Harberger.

370. Monetary Aspects of International Trade. Prereg: Econ 330, 335, or equiv. Aut: Metzler.

439. Workshop in Money and Banking. An experiment in combining training in research and learning of subject-matter organized around a continuing investigation into monetary factors in business cycles. Students participate in this central investigation both directly and by undertaking individual projects in the general area. Each project is directed toward the preparation of a report of publishable quality. Guidance is provided on general reading in the field, and informal seminars are held from time to time to discuss general issues or specific projects. Students. are required to give full time to the workshop; they receive three credits per quarter of registration. Prereg: consent of instructor. Aut, Win, Spr: Friedman, Cagan.

III. Statistics

311. Principles of Statistical Analysis (= Business 321 and Statistics 301). Aut: Staff.

312. Techniques of Statistical Analysis (= Business 322 and Statistics 302). Prereg: Econ 311 or equiv. Win: Staff.

313. Applications of Statistical Analysis (= Sociology 308, Business 323, and Statistics 303). Prereq: Econ 312 or Stat 362 or equiv. Spr: Wallis.

314. Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 311 and either Econ 300A or Econ 335; Econ 210 desirable. Sum: Gustafson; Win: Christ.

315. Special Topics in Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 312, Econ 314, differential calculus, and rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Christ.

For other courses in statistics see page 203.

IV. Mathematical Economics and Econometrics

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereq: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

309. Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 213 and Econ 300A, or equiv, Win: Theil.

310. Special Topics in Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 309, Math 150C and the rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Theil.

314. Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 311 and either Econ 300A or Econ 335; Econ 210 desirable. Sum: Gustafson; Win: Christ.

315. Special Topics in Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 312, Econ 314, differential calculus, and rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Christ.

V. Economic History

320. American Economic Policies. Prereg: Econ 220 or equiv. Sum: Hamilton.

329A. The Geographical and Historical Background of the Genesis of Industrial Civilization (= Social Thought 324A and History 332G). Aut: Nef.

329B. The Role of the Discoveries and the Reformation in the Genesis of Industrial Civilization (= Social Thought 325A and History 332H). Spr: Nef.

334. The Development of Monetary and Financial Institutions. Prereg: Econ 222 or 208C. Spr: Hamilton.

VI. Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

340. The Labor Movement. Aut.

341. Labor Problems. Prereq: Econ 208A, 208B, and Econ 240; or equiv. Win: Rees.

344. Labor Economics. Prereq: Econ 300B. Spr: Lewis.

VII. Agricultural Economics

355A. Economic Organization for Growth (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Aut: Schultz.

355B. Economic Organization for Stability (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Spr: Schultz.

356. Income, Welfare, and Policy (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereg: Econ300A or equiv; Econ 300B and 355A recommended. Win: Johnson.

455. Seminar in Agricultural Economics. Prereq: consent of instructor. Aut, Win, Spr: Schultz, Johnson, Tolley, Gustafson.

VIII. Government Finance

360. Theory of Public Finance. Prereg: Econ 260 and Econ 300A, or consent of instructor, Aut: Bailey.

361. Public Finance in the American Economy. Prereq: Econ 300A; Econ 300B desirable. Win: Harberger.

362. Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Prereg: Econ 208C; Econ 330 and 335 desirable. Spr: Harberger.

IX. International Economic Relations

370. Monetary Aspects of International Trade. Prereq: Econ 330 and 335, or equiv. Aut: Metzler.

371. Economic Aspects of International Relations. Prereq: Econ 330 or equivalent. Win: Metzler.

372. Problems in Economic Development. Prereq: Econ 335 or equivalent, Econ 320 and 371 desirable. Spr: Hoselitz.

X. Economics of Consumption

381. Consumers and the Market (= Home Economics 341), Prereq: course in economic theory. Win: Reid.

383A. Consumption Levels (= Home Economics 343A). Prereq: course in statistics. Aut: Reid.

388. The Family in the American Economy (= Home Economics 348). Prereq: course in economic theory. Sum, Spr: Reid.

XI. Seminars and Workshops

439. Workshop in Money and Banking. Aut, Win, Spr: Friedman, Cagan.

455. Seminar in Agricultural Economics. Aut, Win, Spr: Schultz, Johnson, Tolley, Gustafson.

490. Research in Economics. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary, Sum: Staff.

498. Thesis Seminar. Registration may be made for one or more courses. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

499. Individual Research. Registration may be made for one or more courses. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Addenda. Box 31, Folder “7/87 Chic. School. GJS Folder. Lit., incl. “Pantaleoni?”, 1930 anti-tariff signers”.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics A.M. requirements amended to become “Consolation Prize”. Lewis and Schultz, 1950

 

In 1950 the Chicago economics department voted to convert its master’s degree into an award for the successful partial completion of its Ph.D. program. It was to serve as a “consolation prize” for good graduate students but those found not to have the right “Ph.D. stuff” (H. Gregg Lewis’ words in his memo of Sept. 29, 1950 to chairman T. W. Schultz, transcribed below). I have also included the relevant portion of the distributional and examination requirements for the Ph.D. that had already formed part of the so-called “alternate departmental master’s degree”. H. Gregg Lewis’ proposal was largely accepted by the department (minutes from the meeting of November 2, 1950 transcribed below), thereby eliminating distinct tracks for its A.M. and Ph.D. degree programs, respectively.

_______________________

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

Upon request the Department will consider recommending for the Master’s degree candidates who have satisfied the distribution requirement for the Ph.D. degree and have passed with satisfactory standing the three written field examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One modern foreign language is required. In place of a thesis such candidates may present an acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department.

[…]

Distributional requirement [Ph.D.]. The candidate is expected to have familiarity with the subject matter equivalent to that covered in at least one course (200 or 300 level of reasonable comprehensivenss in each of ten fields (five required and five elected), satisfactory evidence of which can be provided by course credit or by passing a special examination. The required fields are: (a) economic theory, (b) accounting, (c) statistics, (d) economic history, and (e) money, banking, and monetary policy. The fields from which five may be elected are: (f) consumption economics, (g) industrial relations, (h) monopoly and public utilities, (i) agricultural economics, (j) government finance, (k) international economic relations, and (l) substitute fields, but not in excess of two, proposed by the candidate and approved by the Departmental counselor or the Department. One or both of these substitute fields may be outside the Department of Economics, and in general some work outside the Department is recommended with a view to rounding out a program appropriate for the individual student. In case of students transferring from other institutions, adequate training in general history may be substituted for economic history upon the written recommendation of the Departmental counselor.

Preliminary written field examinations [Ph.D.]. In each of three fields of specialization, in addition to presenting course credit or special examinations to show satisfactory preparation, the candidate will be required to pass a written examination.

The candidate is expected to select the three fields of specialization—a primary field and two secondary fields—for intensive graduate work. The primary field is that in which the [Ph.D.] thesis will be written. One of the three fields (primary or secondary) must be that of economic theory, including monetary theory. The fields from which selection is to be made are listed above under the heading “Distributional Requirement,” except that accounting may not be chosen as a field without approval of the Department. One secondary field of specialization may be a field named by the candidate outside the list above, and this may be in a department other than Economics. A secondary field may also be developed under one of the interdepartmental committees of specialization International Relations, Human Development, Planning or Social Thought. The program of work proposed, which ordinarily will include four to five courses, must be approved by the Department. No other secondary field may replace the required field in economic theory.* Students should consult with the Departmental counselor with respect to appropriate programs of work in preparation for the field examinations. The field examinations are given by the Department in the sixth and seventh weeks of the Winter and summer quarters. Application for any field examination should be made not later than the end of the first week of the quarter in which the examination is to be taken.

*Students who take the field examination in money, banking, and monetary policy will not be required to write the monetary theory part of the economic theory examination.

 

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 25-26.

_______________________

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

209. Intermediate Economic Theory. (Procter Thomson/Harold Gregg Lewis) Designed for students majoring in economics. Deals with factors controlling production, value and relative prices, and distribution.

211. Introduction to Statistics. (Harold Gregg Lewis) Elementary principles of statistics. Main topics: frequency distributions, averages, dispersion, index numbers, elements of the theory of statistical inference.

220. Economic History of the United States. (Earl J. Hamilton) Facts and factors in American’s economic growth from the Colonial period to World War II, including the development of agriculture, industry, commerce, finance, and transportation; economic effects of wars; role of the entrepreneur; rise in living standards; unrest and utopias in periods of stagnation; commercial crises and economic basis of cultural progress.

222. The Rise of Industrial Civilization in Europe. (John Ulrich Nef) Economic development in its relation to religious, political, intellectual and artistic history since the seventeenth century.

230. Introduction to Money and Banking. (Milton Friedman/Lloyd Wynn Mints) Factors which determine the value of money in the short and in the long run; and operation of the commercial banking system and in relation to the price level and general business activity.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. (Albert E. Rees) The nature of the labor market; government regulation of wages; social security; the history, structure, and functions of American labor unions; and collective bargaining. Special attention is given to current problems of public policy.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. (D. Gale Johnson). Nature of resources used in agriculture. Prices, production, resource allocation, and income distribution. Analysis of government programs, subsidies, storages, crop control, soil conservation, food-stamp plan.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. (Richard B. Goode) Survey of institutions and theories of government finance. Effects of public expenditures; functions of public revenue; forms of taxation; tax criteria; determination of tax policy; public borrowing; debt management; fiscal policy.

270. International Economics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) The nature of international payments and receipts; foreign trade and banking system. The gold standard in the interwar period. The breakdown of the gold standard and the period of fluctuating exchange rates. Exchange controls, clearing agreements and payments agreements. The second world war and the foreign exchange markets. The position of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the present world economy.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) An introductory survey, with particular reference to the United States, of the economic policies and activities of governments. Topics: international specialization of production and the distribution of world resources, structure of international exchanges and the mechanism of international transfer of goods and services; tariffs and other regulatory measures; trade agreements and the most-favored nation clause; international flow of capital and investment; the position of the ITO, the IMF, the ECA and other official agencies in international trade and exchange.

300A, 300B. Price Theory. (W. Allen Wallis 300A/Lloyd A. Metzler 300B/Milton Friedman 300B) A systematic study of the pricing of final products and factors of production under essentially stationary conditions. Covers both perfect competition and such imperfectly competitive conditions as monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 300A deals primarily with the pricing of final products; 300B, with the pricing of factors of production.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 27-28.

_______________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

September 29, 1950

To        T. W. Schultz

From   H.G. Lewis

In Re: Requirements for the Master’s Degree

This is an elaboration of comments made to you this summer concerning the Master’s degree.

I should like to recommend the following changes in our requirements for the A.M. degree:

  1. That the distinction between the “regular” A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. be abolished.
  2. That the departmental requirements for the A.M degree consist of the following alteration of the present alternative A.M. requirements:
    1. A distribution requirement covering five (rather than the present eight) fields of economics of which theory, statistics, and money and banking shall be mandatory. Students who do not hold the traditional A.B. degree must meet the requirement by passing satisfactorily a qualifying examination coving the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination), 230, and two courses chose from 220, 222, 240, 255, 260, 270, 271.1/ Students holding the traditional A.B. may meet the requirement by showing equivalent course credit.
    2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory exam counting as a full exam) at a satisfactory level (that is, at either the Ph.D. level or at a level somewhat lower but not so low as not to warrant blessing the candidate with a Master’s degree).2/
    3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by passing (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or course examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.

I would recommend that the changes in requirements become effective as of the beginning of the Summer Quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

1/ This qualifying examination is now offered every quarter. This is an extravagant use of faculty. I should like to see the exam offered only once a year. Furthermore, I should like to permit students to substitute course grades for all or part of the exam provided the course grades are for courses taken here and provided they are not at a level lower than B.

2/ There would be therefore no special examinations for A.M.’s, but the examinations would be graded into three levels: passing for the Ph.D. and A.M. degrees, passing for the A.M. degree but not for the Ph.D., failing for both.

I would urge students to give requirement (b) high priority in preparing their programs of study.

Since the ends sought by these changes can be reached in other ways, I specify below what these ends are.

I view our principal instructional purpose as that of training high-level (Ph.D. and beyond) professional economists. I think we ought to view our training of “junior” economists and the awarding of the A.M. degree only as an incident arising from the fact that at the time a student applies for admission to the department, we cannot predict accurately either his calibre as a student or his academic goals.

It seems to me that the requirements for the Master’s degree should meet these tests:

  1. They should include no requirements which the Department would not make for the Ph.D. degree. Otherwise both student and faculty time will be spent in activities extraneous to the training of high-level economists. The present alternative A.M. meets this test but the regular A.M. does not.
  2. The requirements should be at a level high enough to be respected by the academic world. Both present degrees meet this test, I believe.
  3. But the standards for the degree should not be so high that potentially able Ph.D. candidates will be deterred from entering because of the considerable risk that if they fail to meet Ph.D. standards they will also fail to meet A.M. standards. If we set standards for the A.M. that are almost as likely not to be met as the Ph.D. standards we hold out no “consolation prize” to those good students who are fearful of not being able to meet Ph.D. standards. The present alternative A.M. requirements do not meet this test.

One of the ways by which we can raise the calibre of our Ph.D. candidates without reducing our enrollment is to increase the number of students who are given an opportunity to show at close hand their potentialities to us and to screen out at an earlier date those who are not of Ph.D. stuff. I am confident that quite accurate screening can take place ordinarily by the end of the first year of graduate residence. I contemplate our using the A.M. requirements as a screening device; the present alternative A.M. is not satisfactory from that point of view since it postpones too long the screening decision.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

_______________________

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department

Time and Place: Thursday, November 2, 1950, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 424, Social Science Research Building.

Present: T. W. Schultz (chairman), H. G. Lewis, A. Rees, R. Goode, G. Tolley, D. G. Johnson, F. H. Harbison, J. Marschak, C. Hildreth, F. Knight, L. Metzler.

  1. Handling of Student Business
    It was agreed that all bona fide applications for admission to candidacy filed this quarter would be considered as falling under present degree requirements even though Departmental action does not take place until Winter quarter.
  2. Ford Foundation
    Schultz stated that as a Department we have an obligation to ourselves, to the University, and to the community more largely to think through carefully the problem of making the best use of the Ford Foundation’s present grant of $300,000 to the University as well as possible later grants. There was a brief general discussion of the problem.
  3. Departmental Rules Governing Residence and Availability to Students
    Schultz pointed out that in the current year we have been able for the first time to reduce direct teaching loads for most of our members to four courses per year or less. This reduction, he pointed out, makes it desirable that the Department impose upon itself rules governing residence and availability to students and others in the university community lest they be imposed upon us from outside. The problem of rules for residence involves not only a rule stipulating in some way minimum residence, but also the question of whether “free” quarters out of residence should be considered a matter of a right accruing to an individual from his residence or a privilege dependent upon ad hoc decisions made by the Department chairman and the Dean. Schultz expressed himself as being in favor of a rule somewhat similar to the rules for accumulating sabbatical leave under a 3Q contract. In addition there is the problem of insuring, perhaps by rule, “availability” when in residence. The formulation of appropriate rules is to come before the Department for its consideration in the Winter quarter.
  4. The Department considered Lewis’ recommendations for changes in the A.M. requirements. (See attached memo. [above]) the following amendment of Lewis’ recommendation was passed:
    1. That the distinction between the regular A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. degrees be abolished.
    2. That the Departmental requirements for the A.M. degree consist of the following:
      1. A distribution requirement to be met by passing a “Qualifying” examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination) 220 or 222, 230 and two courses chosen from 240, 255, 260, 270, and 271. Students holding the traditional A.B. may satisfy the requirement by equivalent course credit.
      2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory examination counting as an examination) at a satisfactory level of A.M. candidates.
      3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.
      4. An acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department. The paper will be read by two members of the Department of which the course instructor will be one in the event the student submits a term paper prepared for a course.

The above changes in requirements are to become effective as of the beginning of the Summer quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

It was understood that the above motion in no way changes present preliminary examinations or other requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Professor Knight asked the minutes to show his objection to dropping Economics 210 (Accounting) from the requirements for the A.M. degree.

  1. Student Business
    1. Petitions

Lawrence Bostow’s petition for approval of French and Russian as languages for the Ph.D. was approved.

Mr. H. M. Herlihy’s petition for the field of “Social Organization” (Sociology Department) as his third field for the Ph.D. degree was approved.

Mr. John Holsen’s petition for a third Ph.D. field in Planning (Planning Department) was approved. Mr. Johnson, his counselor, was asked to inform Mr. Holsen, however, that this approval does not entitle Holsen to shorten his total program in Economics for the Ph.D.

Mr. Edward Mishan’s petition for approval of Spanish as a Ph.D. language was denied.

    1. Admission to Candidacy

Mr. Howard Ammerman’s application for admission and for approval of a thesis topic was moved to the bottom of the list of applications.

Mr. Rondo E. Cameron’s application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent upon his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950) and his proposed thesis topic, “French Foreign Investment, 1815-1870,” was approved. Thesis committee: E. J. Hamilton, chairman, L. Metzler, P. Thomson.

After some discussion, Mr. Clifford Clark’s application was moved down the list. Lewis was instructed to advise Clark to consult with Hamilton concerning the latter’s misgivings about the proposed thesis topic, and in addition to confer with Hayek, Knight, and other members of the Department concerning the thesis topic.

Mr. George P. Coutsoumaris’ application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent on his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950), and his proposed thesis topic, “Possibilities of Increasing Economic Efficiency in Greek Agriculture,” was given qualified approval, the Department suggesting that he limit the topic somewhat preferably to a topic approximately the same as that covered in the sections (VII and VIII) of his outline dealing with capital in Greek agriculture. Thesis committee: D. G. Johnson, chairman, C. Harris, J. Margolis (planning).

Mr. David Fand’s proposed thesis topic, “Monetary Theory of the Federal Reserve Board,” was discussed. It was agreed to come back to it at the next meeting after several more of the members of the Department had an opportunity to discuss the topic with Fand.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

Images:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economists Salaries

Chicago. Selected salaries. Hayek visiting, Friedman as associate professor, 1946

 

 

Since economists put much store in the notion of people putting their (own or other people’s) money where their mouths are, Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides from time to time some historical faculty salaries to shine a little light on where those professors of economics before us stood in the willingness-to-pay of their respective departments and university administrations. In this post we see how the brief visiting professorship of Friedrich Hayek and the tenured associate professorship of Milton Friedman fit into the 1946 salary structure at the Univerity of Chicago’s department of economics.

Note: For his half-quarter service Hayek was offered $2,000 (quoted in a January 23, 1945 note  from the director of the U of Chicago Press to VP E. C. Colwell). I presume the $4,000 figure includes $2,000 compensation from (or on behalf of) Stanford University.

_______________________

Comparison: Selected 1945-46 Chicago Salaries
(and recommendations for 1946-47)

Jacob Viner. $10,000
Frank Knight. $9,000 ($10,000)
S.E. Leland. $9,000 ($9,500 Note: resigned to go to Northwestern)
T.W. Schultz. $9,000 ($9,000)
John U. Nef. $8,000 ($8,000)
Jacob Marschak. $8,000 ($8,500)
Paul H. Douglas. $7,000 ($8,000)
Oscar Lange. ($6,000) ($6,000) on leave 1 Oct 1945 to 30 June 1947
Henry Simons. $6,000 ($6,000)
L. W. Mints. $5,500 ($6,000)
Tjalling Koopmans $5250 ($6,740. Note: new salary effective 1 January 1946)

Source:  “Budget and Appointment Recommendations 1946-47 (December 7, 1945)”

_______________________

Hayek’s Half-Quarter, Spring 1946

 

May 10, 1946

Mr. Robert Redfield Social Sciences
R. G. Gustavson Central Administration

On May 9, 1946 the Board of Trustees approved the following recommendations:

It is recommended that Friedrich A. Hayek be appointed Visiting Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics for the period April 8, 1946 to May 11, 1946. For this service and a similar period of service at Stanford University it is recommended that an honorarium of $4,000 be approved.

cc:
Mr. T. W. Schultz
Mr. L. A. Kimpton)      Salary not mentioned
Mrs. K. Turabian)        Salary not mentioned

 

Board—5/9/46:

It is recommended that Friedrich a. Hayek be appointed Visiting Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics for the period April 8, 1946 to May 11, 1946. For this service and a similar period of service at Stanford University it is recommended that an honorarium of $4,000 be approved.

Form sent to Comptroller—5/13/46

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Milton Friedman’s tenured associate professorship
Effective October, 1946

March 19, 1946

Mr. Robert Redfield Social Sciences
R. G. Gustavson Vice President

On March 28, 1946 the Committee on Instruction and Research approved the following recommendation:

It is recommended that Milton Friedman be appointed Associate Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics on indefinite tenure on a 4E Service basis at an annual salary of $6,000 effective October 1, 1946.

cc:
Mr. T. W. Schultz
Mr. L. A. Kimpton)      Salary not mentioned
Mrs. K. Turabian)        Salary not mentioned

 

I & R. 28 March 1946:

It is recommended that Milton Friedman be appointed Associate Professor in the Department of Economics on indefinite tenure on a 4E service basis at an annual salary of $6,000 effective October 1, 1946.

 

Source: University of Chicago Library. Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 284. Folder “Economics, 1943-1947”.

Image Source: National Portrait Gallery. Photographs Collection. NPG x187289. Friedrich August von Hayek by Walter Stoneman, half-plate glass negative, June 1945. The portrait has been cropped to fit the format of this webpage.
Creative Commons License Creative Commons license. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market

Chicago. Draft memo of a program to rebuild the department of economics by T.W. Schultz, 1956

 

The following draft memo by T. W. Schultz outlines the serious faculty replacement needs of the University of Chicago department of economics in the mid-1950s. Particularly noteworthy, aside from the impressive list of lost faculty, is the appended table listing the sponsored research/3rd party funders of the economics department at that time. One also sees that the department had been authorized to make offers to Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow and Arthur F. Burns. So much for the best-laid plans of mice and men. A better historian of economics than I might spin a counterfactual tale of a post-Cowles Chicago with Arrow and Solow on the faculty.

Regarding the ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center, Schultz wrote “The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine ‘laboratory’ in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development– a major new field in economics.” This reminds me of the old Cold-War Eastern European joke about whether Marx and Engels were scientists (“No, real scientists would have tried their experiments on rats first”). What a “fine ‘laboratory'” for testing oneself!

_________________________

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics
(first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Your Department of Economics has been passing through a crisis. Whether it would survive as a first rate department has been seriously in doubt, with one adversity following another as was the case up until last year. It is now clear, however, that we have achieved a turning point in that we can rebuild and attain the objective which is worth striving for – an outstanding faculty in economics.

The crisis came upon us as a consequence of a combination of things: (1) the department, along with others in the University, had been denied access to undergraduate students of the University who might want to become economists; (2) Viner left for Princeton, Lange for Poland, Yntema for Ford and Douglas for the Senate; (3) the Industrial Relations Center drained off some of our talent and when it jammed, Harbison left for Princeton; (4) Mr. Cowles’ arbitrary decision to shift “his” Commission to Yale was a major blow; (5) Nef been transferring his talents to the Committee on Social Thought, and (6) add to all these the retirement of Knight.

Meanwhile, there were several external developments which did not reduce our difficulties: (1) a number of strong (new) economic centers were being established – at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Vanderbilt, M.I.T. and with public funds at Michigan and Minnesota; (2) our salaries were falling behind seriously relative to some of the other places, and (3) recruiting of established, highly competent economists became all but impossible given the crisis that was upon us and the (then) low repute of the University neighborhood.

The ever present danger of the past few years has been that we would be in the judgment of competent colleagues elsewhere, in the beliefs of oncoming graduate students and in the eyes of the major foundations – not recover our high standing but instead sing to a second or even a third-rate department and in the process lose the (internal) capacity to recruit and rebuild.

We now have achieved a turning point distinctly in our favor.

The major efforts which have contributed most have been as follows:

  1. We have taken full advantage of our unique organization in combining real research with graduate instruction. Our research and instruction workshops are the result. The Rockefeller Foundation gave us three grants along the way – agricultural economics, money and public finance – to test this approach and advanced graduate work. The Ford Foundation has now financed our workshops with $200,000 (eight 5-year grant) (our proposal of January 1956 to The Ford Foundation states the theory and argues the case for this approach on the basis of the experiences we have already accumulated).
  2. We set out aggressively to recruit outstanding younger economists. The workshops were a big aid to us in doing this; so was the financial support of the University. We had the ability to “spot them”. We now have the best group of talented young economists, age 30 and less, to be found anywhere. This achievement is rapidly becoming known to others in keen “competition” is already upon us as a consequence.
  3. We need urgently to run up a lightning rod, a (rotating) professorship with a salary second to none, to attract talent and make it clear we were in business and would pay for the best. The Ford Foundation took favorably to the idea. (Thought so well of it that they will do the same for 3 other privately supported Universities – Columbia, Harvard and Yale!)
    The $500,000 endowment grant from them for a rotating research professorship is our reward.
  4. The foundations have given us a strong vote of confidence: grants and funds received by the Department of Economics during 1955-56 now total $1,220,000. (A statement listing these is attached).
  5. The marked turn for the better in the number and the quality of students applying for scholarships and fellowships is, also, an affirmative indication.
  6. The Economics Research Center is filling a large gap in providing computing, publishing and related research facilities which was formally a function of the Cowles Commission.
  7. The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine “laboratory” in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development – a major new field in economics.

There remains, however, much to be done. We must, above all, not lose the upward momentum which is now working in our favor.

Faculty and University Financial Support

To have and to hold a first rate faculty in economics now requires between $225,000 and $250,000 of University funds a year.

To have a major faculty means offering instruction and doing research in 8 to 10 fields. Up until two years ago we came close to satisfying the standard in our graduate instruction. We then had 11 (and just prior to that, 12) professors on indefinite tenure.

Then, Koopmans and Marschak were off to Yale, Harbison to Princeton and Knight did reach 70. And, then there were 7. On top of these “woes” came the serious illness of Metzler which greatly curtailed his role; and, Nef having virtually left economics. Thus, only 5 were really active in economics with Wallis carrying many other professional burdens. Meanwhile we added only one – Harberger was given tenured this year.

Accordingly at the indefinite tenure level we are down to about one-half of what is required to have a major faculty. Fortunately, several younger men have entered and have been doing work of very high quality.

It should be said that the Deans and the Chancellor have stood by, prepared to help us rebuild.

Major appointments were authorized – Arrow, Stigler, Solow and others. We still are hoping that Arthur F. Burns will come.

The resignations and the retirement, however, did necessarily reduce sharply the amount of financial support from the University.

In rebuilding, at least five additional tenure positions will be required:

  1. Labor economics (from within)
  2. Trade cycle (we hope it will be Arthur F. Burns, already authorized).
  3. Money
  4. Econometrics and mathematical economics.
  5. Business organization
  6. Consumption economics (when Miss Reid retires; next 3 years we shall have the extra strength of Dr. D. Brady with finances from The Rockefeller Foundation)
  7. International trade (pending Metzler’s recovery)
  8. Economic development.

The faculty and the University financial support recommended is as follows:

Tenured positions (for individuals fully committed to economics).

    1. Now in the harness

6: Friedman, Johnson, Harberger, Hamilton (Metzler), Wallis (Nef), Schultz

    1. To be added

5: Burns pending, (labor), (money), and two other fields, most likely econometrics and business organization

 

Budget:

11 [tenured positions]

  

$165,000
Metzler and Nef $15,000
$180,000
III. Supplementary non-tenure faculty $45,000
Altogether $225,000

 

Outside Financial Support for the Department of Economics

Grants

 Amount of grant Available 1956-57

A. Received during 1955-56.
1.     Sears Roebuck Fellowships

$4,000

$4,000
2.     National Science Foundation (2 years)

$13,000

$6,500
3.     Conservation Foundation (2 years)

$33,000

$16,500
4.     Rockefeller Foundation: consumption economics (3 years)

$45,000

$15,000
5.     American Enterprise (2 years)

$17,250

$8,625
6.     Ford Foundation: research and instructional workshops (5 years)

$200,000

$30,000
7.     Earhart Fellowships.

$6,000

$6,000
8.     S.S.R.C. Student Grants

$5,000

$5,000
9.     Ford Foundation: 3 pre-doctoral grants

$10,200

$10,200
10.  Ford Foundation: faculty research grant (Hamilton)

$12,500

$8,000
11.  ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center Fellowships, research support (3 yrs)

$375,000

$125,000
12.  Ford Foundation: endowment for rotating research professor

$500,000

$25,000
13.  Rockefeller Foundation: Latin America (Ballesteros)

$5,000

$5,000

Sub-totals

$1,225,950

$264,825

B. Received prior to 1955-56 where funds are available for 1956-57.
1.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in money (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
2.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in public finance (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
3.     Resources for the Future (3 years with one year to go)

$67,000

$27,000
4.     Russian Agriculture (2 years with one to go)

$47,000

$22,000

B sub-totals

 $214,000 $89,000

A and B totals

$1,439,950

$353,825

 

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 42, Folder 8.

Image Source: 1944 photo of T.W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07479, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Cf. Wikimedia Commons, same portrait (dated 1944) from Library of Congress.

Categories
Chicago Economic History Economist Market Economists Fields

Chicago. Report of the Bailey-Christ-Griliches Committee, 1957

 

Today’s artifact provides a collection of suggestions from three young faculty members of the University of Chicago department of economics in 1957 regarding (inter alia) thesis writing, linkages with business/law/statistics faculty, long-term staffing, and the creation of a working-papers series. After reading the report, I guess one should not be terribly surprised that all three of these young turks would ultimately end up spending the lion’s share of the rest of their working lives elsewhere than Chicago. Basically what we have below is a young insider’s view of how to proceed in promoting excellence at Chicago, though it does not really have the ring of a majority view of that faculty. For fans of Saturday Night Live, one might say Christ et al. wanted “less cowbell” but the “more cowbell” faction was stronger. [An alternate source for the SNL sketch]

The following report was written by Carl Christ who incorporated assessments by his fellow committee members Martin J. Bailey and Zvi Griliches.  These guys were only ca. 34, 30, and 27 years old, respectively, in 1957. One suspects that the acting chair of the department of economics at the University of Chicago, D. Gale Johnson, was hoping to tap the minds of the younger faculty members for some fresh ideas. Both Friedman and Stigler had already entered mid-life at 45 and 46 years of age, respectively. 

I have added footnotes to the text in square brackets, e.g. [1], where descriptions of the reader’s markings by T. W. Schultz are provided.

_______________________

T. S. Schultz’s handwritten notes attached to Report

I.  Christ-G-B

  1. dust off Master’s (hold)
  2. treatment of the weak
  3. rec[commend?] students with more enthusiasm
  4. more history (underway)
  5. combine workshops?

II. Business –Law-Statistics

O.K.     more cross listing of courses. List of faculties for use in assigning committees (underway)

III. Information

prong 1. Special seminar (tied to more visitors)
prong 2. more 1 & 2 year visitors
prong 3. dist our staff (2 v.G.
prong 4. reprint service (underway)

 

_______________________

copy of T. W. S.

REPORT OF THE BAILEY-CHRIST-GRILICHES COMMITTEE*

            *The committee was appointed by D. Gale Johnson, acting chairman of the Department, pursuant to a motion passed at a department meeting late in the spring quarter of 1957. The report was written by Carl F. Christ, chairman of the committee, and has been approved in substance by Martin J. Bailey and Zvi Griliches, the other two committee members.

 

The committee has met together several times. In addition, each of us has “held hearings” with colleagues on numerous informal occasions. Our original terms of reference centered on a long range view of the question of staffing the department. But in our discussions we have ranged very widely.

We have dealth [sic] with five broad topics, some of which are interconnected. The five are, loosely speaking:

  1. Instruction, training and placement of students.
  2. Relations with the business, law, and statistics faculties.
  3. Information about the department for its members, for the economics profession and for prospective students.
  4. The allocation of resources in economics research.
  5. Kinds of economists the department ought to try to hire.

On some of these topics we have concrete suggestions, on some we have vague suggestions, and on some we merely have questions. This report provides a brief account of our discussions, and in the course of it it the suggestions and questions will appear.

 

(1) Instruction, training and placement of students.

This topic has not been a major one in our discussions. However we have several points under it.

First, the M.A. degree ought to be dusted off and made more respectable and more meaningful to students, so that those who do not choose or are not able to continue for the Ph.D. can go away from here with the feeling that they have made a worthwhile investment, to our credit as well as theirs.

Second, we ought to do a better job with our relatively weak Ph.D. aspirants in two respects: First, in discouraging or prohibiting from Ph.D. work any student who, in our opinion, is not capable of success by our standards. Second, once a student has been permitted to go ahead on his thesis, in encouraging and assisting him so that he is able to finish within a reasonable period of time and to have the feeling that he has been treated fairly. The reason for mentioning this point is that we have come across reports of several students who worked long and hard on theses and went through several revisions, with the result that they felt we had been unreasonably exacting and had unnecessarily delayed their degrees. [1]  If the M.A. degree is made more respectable as suggested above, there should be less difficulty in maintaining our Ph.D. standards and at the same time avoiding long-drawn-out struggles with marginal Ph.D. students. [2]

Third, we ought to be more vigorous and more liberal in recommending our students for jobs. There appears to be some evidence that in making recommendations we typically assume that the prospective employer has standards as high as ours, and so sometimes fail to place some of our people in jobs that instead are filled by less qualified students from elsewhere. [3]

Fourth, we ought to give at least some of our students a better knowledge of history and inability to make use of it in economics. Too many of our students go away with only poor knowledge in this area. At the same time, in Earl Hamilton and John Nef, not to mention others, the department has access to some of the best historical talent that is to be found anywhere. Can it not be turned to the advantage of more students? [4]

Fifth, we ought to economize our resources a bit by combining into one the workshop appearance in the thesis seminar of those students whose workshop performances appear ex post to have served the purpose of the thesis seminar. It might also be possible to combine the Ph.D. oral examination with the seminar appearance in some cases, thus making a further saving.
Sixth, we ought to take more advantage of the resources in the business, law, and statistics faculties, and be prepared to let them do the same with us (see topic 2 below). [5]

 

(2) Relations with the business, law, and statistics faculties.

The committee met for an hour with Allen Wallis, James Lorie, and Arnold Harberger to discuss informally the probable future course of relations between the department and the school. From this it appeared that the school intends to continue to send many of its advanced students to the department for training in price theory and monetary and income theory, and also that the school will welcome students from the department who wish to study topics that are offered in the school. [6] It also appeared that the school intends to invest fairly heavily in staff in the areas of industrial and market organization in the public regulation of business (this interested us because we feel that one of the main weaknesses in the department’s coverage lies here; see topic 5 below). [7]

We discussed the fact that while relations between the department and the school have always been cordial, there has not been as much flow back and forth as desirable, and in particular that some of our students would be interested in the business school’s work fail to follow up this interest because our demands on their time are quite heavy. We concluded that if there were more cross-listing of courses in the catalog and time schedules (the business school now does a better job of this than we do), and if some of their faculty came to our seminars and oral examinations and vice versa, and if there were more preliminary examination committees and thesis committees with members from both the school and the department, then in the course of meeting their degree requirements, any interested economics department students will find it easier to draw on the resources of the business school and vice versa.[8]

A similar approach to law and statistics would appear promising.

 

(3) Information about the department for its members, for the economics profession, and for prospective students.

One of the most commonly recurring themes in our discussions with each other and with “witnesses” in our “hearings” was that we do not provide good enough information for each other and for outsiders about the kind of work that is going on here, and the advantages we believe we have. Our discussions on this point have led to one of the two major suggestions we have to offer (the other appears below in section 5).

The suggestion is to set up a four-pronged program something like the following. (We will quickly list the four prongs, and then return with some comments.) First, set up a sort of special seminar (which might be called the Economics Research Center Seminar) to meet more or less regularly about twice a month, at which the best work that students and faculty and guests are doing would be presented to the department and its guests. Second, have a larger number of one-year or two-year visitors from all over the U. S. and the world, either as post-doctoral fellows or research associates or the like, whose main responsibility here would be to work on their own research and participate in the special seminar, as well as to take part in one or more workshops and research projects. Third, distribute dittoed copies of our essentially finished work to a selected mailing list of economists in the US and abroad, as the Agricultural Economics group already does informally. And fourth, have a reprint series that would carry the best published articles and papers by our faculty, students, and guests.

It is clear that if such a special seminar is set up and no cut is made in the number of meetings of the other workshops and seminars, the faculty workload will increase. Since we feel that it is already pretty high, it seems sensible to suggest that each workshop skip one meeting each month. This should approximately compensate for the extra load created by the special seminar.*

*A crude survey of the faculty attendance at the Agricultural Economics Seminar and the Chile, Labor, Money, Public Finance, and Econometrics Workshops yields the estimate that about 40 faculty-hours (that is, about 20 man-seminars) per week go into these workshops. Assuming that about 10 faculty members would come to each special seminar, about every two weeks, this would require a weekly average of about 10 faculty-hours (or about 5 man-seminars), which would be released if the frequency of meetings of the workshops were reduced about 25%. Another economy measure in this direction is mentioned under topic (2), fifth item.

(In response to the special seminar idea, some colleagues have suggested that the important thing is to circulate advance notice of particularly good work that is about to be presented, so that interested faculty members and others can attend, and that if this can be done, there is no need to have a special seminar; the regular workshop sessions will suffice. If the idea is accepted that particularly good work ought to be publicized within the department before it is presented, then the question of whether to do this via notices of regular workshop meetings or via a special seminar can be discussed as a procedural matter.) [9]

The special seminar idea is tied in with the idea of more visitors, for one of the results we hope for is that the visitors will see our best work, and will spread the word about what kinds of things are being done here, when they leave and go elsewhere. [10]

The reprint series and the distribution of the dittoed manuscripts will, we hope, have a similar effect. Further, but dittoed manuscripts will enable some members of the profession at large to become familiar with our results many months before they can be brought out in published form. [11]

Other simpler measures that might improve the flow of information are the following: Putting out a special department circular or flyer describing the department, the workshops, the interchange of research among faculty and advanced students, and the large amount of faculty attention paid to students; returning to the practice of giving brief descriptions of courses in the catalog (and in the above-mentioned circular), instead of merely course titles as our department has been doing recently; and publishing an annual report for the Economics Research Center. [12]  The matter of job recommendations for our students, which is related to the topic of providing information, was touched on under topic (1) above.

 

(4) The allocation of resources and economics research.

The area of economics that is the most fully developed, the most systematic, the most firmly established, and probably the most reliable for understanding and controlling economic events is the more or less traditional theory of prices, distribution, and the allocation of resources, based on the tools of supply, demand, and marginal analysis. Because it’s postulates (including utility maximization, profit maximization, and a fairly widespread knowledge of market alternatives) appear to be rather unrealistic, this theory has the reputation among many people of being dry, abstract, and of little or no practical value. In the opinion of the committee and of many economists in our department and elsewhere, this theory is a powerful one and can lead to highly useful results when applied to real-world problems. Indeed, one of the most productive kinds of activity for economists appears to be to apply this theory to situations where public and private policies are inappropriate to the goals people have in mind. [13]

In our opinion, the main strength of our department lies in just this kind of activity. We have a group of people who are very devoted to and very good at discovering important, unsolved economic problems that can be solved with the aid of this kind of theory, and solving them. [14]

Our agricultural economists’ approach to the farm problem is one example. Their work on optimum storage rules and on the development of natural resources or others. Our department’s work on economic growth in a sense is another, since when we find that the growth in national product is not fully accounted for by inputs of labor and capital is usually measured, we begin to look for some missing input, either in the form of something that shifts the production function, or in the form of some quality improvements that we have missed in the labor and/or capital: knowledge in either case. This is related to work by Friedman, Becker, in the labor workshop on the value of education as an investment, and to Knight’s concept of human beings as a form of capital. Harberger’s work on depletion allowances, and on the welfare costs of the U.S. tax system, are other examples. Friedman’s and Cagan’s work on the demand and supply of money are examples too, in the sense that attention is focused on the behavior of economic units seeking to maximize their utility or profit in their holding of money and their borrowing and lending operations. Friedman’s and Reid’s consumption work is similar in that into rests on the same view of individual behavior. The whole Chile project is an example par excellence. Friedman’s suggestions for allowing the price system more scope in the fields of education, military recruiting, and the like, for which Friedman and indirectly, the department are so well known, are still others, as is Becker’s free banking scheme, though there is probably more disagreement among economists generally about questions like these that about the other work mentioned above.

While it is clear to us that applications of the familiar theory of allocation of resources very productive, it seems equally clear that the real frontiers of economics lies elsewhere. Some areas that have claimed attention so far are economic history, political science, sociology and social psychology and cultural anthropology, psychology (including learning theory), information theory, statistical decision theory, linear programming, the theory of games. It seems at least as likely that major advances in economics will come by one of these routes or some as-yet-unidentified route as they will come from applications of the familiar resource-allocation theory.

The foregoing statement is so broad that it is almost certain to be true, and almost useless as a guide to research workers interested in major advances. The committee polled itself as to where it thinks pay dirt lies, and where it does not lie, with results something like the following: Among the areas particularly likely to be fruitful are the borderland with learning theory and psychology concerning choice and decision-making  [15], the borderland with statistics concerning decision theory and game theory [16], the borderland with anthropology concerning culture and values [17], the borderland with political science concerning political institutions [18]. Also promising, we feel, are mathematical approaches generally, including mathematical approaches to some of the above mentioned borderlands. [19] None of us wanted to rule out linear programming, though none of us was enthusiastic about input-output.

In summary of this topic, we have two statements: First, the familiar resource allocation theory is a powerful tool and there remains a rich field for its application. Second, it seems to us that if some resources are invested in related but different areas such as those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, there is now a worthwhile chance of that substantial pay-off in the form of new knowledge relevant to economics.

 

(5) Kinds of economists the department ought to try to hire.

Over the past few years several members of the department (and a good many outsiders!) have expressed the view that our department is too homogeneous in several ways. [20] Most of us rely heavily on resource allocation theory, as suggested in the preceding section of this report, and do not emphasize peripheral and possibly frontier areas such as decision theory, learning theory, information theory, psychology, anthropology, and the like. [21] Most of us were trained at Chicago at some stage, are essentially anti-socialist, [22] have essentially similar views about monetary and fiscal policy, have similar views about how far public policy should rely on the price mechanism and how far it should interfere with it, and are primarily theoretically and analytically oriented as opposed to institutionally oriented.

In recent department meetings, our discussion of this matter has often gone something like this: First, we more or less agree that we ought to diversify by seeking a socialist, or an institutionalist, or something of the sort. [23]  Then we considered names of economists who might qualify, and one by one we reject them on the ground that they are not really good economists. The discussion ends when someone says, “There’s really nobody good in that category.”

Granted that we want to maintain a high level of quality in the department, there are at least two difficulties involved in any attempt to diversify. One is that in hiring people we like to feel that we know them pretty well, so as to make informed decisions. And the younger people whom we know the best, by and large, are our own former students and fellow-students. This creates and perpetuates a bias in favor of people trained at Chicago. [24] The bias is not so strong, of course, in the cases of people who have published and made reputations, but even here it appears to exist (look at the people who were brought here as associate professor from elsewhere, and ask how many have had training at Chicago).

A second difficulty is simply that it is hard to separate judgment about the quality of an economist from judgment about his position on questions of research strategy and of economic policy. We agree in principle that high quality is very important, and also that it is possible for powerful and prolific minds to disagree in good faith concerning research strategy and public policy. Still there is a temptation to feel that one’s own views sincerely arrived at are best, and that somehow an economist who disagrees strongly with them cannot really be a very good economist. [25]

It seems to the committee that the real issue is not diversification per se. We see the issue somewhat as follows: As we said in the foregoing section of the report, we believe that the real frontiers of economics lie in directions that are somewhat unorthodox by the lights of the department. [26] We also believe that there are high-quality economists who are unorthodox in the same sense. If these two premises are correct, then our interest as a department in pushing forward the frontiers of economics must prompt us to make a serious attempt to add a few such people to our staff. It is only in this sense the diversification seems to be a worthwhile aim.  [27]

The question of what sort of people the department ought to try to hire includes not only the problem of finding economists of high quality who appeared to have productive unorthodox approaches. [28] It also includes the problem of rounding out the subject-matter coverage of the department.

The committee pulled itself again, this time as to the subject matter areas that the department ought to pay special attention to, in seeking new faculty. The results were as follows.

For replacement of staff lost in recent years, the two high-ranking fields were mathematical economics-econometrics, and industrial and market organization in social control of business. [29]  (The second of these seems less urgent for us, in the light of the business school’s intention to invest in it; see topic 2 above.) Ranking almost as high was the history of economic thought. [30]

For expansion, we thought of business fluctuations, the economics of the firm, and American economic history (the latter mainly so as to free Earl Hamilton to give work in his real specialty, European economic history, without sacrificing our offering in the American field).

The last two sections of the report may be summarized thus (and here is the second major suggestion referred to earlier). It is the feeling of the committee (1) that we should place a high value on quality, and (2) that in view of our belief that the present composition of the department is weak in areas where the frontiers of economics are to be found, we should make a serious attempt to find high quality people whose interests and competence give promise of advancing the frontier, as suggested in the end of the preceding section of the report. We also suggest that the department pay special attention to the fields mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. In particular, we suggest that the department undertake to appoint a person in the mathematical economics-econometrics area beginning in the fall of 1958. [31]

There is no reason why one or more of these things should not be combined in the same person. And, of course, there is no reason why we should pass up opportunities to hire good economists who are essentially orthodox by our lights, if our resources will permit us to do that as well as meet our author needs.

 

Handwritten Markings and Remarks

[1] Vertical line in left margin marks the last two sentences of paragraph.

[2] Question mark in left margin for this sentence.

[3] “a good point” in left margin for second sentence of paragraph.  “need to ask[?] terms of the specific job + not general letters” in the right margin

[4] “good” in left margin. Vertical line in left-hand margin marks the entire paragraph.

[5] “OK” in left margin. Vertical line in left-hand margin marks the entire paragraph.

[6] “good” written in left margin next to this sentence.

[7] Vertical line in left margin marks the last sentence of the paragraph.

[8] “get list from these committees” in left margin for this sentence.

[9] “OK” in left margin for the last sentence of this paragraph.

[10] “OK” in left margin next to this paragraph.

[11] “OK” in left margin for the last sentence of this paragraph.

[12] underlined “merely course titles as our department has” and “publishing an annual report for the Economics”

[13] Four vertical lines in the left margin mark the last sentence of this paragraph.

[14] Vertical line in the left margin marks the entire paragraph.

[15]  Underlined: “borderland with learning theory and psychology concerning choice and decision-making”,  “(1)” in left margin.

[16] Underlined: “statistics concerning decision theory and game theory”,  “(2)” in left margin.

[17] Underlined: “anthropology concerning culture and values”,  “(3)” in left margin.

[18] Underlined: “political science concerning political institutions”,  “(4)” in left margin.

[19] “(5)” with a vertical line in the left margin marking “mathematical approaches generally, including mathematical approaches to some of the above mentioned borderlands.”

[20] “is too homogeneous in several ways” is underlined.

[21]  “decision theory, learning theory, information theory, psychology, anthropology” is underlined.

[22] “anti-socialist” is circled

[23] “socialist” and “institutionalist” are each circled.

[24] Vertical line in left margin marking the second, third, and fourth sentences of this paragraph.

[25] Vertical line in left margin marking this entire paragraph.

[26] “economics lie in directions that are somewhat unorthodox” is underlined.

[27]  Vertical line in left margin marking the last two sentences of this paragraph.

[28] “productive unorthodox approaches” is circled

[29] “mathematical economics-econometrics” is circled  “also Stigler” written in left hand margin with reference to “industrial and market organization”

[30] “history of economic thought” is underlined, connected with short line to bottom margin note “Stigler”.

[31] Curly vertical line in the left margin marks the entire paragraph.

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 42, Folder 8.
Mimeograph copy without marginal notes also found in Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder “Correspondence, 1954-1959”.

Image Source: Professor Carl F. Christ in Johns Hopkins University yearbook. Hullabaloo 1962.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Economics Department on Possible Candidate for Permanent Employment, 1950

 

How big was the split within the department of economics in 1950 at the University of Chicago? Judging from the decision by chairman T. W. Schultz to essentially table the matter of approaching the central university administration with a candidate for a permanent position, there was a departmental deadlock.

The half-dozen economists discussed were: George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. Contemplate those names for a moment and then read aloud the following two sentences:

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.   

We can only speculate which alpha economists happened to lock horns in those three meetings.

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 24, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, R. Burns, J. Marschak, F. H. Harbinson, F. H. Knight, M. Friedman, B. Hoselitz, L. Metzler

[…]

II. Appointments

Schultz informed the Department that Hildreth’s position has been renegotiated for a term of three years. The Department approved a motion authorizing for Hildreth the courtesy rank of Associate Professor for a three year term.

The Department then considered the appointment problem raised by the leaving of Blough (probably initially on a one year leave of absence) and Brownlee. Schultz suggested that the Department had two alternatives open to it: a temporary replacement (construed broadly) and a permanent appointment of a top ranking person.

The Department considered first possible candidates for permanent appointment. Attention centered on George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. For a temporary appointment Schultz suggested Gunnar Myrdal.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 5:45 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 30, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, R. Burns, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, L. Metzler, R. Blough, F. H. Harbinson, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, T. Koopmans, J. Marschak, M. Friedman.

Appointments

The discussion of appointments continued from the previous meeting. Schultz expressed the conviction that the time was propitious for a new permanent appointment. On Metzler’s suggestion, the Department returned to discussion of the following candidates for a permanent appointment: Stigler, Hurwicz, Boulding, Klein, Lerner, Arrow.

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.

The chairman then polled those present with respect to their first choice (or ties for first) for a permanent appointment. As a result of the poll the list of candidates was narrowed to Hurwicz, Stigler, and Lerner. The chairman then polled those present on their position toward permanent appointment of each of these men.

The poll showed that of those present

4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Hurwicz
4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Lerner
6 would favor and 6 oppose the permanent appointment of Stigler

A motion was passed instructing the chairman to poll the absent members of the Department in the same way on the appointment of Hurwicz, Lerner, and Stigler and to report back to the Department for further discussion.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:15 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
June 8, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, J. Marschak, H. Kyrk, P. Thomson, M. Friedman, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, R. Blough.

Appointments

Schultz reported that he had polled Kyrk, Thomson, Mints, and Nef (but had not heard from Goode) on the matter of a permanent appointment for Stigler or Hurwicz or Lerner. The upshot of the poll was that the Department, the Chairman not voting, was evidently divided in its rating of Stigler for a permanent appointment; both permanent members and temporary members of the faculty showed an even division. The Chairman explained that he would abstain from voting on the belief that the Department was not now prepared to advance, with a strong meeting of minds, a strong case to the Central Administration for a permanent appointment. Schultz proposed that we investigate a slate of names for a one-year appointment.

A motion was passed authorizing the Chairman to put Gunnar Myrdal in the first position on the slate for a one-year appointment.

Successive motions passed by the Department added the following names to the slate:

Nicholas Kaldor   Simon Kuznets
Arthur F. Burns
H. M. Henderson
W. Vickrey
A. Hart
H. Stein

The Department then, following the system of ranking used in fellowship appointments, ranked these seven persons. The rank order follows:

1. Kaldor
2. Burns
3. Henderson
4. Kuznets
5½. Vickrey
5½. Hart
7. Stein

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:00 p.m.]

Source: University of Chicago Archives, Department of Economics Records, Box 41, Folder 12.

Image Source: Social Science Research Building.  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf2-07466, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Categories
Chicago Courses Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Hayek’s Seminar “Equality and Justice”, 1950-51

 

When Friedrich Hayek came to the University of Chicago in 1950, he organized a faculty seminar to run for two consecutive quarters on the subject “Equality and Justice”. A draft of his letter announcing the seminar as well as its schedule and suggested bibliography are transcribed below. I have added in brackets any handwritten additions found in this material that otherwise was typed.

_____________________

Hayek’s Seminar Announcement to Colleagues

To

Walter J. Blum ✓

Ronald S. Crane ✓

Aaron Director ✓

Milton Friedman ✓

Robert M. Hutchins ✓

Harry Kalven Jr. ✓

Wilber C. Katz ✓

Frank H. Knight ✓

Edward H. Levi ✓

Hans J. Morgenthau ✓

Charner M. Perry ✓

Max Rheinstein ✓

Leo Strauss ✓

W. Allen Wallis ✓

 [handwritten additions]

Peter H. von Blanckenhagen [sp?] ✓

Daniel J. Boorstin ✓

John U. Nef ✓

Robert Redfield ✓

Edw. Shils

Yves R. Simon ✓

James R. Smith ✓

Abram L. Harris

 

October 23, 1950

            The first meeting of the seminar on “Equality and Justice”, which I shall be conducting for the Committee on Social Thought, will be held on Wednesday, October 25, at S.S.302. For the following few weeks the seminar will be held on alternate Wednesdays at the same time and place (alternating with Mr. T.S. Elliot’s seminar) and from November 22 on each Wednesday during the Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters.

A provisional program for the discussions of the seminar is enclosed.

It is my hope that the seminar can be conducted with the participation of members of all the various departments concerned, particularly a number of lawyers, economists, and philosophers, and that the discussion will be to some extent a iscussion among faculty members in front of the students, though of course without excluding the students from active participation. My belated arrival in Chicago has unfortunately made it impossible for me to discuss this plan with all those I had hoped personally to invite, and I can thus only at this very late moment inform you of the plan and say that I very much hope that you will be sufficiently interested to take part and that I shall be greatly honored by your presence.

(F.A.Hayek)

_____________________

COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL THOUGHT
Seminar
on
Equality and Justice

Provisional Outline of Program (Oct. 18, 1950)

1) Oct. 25

 Introduction: The problems and outline of program [Hayek]

A. Historical

2) Nov. 8

 The Classical and Scholastic Tradition: Commutative and Distributive Justice [Simons]

3) Nov. 22

[3a) Nov. 29]

 The Egalitarianism of the American and French Revolutions [Boorstin & Simon]
[Rousseau, Kant & the Utilitarians (Bentham & J. S. Mill)]

B. Systemic

(a) Ethical (The Morals of Equality)

4)

 The Meanings of Equality [Hayek]

5)

 Value Judgments and the Analysis of Conflicts of Value Tests of Moral Rules [What is the Test of a desirable Society? Shils]

6)

 Does Justice Presuppose Abstract Principles? The “feeling of right” and the Logic of the Law

(b) Legal (The practice of equality)

7)

 Equality before the law, the Rule of Law (Government of Laws not of Men), Certainty of the Law

8)

 Safeguards: Rights of Men, Division of Powers, Due Process

9)

 The Continental Tradition of the “Rechtsstaat” [, “Verwaltungsrecht”, Common Law, Case Law, (illegible phrase)     Rheinstein]

10)

 Natural Justice and Positive Law [Strauss]

(c) Economic (The Effects of Equality)

11)

 “Equality of Opportunity,” “Equal Starting Point” [Equality & Education]

12)

[12a]

 Equality and Incentives, “Equal Pay for Equal Work”
[Equal Bargaining Power]
“Equalising Wages”
[(I.L.O.) F.E.P.C., “Parity”, Whole Produce of Labour, Equality and Progress, Technological Change, Capital Formation]

13)

 “Just Price” [Knight]

14)

 Equality and the Family, Inheritance, Effects of Property on Inequality, “Unearned Income”

15)

 Progressive Taxation

16)

 Equality and Trade Unionism (Corporativism) [Director]

17)

 The Contribution of Welfare Economics [Friedman]

18)

 International Aspects of Equality, esp. Migration.

[Property and Inheritance]

[1) Reward & Merit]

_____________________

COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL THOUGHT
SEMINAR ON “EQUALITY AND JUSTICE”
(1950-51)

Bibliography

Lord Acton, The History of Liberty, 1904.
C. Bouglé, Les idées égalitaires, 1899.
E. F. Carrit, “Liberty and Equality,” Law Quarterly Review, 56, 1940.
F. S. Cohen, Ethical Systems and Legal Ideals, 1933.
A. V. Dicey, Relation between Law and Public Opinion, 1904.
F. D. Graham, Social Goals and Economic Institutions, 1945.
J. B. S. Haldane, The Inequality of Man.
F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1944 (esp. Chapt. VI).
“          Individualism and Economic Order, 1948 (First Essay)
“          “Scientism and the Study of Society,” Economica, 1942-44.
A. Huxley, Proper Studies, (Essay on Equality).
F. H. Knight, The Ethics of Competition, 1936.
“          Freedom and Reform, 1948.
J. S. Mill, Liberty, 1859.
“          Utilitarianism. 1863. (Chapt. on Justice).
Roscoe Pound, Spirit of the Common Law, 1921.
H. Sidgwick, Elements of Politics.
H. C. Simons, Economic Policy for a Free Society, 1948.
T. V. Smith, The American Philosophy of Equality, 1927.
J. F. Stephen, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, 1874.
J. Stone, The Province and Function of Law, 1950.
R. H. Tawney, Equality, 1931.
A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835.
“          Ancient Regime and the Revolution, 1856.
A. T. Williams, The Concept of Equality in the Writings of Rousseau, Bentham and Kant, 1907.
D. M. Wright, Democracy and Progress, 1948.

_____________________

COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL THOUGHT
Seminar on “Equality and Justice”
(Wednesday 8-10 p.m., SS 302)

PART II: Winter Quarter 1951

Provisional Date

Jan. 3

1. THE MEANINGS OF EQUALITY
D. Thompson, Equality, Cambridge University Press, 1949
R. H. Tawney, Equality, 3rd ed. London (Allen & Unwin) 1938
H. Rashdall, The Theory of Good and Evil, Oxford 1907, vol. I, ch. VIII
E. Brunner, Justice and the Social Order, New York (Harper) 1945
C. Bouglé, Les idées égalitaires, Paris 1899
G. Roffenstein, “Das soziologische Problem der Gleichheit”, Schmoller’s Jahrbuch, XLV, 1921

Jan. 17

2. VALUE JUDGMENTS AND SCIENCE. ANALYSIS OF CONFLICTS OF VALUE. TESTS OF DESIRABILITY OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS.
Max Weber, On the Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. E. Shils, 1949.
Jan. 24

3. PRINCIPLES AND MORAL JUDGMENT. MORAL SENSE AND THE “FEELING OF JUSTICE”
J. H. Muirhead, Rule and End in Morals, Oxford 1932
J. Bonar, Moral Sense, London (Allen & Unwin) 1930
E. Riezler, Das Rechtsgefühl, Berlin (Walter de Gruyter) 1921
G. Ryle, “Knowing how and knowing that”, Proceed. Aristot. Soc., N.S. 46, 1945
Jan. 31 4. THE ETHICS OF SOCIALISM AND OF LIBERALISM
J. A. Hobson, Economics and Ethics (D. C. Heath) 1929
W. B. Gallie, “Liberal Morality and Socialist Morality”, Philosophy, XXIV, 1949
F. Tönnies, “Ethik und Sozialismus”, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft, 1905
K. Pearson, The Moral Basis of Socialism. London 1885
Feb. 7 5. NATURAL JUSTICE AND POSITIVE LAW. CONCEPTS OF LAW AND JUSTICE
M. R. Cohen, Law and Social Order, 1933
J. Maritain, The Rights of Man and Natural Law, New York 1943
F. R. Bienenfeld, Rediscovery of Justice 1947
L. Duguit, Manuel de Droit Constitutionel, 1923
G. del Vecchio, La Guistizia, 1924 (trsl. Die Gerechtigkeit, Basel 1940)
F. S. Cohen, Ethical Systems and Legal Ideas, 1933
Feb. 21 6. THE “RULE OF LAW” (“RECHTSSTAAT”, “ETAT DU DROIT”, “STATO DI DIRITTO”) EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. GENERALITY OF THE LAW (“RELEVANT DISTINCTIONS”). CERTAINTY OF THE LAW
J. Stone, The Province and Function of Law, Harvard Univ. Press 1950
W. I. Jennings, The Law and the Constitution, 3rd ed. 1943
W. Friedman, Legal Theory, 2nd ed. London 1949
F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1944
A. V. Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 7th ed. 1908
R. Gneist, Der Rechsstaat, Berlin 1872
F. Darmstaedter, Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Rechtsstaates, 1930
F. Battaglia, “Stato Etico e Stato di Diritto”, Rivista Internationale di Filosofia di Diritto, XVII
G. Leibholz, Die Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz, Berlin 1925
C. A. Emge, “Sicherheit und Gerechtigkeit”, Abh. d. preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1940, No. 9
H. W. R. Wadem, “The Concept of Legal Certainty”, Modern Law Review, IV, 1941
Feb. 28 LAW AND THE COURTS: DIVISION OF POWERS, APPLICATION AND CREATION OF THE LAW. DUE PROCESS
Literature as under 5 and 6
Mar. 7 8. ADMINISTRATION AND DISCRETION
J. Dickinson, Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of the Law, Harvard University Press, 1927
W. Robson, Justice and Administrative Law
J. Roland Pennock, Administration and the Rule of Law, New York, Farrar & Rinehart 1941

 

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Friedrich A. von Hayek. Box 112, Folder 16.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-02719, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Fields Regulations

Chicago. Doctoral Field Exams Schedule for the Friedmans, Stigler, Wallis. 1935

Milton Friedman, Rose Friedman née Director, George Stigler, and W. Allen Wallis all took some of their doctoral field examinations at the University of Chicago in the Spring Quarter of 1935. The names of the examiners and the other examinees can be seen from the mimeographed page I found in George Stigler’s papers at the University of Chicago Archives. I have included in this post the field examination requirements for doctoral students in economics from the annual Announcements published for the 1934-35 academic year.

______________________

 Three Field Examinations for Doctorate

“The candidate is expected to have general training in the important fields listed below and to specialize in three fields, one of which must be Economic Theory, including Monetary and Cycle Theory, and another must be the field of his thesis. The fields to be chosen (in addition to Economic Theory) may be taken from (1) Statistics; (2) Accounting; (3) Economic History; (4) Finance and Financial Administration; (5) Government Finance; (6) Labor and Personnel Administration; (7) Trusts and Public Utilities; (8) International Economic Relations; (9) some other field proposed by the candidate. A field proposed by the candidate may be in Economics or in another social science, the arrangement in either case being made with the Department of Economics. It is desired to develop that program of work which best meets the needs of the individual student. This usually involves the election of some courses in other departments and possibly the development of a field in another social science as a substitute for one of the fields in economics.

“The candidate’s grasp of his three fields of specialization is tested by preliminary written examinations which must be passed to the satisfaction of the Department before admission to candidacy. The final oral examination is on the field of concentration and on the thesis. The written examinations can be taken in one quarter or they can be divided between two quarters, not necessarily consecutive quarters, at the option of the candidate. The written examinations are given in the sixth, seventh, and eighth weeks of the Autumn, Spring, and Summer quarters. The written examination in general economic theory, including monetary and cycle theory, is in two parts and will require five hours in all. The written examination in each of the other fields requires from three to four hours. Notice of intention to take any written examination must be filed with the Department at least three weeks before the examinations begin. In written examinations for the doctorate the questions cover both the theoretical and administrative aspects of the field.”

 

Source: Announcements. The University of Chicago. The College and the Divisions for the Sessions of 1934-35, pp. 283-4.

______________________

 

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DOCTORATE

Spring Quarter, 1935

The schedule below shows the preliminary examinations requested for the current quarter. Will the Chairman of each Committee please be responsible for turning in the complete examination by at least one week before the date on which it is to be given?

Dates Examinations Committees Students Enrolled
Saturday, May 11
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Economic Theory
(New Plan)		 Viner, Chairman
Schultz
Yntema
Knight		 Friedman, M.
Shohan, C.J.
Stigler, G.J. (Brookings)
Wallis, W.A.
1:30, S.S.R. 417 Monetary and Cycle Theory Mints
Cox
Saturday, May 18
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Financial System and Financial Administration Mints, Chairman
Cox
Meech
Gideonse		 Curtis, C.H.
Shohan, C.J.
Saturday, May 18
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Government Finance Leland, Chairman
Simons		 Stigler, G.J. (Brookings)
Saturday, May 18
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Statistics Schultz, Chairman
Cover
Yntema		 Director, R.
Friedman, M.
Jacoby, N.H. (Springfield)
Saturday, May 25
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Economic History Wright, Chairman
Nef
Knight		 Ostrander, F.T. (Williams)
Shohan, C.J.

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives, George Stigler Papers Addenda, Box 33, Folder “1935 Univ. of Chicago, Class Notes (Gray binder)”.

Image Source: Rose and Milton Friedman. From The Prodos Blog.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Historical Enrollment Trends, Economics Faculty by Age and Educational Background. 1944-45.

__________________________

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins 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”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

In a recent post I provided a list of visiting professors who taught economics at the University of Chicago up through 1944 (excluding those visitors who were to receive permanent appointments). For this post I have selected a few supporting tables from the memo providing data on the age distribution and educational backgrounds of the economics faculty along with time series on enrollments and registrations.  A later post provides talent-scouting lists for possible permanent, visiting and joint appointments.

______________________________

In making his plea for administration support for new additional hires, Chairman Leland began by noting that in 1944 Professor Chester Wright “was transferred to the emeritus status”. Negotiations with Professor H. A. Innis of the University of Toronto to succeed Wright were taking place but Leland did not appear to be overly confident, having written “If he [Innis] does not [accept a Chicago offer], due to the scarcity of men in Economic History, the post occupied by Professor Wright will be very difficult to fill.”

Looking ahead over the six years before the retirements of Knight and Kyrk were scheduled, Leland hoped to get support to begin the process of hiring younger faculty (only three of the staff were under 40 years of age as of the end of 1944), so that  (1) gaps in the existing program would not occur and (2) promising new fields could be covered.

Furthermore Leland argued “…the Department does not seem to have enough young men as instructors and assistant professors. As a result, the chores of running a department, including sharing in administration and advising students, fall heavily on the older, higher-salaried men on the staff.”

 

Ages of Staff Members
(as of December 31, 1944)

Name

 Rank Age

Came to University of Chicago
Bloch, Henry Simon

Instructor

 29

1939
Douglas, Paul Howard

Professor*

 52

1920
Harbison, Frederick Harris

Assistant Professor

 33

1940
Knight, Frank Hyneman

Professor

 59

1917-19; 1927
Kyrk, Hazel

Professor; also Home Economics

 59

1925
Lange, Oscar

Professor

 40

1938
Leland, Simeon Elbridge

Professor; also Political Science

 47

1928
Lewis, Harold Gregg

Instructor*

 30

1939
Marschak, Jacob

Professor

 46

1943
Mints, Lloyd Wynn

Associate Professor

 56

1919
Nef, John Ulric

Professor; also History

 45

1929
Schultz, Theodore William

Professor

 42

1943
Simons, Henry Calvert

Associate Professor

 45

1927
Viner, Jacob

Professor

 52

1916

This list does not include part-time instructors (3), research associates (3), lecturers, or members of the college staff (3).

*On leave for military service

______________________________

To reassure the President that the department was not in danger of “inbreeding” the following table was included in the memo. Leland’s first comment was that the educational backgrounds of the economics faculty included some 18 U.S. and 13 foreign institutions. While noting a significant concentration of Harvard and/or Chicago training of the economics faculty, only five of the fourteen actually had advanced training at Chicago and of those just two held Ph.D.’s from Chicago as of 1945 (Kyrk and Leland).

 

Educational Institutions Attended by Members of the Department of Economics

 

Name and Rank Degrees or Advanced Training Other Work
A.B. A.M. Ph.D.
H. S. Bloch
(Instructor)		 Nancy* Nancy Strasbourg*
Paris’
Nancy (Dr. en Droit)		 Acad. Int’l. Law
The Hague
P. H. Douglas
(Professor)		 Bowdoin Columbia Columbia Harvard
F. H. Harbison
(Asst. Prof.)		 Princeton Princeton Princeton
F. H. Knight
(Professor)		 Tennesee(B.S.)
Milligan (Ph.B.)		 Tennessee Cornell University American University, Harriman, Tennessee
H. Kyrk
(Professor)		 Ohio Wesleyan*
Chicago (Ph.B.)		 Chicago
O. Lange
(Professor)		 Poznan* Cracow (LL.M.) Cracow (LL.D.) London
S. E. Leland
(Professor)		 De Pauw Kentucky Chicago Harvard Law School
H. G. Lewis
(Instructor)		 Chicago Chicago* Chicago*
J. Marschak
(Professor)		 Oxford Heidelberg Technolog. Institut, Kiev
Berlin
L. W. Mints
(Assoc. Prof.)		 Colorado Colorado Chicago*
J. U. Nef
(Professor)		 Harvard (B.S.) Paris*
London*
Montpellier*		 Brookings
T. W. Schultz
(Professor)		 South Dakota State Wisconsin Wisconsin
H. C. Simons
(Assoc. Prof.)		 Michigan Michigan* Iowa*
Chicago*
Columbia*
Berlin*
J. Viner
(Professor)		 McGill Harvard Harvard

*Work taken at this level; no degree conferred.

______________________________

 

Two time series were included in Leland’s memo to provide evidence for an upward trend in the demand for economics courses: enrollments and course registrations.

It is difficult to forecast the postwar enrollment in Economics. Since 1928 there has been a steady upward trend in the number of students majoring in the Department, as is shown in the following table. Even the depression only slightly retarded the growth of our student body. Part of the increase was due to the emphasis given our subject matter by the events of the Thirties. Another factor responsible for the gain in students was the strength of the faculty—its reputation in the United States and abroad.

 

Total Number of Different Graduate Students Majoring in the Department of Economics Who Have Been in Residence a Part or All of the Years Indicated Below

 

Years

 Number of Students
1943-44

57

1942-43

77

1941-42

 133
1940-41

162

1939-40

 156
1938-39

144

1937-38

 133
1936-37

113

1935-36

 111
1934-35

98

1933-34

 114
1932-33

111

1931-32

 125
1930-31

113

1929-30

 118
1928-29

101

 

The trend of registrations in the Department for “200- and 300-level courses” (roughly corresponding to former undergraduate and graduate registrations) is shown in the following table. Data are shown only since 1931-32 inasmuch as statistics prior to that date included introductory courses for College freshmen and sophomores. This inflates all statistics prior to 1931 and destroys their validity for comparative purposes. The peak of enrollment in Economics came in 1938-39. It is believed that comparable enrollments will reappear soon after the cessation of hostilities.

 

Registration in Courses Offered by the Department of Economics

Years

Quarters
Summer Autumn Winter

Spring

First Term

Second Term

1944-45

 74
1943-44 62 202 138

185

1942-43

 252 237 249 207 153
1941-42 214 206 329 396

406

1940-41

 264 225 455 529 516
1939-40 262 224 431 589

583

1938-39

 277 244 560 516 689
1937-38 249 214 477 447

592

1936-37

 243 206 407 438 457
1935-36 245 218 367 503

534

1934-35

 239 206 325 460 398
1933-34 183 174 361 371

396

1932-33

 278 244 337 427 244
1931-32 233 224 443 411

339

 

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., “Post-War Plans” Simeon E. Leland, 1945″.