Tag: Samuelson

M.I.T. Department of Economics Annual Report by E. Cary Brown, 1975-1976

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-04-20
No Comments on M.I.T. Department of Economics Annual Report by E. Cary Brown, 1975-1976

The following annual report of the M.I.T. department of economics was most likely written for the care and feeding of administrators and the members of the department’s visiting committee. This report covers what was my second year of graduate school, so for folks from that time it reads like an annual Holiday newsletter to the family.

_______________________

Department of Economics
1975 – 76

Undergraduate Program

The long-run impact of the past year’s changes in the Institute Requirement in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences is not yet clear. Unquestionably they have increased the Department’s enrollment, but the precise amount is uncertain because simultaneously a major revision was made in the two introductory economics subjects. In the past year enrollments were larger than previously, but smaller than in the transition of the previous year. Nearly 200 of the Class of 1976 concentrated in economics for their Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences Requirement. Of all students presently enrolled, 327 (primarily juniors and seniors) have elected to concentrate in economics.

Undergraduate majors remain steady in numbers. As in 1974-75, 20 degrees were awarded. In the spring term the Undergraduate Economics Association was reactivated. Its weekly meetings with faculty led to several proposals for revision of the undergraduate program, and several student-faculty socials were organized.

Graduate Program

Enrollment has been remarkably steady in the graduate program. The number of applications for admission was virtually identical to the average of the previous six years. Next year’s entering class of 32 will be slightly larger than average, and will have fewer foreign students and more women, reflecting a shift in the percentage of applications from these groups. Four students from minority groups are expected to be in this class.

Financial support for the graduate student has changed very little over the last several years. We are still fortunate in having from one-third to one-half of the entering students on National Science Foundation Fellowships. For the whole student body, there has been an increase in the support by US foundations (other than NSF) and a decrease in support provided by M.I.T.

The number receiving the Doctor of Philosophy increased somewhat in the past year to 21. For the first time, two American blacks received degrees.* The class fared well in placement, their median salary offer totaling 24 percent above that of 1971. Like the past average, 86 percent went into teaching and 14 percent into non-teaching positions.

*Samuel Myers, Jr. Ph.D. thesis: “A Portfolio Model of Illegal Transfers”, supervised by Robert Solow.
Glenn Loury. Ph.D. thesis: “Essays in the Theory of the Distribution of Income”, supervised by Robert Solow.
See: William Darity Jr. and Arden Kreeger, “The Desegregation of an Elite Economics Department’s PhD Program: Black Americans at MIT“, History of Political Economy 46 (annual suppl.)

The Graduate Economics Association awarded the outstanding teacher in the Department prize to Professor Stanley Fischer.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES

The faculty has always been involved in public service activities tying research to the public interest. In connection with M.I.T.’s participation in the Bicentennial Celebration, Professor Jagdish N. Bhagwati set up a recent conference on the New International Economic Order: Professor Ann F. Friedlaender is planning one for this fall on Air Pollution and Administrative Control. Through the German Marshall Fund, Professor Richard S. Eckaus is organizing a fall conference on economic problems of Portugal. Professor Franco Modigliani arranged a conference through the Bank of Finland on International Monetary Mechanisms.

Various Congressional committees and government agencies have been advised. Professor Peter A. Diamond served on the Consultant Panel on Social Security for the Congressional Research Service. Professors Rudiger Dornbusch and Fischer and Institute Professor Paul A. Samuelson prepared a report for the US Department of Commerce on international financial arrangements. Professor Robert E. Hall was a member of the Advisory Committee on Population Statistics, Bureau of the Census. Professor Jerry A. Hausman served on the Econometrics Advisory Committee to the Federal Energy Administration. Institute Professor Modigliani was a consultant and member of the Committee on Monetary Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Institute Professor Samuelson consulted with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the US Treasury, and the Congressional Budget Office. Professor Charles A. Myers was a member of the National Manpower Policy Task Force. Institute Professor Robert M. Solow served as Deputy Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

Several faculty members have been involved with the National Academy of Sciences and its related organizations. Professor Eckaus prepared a report, Appropriate Technology for Developing Countries, for the Board on Science and Technology for Developing Countries of the National Academies of Science and Engineering. Professor Franklin M. Fisher served on a National Academy panel on the Effects of Deterrence and Incapacitation; Professor Friedlaender was on the Executive Committee, Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council; Institute Professor Modigliani was on the Finance Committee; Institute Professor Samuelson served on the Editorial Board of the Proceedings; and Institute Professor Solow chaired the Steering Committee on Environmental Studies.

Professor Eckaus led an OECD Mission to Portugal that included Professors Lance Taylor and Dornbusch.* Professor Paul L. Joskow was a consultant to OECD in energy. Professor Evsey D. Domar was a member of a delegation of economists sent by the American Economic Association to the Soviet Union. Institute Professor Modigliani, who gave much time to the problems of stabilization in Italy, was a member of the Board of Directors of the Italian Council for Social Sciences.

*Along with several graduate students among whom were Paul Krugman, Andrew Abel and Jeffrey Frankel. Paul Krugman has written a short note about this experience with a picture!

The Brookings Institution Panel for Economic Activity included Professors Dornbusch and Hall, with Institute Professors Modigliani, Samuelson, and Solow as senior advisors to it. Professor Friedlaender served on the examining committee, Graduate Records Examination, Educational Testing Service. Institute Professor Modigliani served on the Committee on Economic Stabilization, Social Science Research Council. Professor Fisher is a member of the Board of Governors of Tel Aviv University. Institute Professor Solow continues as Trustee for the Institute of Advanced Study.

RESEARCH

International topics seem to dominate the research interests of the faculty. Professor Bhagwati, in addition to his work in developing countries and international trade theory, has given attention to a proposal for applying taxation to the brain drain. Professor Eckaus studied the role of financial markets and their regulation and the behavior of income distribution in economic development. Professor Taylor had three major areas of research: the development of nutrition planning models in Pakistan, international food aid and reserve policies, and growth and income distribution in Brazil.

Professor Morris A. Adelman’s continuing research on the world oil market, Professor Joskow’s analysis of the international nuclear energy industry, and Professor Martin L. Weitzman’s examination of OPEC and oil pricing involve applied microeconomics with international implications.

Research in various applied microeconomics areas was responsible for the second largest fraction of faculty effort. Institute Professor Solow continued to research the economics of exhaustible resources, and Professor Weitzman completed his analysis of the optimal development of resource pools. Professor Joskow has explored the future of the electric utility industry and its financing, the future of the US atomic energy industry, and the pattern of energy consumption in the US. He is developing a simulation model of the energy industry, and is reviewing the regulatory activities of government agencies in general and the health care sector in particular. Professor Hausman examined the Project Independence Report and is analyzing the choice of new technologies in energy research.

In the transporation field, Professor Friedlaender surveyed the issues in regulatory policy for railroads and alternative scenarios in federal transporation policy. Professor Jerome Rothenberg examined such problems in urban transportation as pricing policies, demand sensitivity to price, and modeling locational effects. Professor William C. Wheaton considered an optimal pricing and investment policy in highways under a gasoline tax.

Inextricably intertwined with urban transportation are questions of urban location and housing. Professor Rothenberg carried out research in such aspects of this problem as microeconomics of internal migration, supply-demand for housing in multizoned areas, the impact of energy costs on urban location, and the development of a model of housing markets and of metropolitan development and location that can be applied to general policy questions. Professor Wheaton developed an equilibrium model of housing and locational choice based on Boston experience.

Institute Professor Modigliani also conducted research on the housing market, but his interest comes primarily from the side of stabilization policies and similar macroeconomic problems. He also participated in a review after 20 years of his life cycle hypothesis of saving, made monetary policy prescriptions for both the US and Italy, reflected on the description of financial sectors in econometric models, and explored more deeply the application of optimal control to the design of optimal stabilization policies in economic models. Institute Professor Samuelson reviewed the art and science of macromodels over the 50 years of their development. Professor Friedlaender completed a quarterly macromodel of the Massachusetts economy. Professor Hall developed a model to deal with income tax changes and consumption.

Public economics has both macro and micro aspects, both of which are represented in the Department’s research. With Visiting Professor James A. Mirrlees, Professor Diamond theorized about public shadow prices with constant returns to scale, and about the assignment of liability. He also has generalized the Ramsey tax rule and continued his research into an optimal Social Security system. Professor Hausman is reexamining the cost of a negative income tax; Professor Rothenberg analyzed the distributional impact of public service provision; and Professor Wheaton explored intertemporal effects of land taxes, fiscal federalism in practice, and the financial plight of American cities.

Besides such theoretical research, there was significant research of an entirely pure nature. Professor Robert L. Bishop reexamined the measurement of consumer surplus. Professor Fisher extended his exploration of the stability of general equilibrium and of aggregate production functions. Professor Weitzman investigated the welfare significance of national product in a dynamic economy. Professor Hal R. Varian further explored the theory of fairness, non-Walrasian equilibria, and macromodels of unemployment and disequilibrium. Professor Hausman examined the econometric implications of truncated distributions and samples, of probit models, and of simultaneous equation models. In historical research, Professor Domar was concerned with serfdom, while Professor Charles Kindleberger investigated the role of the merchant in nineteenth-century technologic transfer.

Publications

Professor Bhagwati edited Taxing the Brain Drain: A Proposal and Brain Drain and Taxation: Theory and Empirical Analysis, and coauthored Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: India. Professors Dornbusch and Kindleberger published numerous papers on implications of the new international monetary exchange structure for exchange rates, price stability, international trade, and international capital movements. Professor Weitzman continued his study of the Russian economy with a paper on the new Soviet incentive model.

With Visiting Professor of Management Ezio Tarantelli*, Institute Professor Modigliani published Labor Market, Income Distribution and Private Consumption (in Italian) and various papers on stabilization policy in Italy. He also wrote papers on inflation and the housing market and edited New Mortgage Designs for Stable Housing in an Inflationary Environment. Professor Hall’s labor market research resulted in papers on persistence of unemployment, occupational mobility, and taxation of earnings under public assistance. Professor Michael Piore wrote on labor market stratification and the effect on industrial growth of immigration from Puerto Rico to Boston. Professor Fisher had several publications on indexation and adjustment of mortgages to inflationary episodes. In the realm of economic history, Professor Temin published Reckoning with Slavery and Did Monetary Force Cause the Great Depression?

*Ezio Tarantelli was the victim of a Red Brigades’ assassination in 1985.

Institute Professor Samuelson published theoretical papers on factor price equalization and trade pattern reversal. In the realm of pure research, he put out papers on nonlinear and stochastic population analysis, optimal population growth, and the optimal Social Security system implied in a lifecycle growth model. He also brought out the tenth edition of his famous text, Economics: An Introduction Analysis.

FACULTY

Visiting Professor John R. Moroney was here from Tulane University; Visiting Professor Mirrlees came in the spring term from Nuffield College, Oxford University. Regular faculty on leave were Professors Fisher and Joskow in the fall and Professor Weitzman in the spring.

It is a pleasure to report the promotion to Associate Professor of Jerry A. Hausman. A new appointee, Professor Jeffrey E. Harris, with the unusual background of an M.D. and a Ph.D. in economics, will provide long-sought coverage in health economics.

Professor Kindleberger will retire as Ford Professor and become a Senior Lecturer on a half-time basis. Since 1948, when he came as an Associate Professor, Professor Kindleberger has been an effective teacher, scholar, participant in faculty governance, and counselor to governments and the public. He has trained the leading international economists of the next generation; he has produced a dozen books and more than a hundred articles in international trade and finance and in economic history. He epitomizes the highest kind of academician.

Several honors were bestowed on members of the Department. Institute Professor Modigliani will complete his year as President of the American Economic Association. Professor Myers received a Distinguished Alumni award from Pennsylvania State University. Professor Fisher was F.W. Paish Lecturer to the Association of (English) University Teachers of Economics. Institute Professor Solow received a D. Litt. from Warwick University, and Institute Professor Samuelson, a D.Sc. from the University of Rochester.

EDGAR CARY BROWN

Source: MIT Libraries, Institute Archives and Special Collections. MIT Department of Economics Records, Box 1, Folder “Annual Report 1975-6”.

Image Source: Building E52, Alfred P. Sloan Jr. Building, later Morris and Sophie Chang Building

https://mitmuseum.mit.edu/collections/subject/building-e52-alfred-p.-sloan-jr.-building-later-morris-and-sophie-chang-building-52

Tags Adelman, Bhagwati, Bishop, BrownEC, Diamond, Domar, Dornbusch, Eckaus, Fischer, FisherFM, Friedlaender, Hall, HarrisJE, Hausman, Joskow, Kindleberger, Mirrlees, Modigliani, MoroneyJR, Myers, Piore, Rothenberg, Samuelson, Solow, Tarantelli, TaylorLD, Temin, Varian, Weitzman, Wheaton

Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

Chicago. Notes on conversation with U Chicago president Colwell by T.W. Schultz, 1946

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-02-08

Biblical Greek Scholar/Theologian Ernest Cadman Colwell served under Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins as the president of the University of Chicago from 1945 to 1951. Theodore W. Schultz was the relatively new head of the Department of Economics who met with Colwell in late September 1946 to brief the president on developments in the economics department, especially with respect to efforts being made in pursuit of several economists needed to fill the gaps left by Henry Simons’ death (1946), Chester W. Wright’s retirement (1944), resignations by Jacob Viner (1946) and Simeon E. Leland (1946), and Oskar Lange’s leave of absence (1945-).

We see in the memorandum of conversation transcribed below that John and Ursula Hicks posed a spousal hire issue needing a creative solution before an actual offer could be made and that sixty year old Frank Knight was due some sort of a “senatorial courtesy” to get him on board with the majority of the department who badly wanted to extend an offer to thirty-one year old Paul Samuelson.

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

Mitch, David. “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946.” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (2016): 1714–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549915. Especially the online supplemental materials, where the following memo is quoted in part.

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Harro Maas, “Making Things Technical: Samuelson at MIT” in E. Roy Weintraub (ed.) MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014), pp. 272-294.

Roger Backhouse. Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson. Vol. I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 (Oxford University Press, 2017), Chapter 28 “Commitment to MIT.”

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

This discussion with President Colwell was highly satisfactory in that we considered in some detail and carefully, a number of important developments affecting the Department of Economics as follows:

1. I indicated to Mr. Colwell that the role of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago should be reviewed, with the view of achieving a better division of labor among universities within the U. S. and internationally. An increasing number of universities can do creditable undergraduate work in economics, and also satisfactory graduate work up to and beyond the master’s. There are upwards of two score of such institutions in the U. S. Meanwhile, the number of students seeking training at the undergraduate level, and also in graduate work, has increased rapidly, and the post war promises further growth in numbers. Meanwhile, many Western countries are looking to the U.S. for some of their advanced education in other fields as well as in economics), this along with the development that is taking place within the U. S., suggests that the time has come for the University of Chicago to allocate its resources even more largely to the most advanced reaches of economics. I proposed that we examine carefully the implications of this kind of refocusing of our program. I was pleased that Mr. Colwell found himself drawn to the kind of analysis I was presenting. He made several contributions to it and concurred with the analysis itself. He very cordially urged the Department to examine this thesis and reconstitute itself to serve more effectively, taking full account of the division of labor within American academic institutions.

2. I reviewed in some detail the state of the Department, pointing out the losses that have come as the result of the death of Simons, the retirement of Wright, the resignations of Viner and Leland, and the leave of absence of Lange. I expressed our pleasure in achieving the appointment of Friedman and Blough, and reaffirmed my confidence in our judgment in seeking these appointments.

With regard to additional appointments, the following individuals were discussed.

(1) Mr. and Mrs. Hicks. I reviewed the agreements we had with Mr. Hutchins, which were the foundation of negotiations last spring. I indicated that the Hicks would arrive this week to be with us the fore-part of the fall quarter. If as a result of this opportunity of being together during part of the fall quarter, the Hicks see a real opportunity for their professional efforts at the University of Chicago, and we continue to be genuinely interested in bringing them to this University, would we be permitted to offer Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the salaries and positions that we had discussed last spring realizing we might have to go higher in the case of Mr. Hicks, for I was convinced his standing warranted our paying the maximum. Mr. Colwell said he was willing to authorize an offer of $10,000 to Mr. Hicks, and probed with me for a while the merit of making it higher instead of offering a position to both individuals. It was my judgment that our bargaining power would be at a maximum if we would offer both individuals a position, but that we could escape the liability of dual membership in one family by making the offer to Mrs. Hicks a term appointment — perhaps that of a Lecturer or Research Associate, say for three years at $3,000, and then reconsider at the end of three years, where she would have the privilege of withdrawing or redefining her relationship, and the Department would likewise have that privilege. Thus, the commitment would be permanent in the case of Mr. Hicks, but meaningful in terms of time turned into professional task to Mrs. Hicks and yet allowing flexibility in her case. Mr. Colwell accepted my proposal to proceed with an offer to both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks along the lines I have outlined.

(2) I reported Mr. Viner’s observations that it was not likely Mr. Robbins would leave the London School of Economics, and that, at least for a year, there was no point in making an indirect approach again to see whether or not he might feel free to accept an appointment in this country. Mr. Colwell fully concurred.

(3) I reviewed our offer to Mr. Colin Clark to come to the University of Chicago as guest professor for a year. I also pointed out we had included in the offer $1000 for travel expenses. I Indicated further that several of my colleagues were disposed to feel that we should now make an offer of a permanent appointment to Mr. Clark, since he is not able to obtain leave of absence to come as visiting professor. I then indicated why I felt, although tentatively, that it was unwise to make this move for a permanent relationship with the Department until we had a chance to become personally acquainted with Mr. Clark, although I continue to have a high regard for his professional work as evidenced by his major writings. Mr. Colwell concurred with the view I expressed, namely, we should not make an appointment on a permanent basis, but should try to get Mr. Clark to come as a visiting professor, if not this year, perhaps next year.

(4) I reviewed the case of Albert G. Hart, indicating that he had accepted a position at Columbia before we could approach him with an offer, and that it was important to his own growth to take the position at Columbia for a year. My plan is to approach him at the end of the year, let him weigh alternatives, including the opportunities as he sees them at Columbia. My proposal to Mr. Colwell was that we approach Hart along in February or March in order to induce him to come to Chicago. We discussed Hart’s background in some detail, Mr. Colwell concurred in the procedure I outlined to him.

(5) I then outlined at some length the case of Paul Samuelson of M.I.T. Mr. Colwell had not had the privilege of visiting with Samuelson at the time he was here. Samuelson visited with Hutchins and Gustavson, as far as Central Administration was concerned. I stated it was my judgment that Samuelson is one of the younger men in economics who has a high probability of achieving a distinguished career as an economist, and that in this respect his promise is most outstanding; that I had no doubt of the merits of the case intellectually and would press for an appointment, were that the only consideration, without delay, but that I had to achieve, however, an acceptance of Mr. Samuelson in the Department, not that a majority was lacking; a mandate existed satisfying the University administrative requirements. But the obstacle lies in what in substance is a matter of “senatorial courtesy” in behalf of the most distinguished and senior member of the Department, Professor Frank Knight. I expressed the hope it would be possible to have Professor Knight concur in the appointment and feel it was being made without any discourtesy to him and his professional role and standing in this University and in the profession. I felt this end must and could be achieved and that I was going to give a great deal of effort to it in the coming months. Pending the full exploration of what can be done in this connection I wanted to reserve decision as to whether or not to recommend the appointment of Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Colwell discussed at some length his own appraisal of the problem I had presented. He seemed to be pleased with the approach that was implicit in what I was relating to him. He made the point, and made it explicitly, that if the intellectual stature of Samuelson is as high as my judgment indicated, that it was exceedingly important the University move toward an appointment. I felt sure, though, that he was disposed to await the wishes of the Department, weighing carefully the factors I had tried to describe to him.

At this point Mr. Colwell took me back to my general thesis, namely, the refocusing of the goals of the Department and the use of its resources, urging me to give active attention to this task. Whereupon I suggested the achievement of this role might well mean the setting up of 5 to 7 positions in the Department for individuals to spend 2 to 5 years at this university in what would be essentially a post-doctoral role as scholars, then accept positions elsewhere consistent with their accomplishments and promise. Mr. Colwell was drawn to the proposal as I had put it and referred briefly to similar planning and developments in other fields.

T. W. Schultz.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder “3”.

Tags Colin Clark, HartAG, Hicks, HicksU, Robbins, Samuelson, SchultzTW

Biography Economists

Before he was Frank Samuelson, father of Paul, he was Ephraim Chodorowski from Ratzki-Russia (now Poland)

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-12-27
1 Comment on Before he was Frank Samuelson, father of Paul, he was Ephraim Chodorowski from Ratzki-Russia (now Poland)

Thanks to an inquiry regarding Paul Samuelson’s father’s geographic roots from loyal Economics in the Rear-view Mirror friends Krzysztof Nowak-Posadzy and Piotr P. Pieniążek, I have pulled up a few artifacts to add to the digital record of Paul Samuelson’s ancestry.

In case you ever wondered: the pre-Samuelson surname of the family was “Chodorowski”.

Ephraim Chodorowski arrived in New York on the steamship Blücher in November 1904, sailing in steerage (the historical analogue to what economy class air travel has become). The records indicate that he used both his birth name as well as his new name “Frank Samuelson” for about a decade.

On the issue of Paul Samuelson’s parents being first cousins: from death records of the state of Illinois for Frank Samuelson and Ella Lypski Samuelson’s brother Alfred Meyer Lypski we find:

Frank Samuelson’s parents (Leo Chodorowski and Jennie Epstein);
Ella Lypski’s parents (Meyer Lypski and Anna Epstein)

It is not too much of a stretch to presume that Jennie and Anna Epstein were sisters which is entirely consistent with Frank Samuelson and Ella Lypski having been first cousins.

A low-quality copy of Frank Samuelson’s 1922 passport photo turned up in my search of the ancestry.com databases. Still it is cool to have found.

Somewhat inconsistently (apologies) I use underlined italics to indicate handwritten insertions into official records. Bold-face is sometimes used within documents to indicate information that has been stamped into spaces for the declarations of intention for naturalization.

________________

Frank Samuelson’s 1939 obituary

SAMUELSON—Frank [Chodorovski] Samuelson, beloved husband of Ella, dear father of Harold, Paul, and Robert, fond brother of Herman, Irving, Edda Gurevitz of Kovno, Rachiel, and Rachel Schah of Kishinev. Funeral Tuesday. 3 p.m., at chapel, 3125 Roosevelt-rd. Burial Jewish Waldheim.

Source: Chicago Tribune (May 9, 1939), p. 25.

________________

State of Illinois Death Record
for Frank Samuelson

Name: Frank Samuelson
Birth Date: 1 Aug 1886
Birth Place: Ratzki, Poland
Death Date: 8 May 1939
Death Place: Chicago, Cook, Illinois
Burial Date: 9 May 1939
Burial Place: Forest Park, Cook, Ill.
Cemetery Name: Cong. A Israel
Death Age: 52
Occupation: Pharmacist
Race: White
Marital Status: M
Gender: Male
Residence: Chicago, Cook, Ill.
Father Name: Leo Samuelson (sic)
Father Birthplace: Ratzki, Poland
Mother Name: Jennie Epstein
Mother Birth Place: Ratki, Poland
Spouse Name: Ella Samuelson
FHL Film Number: 19153415

Source: Illinois, U.S., Deaths and Stillbirths Index, 1916-1947 accessed through Ancestry.com

________________

From the Passenger Lists
from Hamburg, November 1904

Name: Ephraim Chodorowski
Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Nationality: Russian
Marital Status: Single
Occupation: Kaufmann [most likely meaning retail salesperson]
Departure Age: 20
Birth Date: abt 1884
Residence Place: Racki (sic)
Departure Date: 19 Nov 1904
Departure Place: Hamburg, Germany
Arrival Places: Dover; Boulogne-sur-Mer; New York
Ship Name: Blücher
Shipping Line: Hamburg-Amerika Linie (Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien-Gesellschaft)
Ship Type: Steamship
Ship Flag: Germany
Accommodation: Steerage

Source: Hamburg Passenger Lists, 1850-1934. Staatsarchiv Hamburg, Auswandererlisten, Volume 373-7 I, VIII A 1, Band 160. Accessed through ancestry.com website.

________________

Declarations of intention for naturalization
by Frank Samuelson (Ephraim Chodorowski) and his cousin Frank Lipski
filed on 18 March 1910

United States of America
Department of Commerce and Labor
Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
Division of Naturalization

DECLARATION OF INTENTION
(Invalid for all purposes seven years after the date hereof)

Circuit Court of the United States, Northern District of Illinois

ss: In the Circuit Court of The United States

I, Ephraim Chodorowski, aged 24 years, occupation Druggist, do declare on oath/affirm that my personal description is: Color white, complexion fair, height 5 feet 6 inches, weight 143 pounds, color of hair brown, color of eyes gray other visible distinctive marks none; I was born in Ratzka Russia, on the 15^th day of September, anno Domini 1885; I now reside at 1137 Desplains Street.

I emigrated to the United States of America from Hamburg Germany on the vessel Bluecher; my last foreign residence was Varsau Russia.

It is my bona fide intention to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to Nicholas II Emperor of all the Russias, of which I am now a citizen/subject; I arrived at the port of New York, in the State of New York on or about the 30^th day of November, anno Domini 1904; I am not an anarchist; I am not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy; and it is my intention in good faith to become a citizen of the United States of America and to permanently reside therein: SO HELP ME GOD.

[signed] Ephraim Chodorowski
(Original signature of declarant)

Subscribed and sworn to/affirmed before me this 18^th day of March, anno Domini 1910

H. S. STODDARD, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States, Northern District of Illinois.
By Alma [sp?] V. Shoemaker, Deputy Clerk.

Source: U.S. Federal Naturalization Records, 1856-1991. Circuit Court, Northern District, Illinois. Declarations V. 6 (P29-End)-9, 1909-10. Accessed at ancestry.com.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

United States of America
Department of Commerce and Labor
Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
Division of Naturalization

DECLARATION OF INTENTION
(Invalid for all purposes seven years after the date hereof)

Circuit Court of the United States, Northern District of Illinois

ss: In the Circuit Court of The United States

I, Frank Lypski, aged 19 years, occupation Druggist, do declare on oath/affirm that my personal description is: Color white, complexion fair, height 5 feet 5 inches, weight 145 pounds, color of hair brown, color of eyes brown other visible distinctive marks none; I was born in Suvalki Russia, on the ???^th [28^th in other records] day of December, anno Domini 1890; I now reside at 1135 Desplains Street.

I emigrated to the United States of America from Liverpool England on the vessel Romania; my last foreign residence was Suvalki Russia.

It is my bona fide intention to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particulary to Nicholas II Emperor of all the Russias, of which I am now a citizen/subject; I arrived at the port of New York, in the State of New York on or about the 23^rd day of March, anno Domini 1902; I am not an anarchist; I am not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy; and it is my intention in good faith to become a citizen of the United States of America and to permanently reside therein: SO HELP ME GOD.

[signed] Frank Lypski
(Original signature of declarant)

Subscribed and sworn to/affirmed before me this 18^th day of March, anno Domini 1910

H. S. STODDARD, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States, Northern District of Illinois.
By Alma [sp?] V. Shoemaker, Deputy Clerk.

Source: U.S. Federal Naturalization Records, 1856-1991. Circuit Court, Northern District, Illinois. Declarations V. 6 (P29-End)-9, 1909-10. Accessed at ancestry.com.

________________

1910 U.S. Census
Chicago City, Cook County, Illinois
Enumerated April 16, 1910

Head of Household: Jacob Stiene (28 yrs)
[note original name probably Gladstein as seen in a letter to Alfred Lypski in his passport application, in other records the surname was spelled “Stine”.]

Wife of Head of Household: Fannie Stiene (22 yrs)

Brothers-in-law of head of household: Alfred (23 yrs, single) and Frank (19 yrs, single) Lypski

Sisters-in-law of head of household: Ella (22 yrs, single) and Sarah Lypski (16 yrs, single)

[So the Lypski siblings were Fannie, Alfred, Frank, Ella, and Sarah. Ella and Fannie look to be twins. Jacob and Frank share a grandfather.]

Frank Samuelson:

Cousin of Head of Household: [sic, actually Frank was the cousin of the wife of the household and so necessarily cousin of her brothers and sisters listed.]

Age in 1910: 24
Birth Date: 1886
Birthplace: Russia
Home in 1910: Chicago Ward 19, Cook, Illinois
Street: 1135 Des Plaines Street
Race: White
Gender: Male
Immigration Year: 1904
Relation to Head of House: Cousin
Marital Status: Single
Father’s Birthplace: Russia
Mother’s Birthplace: Russia
Able to speak English: English
Occupation: Drug [store]
Industry: Clerk
Employer, Employee or Other: Wage Earner
Attended School: Y
Able to read: Y
Able to write: Y
Out of work: N
Number of weeks out of work: 0

______________

Naturalization Petition: C-362

Family name: Chodarowski (sic)
Given name or names: Efhraim
Address: 1780 Broadway, Gary, Ind.
Certificate no. (or vol. and page): P-782
Title and location of court: US Dist., Lake Co., Hammond Ind.
Country of birth or allegiance: Russia
When born (or age): Sept. 15, 1885
Date and port of arrival in US: [blank]
Date of naturalization: Oct. 16, 1917

Source: U.S. Federal Naturalization Records, District and Circuit Courts, Northern District, Illinois, Index to Naturalization Petitions. Accessed through Ancestry.com

________________

DRAFT REGISTRATION CARD, 1918

First name: Frank
Middle name: [blank]
Last name: Samuelson
Permanent Home Address: 508 Polk, Gary, Lake County, Ind.
Age in years: 33
Date of birth: August 15^th, 1885
Race: White [checked]
U.S. Citizen: Naturalized [checked]
Present Occupation: Druggist
Employer’s Name: Economical Drug Store
Place or Employment or Business: 1651 Broadway, Gary, Lake County, Ind.
Nearest Relative: Ella Samuelson, 508 Polk, Gary, Lake County, Ind.

[signed] Frank Samuelson

REGISTRAR’S REPORT

Description of Registrant

Height: Medium
Build: Medium
Color of Eyes: Gray
Color of Hair: Brown
Has person lost arm, leg, hand, eye, or is he obviously physically disqualified? (Specify.) No.

[Signed by Magistrar]
Date of Registration Sept. 12, 1918

Local Board
Div. No. 1
Gary, Indiana
Federal Bldg.

Source. U.S. World War I Draft Registration Cards, Indiana, Gary City 1. Accessed through Ancestry.com

________________

U.S. Passport Application
(Form for Naturalized Citizen,
edition of January, 1919)

United States of America,
State of Indiana
County of Lake

I, Frank Samuelson, a Naturalized and Loyal Citizen of the United States, hereby apply to the Department of State, at Washington, for a passport. For myself.

I solemnly swear that I was born at Ratzki-Russia on August 15^th, 1885; that my father, Leo Samuelson, was born in Russia and is now residing at Roumania; that I emigrated to the United States, sailing from Hamburg Germany about Nov 1^st , 1904; that I resided 17 years, uninterruptedly, in the United States from 1904 to 1922, at Chicago IIl. 5 Yrs. Gary Ind. 12 Yrs that I was naturalized as a citizen of the United States before the District Court of United States at Hammond Indiana, on Oct. 16^th, 1917, as shown by the Certificate of Naturalization presented herewith; that I am the identical person described in said Certificate that I have reside outside the United States since my naturalization at the following places on the following periods: [left deliberately blank] and that I am domiciled in the United States my permanent residence being at Gary in the State of Indiana, where I follow the occupation of Druggist.

My last passport was obtained from Never had one on [“Date”, left deliberately blank] and was [“Disposition of passport”, left deliberately blank]. I am about to go abroad temporarily, and intend to return to the United States within one year with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein: and I desire a passport for use in visiting the countries hereinafter named for the following purposes:

Roumania, Poland, Lithawania to visit father, sisters and other relatives.

I intend to leave the United States from the port of New York , sailing on board the Olympia on Aug 12, 1922.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

Further, I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God.

[signed:] Frank Samuelson

Sworn to before me this 13^th day
of July, 1922
Chas . [illegible]
Deputy Clerk of the U.S. Dist. Court at Hammond Indiana

Description of Applicant.

Age: 36 years
Stature: 5 feet, 6 inches, Eng.
Forehead: High
Eyes: gray
Nose: medium
Mouth: small
Chin: medium
Hair: brown
Complexion: medium
Face: medium
Distinguishing marks: moles on right cheek

IDENTIFICATION

July 13, 1922

I, Jacob Brooks, solemnly swear that I am a native/naturalized citizen of the United States; that I reside at Chicago, Illinois; that I have known the above, named Frank Samuelson personally for 10 years and know him/her to be the identical person referred to in the within-described certificate of naturalization; and that the facts stated in his/her affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

[signed:] Jacob Brooks
(Occupation) Druggist
(Address of witness) 915-E 55^th St., Chicago Ills

Sworn to before me this 13^th day
of July, 1922
Chas . [illegible]
Deputy Clerk of the U.S. Dist. Court at Hammond Indiana

Applicant desires passport to be sent to the following address:

Frank Samuelson
356 Adams St.
Gary Indiana

A signed duplicate of the photograph to be attached
hereto must be sent to the Department with the appli-
cation, to be affixed to the passport with an impression
of the Department’s seal. [see top of this post]

Source. U.S. Passport Applications, 1795-1925. Roll 2017/1922. Accessed through Ancestry.com

________________

Illinois Death Index

Name: Alfred Meyer Lypski [brother of Ella Lypski Samuelson]
Birth Date: abt 1887
Death Date: 12 Feb 1936
Death Place: Chicago, Cook, Illinois
Death Age: 49
Gender: Male
Father Name: Meyer Lypski
Mother Name: Rebecca Epstein
Spouse Name: Jennie Lypski
FHL Film Number: 1926849

Source: Illinois, U.S., Deaths and Stillbirths Index, 1916-1947 accessed through Ancestry.com

Tags Samuelson, SummersR

Economists Harvard

Harvard. Copy of Schumpeter’s letter to Crum regarding Samuelson’s course performance, 1936

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-11-21

Following the last post that provided a transcription of Joseph Schumpeter’s letter of recommendation for Marion Crawford, this post gives us a glimpse of the 20 year old “youngster” who would marry Marion Crawford a few years later.

_______________________________

Schumpeter asking for instructor feedback for Samuelson’s SSRC fellowship

February 12, 1936

Prof. Leonard Crum
Holyoke 46

Dear Leonard:

You know, perhaps you don’t, that the Social Science Research Council has now adopted a policy for their pre-doctoral fellowships to ask a man to act as what they call a sponsor to the fellow. I am acting in this capacity for Samuelson and it is part of my duties to collect opinions from his other teachers to send to them so that they know how their lambs are shaping up, and notably whether they should get an extension for another year.

Samuelson seems to have done very well in your course. In any case, I would be very grateful if you would be good enough to send me or to sent [sic] the Social Science Research Council (Committee on Social Research Personnel, R. H. Shryock, 230 Park Avenue, New York City) your opinion about that youngster.

I really feel that I need not apologize for intruding upon you during your well earned rest because I believe that this little bit of official business will make you feel sweet liberty from the rest all the more intensely.

With best wishes,

J. A. Schumpeter

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961. Box 21, Folder “Joseph A. Schumpeter 1933-1942”.

Image Source: Original black-and-white photo of Samuelson from the slideshow at the M.I.T. Memorial Service (April 10, 2010). Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Tags CrawfordME, Crum, Samuelson, Schumpeter

Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Radcliffe. Schumpeter Letter Supporting Marion Crawford, 1937

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-11-21

Paul Samuelson’s first wife (they were married in Cambridge in 1938) and mother of their six children, Marion Estelle Crawford (b. 1915, d. 1978) graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Radcliffe in 1937, with an A.B. summa cum laude in economics. For graduate study she was awarded a Harvard Annex Fellowship in 1937-38. In 1938-39 she received an Augustus Anson Whitney and Benjamin White Whitney Fellowship. She was awarded an A.M. in economics in 1940. Her sole publication was “The Australian Case for Protection Reexamined” (Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1939). Her New York Times obituary closed with the sentence “She retired when her first child was born in 1946.” It was still a time when motherhood was an absorbing state.

_________________________

High-School Honours

Source: Berlin High School (Wisconsin) 1933 Yearbook Mascoutin, pp. 16-17.

_________________________

Senior Yearbook Picture
Radcliffe, 1937

Source; The Radcliffe 30 and 7, p. 48.

_________________________

Copy of Joseph Schumpeter’s letter supporting Marion Crawford’s application for a fellowship

February 11, 1937

Dr. Bernice Cronkhite, Dean
Radcliffe College
Cambridge, Massachusetts

This is to support Miss Marion Crawford’s application for a fellowship for the next academic year. There cannot be any doubt but that she is one of our best students and that every effort should be made to make her further study financially possible. She proves her ability by the fact that, being a senior, she takes graduate courses with the utmost ease, and in fact much better than most of the graduates, whether male or female. Her equipment should prove particularly useful in the present state of economics, and I feel confident that her work will do credit to her and to Radcliffe.

Very sincerely yours,

J. A. Schumpeter

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961. Box 21, Folder “Joseph A. Schumpeter 1933-1942”.

Image Source: Detail from a black-and-white photo of Marion Crawford and Paul Samuelson from the slideshow at the M.I.T. Memorial Service for Paul Samuelson (April 10, 2010). Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Tags CrawfordME, Samuelson, Schumpter

Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Memo to Provost supporting Galbraith appointment. Black, 1947

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-12-17

As surprising as it might sound, the Harvard economics department couldn’t always get whom they wanted (Theodore Schultz). As a consequence we are able to observe an aggressive strategy employed by a member of one side in the departmental hiring dispute. Professor John D. Black attempted to play the rebound in re-pleading his case for John Kenneth Galbraith’s appointment to a newly established professorship. Indeed by writing directly to the Provost, Black could have been charged with at least an additional count of “working the ref”. The episode is well summarized in Richard Parker’s biography of Galbraith (John Kenneth Galbraith: his life, his politics, his economics, pp. 226-227). Still, there is nothing quite like the pleasure of watching sharp elbows at work in the service of intradepartmental politics as revealed in the complete letter posted below. Black was not afraid to push nativist buttons in referring to anti-Galbrathians among his colleagues: “European clique” (cf. Haberler in 1948 on Galbraith vs Samuelson), “the monetary-fiscal policy axis” and “gaudy Keynesian trappings”.

A cynical nose can detect more than a whiff of a self-serving plea to strengthen the prospects of Black’s own field and style of research.

Archival note: Parker refers to a copy of the letter in Black’s papers with the Wisconsin Historical Society, this post is based on a copy of the letter I found in Galbraith’s papers at the JFK Presidential Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides the outlines and exams for Black’s courses on the marketing of agricultural commodities from 1947-48).

____________________

December 22, 1947

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

As you are no doubt aware, it was I who last year nominated Galbraith for the joint professorship to the School of Public Administration and in the Department of Economics. It was my judgment at that time that in view of his experience in public affairs and acknowledged great ability he surely should be considered for this position. The voting last year confirmed my judgment surprisingly. Excluding Schultz, to whom the appointment was offered, and Tinbergen from the Netherlands, he ran neck and neck with Yntema for top place in all of the balloting, with Samuelson next, and Smithies in seventh place. Tinbergen owed his strength to the European clique in the Department of Economics (by no means all European born), who have a European idea of the function of a university, und would have been a misfit in this appointment.

The voting of course reflected in large measure the conceptions of the voting members as to the needs of the appointment. A majority of my colleagues in the Department of Economics thought of it in terms simply of getting another high-grade technical economist, with little thought for the needs of the School of Public Administration. To meet this situation, I prepared and read at one of last year’s joint meetings on the appointment, the following statement, which I now I now submit anew, as still describing the conditions of the appointment:

The decision as to an appointment in economics at this time raises the whole question of the future of the Graduate School of Public Administration and its meaning for the Departments of Economics and Government.

The first point to make under this head is that the two departments named, without the Graduate School of Public Administration, are destined to become conventional departments in these fields, not distinguishable from similar departments in other universities, except for probably having better faculties than most of them. Even the latter distinction could easily fade in the next decade or two. With the Graduate School of Public Administration working with them, they both have possibilities of becoming super-graduate departments, by building on top of the usual graduate offerings in these fields a type of advanced graduate instruction that deals with problems of the sort that arise in the higher levels of policy-making in government. The seminars now given are well worth while from this point of view, but they fell much sort of realizing their possibilities. The two departments therefore very much need the Graduate School of Public Administration. It offers them a real opportunity to achieve greatness and become important influences in our national life. On the other hand, the School can get nowhere without the regular graduate work of the two departments as a foundation. The School and the two departments should therefore work closely together, each helping the others at each step in their advancement.

This means looking at a problem, such as that of the new appointment, as a common problem, and asking the question what kind of an appointment now will promote best the progress of the departments and the School?

Before answering this question, we need to go back and consider the basis on which the School was conceived. Those who formulated the program for the School finally settled down on training in policy-making as the great opportunity for a school of public administration at a university like Harvard. They exhibited a kind of prescience and inner wisdom in so doing that would almost seem like a miracle except for the fact that it did grow almost inevitably out of the situation.

In the two or three years following the founding of the School, much actual headway was made in realizing the objective of training for policy-making. The program of the School and it method made a strong impression in government circles and in the world of education. Since then, the School has lost considerable of the advantage of such a splendid start. If it does not take hold with vigor again and press forward along the lines laid out, it will lose it entirely in five or ten more years and become nothing more than a minor adjunct of the two conventional departments of the University. This the departments themselves cannot afford to let happen. Neither can Harvard University.

Looking at the present problem in this light, there can be no doubt that the great weakness in our present situation is in persons qualified to train advanced graduate students in policy-making, who have the aptitude for it as well as the background. The interests of the departments are in such an appointment at this time. The training in policy-making, comparatively speaking, is not suffering now, and will not suffer for several years, because of deficiencies in the preliminary graduate training needed as a foundation for it.

Also needing to be considered are important and somewhat similar relations to other departments of Harvard University, particularly to the Graduate School of Business Administration, to the Law School, and to the new Department of Social Relations. The School can add something of high importance to each of these if its seminars in the policy-making function are adequately developed; and in turn its contribution will be much enriched by what workers in these fields have to offer.

An appointment at this time of one new professor qualified as indicated will not of course take us far alone the way we need to go. But it will make a good start. We shall need mainly two things in addition: A. Additional research funds for the different seminars — to be used in employing research associates, financing field work, statistical laboratory work, etc., B. Some appointments wholly on the faculty of the School. Funds for both of these, especially the first, can be obtained if sought in earnest.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the School has made a start exactly along the right lines. It does not need in the least to back up and take a fresh start, but instead only to pick up what it has and go forward with it.

You, Provost Buck, do not need to be told that since I made this statement, the School has done exactly what I was hoping for. Almost certainly now at least three of the major seminars of the School will have research projects combined with them, each with small staffs of research associates. Steps are being taken to bring the School into effective working relations with the Law school and the Department of Social Relations. The need for an appointment that will strengthen its instruction in the policy-making function has in consequence become even more urgent then it was a year ago.

When it came time to offer nominations again this year, I felt that in view of the strong vote for Galbraith last year, surely he should be considered again. The third men in the top three this year, Smithies, has been substituted for Samuelson by those who supported Samuelson last year, apparently for two reasons: one, they now admit Samuelson’s shortcomings in the policy role, and consider Smithies a better candidate from this point of view; two, they expect to have Samuelson appointed to the full professorship now vacant in the Department of Economics. There seems to be more general acceptance than year ago of my conception of the needs of the appointment.

It has been necessary for me to make this last statement because it is the basis for the most important factor in the whole situation as it now develops, namely, that to appoint both Smithies and Samuelson at this time would further unbalance the work in economics at Harvard in the direction of the monetary-fiscal policy axis, since both of these men work mainly along these lines. The simple fact of the matter is that the men working in money and banking, fiscal policy and international trade, plus a few (in theory mostly) who vote with them on appointments, already constitute a voting majority in the Department of Economics. (You will remember that they did their utmost to prevent Dunlop’s appointment two years ago.) To add one more to this axis at this time would be highly unfortunate. It is, of course, not their voting which is most important — it is the narrowing effect which they have on the teaching and research in economics at Harvard. Those two appointments would contribute more than usual to such narrowing, since they are Keynesians in addition.

Of course none of these in this axis considers that he is narrow. In their discussions, to be sure, they draw in all phases of the economy. But they organize it all in terms of a single framework of reference. They pour it all, as it were, through one narrow funnel, and do some sieving in the process. As to how much they may mislead themselves in so doing, — and unfortunately some of the policy-makers of the nation; we have had abundant evidence in the past two years.

We can be reasonably certain that within ten or fifteen years, the Keynesian system of economic thinking will have been pretty well taken in stride. It would be unfortunate if at that time Harvard found itself with a faculty in economics too largely clothed in outworn habiliments. The economies of that day will have a different cast then the pre-Keynesian; but it will have lost much of its gaudy Keynesian trappings.

One of the first stories told me about Harvard when I arrived in 1927 was of President Eliot’s having been asked why Harvard University’s Department of Psychology had never developed a “school” of thought in that field, as had the Departments of Cornell and Columbia, and of his having answered that if he had discovered that his Department of Psychology was becoming dominated by one school of thought he would have hastened to appoint the strongest man he could find of an opposing school.

Of course this last point is no argument for the appointment of Galbraith. It is merely an argument against appointing Smithies if Samuelson is going to be appointed to the Department of Economics — and the pressure for Samuelson’s appointment is very strong in the Department of Economics.

I do not propose to present any strong affirmative arguments in support of Galbraith’s appointment. I nominated him because I believed that he should at least be considered. It has been the votes of my colleagues that has put him in the running, and I prefer that they tell you their reasons. I would not want him appointed if in their judgment, and that of the ad hoc committee, he is not the strongest man for this joint appointment.

I say this even though I would hope that if Galbraith were appointed he could spare a small fraction of his time to helping me give the two year courses which I now give in Commodity Distribution and Prices (ordinarily called Marketing.) Even though I am now giving these two courses, with the help of one-fifth of the time of an annual instructor, in addition to three full year courses in the Economies of Agricultura (with help of part of the time of one visiting lecturer) besides supervising a score of doctor’s theses, I shall manage somehow if I can get some other regular help with the three courses in the Economics of Agriculture.¹

____________

The undergraduate course in marketing had 90 students in the fall term, and the graduate course had 12 plus 8 auditors. This course was offered to Harvard undergraduate in 1946-47 for the first time, except for sone special instruction in food marketing given to armed service prospects during the war. The graduate course has been given since 1933.
____________

It may also be of interest that 12 of the 120 Ph.D’s reported as conferred in Economics in the United States in 1946-47 (12 months) were to candidates writing theses under my direction. (See September 1947 American Economic Review.)

There have, however, been some statements made about Galbraith in faculty discussions that must be commented upon in the interest of truth and sound decision. It has been said of him that he is “not a highly competent technical economist.” All this means is that he has published no articles in which he has applied methods of statistical and mathematical analysis, to the development of refinements of economic and monetary theory. I have no doubt of Galbraith’s ability to do this when this is the important thing for him to do. The simple truth is that a man of his breadth of comprehension is likely to find himself mainly absorbed in dealing with broad fundamental economic relationships; and this is especially true in times as disturbed as those in which he has been doing his writing. When asked, in the summer of 1947, to read a paper on the current economic situation, I entitled this paper “Fundamental Elements in the Current Agricultural Situation,” and I wrote as follows:

“The day and the hour seem to call for analysis in terms of broad fundamentals. This is no occasion for the refinements of theory and their application; but rather for over-simplification and over-emphasis on a few vital elements. Something of accuracy is lost in consequence; but this is not relatively important in the emergency that confronts us. There are wild horses loose in the world and the first task is to bring them to leash. Later we can break them to the plow and the cart.”

This statement is truer today than it was in 1942. If any economist of today is turning out articles or books presenting analysis of refinements, he is doing it because he lacks real power of analysis of the larger issues of the day, or as a by-product of such analysis, or as relaxation from the steady grind of his regular job. No doubt some of Smithies’ articles fit into these latter descriptions. Galbraith’s writings of the past ten years have covered the larger aspects of a very broad range of subjects.

Another criticism has been that he is not a good speaker. It is true that he often speaks haltingly when extemporizing. He needs time to find the exact word he wants. But he writes excellent papers, and reads them very effectively. (John Williams reported at a recent faculty meeting that his paper and Ed Mason’s were the outstanding papers at a full meeting in Philadelphia. His paper at the Atlantic City meeting in December 1946 was an outstanding performance.) In fact, he has become a very effective writer. To have a man in the Graduate School of Public Administration who can write as effectively as Galbraith on public questions of the day will be a highly valuable asset.

It needs to be added that he is effective in the classroom in spite of halting for a word now and then. The secret of this is that he has an uncanny sense for the vital points in a classroom discussion the same in analyzing public issues, and for putting these in their proper perspective. He is also a very stimulating influence among students in private discussion.

Rating higher in my scale of values than in those of many other academicians is capacity. Some of my colleagues do twice as much teaching, research and writing as some others, and do it fully as well or better. Galbraith has demonstrated a high order of capacity.

The other adverse report concerning Galbraith is not so easy to analyze. It is that he does not handle public relations well, nor even his relations with colleagues and subordinates. Surely a man of Galbraith’s type needed a man of different sort to work alongside him and handle the difficult public relations of OPA. And surely Leon Henderson was not that man. He was less apt at it even than Galbraith. The public relations man for OPA had to say “No” very often; and Galbraith does not have the ease of manner for such an assignment. Given time enough to plan for it in advance, he is able to differ with his colleagues and associates in a pleasant and gracious manner; but not in haste and under pressure, and especially when some body is trying to “put something over”.

No doubt a factor in his relations with others has been his urge to get on with the job and not waste too much time talking about it. I must confess a kinship with him in this respect. He no more than I should be assigned task a with many administrative decisions.

On this point, I am ready to predict without any hesitancy that Galbraith’s relations with his colleagues in the School and in the Department of Economics, should he receive this appointment, would be more congenial by a wide margin then those now generally prevailing in these departments; also that in the role of a Harvard professor, his relations with the public and with government officials would be unusually cooperative and friendly.

Perhaps a word is in order as to why I did not vote for Yntema. Most of all, I do not want to take a chance on either of two things (1) that he will prefer to continue with his present job, thus postponing our filling this appointment for another year: (2) that he will accept the appointment, but will want to continue a tie-us with CED that will remain his main interest. We cannot afford any more such tie-ups. Second, he seems to be so well fitted to his present assignment that I do not believe he would fit ours.

Very truly yours,

John D. Black

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 519. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Correspondence Re: Appointment of JKG as Professor of Economics. 12/22/47—3/22/50”.

Image Source: Professor John D. Black in Harvard Class Album 1945.

Tags BlackJD, Dunlop, Galbraith, Mason, Samuelson, SchultzTW, Smithies, Tinbergen, WilliamsJH, Yntema

Exam Questions Harvard M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Basic graduate microeconomic theory. Chamberlin and Samuelson, 1956-1957

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-09-09

For some reason, Paul Samuelson was asked to help out with the teaching of Edward H. Chamberlin’s graduate theory course during the 1956-57 academic year. In Paul Samuelson’s papers at Duke I was able to find a letter from the Harvard economics chair, Seymour Harris, confirming his appointment as “Visiting Professor” for co-teaching Economics 201. The actual “allocation of subject matter” between Chamberlin and Samuelson is not clear from Samuelson’s papers, nor from the course outlines. Since the second semester reading list only has Chamberlin’s name on it, it seems likely that Samuelson’s participation was limited to the first semester of the course. Because Robert Bishop’s manuscript on Economic Theory (taught to generations of M.I.T. graduate students) was included in the first section of the fall semester reading list and we find questions for a one hour mid-term exam in Samuelson’s folder for the course, I am led to conjecture that Samuelson taught most or all of the first half of the fall semester of the course. As we can see from the internal M.I.T. department teaching records included below, Paul Samuelson continued teaching his courses at “Tech” that year.

Perhaps a future trip to Duke University’s David M. Rubenstein Rare Book Manuscript Library to consult the Edward H. Chamberlin papers that were donated in 2019 will help to establish why Samuelson was needed at Harvard that year.

_________________________

Letter from Chairman Seymour Harris to Paul Samuelson
May 25, 1956

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

May 25, 1956

Professor Paul A. Samuelson
Department of Economics and Social Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

Dear Paul:

Economics 201 meets Tuesday, Thursday, and at the pleasure of the instructor Saturday at 10. It would be hard to change that hour because of the arrangement of other courses, and also because we must have the same hour for the second semester.

I hope that you would get together with Ed and discuss the allocation of subject matter. You can have [Richard] Gill as an assistant, and he would, I am sure, be willing to meet the class once a week when you think it necessary. You will find him a most adequate assistant.

I may add that the Dean has agreed to recommend your appointment as a Visiting Professor, which is an unusual appointment, for most appointments of this kind, inclusive of Tech, are Visiting Lecturers. This suggests the high regard in which we hold you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SEH/c
cc: Professor Chamberlin

P.S. I hope you will remember to bring my article on Saturday and any comments.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

From the M.I.T. economics department records for 1955-56

Paul Samuelson was teaching full time 1956-57. He taught Economics and Industrial Management (14.117) and Mathematical Approach to Economics (14.151) in the fall semester and Economic Analysis (14.122) and Economics Seminar (14.192) in the Spring semester.

Source: M.I.T. Archives. M.I.T. Department of Economics Records, 1947—. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Responsibility”.

_________________________

Enrollment figures from Harvard President’s Report

[Economics] 201. Economic Theory. Professor Chamberlin and Professor Samuelson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Full course.

(F) Total 38: 26 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 4 Radcliffe, 5 Others.
(S) Total 39: 27 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior, 3 Radcliffe, 6 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1956-1957, p. 70.

_________________________

Economics 201
Economic Theory
Fall 1956
READING LIST

I. Supply, Demand, Revenue and Cost

Marshall, Principles (4^th edition or later), Book III, Ch. 3, 4, 6

Mill, Principles, Book III, Ch. 1-6

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 2

Schultz, H., Theory and Measurement of Demand, pp. 5-12

Bishop, Economic Theory Ms., Book II, Ch. 1, 2, 3

Viner, Cost Curves and Supply Curves (1930), AFA or Clemence Readings

Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch. 2

Suggested:

Ricardo, Political Economy (Gonner Edition or Sraffa Edition), Chapter I

Mills’ Autobiography or the Introduction to the Ashley edition of the Principles

Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, Chapters 3, 4

Keynes, “Alfred Marshall,” Economic Journal, September 1924 (Also in Keynes, Essays in Biography)

II. Production and Consumption Analysis

A. Production and Cost

Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch. 8, Appendix B

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, pp. 94-109.

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories, Introduction

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 7, 8

Suggested:

Douglas, P. Theory of Wages

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 6, 7

Carlson, Sune, Theory of Production

Cassels, J. H, “On the Law of Variable Proportions,” in Explorations in Economics, essays in honor of Taussig

Schneider, E., Pricing and Equilibrium

B. Utility and Consumption Theory

Hicks, Value and Capital, Chs. 1, 2, 3

Stigler, Theory of Price, Chs. 5, 6

III. Welfare Economics

Boulding, K., “Welfare Economics,” Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. II

Hicks, J.R., “Foundations of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal, 1939

Pigou, A.C., Economics of Welfare, Preface, Part I., Chs. 3, 7, 8; Part II, Introductory, Ch. 9

Lerner, A. P., Economics of Control, Chs. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

Economics 201
Hour Exam
November 3, 1956

Define “external” and “internal” economies. What do we mean when we say these economies are (a) “pecuniary,” (b) technological”? (10 min.)
What are the conditions of stable equilibrium of supply and demand as analyzed by (a) Walras and (b) Marshall? Explain the “apparent contradiction” between the Walrasian and Marshallian stability conditions. (20 min.)
In the “Ricardian increasing cost” case, as described by Viner, what would be the effect on price, output, and rent to the fixed factor, of a tax of “x” cents per unit of output? Illustrate graphically. (20 min.)

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Paul Samuelson, Box 33, Folder “Ec201 Harvard Course, 1955-1956 [sic]”.

_________________________

1956-57
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economics 201
Midyear examination. January, 1957.

Answer the first two (2) questions and any three (3) of the others. Be sure to allocate your time approximately as indicated.

(Forty-five minutes). Assume two individuals (who act as pure competitors) and two commodities. Given the “production-possibility” or “transformation” curve for each individual and also his indifference map, indicate graphically: a) the equilibrium price; b) the equilibrium quantities of each good produced by each individual; and c) the quantity of each good exchanged.
(Forty-five minutes). Discuss the scope and limitations of “Welfare Economics.” Illustrate your discussion with reference to one or two specific theoretical problems (e.g., the box-diagram).
(One-half hour). A production function relates product (Q) to two factors, labor (L) and capital (C). Distinguish the “three stages” for each factor, and give an interrelations among them in a) the case of constant returns to scale (homogeneous production function) and b) the general case.
(One-half hour). Distinguish “internal” and “external” economies and analyze the possibility of equilibrium under pure competition in each case.
(One-half hour). A monopolistic firm can buy labor and land at fixed prices but sells its output in an impurely-competitive market. Now let it be subject to a tax of $X per unit of its output. On the oversimplified assumption that the tax leaves its factor prices, the consumer demand for its product, and its production function unchanged, compare the new equilibrium of output, price, and factor hirings with the old.
(One-half hour). Define the “income” effect and “substitution” effect of a price change. Indicate, in terms of these effects, the likelihood of a) a backward-bending supply curve, and b) a positively-sloping demand curve.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 25. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. January, 1957.

_________________________

_________________________

Economics 201
Spring Term, 1956-57
Economic Theory—Professor Chamberlin

I. Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition

Chamberlin, Monopolistic Competition, Chapters 1, 4,5, 9.

_________, “Monopolistic Competition Revisited,” Economica, November 1951.

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Foreword, Introduction, Chapter 1.

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 3, Appendix A.

Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium T-heory, pp. 78-108.

Hall and Hitch, “Price Theory and Business Behavior,” Oxford Economic Papers, No. 2 (1939). (Also in Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism, T. Wilson, Editor).

Chamberlin, “‘Full Cost’ and Monopolistic Competition,” Economic Journal, May 1952.

_________, “The Product as an Economic Variable,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1953.

Monopolistic Competition, Appendix C, Chapters 6, 7.

Chamberlin, “Product Heterogeneity and Public Policy,” American Economic Review, May 1950.

Suggested:

Robinson, J., Imperfect Competition, Chapters 3-7.

Fellner, Competition Among the Few, Chapters 1-7.

Holton, Richard H., “Marketing Structure and Economic Development,” Q.J.E., August 1953.

Alsberg, C. L., “The Economic Aspects of Adulteration and Imitation,” Q.J.E., 46:1 (1931)

Brems, “The Interdependence of Quality Variations, Selling Effort, and Price,” Q.J.E., May 1948.

II. Income Distribution—General; Wages.

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, 3.

Marshall, Principles, Book VI, Chapters 1-2.

Hicks, Theory of Wages, Chapters 1-4.

Readings, 12.

Monopolistic Competition, Review Chapter 8 and pp. 215-18, 249-52, (5^th or later edition).

Hicks, Chapters 5, 6.

Marshall, Book VI, Chapters 3-5.

Taussig, Principles, 4^th edition, Chapter 52 (or 3^rd revised edition, Chapter 47).

E.H.C., “The Monopoly Power of Labor,” in The Impact of the Union.

Readings, 19.

Hicks, pp. 170-185.

Suggested:

1. Douglas, Theory of Wages, Chapter 2.

2. J.B. Clark, Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 7, 8, 12, 13.

III. Interest

Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory, Book I, Chapter 2; Book II; Book V.

Marshall, Principles, Book IV, Chapter 7; Book VI, Chapter 6.

Wicksell, Lectures, Vol. I, pp. 144-171, 185-195, 207-218.

Clark, J.B., Distribution of Wealth, Chapters 9, 20.

Suggested:

Fisher, I., Theory of Interest, Chapters 5, 6.

Readings, Chapters 20, 21.

IV. Rent

Ricardo, Chapter 2.

Marshall, Book V, Chapters 8-11.

Robinson, Imperfect Competition, Chapter 8.

V. Profits

Marshall, Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 7; Chapters 7,8.

Taussig, Principles (4^th edition), Vol. II, Chapter 49, Section 1 (3^rd revised edition, Chapter 50, Section 1)

Veblen, Theory of Business Enterprise, Chapter 3.

Henderson, Supply and Demand Chapter 7.

Bernstein, P., “Profit Theory—Where Do We Go From Here?” Q.J.E., August 1953

Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 5, Section 6; Chapter 7, Section 6; Appendices D, E.

Schumpeter, Theory of Economic Development, Chapters 1-4.

Suggested:

1. Readings, 27, 29.

Source: Harvard University Archives, Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003”, Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1956-1957 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 201
Final Examination
May, 1957

A. Choose two of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

Write a brief article on the subject of “oligopoly” designed for an encyclopedia of the social sciences, and therefore to be consulted and used mainly by non-specialists in the subject. (Consider well your objective before you begin.)
Discuss excess capacity in the economy, its meaning and its compatibility with “equilibrium.” What are the chief forces tending (a) to bring about, and (b) to eliminate, excess capacity?
(a) Discuss the issues involved in distinguishing between production costs and selling costs, and defend your own conclusions. (b) Are selling outlays, like production outlays, subject to the law of diminishing returns? Discuss, and illustrate your conclusion graphically.

B. Choose four of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

“It is inappropriate to say that the marginal productivity of a certain type of labor determines its wage; wages, like the prices of all economic goods, are determined by both supply and demand.” Discuss with particular reference to the role of supply factors in an adequate theory of wages.
Develop the role which you would give to either (a) monopoly, or (b) rent, in your own theory of wages.
“Waiting is certainly not an element of the economic process in a static state, because the circular flow, once established, leaves no gaps between outlay or productive effort and the satisfaction of wants. Both are, following Professor Clark’s conclusive expression, automatically synchronized.” Discuss the several aspects of this quotation.
Outline your own theory of land rent, with some critical discussion of writers with whom you are familiar. (Restrict your discussion to the problem of land income, without extending the analysis to other factors.)
Write on risk as an element in the theory of profits, choosing such subdivisions or aspects of the problem as seem to you most significant. In what respects, if at all, would you regard a risk theory of profits as inadequate?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. June, 1957. In bound volume Final Exams—Social Sciences—June 1957 (HUL 7000.28, 113 of 284).

Image Sources:

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Edward H. Chamberlin, Fellow 1958.

M.I.T., Paul Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service. Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

Tags Chamberlin, Gill, Samuelson

Economics Programs M.I.T. Regulations

MIT. Revising Economics Ph.D. General Examinations. E.C.Brown, 1975

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-02-12

What makes this memo from E. Cary Brown particularly useful is that it provides us with a list of the graduate economics fields along with the participating faculty members as of 1975. Also the major revision proposed was to have a system of two major fields (satisfied with general examinations) and two minor fields (satisfied by course work). Interesting to note that graduate student input was clearly integrated into the revision procedure.

________________________

Memo from Chairman E. Cary Brown
on a Revision of General Exams, 1975

April 28, 1975

To: Economics Department Faculty and Graduate Students
From: E. C. Brown
Re: Revision of General Examinations

While it has been left that a Committee would be appointed to review the procedures of the general examination (see minutes of the Department Meeting of April 23, 1975), further informal discussion has moved toward a proposed concept of these examinations that I am submitting for consideration and agreement.

There seems reasonable satisfaction about the structure of the present examinations, subject to clarification of the final 2 field examinations and their relationship to the 2 field write-offs.
It is proposed that the 2 fields satisfied by passing the “general” examinations be designated major The examination will be offered in a field, will cover the field in a general way, and will be separated from course examinations. Minor fields will be satisfied by course work. A somewhat lower standard will be imposed in minor fields than in major fields. The “generals” examination, therefore, would apply to the fields of the candidate’s expected expertise, and emphasis would be on a broad coverage of the field.
Each field should, therefore, describe its general requirements for the field as a major one, and list the subjects that may reasonably be offered as a write-off to satisfy the field as a minor one. There should also be some details on the requirements when fields are closely linked (e.g., the proposal for the transportation field and its relationship to urban economics).
Assuming this proposal to be agreeable, the question of term papers still needs settling.

I propose, therefore, the following procedures:

Would each of you give Sue Steenburg a list of your graduate subjects for this academic year, with an indication of whether or not a term paper was required and, if so, the percentage of final grade it represented.
Would faculty in each field submit a list of subjects that may be used to satisfy major and minor requirements in their field as it would ultimately appear in the brochure. The fields to be covered are as follows, the faculty in the field are listed, and the responsible member underlined.

Advanced Economic Theory	Bishop, Diamond, Solow, Fisher, Samuelson, Varian, Hausman, Weitzman
Comparative Economic Systems	Domar, Weitzman
Economic Development	Eckaus, Bhagwati, Taylor
Economic History	Kindleberger, Temin, Domar
Finance	Merton
Fiscal Economics	Diamond, Friedlaender, Rothenberg, Brown
Human Resources and Income Distribution	Thurow, Piore
Industrial Organization	Adelman, Joskow
International Economics	Kindleberger, Bhagwati
Labor Economics	Piore, Myers, Siegel
Monetary Economics	Fischer, Modigliani
Operations Research	Little, Shapiro
Russian Economics	Domar, Weitzman
Statistics and Econometrics	Hall, Hausman, Fisher, Kuh
Transportation	Friedlaender, Wheaton
Urban Economics	Rothenberg, Wheaton

If there are any difficulties with these suggestions, let me know right away. If we can proceed along these lines, it appears to be simply a clarification of our recent past and a substantial timesaver. The reports can be looked at this summer by a student-faculty group, with responsibility for faculty on me and for students on Dick Anderson.

Source: M.I.T. Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder “Grad Curriculum”.

Image with identifications: Economics Faculty group portrait, 1976.

Tags Adelman, Bhagwati, Bishop, BrownEC, Diamond, Domar, Eckaus, FisherFM, Friedlaender, HallR, Hausman, Joskow, Kindleberger, Kuh, MertonRC, Modigliani, Myers, Piore, Rothenberg, Samuelson, Shapiro, Siegel, Solow, Soloway, TaylorFW, Temin, Thurow, Weitzman, Wheaton

Economics Programs M.I.T.

M.I.T. Economics and Political Science, excerpt from President’s Report, 1961

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2020-11-25

M.I.T.’s department of economics has done historically well in attracting graduate students who have received third-party funding, e.g. National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowships. Besides offering a top-down report of the position of the economics department at M.I.T., the excerpt from the President’s 1961 Centennial Year Report transcribed below offers the factual nugget: “This year, too, M.I.T. was selected as first choice by more Woodrow Wilson Fellows in economics — eighteen out of eighty — than any other school in the country”.

_____________________

Also from 1961

M.I.T. Graduate Economics Brochure of 1961.

General Examinations in Economic Theory at M.I.T. from 1961: Microeconomics; Macroeconomics.

Fun antique video. Round table discussion with Jerome Wiesner, Jerrold Zacharias, and John Burchard of MIT with Raymond Aron of the Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Isidor Rabi of Columbia University, and Sir Eric Ashby of Cambridge University was filmed as part of the Tomorrow television series produced by CBS Television Network for MIT on occasion of MIT’s Centennial in 1961.

_____________________

From the President’s Report 1961, M.I.T.

The Social Sciences In the light of the concerns of the Centennial for the larger influences of science upon society, I think it appropriate to review this year the state of the social sciences at the Institute. That we should have become occupied with these areas was inevitable, and the Institute has a clear obligation to cultivate especially those that relate most directly to modern developments in engineering, science, and mathematics. M.I.T. has recognized this responsibility and has responded with strong and growing support to work in the social sciences in the School of Humanities and Social Science and elsewhere. These activities are giving to the Institute an entirely new dimension that few not associated intimately with M.I.T. yet appreciate.

It is a simple truth that the interests of the great physical and social sciences were never more interwoven than today. The overriding practical problems of our time — defense; disarmament; the economics of change; the politics of peace; the relationships among industry, science, and government — require joint technical and social analysis. The very progress of science is influenced by the broader social context, and the advances of engineering affect all our human institutions.

In our decision to encourage the growth of certain key social sciences at M.I.T., we determined not only to build on strength, but also to exploit particularly those that have special relevance to our central concerns with science and engineering. We hope to create more points of contact between the social and physical sciences and to foster more fruitful collaboration between them. In this way, in spite of enormous pressures for growth, we can delimit the domain of our interests and the way in which we allocate our resources to them.

We have given special attention to those fields in which mathematics and statistical techniques are playing an increasingly important role. This is, of course, completely compatible with our M.I.T. style, with our desire to be governed in our approach to problems by a sense of the quantitative, the analytical, the mathematical. But by no means are we seeking to build our social sciences in the image of the physical. We recognize full well the many differences in set and attitude that distinguish them. An exaggerated insistence on emphases that are too narrow or criteria that are too rigid will only defeat our long-range objective of making the social sciences an integral part of the modern scientific university. Each field must be free to develop in its own way, to follow with complete freedom its own professional instincts.

From this point of view, the flowering of the social sciences at M.I.T. represents a new experience for us. Accustomed as we are to the demonstrable factual data of the physical sciences, we must accept the larger subjective element of judgment that enters into the social sciences in their present state. Since developments in many of these areas are open to a variety of interpretations, we must foster, within the limits of our aims and resources, a range of views and interests. The ultimate safeguard, however, lies not in seeking an impossible balance among modes of thought, but in recruiting a faculty of the highest intellectual power and integrity. This we have done.

In my report of a year ago I touched on a faculty survey of the social sciences which gave highest priority for development to fields of economics and economic history, political science, and psychology. I want now to comment briefly on the current status of these fields at the Institute and to examine in passing our commitments and our hopes in these areas.

ECONOMICS The oldest social science at M.I.T., economics is still by a sizable margin the largest. The teaching of economics goes back to 1881 and Francis Amasa Walker. General Walker, the Institute’s third president and one of its great builders, was an authority on political economy — as economics was then called — and his understanding of the processes in American industrial development notably influenced his views on the education of engineers. He gave an outstanding lecture course on political economy and was the author of a distinguished text in the field. He also brought other economists to the Institute.

Yet, until well into the modern era of M.I.T., economics remained largely a service department for the School of Engineering. Only since World War II has the department matured and assumed a truly professional character. Today it is universally conceded to be among the most distinguished. Indeed, by any of the usual measures — the stature of its teachers, the quality of its research, the achievements of its graduates — it ranks in the small handful of leaders. This year the president of the American Economic Association [Paul Samuelson] and the presidents-elect of the Econometric Society [Franco Modigliani] and of the Industrial Relations Research Association [Charles A. Myers] are members of this department. This year, too, M.I.T. was selected as first choice by more Woodrow Wilson Fellows in economics — eighteen out of eighty — than any other school in the country. The strengths which have won this kind of recognition within the profession are substantial indeed. They were achieved, essentially, by encouraging economics at M.I.T. to chart its own professional course; by the development of a distinguished graduate curriculum and of a major research program; and by insistence on the same standards of excellence we demand of our scientific and engineering departments. As a consequence, we have accomplished in economics the same kind of comprehensive renovation of purpose that Karl Compton undertook at an earlier date for the School of Science.

Economics at M.I.T. is also an important resource for other areas of teaching and research, and for the School of Industrial Management in particular. Management education at M.I.T. grew out of our teaching in economics, and today the teaching and research of the Department and the School reinforce one another more strongly than ever. Much of the research of the Department bears directly on the interests of the School — research on the economics of particular technologies; on the problems of measurement of productivity and output; on the contribution of technical progress to economic growth; on the origin and growth of new enterprises. Through this close relationship between the Department and the School, we also enjoy a fruitful interchange of theoretical and practical points of view.

The history and current role of economics at M.I.T. is the model for our development of other social sciences. We have now established sections of political science and of psychology within the Department of Economics and Social Science. Both are fields in which student and faculty interest is keen and in which we have unusual opportunities to make important contributions.

POLITICAL SCIENCE Because of the interweaving of technology with all the affairs of the modern world, and especially with those of government, we have set high priority on the development of political science. It is an area in which we have been moving rapidly ahead. This June we awarded our first Ph.D. degrees in this field, and there are now about thirty doctoral candidates within the Section. In addition, some five hundred undergraduates take elective courses in political science each year.

The Section now offers courses in six fields of political science, all of which are related to other interests of the Institute: international relations and foreign policy, political communication, defense policy, government and science, political and economic development, and political theory and comparative politics. Besides providing opportunities for combining work in political science with a scientific or engineering field, the faculty of the Section maintain close ties with their colleagues in economics, psychology, industrial management, and city and regional planning.

In the past two years, we have developed superlative strength in the field of comparative politics of developing areas, and through the association of the Section with the Center for International Studies we probably have as strong a faculty as is to be found anywhere in the politics of development. In support of this work, the Institute received two notable gifts this year. One, the donation of $500,000 from Dr. Arthur W. Sloan and Dr. Ruth C. Sloan of Washington, D.C., establishes a professorship in political science with emphasis on African studies. Not only does this gift provide an important new endowed professorship, but it also recognizes in a most dramatic way the growing stature of political science at the Institute.

The second grant is one of $475,000 from the Carnegie Corporation for research in training on the politics of transitional societies. The grant will make possible expansion of our research on the problems of nation-building in transition countries such as the newly emerged African and Asian nations. It, too, gives substantial recognition to the quality of our program. The Carnegie grant, among other benefits, establishes graduate fellowships both for course work at M.I.T. and for field work towards the doctoral thesis. We are enthusiastic about the values to be derived from this aspect of the grant which will permit us to send our students overseas for on-the-spot research in developing areas.

We have enjoyed magnificent opportunities for field studies in other areas of our political science activities through the generous support of the Maurice and Laura Falk Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Ford Foundation has also underwritten much of our work on government and science, and the Rockefeller Foundation this year supported a new seminar on arms control. This seminar brought together some thirty individuals in the Cambridge academic community with strong interests in both the technological and political aspects of this subject. We very much hope that this may prove to be the beginning of a substantial new research program on defense policy.

This brief sampling of our progress in political science is intended only to suggest the vitality of this field at the Institute. It has grown quickly, but without over- stretching itself. It has set high standards in research, and it has developed both its undergraduate and graduate courses in a most creative and constructive spirit. This new venture for M.I.T., in sum, has met with outstanding success.

[Reports on Psychology and Linguistics complete this section of the President’s Report]

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The President’s Report 1961. pp. 11-16.

Image Source: The M.I.T. mascot beaver on the cover of its yearbook, Technique 1949.

Tags Modigliani, Myers, Samuelson, WalkerFA

M.I.T. Regulations Teaching Undergraduate

M.I.T. Dean’s request for writing requirements for elective subjects in economics department, 1953

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2020-09-21

The following exchange between the M.I.T. Dean of Humanities and Social Studies (John E. Burchard) and the representative of the chairperson of the Economics Department (Charles A. Myers covering for Ralph E. Freeman) gives us a short list of undergraduate courses that would have regularly had non-economics B.S. students attending to satisfy their distributional requirements in 1953. Dean Burchard’s informational request seems to be a fishing expedition with the hope of landing any evidence that some instructor in some course was helping to improve M.I.T. undergraduate writing skills. It is also interesting to see that sociology, psychology, and political science were all subjects administered by the economics department.

____________________________

Dean Reminding Economics Department about Information Request

May 6, 1953

Memorandum to Professor [Charles Andrew] Myers:

I asked Ralph [Evans Freeman] a while ago to get me some information but have not heard from him and imagine it got left and wonder if you could undertake this survey for me in the near future and give me an answer.

The problem is that those of us who were worried about the English style of our students at M.I.T. are pretty certain that we will never get a good overall performance on the mere basis of instruction in the first two years where writing is required and read and criticized. The burden of continuously upholding the standard obviously is going to rest with the professional departments and I have no doubt there are great inconsistencies in this throughout the Institute, and I also have no doubt most of them are pretty remiss in this obligation.

Before starting any campaign on this question, however, it is obvious that I need to know whether the house of my own School is in point of fact in order, or if not how far it is out of order.

I accordingly asked Professor [Howard Russell] Bartlett and Professor [Ralph] Freeman to get me an indication of the amount of writing required in the various subjects which might be elected by students in the School. In the History Department this was obviously limited to non-professional subjects and for the moment I am more interested in the general electives in the Department of Economics than I am in what policing you do of your own majors. It would be more helpful to know about both.

What Professor Bartlett did was write me a general answer which told me how many papers were required each semester, the approximate length, and how many written examinations. I wonder if it would be possible for you to dig out the same information for the various appropriate subjects in the Department of Economics and report to me fairly soon. I would like to be thinking about this problem during the summer.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Economics Department’s First Response to Dean’s Request for Information

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

May 11, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

This is in answer to your memorandum of May 6^th. I guess this is something Ralph was unable to compete before he left and I thought I should get done promptly since I will be leaving tomorrow for the annual research meeting of the Committee on Labor Market Research of the Social Science Research Council in Minneapolis. George Shultz is one of the invited guests.

Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to list what the various people in charge of the various undergraduate subjects reported:

14.01	[Economic Principles I]	([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 3 or 4 written hour examinations, mostly of the essay type
14.02	[Economic Principles II]	([Edgar Carey] Brown) — 4 written hour examinations, no term papers
14.03	[Prices and Production]	([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 2 to 3 hour examinations; no term papers
14.09	[Economic Problems Seminar]	([Paul Anthony] Samuelson) — no written exams, but 2 written papers, one long and one short, plus oral presentation of the content of the paper prior to the submission of the written paper
14.51	[International Relations]	([Norman Judson] Padelford) — 8 written quizzes of 35 to 40 minutes in length; no term paper, except that sometimes there are written projects.
14.61	[Industrial Relations]	(Doug [Douglass Vincent] Brown and [John Royston] Coleman) — 3 hour examinations and 3 written case reports
14.63	[Labor Relations]	([George Pratt] Shultz) — 3 written hour examinations and one term paper
14.64	[Labor Economics and Public Policy]	([George Benedict] Baldwin) — 3 hour examinations and one written term paper
14.70	[Introductory Psychology]	([George Armitage] Miller) — 2 or 3 written hour examinations, partly objective in character; no term paper
14.72	[Union-Management Relations]	([Joseph Norbert] Scanlon) — 2 hour examinations and a special paper on a particular case
14.73	[Organization and Communications in Groups]	([Alex] Bavelas and [Herbert Allen] Shepard) — 2 objective-type examinations and one written essay-type examination
14.75	[Experimental Psychology]	([Joseph Carl Robnett] Licklider) — no examinations, but a written paper on the experiment, suitable for publication — this latter test is never quite met but students are expected to write with that end in view
14.77	[Psychology of Communication]	([George Armitage] Miller) — 3 objective-type examinations
14.91 and 14.92	[The American Political System; Comparative Political and Economic Systems]	([Jesse Harris] Proctor and [Roy] Olton) — 3 written hour exams, no term paper in the first term — 3 written hour exams plus a written term paper in the second term
15.30	[Personnel Administration]	([Paul] Pigors) — 4 written cases, one term paper and one hour examination

I think this pretty well covers the principal courses which are taken by undergraduate students in other departments. I think my own experience in teaching such undergraduate courses as 14.61 and 14.63 is similar to that of most of the staff, in that I have called attention to students of misspelled words, poor grammar, and generally poor organization and expression of written answers and papers. I really doubt if we can do much more or should do much more. It would be quite a task to go over each written examination with each student in detail, or even to do this after they have submitted a term paper. From time to time I have done this with some theses but not as a general rule, since the student is warned in advance that his grade will depend not only on content, but on expression.

I hope this gives you the information you need.

Sincerely
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

m:g

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Follow-up Request by Dean

May 12, 1953

Memorandum to Professor Myers

Dear Charlie:

Your memorandum of yesterday answers my question about the writing in part.

I guess I agree, though I wish I didn’t have to, that people in the department cannot be expected to act as writing critics for students who are still defective in their English. Though I wish more people required papers and fewer examinations, this is obviously a matter of individual teachers’ methods.

The remaining question which I think is not answered is I believe a critical one, namely, does poor writing really result in a lower grade, and if it does is that single comment written on to the paper when it is returned with the grade to the student?

I hate to trouble you further but wonder if you would be able to explore this with the same group of people.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Economics Department’s Response to Follow-up Request by the Dean

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

June 1, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

These are some further thoughts on your memo of May 12^th, asking me to check again on whether poor writing really results in a lower grade in our courses and whether comments are written on the papers when they are returned with grades to the students.

Nearly everyone with whom I have talked here agrees that poor writing does result in a lower grade, if by “poor writing” is meant poor organization, hasty sentence construction, and confusing or fuzzy thinking as expressed in written words. Poor spelling apparently does not count so much, although Bob Bishop and I specifically do encircle misspelled words on written exams and papers. Comments on poor organization, etc., are specifically written on papers and exams when returned to students, and I know that many of us have stressed to students before writing exams and papers that their grades will depend in part on the way in which their material is organized and presented.

One further experience might be of interest in connection with your comment that you wish more people would require papers and fewer examinations. During the past term Jim Baldwin gave term papers in 14.64 and found that the pressure of senior theses on the students was so great that they did a very poor job on the papers. His grades reflect this, but he is bothered about the apparent conflict between the senior thesis and the term paper requirement in senior Humanities and Social Studies courses. Maybe we ought to place more emphasis on good writing in the senior thesis in the Department and in other Departments.

Sincerely,
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

CAM:dg

Source: M.I.T., Institute Archives and Special Collections, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Office of the Dean, Records, 1934-1964. Box 3, Folder “103, Economics Department, General, March 1951-1956”.
For [first and middle names of instructors] and [course titles]: Course Catalogue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1952-53.

Image Source: (Left) John Burchard ; (Right) Charles A. Myers. MIT Museum Legacy Website (People Collection).

Tags Adolph Miller, BaldwinGB, Bishop, BrownDV, BrownEC, ColemanJR, Myers, Pigors, Samuelson, Scanlon, ShultzG

Department of Economics 1975 – 76

Chicago Economics in 1946

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson by Chicago

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell (25 September 1946)

Frank Samuelson’s 1939 obituary

State of Illinois Death Record for Frank Samuelson

From the Passenger Lists from Hamburg, November 1904

Declarations of intention for naturalization by Frank Samuelson (Ephraim Chodorowski) and his cousin Frank Lipski filed on 18 March 1910

DECLARATION OF INTENTION (Invalid for all purposes seven years after the date hereof)

DECLARATION OF INTENTION (Invalid for all purposes seven years after the date hereof)

1910 U.S. Census Chicago City, Cook County, Illinois Enumerated April 16, 1910

Naturalization Petition: C-362

DRAFT REGISTRATION CARD, 1918

REGISTRAR’S REPORT

U.S. Passport Application (Form for Naturalized Citizen, edition of January, 1919)

Illinois Death Index

Schumpeter asking for instructor feedback for Samuelson’s SSRC fellowship

High-School Honours

Senior Yearbook Picture Radcliffe, 1937

Copy of Joseph Schumpeter’s letter supporting Marion Crawford’s application for a fellowship

Letter from Chairman Seymour Harris to Paul Samuelson May 25, 1956

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

From the M.I.T. economics department records for 1955-56

Enrollment figures from Harvard President’s Report

Economics 201 Economic Theory Fall 1956 READING LIST

I. Supply, Demand, Revenue and Cost

Suggested:

II. Production and Consumption Analysis

A. Production and Cost

Suggested:

B. Utility and Consumption Theory

III. Welfare Economics

Economics 201 Hour Exam November 3, 1956

1956-57 HARVARD UNIVERSITY Economics 201 Midyear examination. January, 1957.

Economics 201 Spring Term, 1956-57 Economic Theory—Professor Chamberlin

I. Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition

Suggested:

II. Income Distribution—General; Wages.

Suggested:

III. Interest

Suggested:

IV. Rent

V. Profits

Suggested:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics Economics 201 Final Examination May, 1957

A. Choose two of the following questions, allowing one-half hour for each.

Memo from Chairman E. Cary Brown on a Revision of General Exams, 1975

Also from 1961

From the President’s Report 1961, M.I.T.

Dean Reminding Economics Department about Information Request

Economics Department’s First Response to Dean’s Request for Information

Follow-up Request by Dean

Economics Department’s Response to Follow-up Request by the Dean

Department of Economics
1975 – 76

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

State of Illinois Death Record
for Frank Samuelson

From the Passenger Lists
from Hamburg, November 1904

Declarations of intention for naturalization
by Frank Samuelson (Ephraim Chodorowski) and his cousin Frank Lipski
filed on 18 March 1910

DECLARATION OF INTENTION
(Invalid for all purposes seven years after the date hereof)

DECLARATION OF INTENTION
(Invalid for all purposes seven years after the date hereof)

1910 U.S. Census
Chicago City, Cook County, Illinois
Enumerated April 16, 1910

U.S. Passport Application
(Form for Naturalized Citizen,
edition of January, 1919)

Senior Yearbook Picture
Radcliffe, 1937

Letter from Chairman Seymour Harris to Paul Samuelson
May 25, 1956

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Economics 201
Economic Theory
Fall 1956
READING LIST

Economics 201
Hour Exam
November 3, 1956

1956-57
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economics 201
Midyear examination. January, 1957.

Economics 201
Spring Term, 1956-57
Economic Theory—Professor Chamberlin

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 201
Final Examination
May, 1957

Memo from Chairman E. Cary Brown
on a Revision of General Exams, 1975