Rubbing Hume’s big toe and saying MV = PY three times still doesn’t make it come true.
Categories
Month: September 2015
Categories
David Hume’s Grave
At the Old Calton Burial Ground in Edinburgh.
Categories
Adam Smith @ Rest
Where Adam Smith’s remains have been deposited.
Categories
Pilgrimage to Edinburgh
On the road this week so few opportunities to add content. But today I did get to Adam Smith’s Edinburgh house where I took this picture.
After the University of Chicago Economics Department’s Committee on Ph.D. Outlines and Requirements (Blough, Friedman, D.G. Johnson and Marschak) met twice, Milton Friedman, the chair of the committee, circulated a five page summary of the committee’s deliberations. This summary along with brief comments by Blough and Marschak are included in this posting.
Core sentences: “The standard should be a first-rate journal article, not a full-length book.” “The student scheduled to report at any meeting [of the thesis seminar] should prepare a written report sufficiently in advance of the meeting to permit duplication, and circulation among all faculty members and all student participants in the seminar. He might then begin the discussion with an introductory summary taking not more than, say, five minutes. The rest of the time would be devoted to critical discussion.”
___________________________
[MEMO #3, 23 MAY 1949]
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Date May 23, 1949
To R. Blough, J. Marschak and Department Economics
D.G. Johnson
From M. Friedman Department Economics
In re: Tentative Agreements reached by committee on Ph.D. outlines and requirements.
[p. 1] In the two meetings our committee has held so far we have concentrated on two main problems: (1) the standards to be applied to a thesis; (2) methods for getting more effective supervision, direction, and criticism of a thesis. The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the tentative agreements reached on these points.
-
Standards to be applied to a thesis.
It was our feeling that the existing (implicit) standards for a thesis are both too high and too low: too high ex ante and too low ex post. It was agreed that we should seek to stimulate shorter, better organized, and better written theses than those ordinarily submitted. The problems here are first, to avoid simply reducing length without improving quality; second, to enforce the standard and make it a part of the mores of the Department.
In order to accomplish these purposes it was agreed (a) that a statement should be prepared in the role of the thesis for distribution to candidates; (b) that every thesis should be required to have a central core not to exceed roughly 15,000 words.
(a) Role of the thesis
The thesis, in our view, is to be viewed primarily as part of the training of the economist, not as a means of securing additions to knowledge. Any additions to knowledge is a welcome by-product, not a major objective. Up to the point at which he writes a thesis, the student has been concerned primarily with absorbing substantive material, acquiring tools and becoming familiar with techniques of analysis. He has only incidentally applied [p. 2] these techniques. Equally important, he has had little occasion to acquire absolute standards of quality; most of his written work has been of a “one-short” variety involving doing his best once and then being through with it. He has not had the experience of re-doing a thing again and again until it is satisfactory in an absolute sense and not merely the best he can do in an hour or a week.
The role of the thesis is to round out the student’s education by remedying these deficiencies. More specifically it should:
(1) Give the student training in research by “doing” and instill in him absolute standards of quality in research.
(2) Deepen the student’s knowledge of the techniques and subject matter he has acquired in course work by requiring him to apply what he has learned to a particular problem. In the process, he should think through the material he has been subjected to and make it his own.
These objectives affect both the choice of topic and the character of the thesis. The topic should be chosen from the point of view less of novelty or importance than of the contribution it can make to the student’s education; the opportunity it offers for improving and expanding his capacities. As a general matter, this suggests topics sufficiently narrow and specific to permit the student to do a thorough and exhaustive piece of work in the time available. It argues against broad general topics in which maturity and judgment are the prime requisites.
To accomplish these objectives, the final thesis should satisfy exceedingly high standards of quality; this is far more important than quantity. As a regular matter, it should be expected that numerous re-writings of the thesis will be required, that an absolute standard of excellence rather than a labor-theory of value will be applied. This means that at least the central core of the thesis must be relatively brief. The standard should be a first-rate journal article, not a full-length book.
[p. 3] It should be emphasized that this objective is unlikely to be attained if the students sets out from the beginning the objective of writing not more than, say, 50 pages. A final acceptable thesis containing 50 pages will ordinarily require the writing of several hundred pages in the process. Indeed, it is frequently easier to write 300 pages on a topic than to write 50 pages of high quality, and the 300 pages will frequently be a preliminary step in getting to the 50 pages.
(b) The scale of the thesis
It was agreed to recommend that every thesis should be required to contain a central core of not more than roughly 15,000 words. This central core is to contain an integrated development of the topic and to be self contained. It may, however, be supplemented by such documentary evidence as is required to support it in the form of supporting appendices.
The central core should, in general, not give much space to the character of the problem, earlier work on the problem, and the like; these belong in the supporting appendices if anywhere. It should concentrate on the original material developed by the writer. It must contain an economic analysis of the problem tackled, not simply summarize date, report views, or describe events. In this context, of course, economic analysis is to be interpreted broadly, not as synonymous with technical economic theory.
One further reason for keeping theses to this scale is the desirability of having every member of the faculty read every thesis and vote for or against its approval. This is not at present feasible but might become so if the scale of the thesis were restricted.
-
Methods for getting more effective supervision, direction, and criticism of theses.
Our chief recommendation on this topic is that there be established a thesis seminar. This seminar should be attended as a regular matter by all students writing theses in residence, by as many faculty members as can find [p. 4] it possible to attend, and, in any event, by the faculty members on the thesis committee of the student reporting at a particular session. Ideally, some one or more faculty members should have direct responsibility for it as part of his teaching load.
The student scheduled to report at any meeting should prepare a written report sufficiently in advance of the meeting to permit duplication, and circulation among all faculty members and all student participants in the seminar. He might then begin the discussion with an introductory summary taking not more than, say, five minutes. The rest of the time would be devoted to critical discussion.
It might be expected that a student would ordinarily appear before the seminar twice: once early in his work for a discussion of the topic and its possibilities; once, toward the end, for a discussion of his results.
This thesis seminar might be integrated with two other steps in the thesis procedure with which there is at present some dissatisfaction: (a) admission to candidacy, (b) the final examination.
The first appearance of the student before the seminar, and the paper prepared for that purpose, might also be used as a basis for deciding on admission to candidacy. At present, it is the general feeling that we have inadequate evidence on which to judge suggested theses. The suggested change in the scale of the thesis opens up the possibility that more time can be spent in the preparatory stages and more can be asked for from the student in the way of supporting evidence. Something of the scale of a term paper I perhaps not too much to ask.
Dissatisfaction with the final examination arises from a different source. The exam is in fact a pure formality, in view of the stage at which it comes. Candidates are in practice almost never failed at that stage. Yet the candidate is not told that it is a pure formality; he regards it as a crucial and important test. The entire procedure has an element of sadism about it.
[p. 5] In place of dispensing with the final exam, might the second appearance of a candidate before the thesis seminar take its place, not in the sense of an occasion for final approval of the candidate, but in the sense of a public exhibition, as it were, testifying to the candidate’s stage of development. Final approval of the thesis would be based on the decision of the thesis committee plus a poll of the entire faculty.
___________________________
[MEMO #4, 6 June 1949]
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Date June 6, 1949
To (R. Blough Department of Economics
(M. Friedman
(D. G. Johnson
From J. Marschak Department of Economics
In re: Ph.D. Theses.
M. Friedman’s draft of May 23 seems to express well the views of the Committee, with the following amendments suggested:
p. 3, par. 1. I propose to cancel this paragraph. To write 300 pages, later to be condensed to 50, is one possible method, but neither the most frequent nor a particularly commendable one. I think this should be left to the students and to their immediate advisers.
p. 3, par. 3, sentence 3. I suggest (suggested insertion underlined): “It must contain a precise statement of the problem and its economic analysis…” It is often unclear what the thesis writer proposes to prove.
p. 4, par. 3. I suggest (suggested insertion underlined):
“…once, early in his work for a discussion of the topic and its possibilities, on the basis of a brief circulated report (on the scale of a term paper); once, toward the end, for a discussion of his results, on the basis of a more detailed report and possibly of the draft of the ‘central core’ of the thesis itself.”
(signed)
Jacob Marschak
JM/fs
___________________________
[MEMO #5, 9 June 1949]
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Date June 9, 1949
To M. Friedman Department Economics
D.G. Johnson
J. Marschak
From Roy Blough Department Economics
In re: Ph.D. Theses.
Milton Friedman’s draft of May 23 seems to be a correct reflection of the views of the Committee. I am in agreement with Mr. Marschak’s suggestions of June 6.
The following afterthoughts are presented for discussion:
- I suggest eliminating the reference to sadism in the final examination. I do not so interpret the examination and, in any event, think the reference is a reflection on our colleagues and predecessors.
- The reference to frequent rewriting of the theses seems to put the emphasis on writing style. While this is important, there are other factors such as precise formulation of purpose, imaginative use of techniques, and logical organization.
- I suggest eliminating any implied criticism of the length of theses except as a criticism of verbosity. The kinds of theses vary so widely that comments which are applicable to one kind of subject would not apply to others. This is not any criticism of the recommendation for a central core for every thesis.
- One danger in suggesting that theses should approach articles rather than books in size is that some substitute will then have to be found as evidence that the student has done the equivalent of a year’s work, in general, on the dissertation. It would be most unfortunate if a few glib students should write plausible theses in a month or two and have them accepted. These students would not receive the research training which the thesis is intended to give, and the effects on the morale of other students might be disastrous.
Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 5 “University of Chicago Minutes, Ph.D. Thesis Committee”.
Image Source: Roy Blough photo from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-00758, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.
The University of Chicago Department of Economics was dissatisfied with its procedures for appraising and approving dissertation projects in late 1948 and a committe was formed to make recommendations with Milton Friedman as its chairperson. Here I post T.W. Schultz’s official memo naming the members of the committee and Milton Friedman’s initial memo to the committee clearly signalling his intention of having a major rethink about what a Ph.D. thesis is supposed to be about.
___________________________
[Memo #1, 10 Dec 1948]
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Date December 10, 1948
To Mr. Friedman, Mr. Blough, Mr. Marschak, Department Economics
Mr. Johnson
From T. W. Schultz Department Economics
The faculty of the Department of economics authorized a committee to prepare a memorandum setting forth the problem of students’ Ph.D. outlines and the procedure to be followed by the Department in appraising and approving Ph.D. thesis projects, including the type of outlines and supporting materials that a student should submit to the Department for its use when it passes upon the petition to admission to candidacy.
May I ask you to serve as members of this committee with Professor Friedman acting as chairman?
The report should be directed to the Department to be circulated well in advance of the departmental meeting in which it is to be considered.
___________________________
[Memo #2, early 1949]
[Undated, written sometime after the Schultz memo of December 10, 1948 and the Friedman memo of May 23, 1949 that followed two meetings of this Committee which had taken place.]
TO: R. Blough, J. Marschak, G. Johnson
FROM: Milton Friedman
SUBJECT: Committee on Ph.D. Thesis Outlines and Requirements
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a basis for discussion by our committee, of which I am chairman. I have been derelict in my duty in not having prepared it much earlier, or not having called a meeting earlier.
-
Our Assignment
To refresh our memories, I quote from Mr. Schultz’s note establishing the committee: “To prepare a memorandum setting forth the problem of students’ Ph.D. outlines and the procedure to be followed by the Department in appraising and approving Ph.D. thesis projects, including the type of outlines and supporting materials that a student should submit to the Department for its use when it passes upon the petition to admission to candidacy.”
Interpreted literally, this assignment would limit us to the steps up to and including admission to candidacy, and would exclude consideration of the characteristics of the thesis itself and the criteria used in its acceptance. Since it seems to me the earlier stages cannot properly be judged except in terms of the desired end product, I suggest that, at least in our own discussions, we interpret the assignment more broadly to include all problems associated with the thesis requirement.
-
Present Procedure
a. Admission to candidacy. As I understand it, we have no very formalized procedure or requirements. Students typically discuss possible thesis topics with one or more faculty members, construct outlines of the projected thesis, ordinarily get the reaction of one or more faculty members to it, revise it accordingly, and then formally submit the thesis topic and outline to the Department for approval and admission to candidacy. The submitted outline is occasionally extremely detailed, occasionally very general, and is sometimes accompanied by a general statement of objective and purpose, sources of material for the thesis, etc.
b. Thesis requirements. Aside from the general and vague requirement that the thesis be an “original contribution to knowledge”, we have, so far as I know, no concrete standards for theses. Among ourselves, we have frequently expressed the view that short theses of high quality were desirable and to be promoted, and have bemoaned the tendency on the part of students to prepare lengthy, pedestrian, theses. It is my feeling, however, that the students themselves think of the thesis in terms of a full-length book, and feel that quantity is an important requirement.
The procedure for guidance of theses is informal and vague. The student ordinarily consults separately with the members of his committee as he feels the need to do so.
-
The Immediate Reason for a Committee
The immediate occasion for the appointment of a committee to consider the problem is primarily the feeling of frustration and incompetence we all feel when we are required to consider thesis topics and outlines and to approve admission to candidacy. The topics are often, if not typically, vague and broad, the outlines have the appearance of being “dreamed up” along rather formal lines in order to get approval rather than of being really working outlines providing a pattern for work or a real prediction of the final organization of the thesis. We are typically reduced to approving or disapproving the tesis larely on the basis of our knowledge of the ability of the student submitting the outline rather than on the merits of the project itself.
-
The More Fundamental Problem
It seems to me that the dissatisfaction with the procedure of approving admission to candidacy reflects a more basic problem—the function of the thesis in the education of the students and the best means of accomplishing that function. I feel that we will make more progress on our particular assignment by considering afresh the general problem.
It is my own feeling that nothing has done so much in the United States to degrade standards of research in economics as the Ph. D. dissertation in its existing form. (These comments do not apply in any special sense to Chicago—indeed, it seems to me that our record in this respect is outstandingly good). The standard which has, in principle, been set for the dissertation is that it be a major piece of work making an original contribution to the field, the model being a book of substantial magnitude. The usual graduate student, expected to begin his dissertation after two years of graduate work and supposed to be able to complete I in another year, is not at all prepared to do a piece of work of this character or quality in the time allotted. He does not have enough background in the field, or broad enough experience, and even if he had, he could hardly complete the dissertation in one year. Equally important, even if the student could do it, faculty advisers would find it impossible to supervise properly more than one or two studies of this magnitude and scope. Proper supervision would mean applying to the work the standards they would apply to their own work; it would mean repeated and detailed consultations with the student, word-by-word and sentence-by-sentence criticism of drafts of pieces of the thesis and of the entire thesis, some independent checking on the student’s work, etc.
The result is naturally a compromise. Faculty advisers do not provide the supervision and critical guidance required, they do not and cannot be expected to go over manuscripts in great detail and require that it be rewritten repeatedly until it meets a high standard. Even aside from the time and effort required, competition prevents such a course of action. The Ph.D. is something of a trade-union card, competition from other schools and the fair treatment of our own graduates requires that they be able to get one on terms that are not intolerably stiffer than those at other institutions. The result is that the theses all of us accept are typically pretty poor products, poorly organized, and full of poor grammar and writing, to say nothing of bad economics and analysis. The student who has a dissertation of this type accepted not only fails to get the training in economic research the thesis should provide, he also goes away, at least to some extent, with the idea that this is the kind of work that is done in economics and that is acceptable and respectable. In latter years, he is not unlikely to produce a flood of additional work no higher in quality than his original effort and even more useless since it does not even provide a trade-union card.
-
The Role of the Thesis in the Education of the Student
There are a number of different functions that can be assigned to the thesis in the educational process:
(a) To give the student training in research by “doing” and some feeling for standards of quality in research.
(b) To sharpen the student’s knowledge of the techniques and subject matter he has acquired in course work by requiring him to apply what he has learned to a particular problem in the belief that in the process he will be forced to think through the material he has been subjected to and make it his own.
(c) To establish habits of work and some feeling for research, in the hope thereby of stimulating him to do work on his own in latter years.
(d) To give him the unquestionably important experience of carrying through to completion a major piece of work.
The thesis might also be viewed, not solely as a part of the educational process, but also as a means of advancing knowledge in economics. I am myself inclined to give this little or no weight. At the stage at which students are not now expected to write their theses, not one student in a hundred is capable of making a “real” contribution to knowledge. Any contribution to knowledge ought in my view to be considered a welcome by-product, not a major objective.
Of the objectives listed, only the first two seem to me capable of accomplishment, with the present general standards about the stage in his career at which the student is expected to write his thesis and the time he is expected to devote to it. The last two, and particularly (d) would require something of a revolution of these standards.
-
Possible Solutions of the Fundamental Problem
There seem to me only two directions in which one can proceed to solve the fundamental problem if one takes as given roughly the present student-faculty ratio.
(a) One approach would be to restrict the Ph.D. degree to many fewer persons and to make it mean something very different from what it now means. As I understand it, this is more or less the approach followed in the Scandinavian countries where the Ph.D. is ordinarily no granted except for a major piece of work done by a man ten, fifteen, or more years after he has begun his professional career. This approach, while promising and desirable if it could be followed, does not seem to me feasible. It consists essentially in saying that one ought to establish a more advanced degree than the present Ph.D. It still leaves the problem of an intermediate degree like our present Ph.D., which would be a mark of certification that an individual is ready to begin his scientific career. It seems hardly possible for one school to do so or to overturn our established custom that a thesis is part of the attainments certified to by such a degree.
(b) The other alternative that seems to me to be open is to make the professed standard of the Ph.D. more modest while raising the attained standard. Instead of a book, the standard would be a journal article. In a way, this does not involve any change, since I do not believe there is anything in our present rules which would prevent us from accepting the equivalent of a journal article as a thesis. However, unless we explicitly make an effort to change our standard and to set a different standard for our students, I doubt very much that they, or we ourselves, will depart from the standard of a book.
What I have in mind is that we should emphasize that the requirement for the Ph.D. would be satisfied by a piece of work not to exceed a specified number of pages in length and of a quality suitable for publication in a professional journal—whether actually published or not is immaterial. The emphasis should be on quality of performance, not on quantity. The expectation would be that the faculty advisers could really go over a piece of moderate length in great detail, that they could if necessary require it to be rewritten any number of times without imposing too great a hardship on the student. It could further be expected that a larger number of members of the faculty would be led to read the thesis before final acceptance, and that in this way higher standards of quality would both be imposed and actually effected. I should be inclined myself to set something like fifty double-spaced typewritten pages as the absolute maximum limit on the size of any dissertation.
-
The Problem of the Thesis Outline
If we were to follow the line just suggested, it seems to me we could appropriately require higher standards in the thesis outline itself. Instead of the present brief and formal statement, we could require something of the order of a brief term-paper. This paper could be expected to contain three items as a minimum: (1) A brief statement of the problem; (2) a succinct but reasonably comprehensive summary of existing literature on the problem; (3) a fairly precise statement of the particular respects in which the student expects to extend or supplement the existing literature. Whether it contained an outline of the present form seems to me immaterial. In addition there ought to be a flat prohibition on any attempts to “justify” the topic in terms of its path-breaking importance for economic science. If we set the training of students as the primary objective, topics should be judged primarily in terms of the training the student will get, only secondarily in terms of their importance to economics.
It should be expected that the student will in general have gone over this statement with some faculty member and have gotten tentative clearance from him.
This is not a very specific recommendation, and I am hopeful that something better will come from the other members of the committee.
Beyond admission to candidacy, there are a number of additional possibilities we should investigate. I mention them only briefly.
(a) There seems to me considerable merit in the suggestion that has been made by Koopmans that the committee as a whole should meet with the candidate shortly after admission to candidacy so that there can be a meeting of minds on the direction his work should take.
(b) I have the feeling that much could be gained by getting the students to help one another by criticism and discussion. This would be valuable training both for the critic and the criticized. Could we set up some sort of a seminar for students writing their theses? In such a seminar, a student would be expected to submit something in written form, duplicated so that the other members have copies in advance. Some students now get the benefit of such discussion through the Cowles Commission and Agricultural Economics groups. Ought we to extend it to all? Or are informal groupings really more effective?
Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 5 “University of Chicago Minutes, Ph.D. Thesis Committee”.
Image Source: Clipping from a photograph from Hoover Institution Archives (Milton Friedman Papers Box 115) in online Wall Street Journal (18 Oct 2012): Dalibor Rohac’s review of The Great Persuasion by Angus Burgin.
Because A. Piatt Andrew is listed for the Fall semester course on money in 1900-1901 and 1902-1903, and the first semester’s required reading is identical for all three academic years (including 1901-02), I have assumed that the more complete listing from 1901-02 (that includes three pages of bibliography) is A. Piatt Andrew’s work. Not only was he to go on to play an important role in Senator Aldrich’s national monetary commission, he was a founder of the American Field Service during the First World War and won election to the U.S. Congress seven times. But for our purposes, his role as critical staffer in the work that would lead to the establishment of the U.S. Federal Reserve System is what makes him most interesting.
The exam questions for the course were transcribed and included in a later post.
__________________________
ANDREW, Abram Piatt, Jr., economist, was born at La Porte, Ind., Feb. 12, 1873, son of Abram Piatt and Helen (Merrill) Andrew, and grandson of Abram Piatt Andrew, a pioneer surveyor and turnpike builder of Hamilton Co., who settled in northern Indiana in 1831. He was educated at the Lawrenceville (N.J.) School, at Princeton University (1893) and Harvard University (1895-97), receiving the degree of Ph.D. from the last in 1900. He also studied at the universities of Halle, Berlin and Paris in 1898-99. In 1900 he became instructor in the department of economics at Harvard University and during 1903-09 was assistant professor of economics and assistant editor of the “Quarterly Journal of Economics.” In 1908 Sen. Aldrich organized the national monetary commission to devise a plan of permanent relief from such financial depressions as overcame the United States in 1907. Mr. Andrew was employed to assist the commission in its researches, and obtaining two years’ leave of absence from his university, he visited London, Berlin, Paris and other financial centers of Europe to study their methods of conducting business and to get information regarding the national and other laws governing banks and stock transactions. Upon his return to this country he had charge of editing the commission’s report, which comprised twenty large volumes and constituted the most comprehensive and valuable publication dealing with the world’s banking and financial interest ever published. His duties at Washington included arranging for the contribution of special articles by men of the highest standing in their particular lines. In August, 1909, Pres. Taft appointed him director of the mint. The statistical presentations made by that office are the most celebrated of their kind in the world. Numerous articles, many of which have since been republished as pamphlets have been contributed by Prof. Andrew to leading publications. Among those which have attracted wide attention was “The Treasury and the Banks under Secretary Shaw,” an arraignment of the latter’s policies, issued at the time of his retirement as secretary of the treasury in 1907. He has published several articles on currency questions as they concern Oriental countries, notably one on the adoption of the gold standard in India. He also wrote “The End of the Mexican Dollar,” “The Influence of the Crops upon Business,” “Hoarding in the Panic of 1907,” and “Substitutes for Cash in the Crisis of 1907,” in which he describes more than 200 substitutes used for money at that time. Prof. Andrew predicted the panic of 1907 in an article published in the New York “Journal of Commerce” on Jan. 1, 1907, and also predicted a rapid recovery in an interview published in the “Boston Daily Advertiser.” Nov. 2, 1907. For several years he was Harvard faculty representative of the “Cèrcle Francais,” and in that capacity entertained most of the distinguished Frenchmen who came to America in that period. In 1906 the French government conferred upon him the title of “Officier d’Académie.” He is unmarried.
Source: The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. XIV, Supplement I, New York: James T. White & Company, 1910, pp.430-431.
__________________________
From the Course Catalogue, 1901-1902
[Economics] 8. Money, Banking and International Payments. Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Drs. Andrew and Sprague, and Mr. Meyer.
Source: Harvard University. Courses of Instruction Provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year 1901-02 (2nd edition), June 25, 1901.
__________________________
Course Enrollment
For Undergraduates and Graduates:—
[Economics] 8. Drs. Andrew and Sprague, and Mr. Meyer. — Money. Banking and International Payments.
Total 78: 5 Graduates, 35 Seniors, 30 Juniors, 4 Sophomores, 4 Others.
Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1901-1902, p. 78.
__________________________
Course Description
- Money, Banking, and International Payments.
Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Drs. Andrew and Sprague, and Mr. Meyer.
The first part of the year will be devoted to a general survey of currency legislation, experience, and theory. The course will begin with a history of the precious metals, which will be connected, in so far as possible, with the history of prices, and with the historical development of theories as to the causes underlying the value of money. The course of monetary legislation in the principal countries will be followed, with especial attention to its relation to the bimetallic controversy; but the experiences of various countries with paper money will also be reviewed, and the influence of such issues upon wages, prices, and trade examined. Some attention, moreover, will be given in this connection to the non-monetary means of payment and to the large questions of monetary theory arising from their use.
The second part of the course will begin with an historical account of the development of banking. Existing legislation and practice in various countries will be analyzed and compared. The course of the money markets of New York, London, Paris, and Berlin will be followed during a series of months, and the various factors, such as stock exchange operations and foreign exchange payments, which bring about fluctuations in the demand for loans and the rate of discount upon them, will be considered. The relations of banks to commercial crises will also be analyzed, the crises of 1857 and 1893 being taken for detailed study.
The course will conclude with a discussion of the movement of goods, securities, and money, in the exchanges between nations and in the settlement of international demands. After a preliminary study of the general doctrine of international trade, it is proposed to make a close examination of some cases of payments on a great scale, and to trace the adjustments of imports and exports under temporary or abnormal financial conditions. Such examples as the payment of the indemnity by France to Germany after the war of 1870-71, the distribution of gold by the mining countries, and the movements of the foreign trade of the United States since 1879, will be used for the illustration of the general principles regulating exchanges and the distribution of money between nations.
Course 8 is open to students who have passed satisfactorily in Course 1. With the consent of the instructors, it may be taken by Seniors and Graduates as a half-course in either half-year.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Official Register of Harvard University 1901-1902, Box 1. Bound volume: Univ. Pub. N.S. 16. History, etc. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Division of History and Political Science comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics (June 21, 1901), pp. 42-43.
__________________________
ECONOMICS 8
FIRST HALF-YEAR
[1901-02, Dr. A. Piatt Andrew]
BOOKS TO BE PROCURED
Francis A. Walker: International Bimetallism.
J. Laurence Laughlin: History of Bimetallism in the United States.
Leon[ard] Darwin: Bimetallism.
REQUIRED READING
October
Walker: 1-84.
Macaulay: History of England, ch. XXI. (Passages concerning the currency and its reform.) [vol. 4].
Macleod: Theory of Credit, 738-760, 551-573 [(2nd ed.) Vol I; Vol II—Part I; Vol II—Part II]; or Theory of Banking, I, 516-539, II, 1-95: or Sumner, American Currency, 231-310.
The Bullion Report in Sumner, History of American Currency, Appendix: or in Sound Currency pamphlet, Vol. II, No. 14.
Laughlin: 109-206.
Walker: 85-110, 118-183.
November
Laughlin: 1-105, 209-280.
Walker: 110-117, 183-9, 217-224.
Darwin: 1-154.
December
Taussig: Recent Investigations on Prices in the United States, in the Yale Review for November, 1893.
Walker: 190-288.
Darwin: 157-280.
Taussig: The International Silver Situation in the Quarterly Journal of Economics for October 1896.
January
(To be assigned later.)
The most complete bibliography of monetary questions is Ad. Soetbeer’s Litteraturnachweis über Geld und Münzwesen, Berlin , 1892. This work is chronologically arranged, covers the period from the year 1500 to 1892, and includes books in all languages. A short annotated list of the more important writings on money will be found in the [Palgrave’s] Dictionary of Political Economy. London, 1896. Vol. II, pp. 795-6. [Vol. I (A-E); Vol. II (F-M); Vol. III (N-Z)]For a record of more recent and currently appearing works upon the same subject consult Division VIII of the classified bibliography in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The titles in this list are briefly annotated and refer to articles in periodicals as well as to books.
The following list includes, with a few exceptions, only books of contemporary issue, and only such as will be reserved in the library, and members of the course are recommended to familiarize themselves with as many of them as possible.
Bimetallic League Publications. Manchester, 1888-1900.
[The Proceedings of the Bimetallic Conference held at Manchester, 4th and 5th April, 1888. The Bimetallic League, 1888.
The bimetallic question: deputation to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, May 30th, 1889
Bimetallism, speech by Henry Chaplin, M.P., in the House of Commons, June 4th, 1889 ]
Bourguin (M.). La Mesure de la Valeur et la Monnaie. Paris, 1896. pp. 276.
Cairnes (J.E.). Essays in Political Economy. London, 1873. pp. 371.
Carlile (W.W.). The Evolution of Modern Money. London, 1901. pp. 373.
Chalmers (R.). A history of currency in the British Colonies. London, 1893. pp. 496.
Chevalier (M.). La Monnaie. Paris, 1866 (2d ed.). pp. 779.
Darwin (L.B.) Bimetallism. London, 1898. pp. 341.
Davis (A. McF.). Currency and Banking in the province of Massachusetts Bay. Part I, Currency. [Part II, Banking] New York, 1901. pp. 473.
Farrer (Lord). Studies in Currency. London, 1898. pp. 405.
Fisher (I.). Appreciation and Interest. New York, 1896. pp. 98.
Giffen (R.). The Case against Bimetallism. London, 1896. pp. 254.
Giffen (R.). Essays in Finance. London, 1880. pp. 347.
Giffen (R.). Essays in Finance. Second Series. London, 1887. pp. 474.
Report of the Monetary Commission of the Indianapolis Convention. Chicago, 1898. pp. 608.
Ruding (R.). Annals of the Coinage of Great Britain. 4 vols. London (3d ed.) 1840. [Vol. I; Vol. II; Vol. III; Vol. IV].
Russell (H.B.). International monetary conferences. New York, 1898. pp. 477.
Senior (N. W.). The Cost of Obtaining Money. London, 1830. pp. 103.
Senior (N.W.). The Value of Money. London, 1840. pp. 84.
Shaw (W.A.). A History of Currency, 1252-1894. London, 1895. pp. 437.
Shaw (W.A.). Writers on English Monetary History, 1626-1730. London, 1896. pp. 244.
Soetbeer (A.). Materials for the illustration and criticism of the currency question. Berlin, 1886.
Sound Currency pamphlets. New York, 1894 to 1901.
Sumner (W. G.). History of American Currency. New York, 1874. pp. 391.
Taussig (F.W.). The Silver Situation in the United States. New York (3d. ed.) 1896. pp. 157.
Walker (F.A.). International Bimetallism. New York, 1896. pp. 297.
Walker (F.A.). Money. New York, 1878, pp. 550.
Walker (F.A.). Money in its relation to Trade and Industry. New York, 1880. pp. 339.
White (H.). Money and Banking. Boston, 1896. pp. 488. [2nd edition, 1902]
Wicksell (K.). Geldzins und Güterpreise. Jena, 1898. pp. 189. [Kahn Translation]
Willis (H.P.). A History of the Latin Monetary Union. Chicago, 1901. pp. 332.
Wolowski (M.). L’or et l’argent. Paris, 1870. pp. 440 + 125.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003, HUC 8522.2.1, Box 1, Folder “1901-1902”.
Image source: http://www.federalreservehistory.org/People/DetailView/253
This posting gives a bibliography and suggested course of reading published as part of a 26 page Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on The Change in Political Economy with an Outline of a Course of Study prepared by Michael E. Sadler, M.A. (“Student and Steward of Christ Church, Oxford; Secretary, and formerly lecturer, to the Oxford University Extension”). The syllabus was published by University Extension Lectures under the auspices of the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching in 1891, judging from the date stamp (Feb 29, 1892 of the Wisconsin Historical Society) and an opening quote from Marshall’s Principles of Economics (1890).
Sir Michael Ernest Sadler (1861-1943) was an undergraduate in Trinity College, Oxford where he was deeply influenced by the lectures of John Ruskin. He became President Elect of the Oxford Students’ Union in June 1882 and gained a first-class degree that July. In May 1885 began what was to become a distinguished career in education as the Secretary to the Oxford University Standing Committee of the Delegacy for Local Examinations. Over the next nine years he travelled and organized lectures for the education of the working classes in the Midlands. Because of his success in this work, he was invited in 1891 to give three talks to the National Conference on University Extension in Philadelphia. An appreciative biographical essay was written by J. H. Higginson, “Michael Ernest Sadler (1861-1943)”, published in Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESDDCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. 24, no. 3/4, pp. 455-69.
While this takes us away from my focus on graduate economics education in the United States, England, like France and Germany, mattered enormously for the development of economics in the United States. Also the weight given to Saint-Simon is at least as much a sign of the times as well as the political position of Sadler. In his 1961 AEA Presidential address, Paul Samuelson wrote: “…reading Gide and Rist you would be forgiven for thinking that Robert Owen was almost as important as Robert Malthus; that Fourier and Saint-Simon were much more important than Walras and Pareto…” as opposed to reading Schumpeter (History of Economic Analysis). For someone learning their economics at the end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century the various socialist analyses/critiques/proposals were indeed very much part of the development of economics. Cf. Laughlin’s 1891 proposal for the expansion of economics at Cornell or Carver’s 1919-20 course at Harvard or, much later even, Douglas’s 1938 course at Chicago.
________________________________
SELECTED LIST OF BOOKS.
I. Subject-Matter.
The Wealth of Nations. By Adam Smith.
L’Industrie. By St. Simon.
L’ Organisateur. [By St. Simon.]
Du Système Industriel. [By St. Simon.]
Catéchisme des Industriels. [By St. Simon.]
Nouveau Christianisme. [By St. Simon.]
Principles of Political Economy. By John Stuart Mill.
Autobiography. [By John Stuart Mill.]
Economic Studies. By Walter Bagehot.
The Wages Question. By General Francis Walker.
Principles of Economics. [8th edition] By Alfred Marshall.
II. History.
History of Political Economy, with Introduction, by Edmund J. James. By Dr. Ingram.
The Industrial Revolution. By Arnold Toynbee.
III. Criticism.
Essays in Political Economy. By T. E. Cliffe Leslie.
Adam Smith. By R. B. Haldane.
St. Simon et le St. Simonisme. By Paul Janet.
Les Économistes Français du XVIIIme Siècle. By Léonce de Lavergne.
Histoire des Doctrines Économiques. By A. Espinas.
Unto this Last. By John Ruskin.
SUGGESTED COURSE OF READING ON THE SUBJECT.
The best book to begin with is Dr. Ingram’s History of Political Economy, originally published in Part 74 of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The student will do well to read the whole of Dr. Ingram’s treatise beginning with the section headed “Third Modern Phase; System of Natural Liberty.”
This done, the reader should turn to Mons. de Lavergne’s Economistes Francais de dix-huitième siècle (1870, Paris, Guillamin). Convenient chapters will also be found in Mons. Espinas’ Histoire des Doctrines Economiques (Paris, Colin, 1891), especially Part 4.
Next, the student should certainly read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. He is strongly advised not to content himself with any summary or analysis of this great work, the style of which has an incommunicable charm. Taken in its historical position, this classical treatise on Political Economy will be found by the student to be of immense value to him in later researches.
After reading Adam Smith, turn to Cliffe Leslie’s Essays on Political and Moral Philosophy, second edition, especially Essays 3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 16. Special attention should be paid to Book 5, Chapter 1.
Haldane’s Life of Adam Smith, 1887, will also be found useful, but advanced students will also derive much pleasure from Dugald Stewart’s Account of Life and Writings of Adam Smith, prefixed to Wakefield’s edition of Wealth of Nations, 1843.
At this point Toynbee’s Lectures on the Industrial Revolution should be carefully read, together with Brentano’s Guilds and Trade Unions.
He should then turn to Saint Simon, reading his Autobiography (Volume I of the collected works, Paris, Dentu, 1868), and paying special attention to Vols. III, IV, V, VI of the collected edition and particularly to L’Industrie, L’Organisateur, Du système industriel, and the Nouveau Christianisme.
For the life of Saint Simon, read Saint Simon et le Simonisme, Janet (Paris, Bailliere, 1878).
Then take Vol. IX of Saint Simon’s Collected Works, [Note: Oeuvres de Saint-Simon et d’Enfantin. 47 vols. Paris: Dentu, 1865–1878. → Saint-Simon’s writings are found in Volumes 15, 18-23, and 37-40.] and read Catéchisme des Industriels (troisième cahier) which is really Comte’s work. Next compare this with Comte’s Système de Politique Positive, especially Appendice Général, troisième partie (edition, Paris, 1854). Also refer to Littré, Auguste Comte et la Philosophie Positive, especially Chapter III.
For the influence of these ideas on English Political Economy read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, especially the end of Chapter II and the whole of Chapter V and the greater part of Chapter VII.
For the later development of Political Economy read Bagehot’s Economic Studies and Professor Henry Sidgwick’s Principles of Political Economy, especially Books I-III.
For the protest against Political Economy make a careful study of John Ruskin’s Unto this Last; also read Ruskin’s Munera Pulveris and Fors Clavigera. Refer also to Karl Marx’s Capital.
For a summary of the present position of Political Economy consult Professor Marshall’s Principles of Economics. [8th edition]
Source: Michael E. Sadler, M.A.(1891). Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on The Change in Political Economy with an Outline of a Course of Study.