Month: May 2018

Categories
ERVM Irwin Collier

Third Anniversary of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror, 2018

 

Today, 8 May 2018, Economics in the Rear-view Mirror celebrates its third anniversary. As your faithful scribe and curator of this digital collection of archival artifacts from the history of economics, I am happy to report that the project is on right on schedule, and I have been able to add artifacts at a rate of 250 per year. Here is the catalogue of (at this moment exactly 750) items.

The following table lists the top twenty postings/pages ranked by page-views for year three. As one might expect, names like Schumpeter, Hayek, Samuelson, Friedman and Solow are the big draws for what is after all a pretty nerdy boutique blog. It is my hope to entice visitors to check out some of the 19th and early 20th century artifacts and to help expand the market for the young historians of economics who have been generous in their likes and retweets over at the Twitter and Facebook outposts of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

While it should be obvious, let me explicitly say that the work here is strictly and solely motivated by educational and research purposes and that this blog is not in any way a commercial enterprise. It is merely a publicly viewable log of my ongoing research into the evolution of undergraduate and graduate education in economics for (approximately) the century before I began my own economics education. Beware ye who may attempt to exploit for non-educational-and-research purposes my good-faith in remaining well within the fair-use of material to which copyright might rightfully be claimed!  

Title   Views
Harvard. Final Examination for Paul Sweezy’s Economics of Socialism, 1940 4,832
Harvard. Graduate economic theory exams. Taussig, 1930-35 2,687
NBER. Mitchell to Burns about Friedman. 1945 1,439
M.I.T. Student evaluations for core microeconomics course taught by Samuelson, 1970 1,403
M.I.T. Complaint about ill-treatment of woman in job interview, 1982 818
Harvard. Exams from Principles of Economics. Day, Davis, Burbank et al., 1917-18 687
Wisconsin. Business Cycles. Readings and Exam. Friedman 1940-41 604
M.I.T. Student evaluations of second term core macroeconomics. Solow, Foley. 1967-70 584
Harvard. Graduate Core Economic Theory, Readings and Exams. Schumpeter, 1936-37 504
Harvard Economics. Course. Economics of Socialism. Sweezy. 1940 490
Harvard. History of Economic Theory. Final exam questions, Taussig, 1887-90 487
Chicago. Monopoly course proposal by Abram Harris with George Stigler’s (Dis)approval, 1961 486
Chicago. Hayek’s Seminar “Equality and Justice”, 1950-51 457
Harvard. Graduate core economic theory exams and enrollments. Taussig, 1926-30 441
Yale. James Tobin on Freedom to Friedman in 1964 333
Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory, Scope and Methods. Carver, 1914-15 308
Chicago. Milton Friedman from Cambridge to T.W. Schultz. 29 Mar 1954 239
M.I.T. Economics skit from about 1971 233
Harvard. Exam questions for Mason and Leontief’s Marxian economics course, 1937 231
The Economics Rare Book Reading Room. Classic Economics. 227
Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Proposed plan to review economics curriculum, 1944

 

A transcription of a 1945 memo from the curriculum committee of the department of economics at Columbia University regarding curricular issues brought up during discussions during the spring of 1944  was posted earlier. In a different box of departmental records I found the following memo that initiated the series of meetings and that provides us some of the backstory for the 1945 memo. I find the curious ordering of the meetings by topics rather random, e.g. theory courses only to be discussed in the second to last session. 

As the note stapled to the bottom of the memo indicates, the proposed days for the meeting were suggested to be shifted to Mondays. The penciled dates shown in square brackets in the transcription are all Mondays.

______________________

Plan to review Columbia’s economics curriculum

January 13, 1944

To the Members of the
Graduate Department of Economics

At our meeting on December 6th there was, we think, general agreement on the need of reviewing our course offerings and some of our present methods of graduate instruction. For such review, and for a more careful consideration of the problems we shall face in the Department during the years immediately following the war, we suggest that a series of meetings be held during the Spring Session. Each meeting could be devoted to consideration of a particular subject or group of subjects in our present curriculum. One meeting could be given to economic theory, another to economic history, another to labor and industrial relations, and so on. It would be desirable, of course, that at each session we have, not the casual and rather unfocussed discussion that was inevitable at our first meeting, in December, but intensive examination of what we are doing, and a consideration of what we should and can do.

As an indication of what might be covered, we list certain matters that might be given attention, each time:

—the substance of our present offering (i.e. a summary account of what is given in our present courses, including an indication of the subjects covered and of the manner in which each course is organized.
—chief present problems in this field of knowledge, and prospective problems in the post-war period.
—relation of work in this field to other fields and the curriculum as a whole.
—teaching procedures employed, and appraisal of results (If seminar system, how effective? If lecture system, or modified lecture system, how effective?)
—relation of our work to what is done elsewhere (in several other leading graduate schools) in this field.
—needs of this field, in the way of equipment of trained men (What equipment is needed by men undertaking work in this field? What are the best means of providing the needed equipment and research experience?)
—recommendations, if any, as to what we should do in the future in this field at Columbia.

This list is, of course, suggestive only; it is not intended to be an outline that should be followed each time. We should doubtless, throughout, keep the whole curriculum in mind, and the relations among activities in different fields, although the discussion at each meeting would center on a particular topic.

Following is a provisional grouping of subjects for discussion at successive meetings:

  1. Labor and industrial relations (including labor law and social insurance) [February 14]
  2. Economic history (excluding the courses on capitalism and investment, which are placed in group #6) [February 21]
  3. International trade and finance [February 28]
    Banking, and monetary economics
  4. Industrial organization [March 6]
    Capitalism in the 19thand 20thcenturies
    Investment and economic change
    Economics of business enterprises
  5. Business cycles[March 13]
    Structure of the American Economy
    Prices
  6. Types of economic organization [March 20]
    …Socialism
    …Types of national planned economy
  7. Statistics[March 27]
    Accounting
  8. Economic theory (including all courses on theory, the history of theory, institutional economics and mathematical economics) [April 3]
  9. Public finance and taxation [April 10]
    Corporation finance
    Public utilities

This tentative grouping is subject to modification, if the general plan is approved by the Department. We hesitate to suggest covering several important topics at a single meeting, but we can see no other way to keep the time schedule within reasonable limits.

Our purposes in holding these meetings would perhaps be better served by afternoon meetings, running for two hours, than by evening sessions. As a possibility we suggest Wednesday, from 3 to 5 o’clock in 304 Fayerweather, beginning on February 9th. We should probably plan to have the discussion of each topic opened with a statement from the Department member concerned—a statement that might run from 20 to 40 minutes, depending on the number of subjects to be covered at that meeting. Thereafter time should be given for general discussion. Particular attention would be given in this discussion to the relation of the topic in question to other subjects covered in our curriculum.

The Curriculum Committee would be glad to have the judgment of the members of the Department on this proposal. If you approve the general plan, will you let us know whether you could attend meetings on Wednesday afternoon from 3 to 5 o’clock?

Sincerely yours,

CARTER GOODRICH
FREDERICK C. MILLS
CARL S. SHOUP
WESLEY C. MITCHELL, Chairman

[added] NOTE: We find that a Wednesday afternoon schedule for the proposed meetings would involve at least one serious conflict. Accordingly, we suggest that the meetings be held on Monday afternoon from 4 to 6. Is this time suitable? If so, our first session might be held on Monday, February 14th.

Curriculum Committee

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2 “Faculty”, Folder “Department of Economics—Faculty, Beginning January 1, 1944”.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Princeton Salaries Stanford UCLA Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Economics Faculty Salaries for 15 U.S. universities. Hart Memo, April 1961

 

Here we have a memo written by member of the Columbia University economics department executive committee, Albert G. Hart, that presents the results of what appears to be his informal polling of the chairpersons of 21 departments. Fifteen of the departments provided the salary ranges at four different ranks. No further details are provided, this one page memo was simply filed away in a folder marked “memoranda”. Maybe there is more to be found in Hart’s papers at Columbia University. Up to now I have only sampled Hart’s papers for teaching materials and perhaps next time, I’ll need to look into his papers dealing with departmental administrative affairs.

For a glance at salaries about a half-century earlier:  Professors and instructors’ salaries ca. 1907. 

________________

AGH [Albert Gailord Hart] 4/21/61

CONFIDENTIAL information on economic salaries, 1960-61, from chairmen of departments

Institution

 Professors Associate professors Assistant professors

Instructors
Harvard

$12,000-22,000

 $9,000-12,000 $7,500-8,700

$6,500
Princeton

$12,000-…?…

 $9,000-11,500 $7,000-8,750

$6,000-6,750
California

$11,700-21,000

 $8,940-10,344 $7,008-8,112

$5,916-6,360
MIT

$11,000-20,000

 $8,000-11,000 $6,500-9,000

$5,500-5,750
Minnesota

$11,000-18,000

 $8,500-11,000 $6,800-8,400

?
COLUMBIA

$11,000-20,000

 $8,500-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-5,750
Northwestern

$11,000-…?…

 $8,000-11,000 $6,800-7,500

?
Duke

$11,400-16,000

 $8,200-10,000 $7,200-8,200

$5,800-6,500
Illinois

$11,000-15,000

 $7,500-10,000 $6,900-8,600

$6,500-7,100
Cornell

$10,000-15,000

 $8,000-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-6,500
Indiana

$10,000-14,800

 $8,300-10,000 $6,500-7,500

?
Michigan

$10,000-…?…

 $8,700-..9,500 $6,600-8,000

$5,000
Virginia

$..9,800-15,000

 $7,800-..9,800 $6,600-7,800

?
Wisconsin

$..9,240-16,150

 $8,000-..9,000 $6,550-8,460

$5,250-5,450
Iowa State (Ames)

$..8,500-13,000

 $7,500-..8,500 $6,700-8,000

$4,700-6,600

[…]

Note: The following institutions for which data were not included in the source materials are believed to pay their economists at scales at or above the Columbia level:

Carnegie Tech
Chicago
Johns Hopkins
Stanford
Yale
UCLA

[…]

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbia University, Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials: Box 11, Folder: “Economics—Memoranda”.

Categories
Chicago Courses Suggested Reading

Chicago. Reading list for Price Theory (Econ 300 A&B). Friedman 1958

 

The reading assignments for the two-quarter core price theory sequence taught by Milton Friedman in 1948 have been posted earlier.  This post gives the reading assignments with open and gated links where available (some of the papers are only available at the gated jstor.org) for the same sequence ten years later. I have put in boldface the 1958 additions to make a comparison with the 1948 version easier. Worth noting: an asterisk designates optional and not required reading.

Only one item was dropped from the 1948 reading list:

Meyers, A. L. Elements of Modern Economics, ch 5, 7, 8, 9.

______________________________

September, 1958

ECONOMICS 300 A and B
Reading Assignments by M. Friedman

(Notes:

  1. It is assumed students are familiar with material equivalent to that contained in George Stigler, Theory of Price, or Kenneth Boulding, Economic Analysis.
  2. Mimeographed lecture notes on 300A and B summarize the main points covered in the course.
  3. The American Economic Association Readings in Price Theory contains an excellent selection of articles on our general topic, only a few of which are listed separately below.
  4. Readings marked with asterisk (*) are recommended, not required.)

 

KNIGHT, F. H., The Economic Organization, esp. pp. 1-37.  HB172.K73.

KEYNES, J. N., The Scope and Method of Political Economy, Ch. I and II, pp. 1-83.  HB171.K45.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics.

HAYEK, F.A., “The Use of Knowledge in Society,”American Economic Review, Sept. 1945; reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order. HB1.A6.

 

MARSHALL, ALFRED, Principles of Economics, Bk III, Ch 2, 3, 4; Bk V, Ch 1,2. HB171.M36.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” Journal of Political Economy, Dec. 1949. YF6. Reprinted in Essays in Positive Economics.

SCHULTZ, HENRY, The Meaning of Statistical Demand Curves, pp. 1-10. HB201.S398.

WORKING, E. J. “What do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, XLI (1927), pp. 212-27. HB1.Q3.

KNIGHT, F. H. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Ch 3. HB601.K7. 1940.

*LANGE, O., “On the Determinateness of the Utility Function”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol I (1933-34), pp. 218 ff. HB1.R45.

*ALLEN, R.G.D., “The Nature of Indifference Curves,” Ibid, pp. 110 ff. HB1.R45.

HICKS, J. R., Value and Capital, Part I (pp. 11-52). HB171.H64.

*HICKS, J. R., A Review of Demand Theory.

*SAMUELSON, PAUL, Foundations of Economic Analysis.

*WOLD, H., Demand Analysis. Ch. 1.

*FRIEDMAN, MILTON, A Theory of the Consumption Function.

*STIGLER, G., “The Early History of Empirical Studies of Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Political Economy, April, 1954.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “Income and Substitution Effects of a Change in Price”. (Mimeographed). YF4.

*SLUTSKY, EUGEN, “On the Theory of the Budget of the Consumer”. Readings in Price Theory, pp. 27-56.

MOSAK, J. L., “On the Interpretation of the Fundamental Equation in Value Theory”, in Lange, et. al., Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. HB99.C5.

*WALLIS, W. A., and FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “The Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions”, in Lange et al, Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. HB99.C5.

*FRIEDMAN, MILTON and SAVAGE, L. J., “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy, LVI (August 1948) pp. 279-304. HB1.J7. Reprinted in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 57-96. HB99.C5.

___________, “The Expected-Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, Dec. 1952, pp. 463-474. HB99.C5.

ALCHIAN, ARMEN, “The Meaning of Utility Measurement”, American Economic Review, March 1953, pp. 26-50.

MARSHALL, Book V, Ch 3, 4, 5, 12, Appendix H. HB171.M36.

*ROBINSON, JOAN, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Ch 2. HB201.R65.

CLARK, J. M., The Economics of Overhead Costs, Ch 9. HB201.R65.

*VINER, JACOB, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves”, Zeitschrift fuer Nationaloekonomie, Bd III (Sept, 1931), pp. 23-46. H5.Z55. Reprinted in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 198-232.

APEL, HANS, “Marginal Cost Constancy and Its Implications”, American Economic Review, XXXVIII (Dec. 1948), pp. 870-885.

SMITH, CALEB, “Survey of the Empirical Evidence on the Economies of Scale”, in Business Concentration and Price Policy, pp. 213-30 and Comment by Milton Friedman, pp. 230-38.

CHAMBERLIN, EDWARD, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Ch 3, sec. 1, 4, 5, 6; Ch 5. HB201.C44.

*HARROD, R. F. “Doctrines of Imperfect Competition”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1934, sec. 1, pp. 442-61.

STIGLER, G. J., “Monopolistic Competition in Retrospect”, and “Competition in the United States”, in Five Lectures on Economic Problems. HB171.S82.

*TRIFFIN, ROBERT, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, esp. Part II. HD41.T8 AND H31.H33, v. 67.

HARBERGER, A. C., “Monopoly and Resource Allocation”, Proceedings, American Economic Review(May, 1954).

*ROBINSON, E. A. G., The Structure of Competitive Industry. HO45.R732.

STIGLER, G. J., “The Statistics of Monopoly and Merger”, Journal of Political Economy, February, 1956.

STIGLER, G. J., “The Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve and Rigid Prices”, in Readings in Price Theory.

*ROBINSON, E. A. G.,  Monopoly.

*PLANT, ARNOLD, “The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions,” Economica, Feb, 1934. HB1.E42.

*DENNISON, S. R., “The Problem of Bigness,” Cambridge Journal, Nov. 1947. YO3.

 

MARSHALL, Book IV, Ch 1, 2, 3; Bk V, Ch 6. HB171.M36.

CLARK, J. B., The Distribution of Wealth, Preface, Ch 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 23.

MILL, JOHN STUART, Principles of Political Economy, Book II, Ch 14.  HB171.M667.

HICKS, J. R., The Theory of Wages, Ch 1-6. HD4909.H63.

SMITH, ADAM, The Wealth of Nations, Bk I, Ch 10. HB161.S652.

MARSHALL, Bk VI, Ch 1-5. HB171.M36.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON and KUZNETS, SIMON, Income from Independent Professional Practice, Preface, pp. v to x; Ch 3, Sec 3, pp. 81-95, Ch 4, Sect 2, pp. 118-137, App, Sec 1 & 3, pp. 142-151, 155-61. HD4965.U6F8.

FRIEDMAN, MILTON, “Choice, Chance, and the Personal Distribution of Income,” Journal of Political Economy, Aug., 1953, pp. 277-90.

KNIGHT, F. H. “Interest” in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, also in Ethics of Competition. HO4965.E46.

KEYNES, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Ch 11-14. HB171.E46.

LERNER, ABBA P., “On the Marginal Product of Capital and the Marginal Efficiency of Investment”, Journal of Political Economy, Feb. 1953, pp. 1-14.

CLOWER, R. W., “Productivity, Thrift, and the Rate of Interest”, Economic Journal, March 1954, pp. 107-15.

WESTON, J. F., “A Generalized Uncertainty Theory of Profit”, American Economic Review, March 1950, pp. 40-60. HB1.A6.

___________, “The Profit Concept and Theory: A Restatement”, Journal of Political Economy, April 1954, pp. 152-170.

CASSELL, GUSTAV, Fundamental Thoughts in Economics, Ch. 1, 2,3. HB179.C283.

___________, The Theory of Social Economy, Ch 4. HB179.C31

HICKS, J. R., “Mr. Keynes and the ‘Classics’; A Suggested Interpretation”, Econometrica, Vol. 5, April 1937, pp. 147-159. HB1.E23, V. 5.

MODIGLIANI, F., “Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest and Money,” Econometrica, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan. 1944) esp. Part I, Sec. 1-9, Sec 11-17, Part II, Sec 21. HB1.E23, v. 12. Reprinted in American Economic Association, Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 186-240.

*PIGOU, A. C., “The Classical Stationary State,” Economic Journal, Vol. 53, Dec. 1943, pp. 343-51. HB1.E3, v. 63.

___________, “Economic Progress in a Stable Environment,” Economica, 1947, pp. 180-90. HB1.E42, v. 14. Reprinted in Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 241-251.

PATINKIN, DON, “Price Flexibility and Full Employment”, American Economic Review, XXXVIII, 4, Sept. 1948, pp. 543-564. YP6. Reprinted in Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 252-283.

 

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 77, Folder “1. University of Chicago, Econ 300A & B”.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive apf1-06230, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Undergraduate International Monetary Affairs. Metzler, 1962

 

It is interesting to see that University of Chicago economics undergraduates in 1962 were still expected to learn something about mercantilism and classical international economic theory with a dash of Friedrich List as a chaser in Lloyd Metzler’s course on international monetary relations and policies. Oh yes, and Alfred Marshall gets into the act as well! 

_____________________

Lloyd A. Metzler

ECONOMICS 271
Reading List
Winter, 1962

  1. Mercantilism and the Classical Theory of Comparative Advantage.

P. T. Ellsworth, The International Economy, Revised Edition, chapter 2.
Eli Heckscher, “Mercantilism,” in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X.
David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chapter 7.
John Stuart Mill, Essays on Some Unsettled Questions in Political Economy, Essay 1.

  1. Mechanism of the Foreign Exchange Market.

Alan R. Holmes, The New York Foreign Exchange Market, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, March 1959.
P. T. Ellsworth, The International Economy, Revised Edition, chapter 15.
Frank A. Southard, Jr., Foreign Exchange Practice and Policy.
Peter B. Kenen, Giant among Nations, Harcourt Brace, 1958.

  1. National Income and the Balance of Payments.

J. E. Meade, The Theory of International Economic Policy, Vol. I, The Balance of Payments, Oxford University Press, Part I.
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Income and Output, 1958.
R. F. Bennett, “Significance of International Transactions in National Income,” in Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. VI, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Alfred Marshall, Money, Credit, and Commerce, Book III, chapters 1-4.

  1. Postwar Monetary Developments.

Randall Hinshaw, “Toward Currency Convertibility,” Princeton University, Essays in International Finance, No. 31, 1958.
Robert Triffin, Europe and the Money Muddle, Yale University Press, 1957.
Alice Bourneuf and E. A. Goldenweiser, “The Bretton Woods Agreements,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 1944.

  1. Regional Monetary Arrangements.

Jacob Viner, The Customs Union Issue, Chapter 4.
Committee for Economic Development, The European Common Market and its Meaning to the United States, CED, May, 1959.
James E. Meade, Problems of Economic Union, University of Chicago Press, 1953.

  1. Undeveloped Areas and the Theory of Economic Growth.

Friedrich List, A National System of Political Economy.
Walter W. Rostow, The Process of Economic Growth, chapters 1-4.
Colin Clark, Conditions of Economic Progress, chapters 2, 3, 4, 11.
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, chapter 1.
A. J. Brown, Introduction to the World Economy, chapters 1-4, chapter 6.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder “271 Class Notes. Win. ‘62”.

_____________________

L. A. Metzler

ECONOMICS 271
COURSE EXAMINATION
Winter, 1962

(1) Outline the principal policies of mercantilist economics and show how these policies were justified as being in the national interest of the country concerned.

(2) How were the mercantilist doctrines refuted by the classical economists, particularly by Ricardo and Mill?

(3) Did the classical economists establish a case for universal free trade? Explain.

(4) What are the main features of an undeveloped or backward country and how can the obstacles to economic development be overcome?

(5) How do you account for the decline in public interest in Malthus’ doctrine of population during the middle of the nineteenth century? What explains the recent revival of interest?

(6) Suppose that England, France and the United States have flexible exchange and that, at a given moment of time, these rates are:

New York—London: $4 = £1.
New York—Paris: $0.25 = F. 1
London—Paris: F12 = £1

If an arbitrageur has bank balances in all these countries, show how he can operate in such a way as to leave all of his foreign balances unchanged and at the same time increase his domestic balances. What effect will these operations have on all three rates?

(7) Demonstrate the conditions under which devaluation will improve a country’s balance of trade. In doing this you should define the balance of trade in both domestic and foreign currencies.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder “Course Exams 270-271”.

Source Image: Posting by Margie Metzler on the Metzler Family Tree at the genealogical website, ancestry.com.

Categories
Courses Curriculum M.I.T.

M.I.T. Student evaluations of second term core macroeconomics. Solow, Foley. 1967-70

 

The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were: 

 14.121 (Term 1) 14.122 (Term 2) 14.451 (Term 1) 14.452 (Term 2)
1966/67 Bishop Samuelson Eckaus

Solow

1967/68

 Bishop Samuelson Domar Solow
1968/69 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

1969/70

 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

Previous posts provided the responses for Robert Bishop’s Economic Analysis (14.121), Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122) and Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451).

In this post we’ll have a look at Robert M. Solow and Duncan Foley’s course, Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452) covering the topics:

Growth theory
Empirical Aspects of growth
Cycle theory
Empirical aspects of cycles
Monetary aspects of growth.

First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. From the departmental course staffing reports in the M.I.T. archives, we discover that the course announcements for 1968/69 and 1969/1970 incorrectly listed Miguel Sidrauski and Solow as instructors of 14.45. Duncan Foley replaced Solow as instructor of this course in those two years. Here is an example where having the ex post staffing reports allows us to identify some inaccuracies found in the catalogues.

 Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.

 Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning the course. Of the four courses that together made up the economic theory core at M.I.T. in the late 1960’s, students were clearly the most satisfied with their Economic Growth and Fluctuations  course.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

14.452T Economic Growth and Fluctuations (A)

[Solow]
Prereq.: 14.451
Year: G (2) 4-0-8

Application of theory of income and employment to analysis and measurement of changes in level of economic activity over time, and to study of inflation. Solow

MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 292.

page 219:

“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.
‘(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…
‘G’ is a graduate subject.
The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”

Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T, p. 307

Catalogue 1968-69: course instructor listed as Sidrauski [Note: Duncan Foley actually taught the course, see below], p. 312

Catalogue 1969-70:  course instructor listed as Solow [Note: Duncan Foley actually taught the course, see below],p. 294.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.452
Second terms of 1966/67 through 1969/70

1967: Term II. 3 hours/week. 39 regular students, 1 Listeners.

Professor R. M. Solow with Instructor M. Sidrauski

1968: Term II. 3 hours/week 52 regular students, 2 Listeners.

Professor R. M. Solow with Instructor M. Sidrauski

1969: Term II.  3½ hours/week, 49 regular students, 1 Listeners

Assistant Professor D. K. Foley with Michael Rothschild

1970: Term II. 3 Hours/week. 43 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Associate Professor D. K. Foley with Instructor S. Kennedy (grader)

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

____________________

THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE

There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.

These pertain to each heading in the course outline:

Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?

For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.

Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.

 

[Summary for Robert Solow from 10 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68]

Ec 452:

 Economic background Math

Coverage

Growth theory

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 1

Empirical Aspects of growth

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 0

Cycle theory

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 0

Empirical aspects of cycles

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 0

Monetary aspects of growth

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 2

From the student comments on Solow’s course
Each bullet point from a different student

YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67

  • Cycle theory: Should be dropped.
    Monetary aspects of growth: Needs to be intensified.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • An excellent course.
  • This course is very adequate—except more could be done perhaps by going faster with no loss of comprehension.
  • Well-done course.
  • As these courses were taught two years ago there was too little integration of the two terms. Partly this reflects a real gap in macro theory itself; I would like to see an integration of the Patinkin-type of analysis into growth theory.

 

[Summary for Duncan Foley from 12 student responses:
of which 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 452:

 Economic background Math

Coverage

Growth theory

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 1

 Too deep: 3

Not deep enough: 1

Empirical Aspects of growth

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 4

Cycle theory

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 4

Empirical aspects of cycles

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 5

Monetary aspects of growth

 Too little: 0

Too much: 1

 Too little: 0

Too much: 2

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 3

 

From the student comments on Foley’s course
Each bullet point from a different student

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • Cycle theory and Empirical aspects of cycles: little done but that’s probably a good think.
  • 452 is, by and large, a very good course
    Growth theory: very good
    Empirical aspects of growth:  good
    Cycle theory: We covered difference eq. cycle models in one day which is what they deserve. Some other approach might be worthwhile.
    Empirical aspects of cycles: Not covered at all
    Monetary aspects of growth: very good
  • Growth theory: course devoted almost solely to this topic.
    Difference equations ought to be specifically covered, with some applications [noted for both 14.451 “multiplier and accelerator” topic and 14.452 “Cycle theory”.
  • General comment: Heuristic “proofs” and extensive examples to tie in reality would have been most useful.
    The course was not as satisfying as it undoubtedly could have been. This was an obvious case of the teacher trying too hard in a new course. Too much of the Socratic method was employed.
  • Foley let students ask irrelevant questions.
  • Empirical aspects of growth: data was almost nonexistent!
    Cycle theory: difference equations in 2 days! Monetary aspects of growth: This was covered but a little more would have suited my personal taste only.
  • In general 452 was good; 451 seemed weak.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70

  • I do not like the Socratic method, especially when applied to solving differential equations.
    Monetary aspects of growth: good.

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.

Image Sources: Duncan Foley  from his homepage. Robert Solow from the website MIT Museum.

 

 

Categories
Courses Curriculum M.I.T. Uncategorized

M.I.T. Student evaluations for first term core micro theory. Bishop, 1966-69

 

The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were: 

 14.121 (Term 1) 14.122 (Term 2) 14.451 (Term 1) 14.452 (Term 2)
1966/67 Bishop Samuelson Eckaus

Solow

1967/68

 Bishop Samuelson Domar Solow
1968/69 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

1969/70

 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

In other posts we have the responses for Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122), Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451) and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).

In this post we’ll look at Robert Bishop’s course, Economic Analysis (14.451), that covered the topics:

Preliminary view of General Equilibrium
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:

Monopoly and pure competition
Imperfect competition.

Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income.

First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. The official course staffing and enrollment data that follow the course announcement confirm that Robert Bishop taught 14.121 in the four consecutive years surveyed. We also learn the names of the instructors who taught the recitation sections for Bishop’s course as well as those of several of the graduate assistant graders. Incidentally, two of his section leaders went on to win Nobel prizes in economics (Stiglitz and Engle)!

Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.

Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning Bishop’s course.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

 

14.121T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Bishop]
Prereq.: 14.03
Year: G (1) 4-0-8

14.122T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Samuelson]
Prereq.: 14.121
Year: G (2) 4-0-8

General theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Theory of consumer choice, of demand, of the firm, of production and distribution, of welfare economics.
Bishop (14.121), Samuelson (14.122).

MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 289.

page 219:

“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.

‘(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…

‘G’ is a graduate subject.

The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”

M.I.T. Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T, p. 305

M.I.T. Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.121 changed to 14.04T, p. 310

M.I.T. Catalogue 1969-70:  Prerequisite for 14.121 dropped ‘T’, p. 293.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.121
First term of 1966-1969

1966: Term I. 3 hours/week. 50 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor J. Stiglitz and Teaching Assistant D. E. Black (grader)

1967: Term I. 3 hours/week 62 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor C. D. MacRae

1968: Term I.  4 hours/week, 62 regular students, 0 Listeners

Professor R. L. Bishop with V. Snowberger (grader)

1969: Term I. 3 Hours/week. 47 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Assistant Professor R.F. Engle (recitation) and J. Herrero (grader)

 

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

____________________

THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE

There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.

These pertain to each heading in the course outline:

Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?

For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.

Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.

 

[Summary from 22 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 121: Economic background Math Coverage
Preliminary view of General Equilibrium Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 4

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 4
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:
Monopoly and pure competition Too little: 11

Too much: 0

 Too little: 14

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 4

Not deep enough: 5
Imperfect competition Too little: 5

Too much: 1

 Too little: 8

Too much: 1

 Too deep: 5

Not deep enough: 4
Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income Too little: 6

Too much: 0

 Too little: 12

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 2

Not deep enough: 9

 

From the student comments
Each bullet point from a different student.

YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67

  • Not enough emphasis on distribution theory.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • Need to emphasize modern production theory rather than Marshallian theory. Neither of the courses [121 nor 122] give any mention to the modern treatments (esp., set-theoretic approach) of this material.
  • Both these courses [121 and 122] are excellent for covering the technical aspects of price theory—but both fail to provide a “total picture” of what price theory is about.
  • 121 spends too much time working out the solution to particular cases and too little time developing tools of analysis more sophis. treated than simple calculus.
  • more general equilibrium needed.
    little or no attention given to disequil
  • In general, I thought both terms [121 and 122], despite their widely differing methods, were quite good.
  • [note from secretary: “not in tabulation—she just gave it to me”]. Math in this part assumed we hardly knew a thing—could have assumed more.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: [not deep enough checked with following comment:] but if this is going to be more thorough, shouldn’t be very first thing taught.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • Was tedious at times but is worth doing—in fact has to be done. Perhaps the disc. of externalities could be related to Samuelson on pubic goods. And the part on distortions to the HG Johnson-Bhagwati-Ramaswamy literature on this in trade theory.
    Should have also included at least SOME reference to more modern theories of the firm (behavioral etc) and to more recent devs in other parts of micro theory (e.g. Becker on costs of time JPE 1966(?), Stigler et al on information and its costs and Lancaster on consumer theory.
    Imperfect competition: too much on the oligopoly stuff, overly simplified Stackelberg warfare etc.
  • Bishop should make more use of the mathematical techniques applicable to the general case and less of the geometry and prose of special instances. This, I think, would clarify rather than obscure. As it is, one tends to get lost in a mass of detail. Still, however, the course was very useful.
  • Monopoly and pure competition: slight shift of emphasis desirable.
  • General Comment: While analysis of this kind (the entire course) is an enjoyable mental exercise, I feel that its actual practical use for anything but expository purposes is severely limited. At all stages, an attempt should be made to make economics more relevant. At the least, areas of realistic extension and limitations should be pointed out to the class as each topic is considered.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: done a little too quickly near the end more time should have been allotted.
    Game theory à la Nash…What was presented here was obviously quite complicated, but given such a cursory treatment that it would have best been left out. I feel that more time should have been spent on more basic analyses such as min-max. and espec. an introduction to the practical aspects of game theory.
  • Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: excellent
    Too much oligopoly theory, too much game theory.
  • Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: Fine in classic sense, yet more of income dist. needed.
  • The last part of the course, that connecting the results of partial analysis of production and distribution with the simple general equilibrium model of the first lectures, seems to me very illuminating and I feel it should be given more emphasis. A posteriori, I would have suggested one lecture less on duopoly and one more on that cost part.
  • I think a more thorough and rigorous treatment of the theory of partial welfare economics (consumers surplus etc) would be very helpful in 121.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium:This material should be eliminated from the course, and covered in 122.
    Revenue and Cost equilibrium: covered too slowly
    Imperfect Competition: Never seemed clear. Either cut it down or spend more time on it.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: More time should have been spent in this area.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70

  • 121—A good course, not very enjoyable but worthwhile.
  • 121 is an incredibly dull course. And irrelevant.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Robert Bishop obituary in MIT News, February 13, 2013.

Categories
Courses Curriculum M.I.T.

M.I.T. Student evaluations of first term core macroeconomics. Domar, 1967-69

 

The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were: 

 14.121 (Term 1) 14.122 (Term 2) 14.451 (Term 1) 14.452 (Term 2)
1966/67 Bishop Samuelson Eckaus

Solow

1967/68

 Bishop Samuelson Domar Solow
1968/69 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

1969/70

 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

In other posts we have the responses for Robert Bishop’s Economic Analysis (14.121), Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122), and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).

In this post we’ll look at Evsey Domar’s course, Theory of Income and Employment (14.451),  that covered the topics:

national income,
general aggregative systems,
price flexibility and employment,
theory of interest and demand for money,
consumption and savings,
investment,
multiplier and accelerator,
employment and inflation.

First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. The official course staffing and enrollment data that follow the course announcement confirm that Evsey Domar taught 14.122 in the last three years surveyed. We also learn the names of the two instructors who taught the recitation sections for Richard Eckaus and Evsey Domar.

Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.

Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning Domar’s course.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

14.451T Theory of Income and Employment(A)

[Eckaus]
Prereq.:14.05
Year:G (1) 4-0-8

Examination of principal determinants of aggregate levels of income and employment.

Source: MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 291.

page 219:

“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.
(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…
‘G’ is a graduate subject.
The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”

Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T; Domar is the instructor, p. 307

Catalogue 1968-69:  Prerequisite for 14.451 changed to 14.06T, p. 312

Catalogue 1969-70:  no change, p. 294.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.451
First term of 1966-1969

1966: Term I. 3 hours/week. 44 regular students, 2 Listeners.

Professor Eckaus with Instructor J. R. Harris

1967: Term I. 3 hours/week 55 regular students, 4 Listeners.

Professor Domar with Instructor J. R. Harris

1968: Term I.  3 hours/week, 55 regular students, 3 Listeners

Professor Domar with Assistant S. Lewis  (1 hour per week recitation)

1969: Term I. 3 Hours/week. 51 regular students, 2 Listeners.

Professor Domar with Assistant Professor J.R. Harris (1 hour per week recitation)

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

____________________

THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE

There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.

These pertain to each heading in the course outline:

Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?

For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.

Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.

 

[Summary from 20 student responses:
of which 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 451:

 Economic background Math

Coverage
National Income Too little: 4

Too much: 0

 Too little: 1

Too much: 1

 Too deep: 10

Not deep enough: 2
General Aggregative systems Too little: 3

Too much: 1

 Too little: 2

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 4
Price Flexibility and employment Too little: 2

Too much: 1

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 3

Not deep enough: 4
Theory of interest and demand for money Too little: 2

Too much: 1

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 7
Consumption and savings Too little: 3

Too much: 0

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 2

Not deep enough: 5
Investment Too little: 2

Too much: 0

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 9
Multiplier and accelerator Too little: 2

Too much: 0

 Too little: 2

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 5
Employment and inflation Too little: 2

Too much: 1

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 13

 

Note: the responses from Richard Eckaus’ time (first term, 1966-67) have been excluded from this table, so the above are solely for the three years Evsey Domar taught the theory of national income and employment.

 

From the student comments
[each bullet point from a different student]

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • The Worst Course of the sequence, especially the section’s instructor. Applies to all these points. Tries to cover too much; being an authority in (almost) nothing. Applies to both instructors.
  • I don’t remember 451 very well—it was an awfully unstructured course (+ remains so in my mind), mybe because of the variety and profuseness of the subject matter. Too little guidance from Professor Domar + Harris—i.e., their considered opinion should be given more often.
    National income: Too much on statistics, tho I agree some is needed. That problem in class was a pile of crap—I can’t add anyway.
    General aggregative systems: more tournaments needed.
    Theory of interest and demand for money: more needed, and more guidance from profs.
    Investment: more needed and more guidance from profs.
  • Price flexibility and employment: I thought the section of the course on Patinkin was extremely interesting and well done.
    Consumption and saving: A unified treatment of the competing theories would be preferred to the n-th repetition of Duesenbery, Friedman, Modigliani.
    [for both 451 and 452]: As these courses were taught two years ago there was too little integration of the two terms. Partly this reflects a real gap in macro theory itself; I would like to see an integration of the Patinkin-type of analysis into growth theory.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • National income: good that this is done, even if not very pleasant at the time
    Price Flexibility and employment: Too much on Patinkin.
    Employment and inflation: More important to cover this Phil curve., monet v. fiscal pol debate etc. than Patinkin
    Perhaps 451 could have assumed more backgrd as it tended to be slow going sometimes. But that’s a minor point. And better that way than to blur over the material too fast. 14.451 exam questions tended to be well-set + testing e.g. the opera + arias.
  • National Income: The index no. prob. was discussed at too great length and too little depth.
    General Aggregative systems/Price flexibility and employment: These two topics were covered fairly well.
    Theory of interest and demand for money: coverage sketchy
    Consumption and savings: very well discussed
    Investment: All I know about investment I learned in other courses—14.452, monetary, econometrics.
    Multiplier and accelerator: The Samuelson multiplier-accelerator article is read in 14.452; all of the items covered in 14.451 under this heading are silly.
    Employment and inflation: no coherent coverage at all.
  • Multiplier and accelerator: Difference equations ought to be specifically covered, with some applications.
  • National Income “+index numbers”: Time should have been more carefully allocated in order to include appropriately the last part of the course.
  • National Income and General aggregative systems: too much, need new, simpler national income.
    Pretty good presentation of money topics.
    No coverage of Investment/Multiplier+Accelerator/employment and inflation at the end.
  • National income: Although this certainly should be covered—too much time is spent on this topic.
    General aggregative systems: Nothing is done in the course on modern macro-static models & e.g.—the Correspondence Principle. The course must assume a complete background in standard macro—because this is hardly covered.
    Much too much time is spent on Patinkin—which could be sued for covering Modern Macro-Static models.
  • Price flexibility and employment: the basics of Keynes should be discussed more.
    Employment and inflation: inflation models of newer sort should be included.
  • I don’t want N.I. removed from 451, just reduced!
    [comment for all topics besides national income]: I realize that this is an impossible preference [to have more depth in all the other topics of 451], maybe the answer is another course in macro theory! or less of other things in 452.
  • [For both 451 and 452]: I do not like the Socratic method, especially when applied to solving differential equations. All courses tend to move too slowly at the beginning.
  • National income: It was a mistake to spend so much time on this + none on inflation—change priorities.
    Investment: Treated a little superficially
    Multiplier and accelerator: Use difference equation techniques.
    Employment and inflation: This was not covered at all unfortunately.
    In general 452 was good, 451 seemed weak.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: MIT Museum website

Categories
Courses M.I.T.

M.I.T. Student evaluations for core microeconomics course taught by Samuelson, 1970

 

The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were: 

 14.121 (Term 1) 14.122 (Term 2) 14.451 (Term 1) 14.452 (Term 2)
1966/67 Bishop Samuelson Eckaus

Solow

1967/68

 Bishop Samuelson Domar Solow
1968/69 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

1969/70

 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

In other posts we have the responses for Robert Bishop’s Economic Analysis (14.121), Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451) and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).

In this post I’ll limit attention to the term in the core taught by Paul Samuelson, namely, course 14.122 that covered the topics of consumer theory, general equilibrium, capital theory and welfare economics.

First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. The official course staffing and enrollment data that follow the course announcement confirm that Paul Samuelson taught 14.122 in the four consecutive years surveyed. We also learn the names of the four instructors who taught the recitation sections for Samuelson’s course.

Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.

Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning Samuelson’s course. These reports of Samuelson’s teaching from the last half of the 1960s are consistent with my memory from the spring of 1975. The general laments about economic theory seen in some of the evaluations are not unfamiliar to those who have cared to listen to their students over the intervening decades.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

14.121T Economic Analysis (A)

[Bishop]
Prereq.: 14.03
Year: G (1) 4-0-8

14.122T Economic Analysis (A)

[Samuelson]
Prereq.: 14.121
Year: G (2) 4-0-8

General theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Theory of consumer choice, of demand, of the firm, of production and distribution, of welfare economics.

Source:  MIT. Catalogue 1966-67, p. 289.

“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.

‘(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…

‘G’ is a graduate subject.

The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”
Source:  MIT. Catalogue 1966-67, p. 219.

MIT. Catalogue 1967-68: Same without T, p. 305. 
MIT. Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.121 changed to 14.04T, p. 310.
MIT. Catalogue 1969-70:  p. 293.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.122
Second term of 1967-1970

1967: Term II. 3 hours/week. 40 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Samuelson with Assistant Professor C. D. MacRae

1968: Term II. 3 hours/week. 53 regular students, 3 Listeners.

Samuelson with Instructor D. Jaffee [2 sections]

1969: Term II.  4 ½ hours/week. 49 regular students, 1 Listener

Samuelson with visiting Assistant Professor H.J.B. Rees.

1970: Term II. 3 Hours/week. 40 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Samuelson with Assistant Professor  R. E. Grieson (1 hour per week recitation)

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

____________________

THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE

There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.

These pertain to each heading in the course outline:

Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?

For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.

Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.

[Summary from all 22 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 122:

 Economic background Math

Coverage

Consumer theory

 Too little: 0

Too much: 1

 Too little: 1

Too much: 1

 Too deep: 3

Not deep enough: 1

General equilibrium

 Too little: 0

Too much: 1

 Too little: 2

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 8

Capital theory

 Too little: 2

Too much: 2

 Too little: 1

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 12

Welfare economics

 Too little: 1

Too much: 1

 Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 0

Not deep enough: 7

 

From the student comments,
Each bullet point from a different student.

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • Neither of the courses [121/122] give any mention to the modern treatments (esp., set-theoretic approach) of this material.
  • Needs much more [capital theory]
  • For 121 and 122: Both these courses are excellent for covering the technical aspects of price theory—but both fail to provide a “total picture” of what price theory is about”.
  • General equilibrium: some of the new formulations should be discussed.
    Capital theory: less classical, more current theory would be better.
  • OK [for assumed economics background, math, coverage].
    Capital theory: need more and careful lectures—this hard to comprehend
    Welfare economics: good.
  • Math in this part was not too much if it had been presented without assuming we already knew it all—could have had more careful explanation of mathematical concepts used without decreasing the amount or level of math used. [secretary wrote at top of page: not in tabulation—she just gave it to me]
  • For 121 and 122:In general, I thought both terms, despite their widely differing methods, were quite good. I would like to see more problem sets in 122, however, if necessary, just simplified examples of the theorems proved in class. Specifically, there are too few problems in general equil, of 2 person, 2 good sort. Such problems could usefully illustrate gen. equil. and welfare econ. and the differences between the two types of analysis.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • Consumer theory: would have been better to start with the simplest case rather than with that rather horrific 1st lecture, which was not al all clear.
    Capital theory: coverage was not clear
    Welfare economics: would have liked more.
    GENERAL exam questions in 14.122 re discrimination etc were very interesting + tested absorption of material much more than the standard “regurgitate” question.
  • While the noted professor who offers this course is a student of economic history [history of economics is what is clearly meant] par excellence, gifted with a dashing wit and a marvelous grasp of the anecdotal style, his comparative advantage most certainly lies in economic theory. His students have, no doubt, considered the stage as a possible career, and have universally rejected it in favor of Economics. It logically follow then that in any 90 minute period the teaching of Economics should occupy at least the majority of the time. Theatrics has its place, no doubt, to add flavor and wit to the otherwise Dismal Science, but balance is of the essence. In retrospect, we seem to have covered several major topics during the course of the term. The mind boggles at the thought of what we might have done with an hour and fifteen minutes of economics per period instead of the usual 20 minutes! (A little more care in the preparation of handouts would also have been highly appreciated).
    On a more serious note, I would personal have appreciated a more thorough analysis of the normative branch of Economics. I feel that much more time should have been allotted to Welfare Economics, in particular, to the implications of economic theory to actually policy questions. I don’t believe, as Samuelson implied in his Chomsky “debate”, that normative considerations come only after the scientist has completed his appropriate (positive) tasks. The economist has a very definite social responsibility, to which all the theorizing in the world, taken by itself, contributes not in the least.
    Comment on the Basic Theory (and, in fact, most of the courses taught at M.I.T.) The basic trend that Economics appears to be following, at least at the Ph.D. level, distresses me more and more with each consideration. High powered theory, while undoubtedly a great mental exercise, becomes merely a game when it seeks to find justification solely within itself. As young economists in an increasingly troubled world, we have a distinct obligation and a unique opportunity to aid society. Economics prides itself at its supposed superiority over its sister Social Sciences, yet it is letting its advantages, an in fact its raison d’être, slip away. Our students are far too complacent, and the course material we are taught helps perpetrate this disease. A far greater stress must be place on realism, applications and normative goals. A discipline that exists merely or mostly in professional journals and material that has as its only object the employment of economics professors is an anachronism and a decided mis-allocation of resources.
  • The topics are well chosen and worthwhile and the readings are valuable. But Prof. Samuelson should spend more time organizing his lectures and guiding his students through these unfamiliar fields and less time telling his fascinating, charming, and irrelevant stories. The lectures are the weakest part of the course.
  • Samuelson wastes the opportunity. Too many anecdotes, not enough time on the actual material. Needs to be much more systematic and organized.
  • Capital theory and welfare economics, particulary the former should have been gone over in more detail-excessive speed obscures the fact that the overall coverage may be good and satisfactorily deep.
  • General equilibrium: The 2-factor, 2-good example would be helpful here as an illustration.
    Capital theory: The treatment in this area seemed superficial. 122 would have been more enjoyable if I had had a prior course in the mathematical theory of optimizing with constraints.
  • 121-122-451-452 All four courses well taught: main difficulty with the theory sequence is the poor integration of the four parts. Less isolation, more cross-references would help.
  • [on math] Hicks reading is too mathematical or too old (Hicks…).
    [on coverage] reasonably good allocation [across topics]
    Welfare economics. Repetitive. Need typed notes. The notes are good should be typed.
    [In red marker:] Samuelson does not appear to want to teach 122.
    Find some new victim.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.

Image Source:  Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service.  Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.