Month: December 2021

Categories
Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Senior year political economy. Levi Hedge, 1825-30.

Political Economy was in the Harvard undergraduate program at least since 1825 when Levi Hedge included Jean Baptiste Say’s Treatise of Political Economy  (a textbook that cost approximately $67 in 2021 prices) as part of the senior year course in the offerings of the department of moral philosophy, civil polity and political economy. 

___________________________

DEPARTMENT OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, CIVIL POLITY, AND POLITICAL ECONOMY.

This is at present exclusively under the superintendence of Levi Hedge, LL. D., Alford Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity.

Instruction in this branch is conducted through studies and recitations in Stewart’s Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind; Paley’s Moral Philosophy; Brown’s Philosophy of the Human Mind, abridged by Dr. Hedge; Say’s Political Economy; and Rawle on the Constitution of the United States.

These studies commence with the Junior year, in Stewart’s Elements; the first volume of which the Class finish about the middle of October. After this they enter upon Paley’s Moral Philosophy, which they finish usually by the end of the first term. After the end of the first term, the Juniors do not recite in these branches during that year.

Recitations are made in divisions, each consisting of one half the Class. About two thirds of each division are taken up for examination at each recitation.

Besides the above, the Juniors have a Forensic exercise, under the instruction of the Professor in this branch, every other week, on Friday; the Junior and Senior classes alternating weekly with each other in this exercise.

Recitations in this branch are heard six days in the week; one division immediately after prayers, and the other division immediately after the study bell (about 8 o’clock); an hour being occupied with each division.

The Forensic every other Friday occupies two hours.

ln the Senior year instruction in this branch is recommenced, with Brown’s Treatise on the Mind. Both volumes of this work are finished by the sixth or seventh week of the second term. The Class then enter upon Say’s Political Economy, which is finished by about the eighth week in the third term. Rawle on the Constitution then succeeds in the course, and with it instruction in this branch ceases.

Rawle is one of those studies, which are denominated “optional”; it being within the option of each individual to study this work, or Smellie’s Natural History with the instructor in that branch. In all the books used as studies in this department, about twelve pages constitute the average length of a lesson.

Besides the preceding, two lectures are delivered every week during the second term (on Mondays and Wednesdays, at 10 o’clock) one hour each, on Civil Polity and on Locke’s Essay on the Understanding.

The members of this Class also each deliver a Forensic every other week, alternating, as above stated, with the Juniors, weekly in this exercise.

Recitations are heard in this branch in the first term for two hours in the afternoon, five days in one week, and four days in the next week, and so alternately through the term; the afternoon of every alternate Friday being reserved for the Forensic.

In the second and third terms, this Class recite to the Professor one hour every day; the whole together, or six hours per week.

As it respects the time occupied by each student and the Professor, it is as follows:—

In the Junior year a Forensic being delivered every other week, and forty weeks (viz. 15 in the first term, 12 in the second, and 13 in the third) constituting the business portion of the whole year, it follows that in this exercise both the student and Professor are occupied (2 x 20) during the year 40 hours.
Each division being heard for one hour every day in the week for the first term, the time employed by each student is (6 x 15) 90 hours.
The time occupied in the Junior year in this branch by the student is…. 130 hours.
The Professor being occupied with each division one hour, that is, two hours with both, there is an occupation of (12 x 15) 180 hours.
To which add the time occupied by him in Forensics 40 hours.
The time occupied by the Professor of this branch with the Juniors is… 220 hours.
The Seniors, in respect of time occupied in the Forensic exercise, coincide with the Juniors; there being employed in it, both for the student and for the Professor, 40 hours.
In respect of time occupied by this Class in recitations in this branch, it is equal in the first term, as above stated, for the student, to (5 x 7½) for half the time of the term (15 weeks), or to 37½ hours.
And (4 x 7½) for the other half, or to 30 hours.
Constituting an occupation for the student, for the whole term, of 67½ hours.
And double that time for the Professor, he hearing each day both divisions, 135 hours.
In the second and third terms, this Class occupy the Professor six hours per week. In both terms there are 25 weeks; so that the time occupied by both student and Professor in these terms, in recitations, is (6 x 25) 150 hours.
Besides which the lectures on Civil Polity and the writings of Locke, delivered in the second term to this Class, occupy two hours per week
(2 x 12)		 24 hours.
So that the time occupied by the student in the Senior year in recitations, lectures, and all exercises in this branch is, as above stated,
In Forensics 40 hours.
In Recitations, the 1st term 67 ½ hours.
In Recitations, 2d and 3d terms 150 hours
And in Lectures 24 hours.
The time occupied by the student 281½ hours
And by the Professor,
In Forensics with the Seniors, 40 hours.
In Recitations, 1st term 135 hours.
In Recitations, 2d and 3d terms 150 hours.
In Lectures with 2d and 3d terms 24 hours.
The time occupied by the Professor 349 hours.
And the general result of the time occupied in all the exercises in this branch in the whole college course is,
For the student in the Junior year 130 hours.
For the student in the Senior year 281 ½ hours.
Result of occupation of time, in recitations, lectures, and like exercises in this branch for each student 411 ½ hours
And for the Professor with the Juniors 220 hours.
And for the Professor with the Seniors 349 hours.
Result of occupation, as above, for the Professor 569 hours.

 

Source: Fourth Annual Report of the President of Harvard University to the Overseers on the State of the Institution,1828-9. Appendix, p. ii-v.

________________________

Book prices

Hedge’s Logick ($0.70), Paley’s Philosophy ($2,00), Brown’s Philosophy (Hedge’s ed., $3.60), Stewart’s Philosophy ($2,40), Say’s Political Economy ($2.40).

Harvard University. First Annual Report of the President of Harvard University to the Overseers on the State of the University, 1825-6 .p. 51.

________________________

Text Links

Dugald Stewart. Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind. Vol. One (New York, 1818); Vol. Two (New York, 1818).

William Paley. The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. 10th American Edition, Boston: 1821.

Thomas Brown. Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind.  Abridged by Levi Hedge. Vol. One (Cambridge: 1827); Vol. Two (Cambridge: 1827).

Jean-Baptiste Say. A Treatise on Political Economy (trans. C. R. Prinsep). Third American Edition. Philadelphia: 1827.

William Rawle. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia: 1825.

________________________

One student’s recollection

Dr. Levi Hedge gave a series of profitable talks on International Law, in the second half hour of his recitations in Political Economy. Probably in the senior year (1828-29) as reported in the recollection by Samuel F. Smith (Harvard, A.B., 1829).

Source: The Harvard graduates’ magazine. vol. 2 (1893-94), December, 1893, p. 167.

________________________

Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography
Hedge, Levi

HEDGE, Levi, educator, b. in Hardwick, Mass., 19 April, 1766; d. in Cambridge, Mass., 3 Jan., 1844. He was graduated at Harvard in 1792, appointed a tutor in 1795, and in 1810 became professor of logic and metaphysics. In 1827 he exchanged that post for the Alford professorship of natural religion, moral philosophy, and civil polity, but was compelled by an attack of paralysis to resign in 1830. He published a “System of Logic” (Boston, 1818), which went through many editions, and was translated into German. He also prepared an abridgment of Brown’s “Mental Philosophy” (1827). — His son, Frederic Henry, educator, b. in Cambridge, Mass., 12 Dec., 1805; d. there, 21 Aug., 1890, was sent to school in Germany at the age of twelve, and remained five years. On his return he entered the junior class at Harvard, and was graduated in 1825. He then studied theology at the Cambridge divinity-school, was ordained in 1829, and settled over the Unitarian church in West Cambridge. In 1835 he took charge of a church in Bangor, Me.; in 1850, after spending a year in Europe, became pastor of the Westminster church in Providence, R. I., and in 1856 of the church in Brookline, Mass. In 1857 he was made professor of ecclesiastical history in the divinity-school at Harvard, still retaining his pastoral charge, but resigned the pastorship in 1872 in order to assume the professorship of the German language in the college. He was noted as a public lecturer as well as a pulpit orator. In 1853-‘4 he lectured on mediæval history before the Lowell institute. He became editor of the “Christian Examiner” in 1858. Besides essays on the different schools of philosophy, notably magazine articles on St. Augustine, Leibnitz, Schopenhauer, and Coleridge, and other contributions to periodicals in prose and poetry, he published “The Prose Writers of Germany,” containing extracts and biographical sketches (Philadelphia, 1848); “A Christian Liturgy for the Use of the Church” (Boston, 1856); “Reason in Religion” (Boston, 1865); and “The Primeval World of Hebrew Tradition” (1870). He also wrote hymns for the Unitarian church, and assisted in the compilation of a hymn-book (1853), and published numerous translations from the German poets.

Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Appletons%27_Cyclopædia_of_American_Biography/Hedge,_Levi

________________________

Exit, Levi Hedge

“From circumstances connected with the state of his [Levi Hedge] health, his services during the last six months have been dispensed with. The department during that period was conducted satisfactorily by George S. Hillard, one of the Proctors of the University.”

Source: Sixth Annual Report of the President of Harvard University to the Overseers on the State of the Institution,1830-31. Appendix, p. ii.

Image Source:  Levi Hedge, LL.D. Elements of Logick. Boston, 1827.

Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. Economics Seminary. Speakers and Topics, 1914-1915

 

 

 

The economics seminary at Harvard met fourteen times over the course of the 1914-15 academic year.  

An early sighting of Jacob Viner: R. L. Wolf [Robert Leopold Wolf, summa cum laude in Economics, A.B. Harvard 1915] and J. Viner spoke at the Economic Seminary on “The Theory of the Equilibrium of Supply and Demand,” March 29, 1915.

Earlier posts with information on the Seminary of Economics at Harvard:

Seminary of Economics 1897-1898.

Seminary of Economics 1891/92-1907/08.

Seminary of Economics 1913/14.

Request by Radcliffe Women to attend the Seminary of Economics, 1926.

Seminary of Economics 1929-1932.

_______________________

Monday, October 5, 1914

Seminary of Economics. “Studies in Spanish Archives, with Special Reference to the History of the Sheep Owners’ Gild or Mesta.” Mr. Julius Klein [Ph.D. 1915]. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Calendar, Vol. X, No. 2, October 3, 1914.

 

Monday, October 19, 1914

Seminary of Economics. “Combinations in the Book Trade and the Regulation of Retail Prices.” Mr. H. R. Tosdal [Ph.D. 1915]. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Calendar, Vol. X, No. 4, October 17, 1914.

 

Monday, November 2, 1914

Seminary of Economics. “The Contest in Congress between Employers and Trade Unionists.” Mr. P. G. Wright. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 6, October 31, 1914.

 

Monday, November 23, 1914

Seminary of Economics. “Cotton Manufacturing in Japan.” Mr. R. J. Ray. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 9, November 21, 1914.

 

Monday, December 7, 1914

Seminary of Economics. “The Tin Plate Industry in Wales and in the United States.” Mr. D. E. Dunbar. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 11, December 5, 1914.

 

Monday, January 11, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “The Meeting of the American Economic Association.” Professor Carver and Dr. J. S. Davis [Ph.D. 1913]. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 16, January 9, 1915.

 

Monday, January 25, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “The Development and Organization of the Grain Trade in Canada.” Mr. W. C. Clark. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 18, January 23, 1915.

 

Monday, February 15, 1915 

Seminary of Economics. “Modern Methods of Real Estate Assessment.” Mr. Alfred D. Bernard, of Baltimore, Md. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 21, February 13, 1915.

 

Monday, March 1, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “State Board of Conciliation and Arbitration in Massachusetts.” Mr. L. A. Rufener [Ph.D. 1915]. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 23, February 27, 1915.

 

Monday, March 15, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “The Struggle in the Colorado Coal Mines.” Mr. J. H. Libby. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 25, March 13, 1915.

 

Monday, March 29, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “The Theory of the Equilibrium of Supply and Demand.” Messrs. R. L. Wolf and J. Viner [Ph.D. 1922]. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 27, March 27, 1915.

 

Monday, April 12, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “Some Aspects of the Federal Valuation of Railways.” Mr. H. B. Vanderblue [Ph.D. 1915]. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 29, April 10, 1915.

 

Monday, May 3, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “The Boston and Maine Reorganization.” Professor Ripley. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 32, May 1, 1915.

 

Monday, May 17, 1915

Seminary of Economics. “The German Steel Kartell.” Mr. H. R. Tosdal [Ph.D. 1915]. Upper Dane, 4.30 p.m.

Source: Harvard University Gazette, Vol. X, No. 34, May 15, 1915.

 

Image Source.  Harvard Square September 23, 1915. “These businesses have weathered decades of change in Harvard Square,” posted at Boston.com.

 

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

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

 

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

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

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

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

____________________

December 22, 1947

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________

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

    ____________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

John D. Black

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

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

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. General Examination in Economic Theory, Spring 1989

Trawling the Zvi Griliches papers at the Harvard archives recently, I was able to retrieve the following copy of the economic theory general examination (transcribed below) for Harvard Ph.D. students from 1989. The Berlin Wall was still standing and the exam took place close to the time of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. We see that it was business as usual at Harvard Square with respect to economic theory. Students were discouraged from answering more than one question (i.e., 25% of the exam) dealing with the history of economic theories. 

______________________

Some later general examinations

Spring 1991

Microeconomics; Macroeconomics

Spring 1992

Micro- and Macroeconomics

Fall 1992

Micro- and Macroeconomics

______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

GENERAL EXAMINATION IN ECONOMIC THEORY
SPRING 1989

You have four hours. Spend approximately one hour on each question as all questions will receive equal weight in grading.

Start each question in a fresh blue book. Write your number and the number of the question answered on the cover of each blue book. DO NOT INDICATE YOUR NAME.

 

PART A
ANSWER BOTH QUESTIONS.

Question 1

Consider an investor with von Neumann-Morgenstern utility

{u_{i}=-e^{-a_{i}w_{i}}}

where ai > 0 is a constant and wi is his wealth. Suppose this investor can choose to invest his initial wealth {\bar{w}_{i} } in a set of n assets. One (n = 1) is a safe asset with return unity, and the others are risky. Let their returns be denoted (r2,..,rn) which are jointly distributed according to F(r2,…., rn). Take the prices of these assets, in units of the safe asset, to be (p2,..,pn).

  1. Show that the optimal portfolio puts a share of initial wealth in each of the risky assets that is proportional to initial wealth.
    Suppose that the risky assets are in fixed supply—for example, they are issued inelastically by firms in exchange for the investors’ initial wealth. The safe asset is elastically supplied.
  2. Write the conditions on asset prices that determine an equilibrium on the asset markets.
  3. Now suppose that some additional investors are added to the economy, each with positive initial wealth and the same form of utility function. Show that the asset prices change in such a way that the mean return to the portfolio of all risky assets decreases.
  4. Take the limiting case in which the number of investors and their total wealth becomes very large in comparison with the fixed asset supplies. Comment on your results.

 

Question 2

Empirical evidence indicates that money and output are positively associated over business cycles. What are the strong points and shortcomings of each of the following three approaches to explaining this observation.

  1. The Keynesian model.
  2. The new classical model with incomplete information.
  3. Models with “endogenous money”.

 

Part B
ANSWER TWO OF THE SIX QUESTIONS.
YOU SHOULD NOT ANSWER BOTH QUESTION 7 & 8.

Question 3

A government is concerned with providing disability insurance for its citizens. Each individual has a probability of  {\pi } of being disabled. If disabled, the individual has utility function v(c) where c is the individual’s consumption of society’s sole consumption good. If able, the individual has utility level u(c) – h where c is consumption (of society’s sole consumption good) and h is the number of hours worked by the individual. All jobs require H hours of work and one hour of work produces 1 unit of the consumption good.

  1. Suppose the government can observe whether an individual is disabled or not. Suppose, also, that there are enough individuals in society so that exactly a fraction {\pi } end up disabled. Set up and solve the government’s problem of finding the optimal disability insurance program. (HINT: Think of the government as directly picking a consumption level for the disabled cd, and a consumption level for the able ca, to maximize a representative individual’s expected utility subject to the overall societal resource constraint. Assume that able individuals always work.] What do consumption levels in the optimal program look like? Draw a picture in (ca, cd) space illustrating the solution.
  2. Suppose now that the government cannot observe whether an individual is disabled or not. Thus, an individual can pretend to be disabled by choosing not to work.

(i) Set up the government’s problem under the assumption that it is desirable to have all able individuals choose to work.

(ii) Characterize the solution under the assumption that for any (ca,cd) such that
u(ca) – H ≥ v(cd) we have u'(ca) < v'(cd).
Draw a picture in (ca,cd) space illustrating the solution.

  1. Suppose that disability is unobservable but that now there are two types of individuals. They differ only in their probability of being disabled. Suppose the fraction of high probability types is {\lambda_{H}}, and that the government maximizes a utilitarian social welfare function. What do consumption levels with the optimal disability insurance program look like?
    Draw a picture in (ca, cd) space illustrating the solution.

 

Question 4

Suppose that the representative household/producer attempts to maximize

{U=\int^{\infty }_{0} u\left( c\right)  e^{-\rho t}dt }

where c is consumption per household,  {\rho >0},  {u\left( c\right)  =\left( c^{1-\sigma }-1\right)  /\left( 1-\sigma \right)  }, and  {\sigma >0}. There is a constant number of these immortal households.

Production is  {y=c+\dot{k} =Ak}, where y is output per household, k is the capital stock per household, and  {A>\rho }. The capital stock, which does not depreciate, begins at time zero at the quantity k(0).

  1. What is the household’s first-order optimization condition for consumption over time? What is the transversality condition?
  2. What are the steady-state growth and saving rates in this economy? How do growth and saving behave in the transition to the steady state?
  3. What condition on A and {\rho} ensures that the transversality condition is satisfied? Is utility per household bounded in this case?

 

Question 5

MATCHING.

Suppose there are two hospitals, X, Y and two doctors A, B out of medical school. Hospitals and doctors have to be matched up for residency purposes. A matching is a pairing of hospitals and doctors,
e.g. {(X, A), (Y, B)}.

Hospitals or doctors have preferences for the doctors, or hospitals, they are matched with. For example, Hospital X could have preferences A >X B, similarly X >A Y, Y >B X, etc. For simplicity, suppose there is never strict indifference.

  1. Define a concept of Pareto Optimality for matchings.
  2. Define a matching as stable if there is no pair of hospital-resident that can block it. A pair can block if both would [be] better off leaving their current partners and pairing off. For example, for the preference: A >X B, A >Y B, Y >A X, X >B Y the matching {(X, A), (Y, B)} is not stable because (Y,A) can block (why?) Is it Pareto optimal? Exhibit a stable matching for the above preferences.
  3. Suppose that interns are allocated to hospitals as follows: Hospital X chooses an intern and Hospital Y gets the remaining one (call this Allocation System I). Show that this system guarantees that the obtained matching is Pareto optimal but not necessarily stable. (Give an example to make the last point.)
  4. Consider now a different allocation system (call it Allocation System II): Each hospital (the sequencing does not matter) makes an offer to some intern. If each intern receives an offer, this determines the matching. If an intern receives two offers, s/he chooses which one to accept, the rejected hospital then pairs off with the remaining intern. Which matching would this system yield for the preferences:
    A >X B, A >Y B, Y >A X, X >B Y? Show that for any pattern of preference this system yields a stable matching.
  5. Suppose you now consider a System III which is identical to System II except that the roles of hospitals and interns are reversed: The offers are now made by interns and accepted or rejected by the hospitals. Show by example that the stable matchings generated by System II and III can be different. Discuss this difference in terms of which side of the “market” is relatively favored.

Question 6

Assume that a consumer maximizes

{E_{0}\sum^{\infty }_{t=0} \beta^{t} \frac{exp\left( -\rho c_{t}\right)  }{-\rho }}

subject to

{a_{t+1}=R\left( a_{t}+y_{t}-c_{t}\right)  ,}

{y_{t+1}=y_{t}+\epsilon_{t+1} ,\  \epsilon_{t+1} \sim N\left( 0,\sigma^{2} \right)  }

and a transversality condition to rule out Ponzi schemes. Impose  {\beta \in \left( 0,1\right)  } and  {\rho >0}, and define at = nonhuman wealth at t, and yt = endowment at t. R is the (gross) safe interest rate, and E0 denotes expectation conditional on information available at time 0. The  {\epsilon^{\prime } s} are assumed to be identically and independently distributed.

  1. Write the first-order condition associated with an optimum consumption path.
  2. Show that, if {\beta R=1}, the optimum consumption path satisfies

{c_{t+1}=c_{t}+\frac{\rho \sigma^{2} }{2} +\epsilon_{t} }

Explain the presence of the second term on the righthand-side of this expression. [Hint: It is reminded that if  {x\sim N\left( m,2s^{2}\right)}, then  {E\  exp\left( x\right)  =exp\left( m+s^{2}\right)}.]

  1. Suppose that our consumer is representative of all other consumers in the economy. Compute the equilibrium safe interest rate.
  2. What are the factors conducive to a high equilibrium safe interest rate?

 

Question 7

Economists of different schools of thought have emphasized the symmetry of resource allocation and income distribution with respect to the organization of production. As Samuelson put it in “Wages and Interest: A Modern Dissection of Marxian Economic Models,” (AER, 1957), “Remember that in a perfectly competitive market it really doesn’t matter who hires whom; so have labor hire ‘capital.’” Yet one of the more striking facts of contemporary economic life from Chicago to Moscow is that labor is generally the hired factor rather than the hiring factor. Give accounts of this phenomenon which roughly fit within neoclassical, Marxian, and Keynesian frameworks, respectively. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?

Question 8

“Economic science is, and must be, one of slow and continuous growth. Some of the best work of the present generation has indeed appeared at first sight to be antagonistic to that of earlier writers; but when it has had time to settle down into its proper place, and its rough edges have been worn away, it has been found to involve no real breach of continuity in the science.” (A. Marshall).

Critically evaluate this view of the history of economics.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 125, Folder “General Examination in Economic Theory and its History, undated.”

Categories
Exam Questions History of Economics Princeton Suggested Reading Syllabus

Princeton. History of Economic Thought. Reading List, General Exam. Baumol, 1987-1988

What I find useful about the syllabus on classical economics from William Baumol’s Princeton course transcribed below is that it provides a lean and precise list of original text reading assignments to work through. Full-blown bibliographies have their use for students when writing term papers, but this butcher’s choice of filet cuts provides a wholesome main course that will last a semester and provide pleasant memories for a lifetime.

Here you will find other postings at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror that offer material from courses in the history of economics.

_______________________

Alan B. Krueger’s Interview with William J. Baumol in Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Summer 2001), pp. 211-231.

_______________________

Princeton University
Department of Economics

Economics 506
History of Economic Thought

Fall Term 1988

Professor W.J. Baumol

Smith, Adam, Wealth of Nations, 1776, Book I, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 (first 20 pages), 10 (first 17 pages); Book II, Chapter 3; Book IV, Chapters 1, 2, 8.

Malthus, T.R., An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798, Pelican Edition, 1970, Introduction by Anthony Flew, Chapters 1-5, 18, 19.

Ricardo, David, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London, 1817, Chapters I-X, XIX-XXI, XXX-XXXI.

*Ricardo David, Notes on Malthus, Piero Sraffa, editor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951, Editor’s Introduction and pp. 300-382.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party.

Marx, Karl, Capital (3 volumes), New York: International Publishing Company.

Volume I: Author’s Prefaces; Chapter 1; Chapter 3, Sections II a, b; Chapter 5; Chapter 6; Chapter 7, Section 2; Chapter 8; Chapter 9, Sections 1, 3, 4; skim Chapter 10; Chapter 15, Section 6; Chapter 16; Chapter 24, Sections 2, 3, 5; Chapter 25.

Volume II:Preface; Chapter 9; Chapter 16, Part 3; pp. 390-396 (Chapter 17, last 6 pages on Simple Reproduction); Chapter 20; pp. 576-9 (Chapter 21, I, Accumulation in Department 1 (1) formation of a hoard).

Volume III: Preface; Chapters 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 22, 27, 37, 38, 48.

*Marx, Karl,  A Critique of the Gotha Program, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1937.

*On reserve at Firestone Library.

Source: Edward Tower (compiler). Economics Reading Lists, Course Outlines, Exams, Puzzles & Problems, Vol. 24. History of Economic Thought. Durham, NC: Eno River Press, August 1990, page 38.

_______________________

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

General Examination for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

History of Economic Thought
January 1987

Time: 3 hours

  1. Distinguish the roles of the labor command and the labor content discussions of value in Adam Smith. What was Smith’s general model of the determination of long run exchange value under competition?
  2. In terms of the formal Ricardian model, explain the consequences of elimination of a tariff on grain (corn) (a) in the short run; (b) in the long run.
  3. (a) Explain why, in Marx’s view, profits under capitalism can be expected to decline with the passage of time. (b) Why did he reject Ricardo’s model leading to the same conclusion? (c) On what grounds has Marx’s model of the declining profit rate been criticized?
  4. In one sentence each, characterize some of the main work of the following:
    1. Jeremy Bentham
    2. Frederick Bastiat
    3. J.B. Clark
    4. J. R. McCulloch
    5. Enrico Barone
  5. (for Arthur Moretti) Describe the logic of the Hayek business cycle model. What role is played by technological elements? by monetary elements? What is the pertinence of the “Ricardo effect?”
  6. (for Kin Yip Louie) Explain the source of Marshall’s error in using consumers’ surplus to argue that increasing returns industries should be subsidized. Would the Hicksian analysis of the four consumers surpluses have helped ra avoid the error? Why or why not?
  7. (for Susan Skeath [“Susan Skeath van Mulbregt”, Princeton Ph.D., 1989; Professor of Economics at Wellesley College]) Explain the role played by utility in J. S. Mill’s value theory. Does his utility concept lead him to particular policy conclusions? How do Mill’s views on the appropriate role of government differ from those of his classical predecessors?
  8. (for Teow-Hock Koh [“Winston Teow-Hock Koh”, Princeton Ph.D., 1988; Professor at Singapore Management University; died 2013]) (To what extent does Malthus’ contradistinction to his analysis conclusions) structure anticipate the of the Keynesian model? In provide a answering this, summary of the workings of the pertinent parts the Keynesian analysis. What features of Marxian Theory overlap with the Keynesian model?
  9. (for Vicente Morales) a) Describe any of the mathematical solutions to the transformation problem showing how prices and the rate of profit are related to values and the rate of surplus value. b) Explain Samuelson’s criticism of the entire analysis and Morishima’s reply.

Source: Edward Tower (compiler). Economics Reading Lists, Course Outlines, Exams, Puzzles & Problems, Vol. 24. History of Economic Thought. Durham, NC: Eno River Press, August 1990, pp. 266-267.

Image Source:  Cropped from portrait of William J. Baumol in 1981 published in his obituary published in The New York Times, May 10, 2017.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Meeting of the Visiting Committee with the Economics Department. January 1944

 

Maybe attending to the routine business of the Harvard economics department was seen as a welcome respite amidst the Sturm und Drang of the Second World War. Maybe the consensus was simply shared that the transistory shock of the war would soon be over and it was time to worry again about the core missions of Harvard and its economics department. In any event, the following report outlines a “Research Program for the Department of Economics” presented to the visiting committee by the chair of the department’s Committee on Research Program, Professor John D. Black. 

____________________________

Visiting Committee Reports available at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror

Visiting Committee Report 1915

Visiting Committee Report 1974

____________________________

Meeting of the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics with the Department, on Monday, January 10, 1944.

The Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics met with the Department at seven o’clock on Monday, January 10, 1944, at the Harvard Club in Boston. There were present for the Visiting Committee: Roger N. Baldwin, Albert F. Bigelow, Paul M. Herzog, George Rublee (chairman), Charles E. Spencer, and Orrin G. Wood. For the Department: John D. Black, H. H. Burbank, W. L. Crum, John T. Dunlop, Edwin Frickey, Seymour E. Harris, Arthur E. Monroe, Wassily Leontief, Abbott P. Usher, John H. Williams, and Edwin B. Wilson. Mr. Rublee presided.

 

Mr. Rublee called on Professor Burbank, the chairman of the Department of Economics, to make an opening statement.

Professor Burbank said that in previous years we had at these dinners talked about our teaching difficulties, especially those connected with the junior staff. Last year we discussed Professor Slichter’s experiment with the labor-union representatives. This year the Department had suggested to Mr. Rublee that we consider our most pressing problem of the present, as well as the immediate and long-run future. Fundamentally, this problem is concerned with the Department’s research. We must have a vigorous and effective program of research if we are to have a dominant Department of Economic in the University or, indeed, if the University itself is to maintain its high standing. The Department of Economics has recently appointed a Committee on Research Program. Professor Black is the chairman of this committee.

Professor Black then presented the following report:

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A department of economics in a large university has three functions to perform:

  1. To teach and train students,
  2. To contribute to an understanding of the current problems of private enterprise and public affairs,
  3. To help develop the science of economics.

In a small college a good job of teaching is about all that can be expected of a department of economics. In a great university the second and third functions are as important as the first.

Fortunately those three functions not only need not interfere with each other, but in a large university can be performed in such a way that each strengthens the other. This does not mean that all can be performed in the same time, but rather that each is better done if the other two are also being strongly carried. As a matter of fact, however, much time and energy is saved if all three are combined. Thus what is learned from the study of current problems can be used very effectively in the classroom and at the same time furnishes needed and valuable inductive material for the development of economic science. One’s teaching, in turn, especially one’s graduate instruction, is a constant source of ideas and suggestions to be developed in research. Only, therefore, if the staff of a department of economics is large enough and well enough financed so that it can work along all three of these lines, is it able to yield a large return upon the investment in it. Only if thus set up and thus functioning is it able to realize the possible economies of combination of these functions.

The Department of Economics of Harvard University has been performing on all of these fronts ever since it was organized. But in the period while the members of this committee have been associated with it, it has by no means measured up to its opportunities on the last two of them, and what is more important, unless some action is taken in the near future, it will miss out still more on its opportunities after the war. It will not only do less well the job it has been trying to do, for reasons to be indicated presently, but also will not reach out and encompass the larger needs of the years ahead. Needless to state, society and the nation are going to be faced with major tasks of adjustment in the years just ahead and over the next decade or two and likewise breath-taking possibilities for social advancement. So important is the role of economies in these developments that if the Department of Economies of Harvard University does not contribute its part to them, this alone will almost be enough to shrink Harvard University in toto into a second- rate institution. This, therefore, is a moment for stock-taking and laying out plans.

It is not part of the assignment of this committee to consider the teaching function of the Department. But some reference must be made to it for the reasons just given. the present course offerings and methods of instruction are not well fitted to the present and the impending future. The function of teaching in a field like ours is primarily to train students to apply economics, and the methods of economic analysis, to the situations which confront them after they leave college. For Harvard undergraduates, most of these situations are situations in private enterprise, although having important public relations. A limited proportion are assignments in the public service itself. The program of teaching needs to be organized in anticipation of the kinds of jobs, mostly private, that the graduates of Harvard University get to do. The graduate teaching program needs to envisage e wide range of working assignments, a large fraction of them in the public service. Training teachers of economics is only one of the functions of graduate teaching. Because the teaching is not organized as needed, there are some large gaps in the present program, and these gaps, it will appear presently, coincide with gaps in the research activities of the department.

The other two functions, contributing directly to an understanding of current situations, and developing economic science, are orginarily considered as research. There is considerably more to the first of these than just research, but since good research is basic to it, we will here consider them both as research and treat them under one head from this point on.

The deficiencies in the research activities of the Department of Economics, considered especially from the standpoint of the postwar can be designated under the following heads:

  1. Not enough research is being done
  2. There are gaps in it
  3. Some of it is not of enough significance.

The reasons for these deficiencies are as follows:

  1. Lack of resources to carry on the needed volume of research.
  2. This includes resources in research personnel as well as in the expenses of clerical assistants, field study, publication, and the like.
  3. Inadequate staff, or none at all, in some important fields.
  4. Very little in the way of leadership. Staff not organized in such a way as to promote research.

Let us now consider briefly these four reasons. When an economist does not have financial resources with which to do significant research, he may put in his spare energy on library work on the writings of his predecessors, the Congressional Record, and the like. For this he needs only someone to type his manuscript. If in addition, he has a little money to hire a computer, he may go to work on the census records and other official statistics. Those two descriptions about cover all the research now being done by the Harvard Department of Economics as such.

Lacking funds for anything more, two developments have followed. First, a goodly number of the staff members have taken on research or related assignments with other agencies. Merely to list these agencies tells the story. (We are purposely omitting the wartime agencies), the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Resources Planning Board, the Food and Nutrition Board, the Bureau of Economic Research, the League of Nations, the Twentieth Century Fund, the National Planning Association, the National Industrial Conference Board, etc. While most of those assignments are important, to have as many of them disorganizes the research and teaching of the Department. Also the Department as such does not get adequate recognition for work done under other auspices. Finally, there is great need for having research done that is largely independent of government agencies. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The second development has been that several members of the Department have started projects that they have not been able to complete thus far. They have learned by sad experience that they cannot swing ambitious projects without the help of trained younger associates who can direct the detail of the analysis and help with the writing. As a result, a number of important projects are now left suspended.

If the Department is to have a vigorous research program of its own, there must be funds with which to employ a dozen or two of these younger research associates, as well as funds for computers, clerical help, drafting, travel and field study.

The Committee is also disposed to think that a clearer recognition should be given to research duties in the total program of the Department. It would suggest that consideration be given to a plan which would differentiate teaching loads according to research carried. Staff members who do very little research, because not inclined that way, or having small capacity for it, would handle more classes under such a plan.

The nature of the gaps in the present program may be judged from a following incomplete survey of fields of research and teaching and the needs of each.

  1. Money and credit. Staff ample, but research associates, clerical and other help much needed. High time that a research showing be made.
  2. Business cycles. Staff ample. Funds to continue the program that was under way before the war.
  3. International economic relationship. Staff probably not entirely adequate and great need of developing a well-rounded research program suited to the postwar world. This program should include work on Inter-American relationships, development of resources of Latin America, international food supply and distribution and related population problems. Research associates and other financial help.
  4. Public finance. Staff ample. Research associates and other help needed.
  5. Economic history. A teaching as well as research associate needed. One professor now working alone in the field.
  6. Labor and industrial relations. The principle problem is to develop a workable program for using the research funds now available.
  7. Agriculture. A teaching associate needed, and probably two research associates with necessary supplementary funds.
  8. Commodity distribution. Needs complete staffing. An undergraduate and a graduate course are now being given on a makeshift basis. No research under way.
  9. Production economics. Courses now bracketed. Needs complete staffing.
  10. Forestry economies. A slight beginning has been made on a program in this field in collaboration with the Harvard Forest. An opportunity for an important contribution here. Needs a man to develop teaching and research with such financial support as required.
  11. Concerning the several other present fields of teaching and research in the Department, no statement is being made at this time.

The present research funds available for the Department are:

  1. A share with three other departments in the remnants of grant that will expire in June 1946. (About $40,000 left, most of which must be reserved for publication expenses.)
  2. Remnants of three other small grants, totaling about $6000, for special projects.
  3. The Wertheim fund, yielding about $3000 a year, for research in industrial relations, to be shared with other divisions of the University.

The committee suggests as a method of approach to the situation outlined that the Department set up a committee to draft a research program for the Department, and another one to develop a procedure for securing the necessary support for the program.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor Black added that in the natural sciences the idea of large laboratories is well established. In Economics also we need extensive laboratories and personnel therefor. Further, we need funds for field workers and for traveling expenses.

Mr. Bigelow asked whether there were any project being worked on in the School of Public Administration which could be coordinated with the research of the Economics Department. Professor Black answered that the idea of combining has already been carried as far as possible. The School of Public Administration funds are sufficient only to take care of the assembling of materials and other routine connected with the seminars.

Mr. Baldwin asked what the Department did with its research funds in the past when such funds were available. Professor Black answered that we made small grants to individual professors to help them finish projects in which they were engaged. These grants covered such activities as preliminary research, computing, and typing, but in general not much was available for field work or for traveling. Some eight or ten books have been published as a result of these projects. The publication of these books, as well as the research behind them, depended largely on research grants. Our research funds are now almost exhausted; we have very little money available for the future.

Professor Usher pointed out that in these earlier grants the modes and procedures were laid down by the donors. The Department did not have a free hand in organizing and planning research.

Mr. Baldwin asked whether the Economics Department today has a claim for research funds superior to that of other departments. Professor Burbank urged that a very strong case can be made out for such a position.

Professor Wilson observed that in days gone by great emphasis was laid on “inter-disciplinary” research. A second-rate “interdisciplinary” project would be given preference over a first-rate piece of restricted research. Professor Wilson further remarked that the research programs of the natural sciences were well set up thirty or forty years ago. Our social sciences, on the other hand, were for a long time treated as mere teaching departments. The movement away from this stand received a great impetus from an article by the late Professor Charles J. Bullock, in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for June 1915. This article called attention to the need of more generous and systematic provision for economic research. Our research program for Economics needs to be extended to a scale comparable with that of the natural sciences—unless, indeed, the United States government is to handle all the economic research in this country!

There was some discussion regarding the relation of university research in Economics to governmental research. Professor Usher pointed out that university research can be the basis for developing techniques of analysis which government bureaus can later put into “mass production.” Mr. Bigelow suggested that the development of techniques is more difficult in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. Professor Leontief predicted that the Economies Department’s research will set the direction for larger-scale governmental or “foundation” research, and emphasized that independent research, especially in its earlier stages, can never be reproduced in the “rough and tumble” conditions of governmental work. Dean Williams supported this view: a situation has been developing for some time—not just in connection with the War emergency—in which men are pulled out of university work to become mere administrators, to “run” projects; furthermore, working under governmental supervision may mean a certain loss of independence of thought, for consciously or unconsciously a men may be affected by considerations of “official policy.” Dr. Dunlop declared that you simply cannot do fundamental research under governmental auspices, there are always too many pressing current problems.

Mr. Herzog urged that the Department’s next step is to present cogent arguments to support its contentions regarding research needs. In this connection, it will be quite important to show people what contributions the Department has made in the past with the research grants allotted to it—what, for example, has resulted for practical use of the Government. Professor Burbank responded that we might take as an example the history of the statistical work on the Balance of International Payments. At the end of the last war the government and business men were vitally interested in this subject. Dean Williams was a pioneer in the field. Dean Williams briefly outlined the record. He began with an examination of the balance of payments for Argentina. Then, under the auspices of the Harvard Economics Society he, together with Professor Bullock and Mr. Tucker, made and presented a historical study of the Balance of Payments of the United States from 1789 to 1920. He kept this study up to date for several years and then turned it over to the Department of Commerce, working with them for a transition period of one year. The Department of Commerce has subsequently carried on the study currently.

As a suggestion regarding further possibilities of this sort, Professor Burbank referred to the problems connected with the incidence of taxation; these are most certainly current issues of the utmost importance. The country needs evidence for the formulation of governmental policy. We have in the Department a young man of high ability who has made a start on the investigation of these problems. We have no funds to help him, not even money for clerical and mechanical assistance.

Professor Burbank indicated that the Department would work a report along the lines of Mr. Herzog’s suggestion.

Mr. Wood urged that the Department visualize its projects and lay them out fully, with an indication of minimum and maximum amounts of money needed. Very little will be gained by talking in generalizations; the program must be concrete. Incidentally, with the Federal tax situation as it is, the present is a propitious time to obtain money for research—with reference both to individuals and to corporations.

Mr. Rublee raised question as to the exact significance of the title “Research Associate.” Professor Black answered that we have something in mind beyond a mere statistical clerk. Between the man in charge of a project and those doing the mechanical work, we need trained young economists who can assume the burden of direct supervision and also can help in writing up the results. Other Research Associates are needed to do traveling and field work. Professor Leontief suggested that the appointment of Research Associates is important for still another reason. Many of the young men thus appointed will become leaders in the economic developments of the future. The experience gained on our projects will be extremely valuable to them.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Mr. Rublee asked Dr. Dunlop to say a few words about the progress of the trade-union experiment which was described by Professor Slichter in this meeting last year. Dr. Dunlop said that this year we have gone ahead with the program, although of necessity on a reduced scale because of man power shortage in the various unions. We have six union representatives who, on the whole, are superior to the group we had last year. We have continued the development of techniques of instruction and we have widened our range of contacts with the unions. The unions are supporting the program and we are establishing new connections with certain important unions. In spite of the fact that the teaching staff has been somewhat depleted and we have had to furnish instruction on the basis of special arrangements, we feel that the year has been decidedly profitable and worth while, both for the union representatives and for us.

Mr. Herzog urged that by all means the work should continue, even though it had to be on a reduced scale. It is much easier to keep on with a going concern than to start afresh. He confirmed Dr. Dunlop’s impressions as to the high quality of the union personnel. He also reported the sincere testimony of a leading member of the labor-union group that the work at Harvard was felt to be highly worth while—to be a vital and crucial experience.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The meeting closed with general expressions of appreciation for Mr. Rublee’s work as chairman of the visiting Committee during the past few years and of the deep indebtedness which the Department feels to him for this work.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 25. Folder: “Visiting Committee Correspondence, 1943-45.”

Image Source: Cropped image of  John D. Black (1938). Harvard Library, Digital Collections.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland,  “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Regulations

Harvard. Graduate Exam Grade Distributions, 1971-72

 

From the distribution of grades for graduate economics examinations from the academic year 1971-72 at Harvard we see that the range from Good-minus through Good-plus covered the majority of grades awarded at that time…except for economic history. Gerschenkron fought grade inflation his way (zero grades of  “excellent”), stingy award of grades of “good”).  Economic history now sits in a n.e.c. (not elsewhere classified) requirement to get a Harvard Ph.D. in economics (a course in economic history or political economy or behavioral economics).

Previous posts dealing with economics Ph.D. requirements fifty-some years ago:

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Regulations, 1968

Harvard. Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
December 12, 1972

To: All Professors in the Department of Economics

From: Nancy Frolkis, Graduate Secretary

The tabulation of examination results for the academic year 1971-72 has been completed. We have enclosed a copy since we thought it would be of interest to you.

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

EXAM RECORDS
September 1971-September 1972

Written Theory Examination
Excellent

2
Excellent Minus

2
Good Plus

6
Good

16
Good Minus

7
Fair Plus

2
Fair

6
Fair Minus

6
Fail

3

TOTAL

50

 

Quantitative Methods Examination
Pass

5
Fail

1

TOTAL

6

 

Oral History Examination
Excellent

0
Excellent Minus

0
Good Plus

0
Good

3
Good Minus

1
Fair Plus

0
Fair

5
Fair Minus

1
Fail

3

TOTAL

13

 

General Oral Examination
Excellent

1
Excellent Minus

1
Good Plus

5
Good

10
Good/Good Minus

1
Good Minus

13
Fair Plus

10
Fair

2
Fair Minus

2
Fail

1
TOTAL

46

 

Thesis Grades
Excellent

2
Excellent Minus

6
Good Plus

6
Good

6
Good Minus

5
Fair Plus

4
Fair

2
Fair Minus

0
Fail

0
Not yet graded

1

TOTAL

32

 

Special Examination
Excellent

2
Excellent Minus

5
Good Plus

7
Good

7
Good Minus

7
Fair Plus

3
Fair

1
Fair Minus

0
Fail

0

TOTAL

32

 

Comparison between Thesis
and Special Examination
Same grade for exam and thesis

13
Exam ½ grade higher than thesis

6
Exam ½ grade lower than thesis

9
Exam 1 full grade higher than thesis

2
Exam 1 full grade lower than thesis

1
Unknown (thesis not graded)

1

TOTAL

32

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Alexander Gerschenkron, Box 3, Folder: “Economics (General) 1972/73”.