Month: July 2022

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. The School of Chicago 1972 by Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977). IDs by Gordon, McCloskey & Grossbard

The 1500th artifact added to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror deserves to be a celebratory post for visitors. For this honor I have chosen a  pastiche drawn by a Chicago economics graduate student in 1972. Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977) was the principal, if not only, illustrator for the student-produced satirical publication P.H.A.R.T., an issue of which has been transcribed for an earlier post.

I first saw a copy of Roger Vaughan’s reworking of Raphael’s “School of Athens” added to a photo from a Tweet of a few years back. At that time it did not occur to me to engage in a serious search for the backstory to the drawing. And yet, serendipity turned out to be kind to me when, on a visit to the Harvard Archives last year, I stumbled upon a folded, mint-condition copy of  Vaughan’s “The School of Chicago 1972” in the papers of Zvi Griliches. Of course I had this masterpiece of economics funny business copied and it now has pride of place in my home study.

A few identifications of the figures seen in “The School of Chicago 1972” are obvious (e.g. Milton Friedman and George Stigler, duh) and others could be identified from other Vaughan caricatures that likewise are found in Griliches’ papers (e.g. Marc Nerlove, Stan Fischer, and Robert J. Gordon). Still, most of the renderings remained unidentified. My first idea was to seek out the artist himself, but alas I could only confirm that he had passed in October 2021. The next idea was to seek a living eye-witness to the Chicago economics department of a half-century ago. Here I was luckier, the Stanley G. Harris Professor in the Social Sciences at Northwestern University, Robert J. Gordon, responded to my inquiry almost immediately and as quickly forwarded my request for further information to Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Deirdre McCloskey, for her confirmation and further commentary. Following the initial posting of this artifact, Professor Shoshana Grossbard of San Diego State University spotted a few misspelled names (mea culpa), but, more importantly, was able to identify Margaret Reid by her beret(!).We can all be grateful to these colleagues for their identifications provided below. There remains one unidentified man in the back-row standing to George Stigler’s left plus a couple of yet-to-be identified graduate students. Peeps, Economic in the Rear-view Mirror needs your help! You can leave comments at the end of this post.

___________________________________

About the artist, Roger Vaughan

From his 1981 AEA Biographical Listing, p. 421

Vaughan, Roger J, 421 Hudson St., Apt. 406, New York, NY 10014. Birth Yr: 1946

Degrees: B.A., U. of Oxford, 1968; M.A., Simon Fraser U., 1970; Ph.D. U. of Chicago, 1977. Prin. Cur. Position: Dep.Dir., Off. Of Develop. Planning, State of New York, 1980-

Concurrent/Past Positions: Econ., Citibank, 1978-80; Econ. The Rand Corp. 1974-78. Research: Urban Policy, finance, taxation training.

Roger J. Vaughan’s Rand Reports,
1974-1980

• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 1, Overview 1980
• Federal Activities in Urban Economic Development 1979
• Recent Contributions to the Urban Policy Debate 1979
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 4, Population and Residential Location 1979
• Assessment of Countercyclical Public Works and Public Service Employment Programs. 1978
• Regional Cycles and Employment Effects of Public Works Investments. 1977
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 2, Economic Development 1977
• The value of urban open space 1977
• The Economics of Urban Blight. 1976
• Getting People to Parks. 1976
• Public Works as a Countercyclical Device: A Review of the Issues 1976
• The Use of Subsidies in the Production of Cultural Services. 1976
• The Application of Economic Analysis to the Planning and Development of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 1975
• The Economics of Expressway Noise Pollution Abatement. 1975
• The Economics of Recreation: A Survey. 1974

Source: Rand Reports. Published Research by Author, Roger J. Vaughan.

Sage. Research Methods.

Communicating Social Science Research to Policymakers
By: Roger J. Vaughan & Terry F. Buss
Published: 1998
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983686

___________________________________

Raphael’s Scuola di Atene (1509-1511)

For some explanation of what we see in the original, cf. “The Story Behind Raphael’s Masterpiece ‘The School of Athens'” by Jessica Stewart at the Modern Met Website.

___________________________________

Roger Vaughan’s Pastiche

Open the image in a new window to see a larger image

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129. Folder “Posters, ca. 1960s-1970s”.

Background

The statues standing in the upper alcove are of the President and Vice-President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon (holding a lyre, a sweet visual pun) and Spiro T. Agnew (with the pennant “Effete Snobs”, abridged from his description of self-characterized intellectuals as an “effete core of impudent snobs” in his  “Generation Gap” speech given in New Orleans on October 19th, 1969.)

“1126” refers to the street address of the Social Science Research Building, 1126 E. 59th St.

“MV=PT” inscribed in the center of the dome is the Equation of Exchange (cf. Irving Fisher’s The Purchasing Power of Money). Cf. at the left of the back-row of Chicago economists, Arnold Zellner is carrying papers with “MV=PY“. Milton Friedman’s vanity license plates on his red cadillac used “MV=PQ” for the Equation of Exchange. Everyone seems to have agreed on the notational virtues of “M”, “V”, and “P”. Does anyone know whether there was any substantive reason for differences regarding the choice of “T”, “Y”, and “Q” for the final term?

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Though his arm is blocking part of the equation, Zellner is clearly displaying the equation of exchange, MV = PY.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Underneath Nixon is Marc Nerlove pointing into the ear, by the way of insult, of Hans Theil the great Dutch econometrician (the four great econometricians at Chicago, which had included Zvi Griliches, who had just moved to Harvard, hated each other).”

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Robert J. Gordon served as an editor of the Journal of Political Economy (J.P.E.) from 1971-1973.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Stigler’s position corresponds to that of Aristotle’s in Raphael’s fresco. There Aristotle holds a copy of his own Nicomachean Ethics. Stigler is seen here holding a book by [Adam] Smith, presumably Wealth of Nations.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “George Tolley [is] in a garbage can because he did urban economics (Vaughan was his student).”

Shoshana Grossbard’s comment: “[Margaret Reid]…not only [wore] the dark beret, but also [has] her hair in a bun, under the beret. that was her typical look. She and I attended Becker’s workshop in applications of economics in the years 1974-76.”

And guess what a casual search just turned up…

Margaret Gilpin Reid, professor emeritus of Home Economics and Economics

Source:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07052, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror’s comment: On the high-resolution hard-copy hanging on my study wall, the beret looks sort of like an ink blot and I regreted that imperfection. But now, thanks to Shoshana Grossbard’s careful observation combined with her memory of Reid’s “typical look” and an archival sighting of said beret, I am convinced and grateful that we now have another positive identification!

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “D. Gale Johnson…has a pitchfork because he was an agricultural economist. ”

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: Ted Schultz […] is pointing down to say “This is where the true Chicago School is, where I am!”.

Foreground

The identification of Robert F. Pollard was made by Roger Vaughan’s work and life partner, Anna Nechai.

 

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “…Dick Zecher [is] sticking his finger through an IBM card because he was in charge of the Department’s mainframe computer access.”

Another visual pun: Harry Johnson is portrayed writing on a literal Edgeworth-Bowley-box, a two-dimensional representation of allocations that could be Pareto efficient exchange equilibria. The two tradeable goods are measured in Edgeworth and Bowley units, respectively.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Mary Jean Bowman, one of two tenured women in a small department; she did educational and demographic economics.  The other woman was Margaret Reid, the inventor of household economics…”

The triangle seen in the previous detail is Arnold Harberger’s measure of deadweight loss (efficiency cost resulting from a natural or policy induced distortion of markets).  See Robert J. Gordon’s historical photo of Al Harberger stripping down to reveal himself as “Triangleman” ca. December 1970. In Raphael’s fresco Harberger’s place was that of Euclid.

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “I think the bearded student is Dan Wisecarver”

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “The woman holding the ball is Carolyn Mosby, the head of the department staff.”

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Cambridge Harvard Oxford Princeton Regulations Undergraduate

Harvard. Tutorial System and Divisional General Final Examinations, 1920

 

The Division of History, Government and Economics played a pioneering role in implementing the curricular reforms at Harvard College initiated by President A. Lawrence Lowell around the time of the First World War. The Department of Economics was to play a leading role in the administration of the divisional tutors in history, government and economics.

President Lowell wanted to get away from the extreme laissez-faire implicit in the system of electives left by his predecessor, Charles W. Eliot, to combine elements of concentration with distributional requirements that would leave students a guided sovereignty to elect their courses. Divisional General Examinations and Tutors to provide individually tailored instruction and counseling were institutional means seen as necessary to escape “the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated”.

“…the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation…”

In the opinion of the faculty Committee on Instruction the tutorial system should be established to support the best and brightest students to achieve their individual potentials rather than as a support system to provide remedial instructional services for the “mediocre and lazy”. 

“…there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.”

__________________________

The General Final Examination and the Tutorial System

       The most important educational change, however, in Harvard College during recent years has been the establishment, as a requirement for the bachelor’s degree, of a general final examination on the student’s field of concentration; the problems which arise in connection with this plan are interesting and complex.

       When the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1909-10 voted to require each student to concentrate at least six courses in some single field or in related fields of knowledge, it thereby indicated its belief that knowledge of a subject is of more importance than the mere scoring of a given number of courses which might be wholly unrelated and which were often soon forgotten. Provision was made, at the same time, against undue concentration by a system of distribution, which, however, need not be considered here. Yet the requirement of concentration proved not to secure, in all cases, the choice of courses well related, and least of all did it require, or sufficiently encourage, the student to articulate and complete his knowledge of his field, by himself, through work outside the classroom. The next logical step, therefore, was taken in the autumn of 1912-13 when the Faculty passed the following vote:

  1. That the Division of History, Government, and Economics be authorized to require of all students whose field of concentration lies in this Division, in addition to the present requirements stated in terms of courses for the bachelor’s degree, a special final examination upon each student’s field of concentration; and that the passing of this examination shall be necessary in order to fulfill the requirements for concentration in this Division.
  2. That students who pass this special examination may be excused from the regular final examinations in such courses of their last year as fall within the Division of History, Government, and Economics, in the same way that candidates for distinction who pass a public test may now be excused under the rules of the Faculty.
  3. That this requirement go into effect with the class entering in 1913.
  4. That the Division of History, Government, and Economics submit for the sanction of the Faculty the detailed rules for the final examinations and such a detailed scheme of tutorial assistance as may be adopted before these are put into effect by the Division.

       The examinations thus established were first given at the close of 1915-16. Between that date and the end of the year 1919-20, these general examinations had been given to 444 men, of whom 26 (5.8+%) failed and therefore did not receive their degrees unless they passed the general examinations in some subsequent year; of the 418 who passed, 73 (17.4+%) won distinction and 345 (82.5+%) obtained a pass degree.

       General examinations had been used in the Medical School since 1911-12, and in the Divinity School since 1912-13, so that considerable knowledge of the actual working of such examinations was available by the opening of the academic year 1918-19. Accordingly on December 3, 1918, the Faculty passed the following vote under which a committee of nine was established:

       That a Committee be appointed to investigate the working of the general final examinations for degrees now used in various Departments of the University, and to consider the advisability of employing general final examinations on the fields of concentration in all Departments of Harvard College.

       After studying the subject for some months the Committee came to the conclusion that the advantages of the general final examination, particularly as employed in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, might be stated as follows:

    1. The examination has secured “concentration” in related subjects.
    2. It has encouraged the mastery of subjects or fields rather than of courses.
    3. It has given the Division a survey of the student’s capacity at the end of his college course.
    4. It has provided a more satisfactory method of awarding the degree with distinction than the plan formerly in use.

       The Committee therefore made the following recommendations, which the Faculty adopted April 1, 1919:

  1. That general final examinations be established for all students concentrating in Divisions or under Committees which signify their willingness to try such examinations, and that adequate means be provided to enable such Divisions and Committees to administer these examinations; it being understood that the control of the general final examinations shall rest with the several Divisions and Committees in the same manner as the control of the examinations for honors and distinction now given by them.
  2. That the new general final examinations be first employed for the members of the present freshman class.
  3. That, so far as possible, the adviser to whom each student is assigned, be a teacher in the student’s field of concentration.

       All Divisions had previously indicated their desire or willingness to employ such examinations except the Divisions of Mathematics and of the Natural Sciences. The chief reason for the attitude of the Divisions declining appears to lie in the nature of the subjects which they represent, for Mathematics and the Natural Sciences have, by and large, fairly fixed paths of advancement for the undergraduate, so that an examination in an advanced course is, at the same time, an examination on all the work which has preceded, as may very well not be the case in Literary, Historical, and Philosophical subjects.

       Beginning then, with the year 1921-22, general final examinations on the fields of concentration will be required of all candidates for the bachelor’s degree, save in the Divisions named above. The plan is an experiment, and the experience of at least ten years may be needed before its virtues and defects can be fully estimated; but in the meantime, the successful working of such examinations in the Medical School, the Divinity School, and especially in the Division of History, Government, and Economics under this Faculty, the welcome given the plan by the more serious part of the student body, and the interest in the experiment shown by other colleges, give grounds for entertaining much hope.

       The very plan of a general final examination, however, requires that the student shall select his courses wisely, do work outside his formal courses, and by reading and reflection coordinate the details he has learned into a body of ordered knowledge of his subject, so far as this can be done in undergraduate years. In all this he requires guidance and stimulus. The Division of History, Government, and Economics, therefore, from the first, has employed Tutors whose business it is to guide and assist students, individually, in their preparation for the general final examination. Tutoring for this purpose was, on the whole, a new problem in American education, although Princeton University had made some important experiments with its Preceptorial system, and “advisers” for undergraduates had long existed here and elsewhere; moreover, the Oxford and Cambridge system of Tutors obviously could not be transplanted without change to this country because of the differences in secondary and college education. Therefore it was, and still is, necessary to experiment in methods and to develop men for the work. At first tutorial duties were superimposed on other teaching, thus increasing the total amount of instruction given by those who were appointed Tutors, but this plan proved unwise for reasons which now seem fairly clear, but which were not so easily seen in advance. More recently many Tutors have given all their time to tutorial duties, and in some cases this may always be a wise plan; but it appears probable that in many cases it will be unwise for a Tutor to be excluded wholly from giving some formal instruction in his subject by means of a “lecture” course or otherwise, for it is important that every teacher should grow in depth as well as in breadth of knowledge, and such growth can probably usually be best assured him by having him give a course in the subject which he is making especially his own. At present, then, the arrangement which seems most promising is to provide that, so far as possible, each Tutor who desires it shall use a certain proportion of his time in giving formal instruction with the usual classroom methods, the rest, usually the major part of his teaching, being given in the less formal but equally important work of a Tutor.

       Tutorial work means work with the individual student. General suggestions and directions can be given to small groups about as effectively as to single students; yet since the individual student must be considered the unit in any plan of college education which allows some range of choice, but which requires also proof of a well-ordered body of knowledge as a condition of graduation, the Tutors must generally deal with individual students; and this is the regular method employed at the present time. The Tutor meets the students under his charge every week to discuss with them the reading which they have done, to help them solve their difficulties, and to give them suggestions for their future guidance. The good Tutor is in no sense a coach, but a friendly counselor whose knowledge and wisdom are put at the disposal of his students. Unquestionably the total amount of work now required of each student has been somewhat increased over that formerly exacted, but the amount is not so excessive as to call in itself for any remission of the present requirements of courses. The most important purpose, however, of this work done by the student outside his courses under the direction of the Tutor is to teach him how to learn and how to assimilate his knowledge. Ambitious and able students realize the value of such training and give themselves much of it, becoming candidates for distinction in their fields of concentration; the indolent and slow are content with a bare degree. When more experience has been gained the Faculty may well consider relaxing somewhat the requirements of four courses in the Senior year for candidates for distinction, whose previous records give promise of success; but the pass man deserves no increased opportunities for self-discipline since he will ordinarily have proved that he cannot or will not use them.

       In this connection the question may well be raised whether all men should receive equal attention from the Tutors. That there should be equal opportunities for all until some have shown themselves indifferent or unequal to them is beyond doubt; but when the wills and abilities of men have been well tested, as should ordinarily be the case by the end of the sophomore year, it seems only justice to the willing and able to give them more attention than is bestowed on the men who are content with a pass degree. Of course a chance must be given the repentant laggard to climb into the more deserving, and therefore more favored, group during his last two years. But there is some danger in college work today that we shall give more consideration to the mediocre and lazy student than to the upper third of the class which contains the men who deserve the best training that can be given them and who are to provide the leaders of their time.

       In the vote of April, 1919, the Faculty wisely left each Department or Division free to determine the nature of the assistance to be given students concentrating under it and the means by which such assistance shall be given. The Divisions of Philosophy and of Fine Arts propose to use Tutors, as the Division of History, Government and Economics has done from the beginning of the experiment; the several Departments of Languages and Literatures, ancient and modern, will employ advisory committees. But whatever names and methods are employed, the aim will always be to give the individual student assistance and encouragement in acquiring a body of well-organized knowledge in his field. In this direction apparently lies the next advance in the improvement of instruction in Harvard College.

CLIFFORD H. MOORE, Chairman.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1919-1920, pp. 100-104.

__________________________

Related previous posts

Harvard. First Undergraduate General and Specific Exams in History, Government and Economics Division, 1916.

Harvard. Economics degree requirements, A.B./A.M./Ph.D., 1921-1922

 

Categories
Faculty Regulations Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. President Lowell’s motivation for undergraduate divisional general exams. 1915

In an earlier post a shorter excerpt from Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report for the academic year 1914-1915 was included along with the first set of divisional exams for History, Government and Economics from 1915. In the following extended excerpt one finds such gems as:

“…it is still possible for a student to elect six courses in the outlying parts of the field which have little connection with one another and do not form a systematic whole. This possibility is attractive to undergraduates seeking easy courses, whose object is not so much to obtain as to evade an education. Of late years, indeed, many easy courses have been made more serious, whereby the minimum work which shirkers must do for a degree has been sensibly raised, to the great benefit of the college as an educational institution, and incidentally with the result of increasing the respect for high achievement in college scholarship. As the requirements in various subjects are stiffened it is interesting to observe the flocking of students from one department to another.”

Some things apparently never change. By the way you can now add the German expression for such students, “geistiger Tiefflieger” (=intellectual low-flyers), to your working pejorative vocabulary.

______________________________

From President A. Lawrence Lowell’s report on the academic year 1914-15.

…But in fact, the single course is not, and cannot be, the true unit in education. The real unit is the student. He is the only thing in education that is an end in itself. To send him forth as nearly a perfected product as possible is the aim of instruction, and anything else, the single course, the curriculum, the discipline, the influences surrounding him, are merely means to the end, which are to be judged by the way they contribute and fit into the ultimate purpose. To treat the single course as a self-sufficient unit, complete in itself, is to run a danger of losing sight of the end in the means thereto. In no other part of the University, in the requirements for no other degree, is the course, as a unit, complete in itself. In the Law School, where the freedom of election is the greatest, many courses are required, and the rest all aim at a definite and narrowly circumscribed object, preparation for practice at the bar. In the Medical and Divinity Schools general examinations on specific fields of knowledge have been established — of which more will be said later. The same thing has always been true of the doctorate of philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences; and for the Master of Arts, which was formerly attained by a sufficiently high grade in any four courses, it has now been the rule for many years that the courses must form a consistent whole, approved by some department of the Faculty.

In the College the problem of making the student, instead of the course, the unit in education is more difficult than in the other parts of the University, because general education is more intangible, more vague, less capable of precise analysis and definition, than training for a profession. Nevertheless, in the College, some significant steps have been taken which tend in this direction. The first was the requirement that every student must concentrate six of his seventeen courses in some definite field, must distribute six more among the other subjects of knowledge, and must do so after consulting an instructor appointed to advise him. The exact prescriptions may not be perfect, nor in their final form. Experience may well lead to changes, but the intent is good, to develop and expand the mind of the student as an individual, as in himself the object of education. So far as the rule affects the care with which the student selects his courses, there has certainly been a gain, for there is no doubt that the requirement has made his choice more thoughtful and serious than before. The Committee on the Choice of Electives makes exceptions freely in the case of earnest students, and it is a significant fact that although the members of the Committee hold very divergent views upon the principles involved, they are almost invariably unanimous on the question of allowing an exception in any particular case.

The rule of concentration, coupled with the provision that not more than two of the six courses shall be of an elementary character, is intended to compel every man to study some subject with thoroughness, and acquire a systematic knowledge thereof. Certain departments have so arranged their sequence of courses that this result is fairly well attained; but in others where the offering is large, and the nature of the subject is not (as it is in mathematics, for example, or the physical sciences) such that a mastery of one thing is indispensable for the study of another, it is still possible for a student to elect six courses in the outlying parts of the field which have little connection with one another and do not form a systematic whole. This possibility is attractive to undergraduates seeking easy courses, whose object is not so much to obtain as to evade an education. Of late years, indeed, many easy courses have been made more serious, whereby the minimum work which shirkers must do for a degree has been sensibly raised, to the great benefit of the college as an educational institution, and incidentally with the result of increasing the respect for high achievement in college scholarship. As the requirements in various subjects are stiffened it is interesting to observe the flocking of students from one department to another.

The second step in treating the student, instead of the course, as the unit in education, was taken by the Division of History, Government, and Economics, when, and with the approval of the Faculty, it set up the requirement of a general examination at graduation for students concentrating in that division. The examination, which is entrusted to a committee representing the three departments within the division, is to be distinct from that in the courses elected, and is to include not only the ground covered in them, but also the general field with which they have dealt, and the knowledge needed to connect them. This is a marked departure from the plan of earning a degree by scoring courses; and it will take time to adjust men’s conceptions of education to a basis new to the American college, though familiar in every European university. To assist the students in preparing themselves for the general examination each of them at the beginning of his Sophomore year is assigned to the charge of a tutor who confers with him about his work and guides his reading outside of that required in the courses. As the plan could be applied only to men entering after it was established, the first examinations will be held next spring, and then only for men who graduate in three years. In the Divinity School, where the course for the Master’s and Doctor’s degrees is shorter, a general examination has already been put into operation with gratifying results.

A third step has been taken this autumn by a vote of the Faculty providing that the courses elected by a student for concentration in History and Literature must be approved by the Committee on Degrees with Distinction in that field. This has always been true of candidates for distinction under this committee, and in fact the field is one that would present little unity if the courses chosen were unrelated. But that the combination of courses by other students should require approval is an innovation which shows that in a subject where the liberty of choice is peculiarly liable to abuse, the Faculty is prepared to require a consistent programme of study, with a view to giving students an education rational as a whole. Moreover, departments and committees, which do not wish to limit the choice of the students concentrating in their field to combinations of courses approved by them beforehand, sometimes take charge of his work in the subject and really oversee it at every stage. They do in fact act as his advisers, and can often do so better than the instructor specially appointed to advise him. The adviser so appointed frequently takes a very careful interest in the development of a man’s work throughout his college course, and whenever a man shows on entering college any strong special interest, Professor Parker always tries to appoint for him an adviser who will sympathize with that interest. Nevertheless, the departments and committees which pay close attention to the choice of courses by each man concentrating in their field add much to the thoroughness of his education, and have adopted a principle that might with profit be more widely extended. It would be well if every department insisted on having a list, not merely of candidates for distinction, but of all students concentrating in its special field.

Another departure from the practice of counting by courses is the requirement that every student shall be able to read ordinary French or German at sight, and show it by doing so orally. This has proved to be a very different thing from taking and passing a course. It is a test of capacity acquired, not of tasks performed. It is in this one subject a measure of the man and of his education, not a unit of credit accumulated. Not less important is the Committee on the Use of English by Students, appointed in consequence of a request from the Board of Overseers. The investigation by that body showed that students who had done their required English composition often could not or would not express themselves creditably in their later written work. A man who cannot write his mother tongue grammatically, lucidly, and with a reasonably fair style, or who does not think it worth while to do so, is not an educated man, no matter how many courses he may have scored, or how proficient he may be in a special field. In this connection it may be noted that the supervision of the use of English applies to the Graduate School as well as to the College.

All these changes are in a direction away from the mechanical view of education which is the bane of the American system. We see that view displayed everywhere, prominently at the present day in efforts to raise the standard of pre-medical training. This is commonly expressed in terms of courses taken and credits obtained, not of knowledge acquired. If a young man has passed a course and learned little or nothing, or forgotten all he knew, he fulfils the requirement; but if he has mastered the subject in any other way, and can prove it by examination, it avails him nothing. Counting the credits scored in courses is, no doubt, the easiest way to apply a requirement, but it is not a sound system of education. What a man is, what knowledge he possesses, and what use he can make of it, is the real measure of his education. All persons who desire to improve the American system from the common school upward ought to strive not to lose sight of the end in the means, not to let the machinery divert attention from the product….

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1914-1915, pp. 8-11.

______________________________

Other related posts

Harvard. First Undergraduate General and Specific Exams in History, Government and Economics Division, 1916.

Harvard College President Lowell on Instruction in Economics Department, 1917

Harvard. Report on the Tutorial System in History, Government and Economics. Burbank, 1922

Image Source: Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell from Harvard Class Album 1920.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Course Outline, Reading Assignments, Semester Exams. Principles of economics. Smithies, 1951-52

The self-confidence of the businessmen appointed to Harvard’s economics department visiting committee at mid-20th-century to weigh-in on all matters related to the scope and method of economics as a science and policy art is breath-taking, and I don’t mean that in a good way. For an earlier post I transcribed the November 1950 report submitted by the visiting committee and the January 1952 response from Harvard President James B. Conant. Reading Keller and Keller’s Making Harvard Modern: The Rise of America’s University (2001), I learned that Clarence B. Randall [Chairman of the Economics Visiting Committee] alleged that the economics chairman, Arthur Smithies, ripped off the first page of the syllabus for the principles of economics course to hide the list of main sources of readings for the course, knowing that some of the items would displease Randall.

This was enough to get me to look at the syllabus with assigned readings and the final examinations for Economics 1 “Principles of Economics” for the academic year 1951-52 now transcribed for this post. The first page of the syllabus appears to simply be tables of primary sources for the readings assigned in the fall and spring terms that permit abbreviated reference in the course syllabus. But since he was given the complete list of readings and an outline of the course, I find it more likely that Randall merely saw a tempest in a teapot. Others can examine the artifacts themselves and come to their own conclusions.

If I were in the jury, I would vote to acquit Smithies of the charge of willfully destroying or hiding evidence known to be relevant. Any idiot could figure out Karl Marx made a guest appearance in the Harvard course readings from the course outline and its reading assignments. Smithies provided sufficient evidence as to course content to Randall. Actually I think Smithies should have been awarded damages for having his honor impugned, or even a Purple Heart. Suffering fools has always been a part of the price of departmental service.

__________________________

Cf. An earlier version of the Syllabus for “Principles of Economics”

1949-50.  Economics 1 outline and exams.

__________________________

Smithies’ letter of Oct 31, 1951 to Randall

October 31, 1951

Mr. Clarence B. Randall
38 South Dearborn Street
Chicago 3, Illinois

Dear Mr. Randall:

I was very glad to get your letter and I do wish we had more opportunities to sit down to discuss the affairs of the Department in a more leisurely manner than is usually possible.

We have given a great deal of thought during the fall to the questions about the Department that you have raised with the President. I am afraid it might confuse things if I attempted to discuss those questions by letter so I shall forebear. I would like to say, however, that whether or not I agree with your conclusions I have always found your criticisms of the Department very helpful.

Dave Bailey called and asked us to keep Sunday evening, January thirteenth, free for a meeting with the committee. As you know, I do not think these single evening meetings serve any very useful purpose. They do not enable the Committee to talk at any length with members of the Department or to make any adequate appraisal of the Department’s program. Several members of the Committee have told me that oven the full day we devoted to the purpose last year was too short. Several members of the Department have also indicated to me that they feel that the Sunday evening meeting is to [sic] perfunctory. Therefore, I very much hope we can arrange another program of the kind we had last year.

Things seem to be going quite satisfactorily here. The enrollment has not shrunk to anything like the extent that was anticipated last spring.

This year we have extended tutorial to sophomores in Group III and above so that we have now practically restored the tutorial system that was eliminated during the war.

I am sending you a copy of the outline of Economics 1 which may interest you. I still regard it as by no means perfect but am more satisfied with it than with what we have had before. We are continuing to have occasional lectures in Economics 1 and during the course of the year I hope that most of the senior members of the staff will give at least one lecture.

Our contract with the Business School for Smith and Butters to teach Burbank’s courses is working out quite as well as I expected. I want to make this a permanent arrangement, but I would not be surprised at some time to see some resistance from the Business School. If we need it, I hope we can rely on your Committee’s support to continue this arrangement.

The defense program has made fewer inroads on the Department than we expected. It is absorbing a good deal of Mason’s sabbatical leave; Dunlop is spending a day or two a week with the Wage Stabilization Board; and I go to Washington for a couple of days a week as a consultant to Charles E. Wilson.

If there is any chance of seeing you during the fall, I would very much appreciate the opportunity. I am regularly in Washington on Thursdays — if you can every bring yourself to visit that unholy city.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Smithies

Enclosure

__________________________

Randall alleges sleight-of-hand by Smithies regarding the Economics 1 reading list.

“Besides their ideological concerns, the Overseers worried about the department’s ability (and desire) to teach undergraduates. [Chairman of the Economics Committee, Clarence B.] Randall fretted that research-obsessed professors were away too much; senior professors avoided teaching lowerclassmen. And he agreed with [President James B.] Conant that the field ‘has reached a point of ethereal content which is as lifeless to me as much…modern poetry. It just doesn’t seem to matter.’ Conant concede that the department ‘has not faced up to the problem of making a real effort ot improve the instruction in the introductory courses in Economics.’ Feeling the pressure, chairman [Professor Arthur] Smithies proposed an extensive plan to strengthen undergraduate teaching. Randall appreciated Conan’s response to his criticisms. He left the visiting committee in the fall of 1952, but not without a final disappointment. He heard that when he asked the chairman for a copy of the Economics A [sic, Principles of Economics last listed as “Economics A” in 1947-48. Beginning 1948-49 it was given the number “Economics 1″ ] reading list, Smithies tore off the first page because he thought that Randall would disapprove of many of the authors (as in all likelihood he would have). ‘I bear no animosity about that,’ Randall told Conant, ‘but it does make me a little heartsick. I am always shocked when I find amongst either professors or preachers ethical practices below the standard prevailing in business.”

Source:  Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller, Making Harvard Modern: The Rise of America’s University (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 84-85.

__________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 1. Principles of Economics

Full course. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 12. The major part of the course is conducted in sections. However, throughout the year there will be occasional lectures on Wed. at 12. Mon., Wed., and Fri., will be the normal hour for section meetings but sections will be scheduled at other hours. Professor Smithies and other Members of the Department.

Economics 1 may be taken by properly qualified Freshmen with the consent of the instructor.

Economics 1 is designed to introduce students to the methods of economic analysis that bear on the issues that confront this country and the world. The course will thus serve the needs both of those students who plan no further work in economics and those who desire to obtain the groundwork for more advanced courses in the field.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction, 1951-52 pp.  75-76.

__________________________

Economics 1
Syllabus and Readings
1951-52

[first page begins]

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Fall Term

Sources:

Bowman and Bach, Economic Analysis and Public Policy, Second Edition (1949)
** Clark, J.M., Common and Disparate Elements in National Growth and Decline
Daugherty and Daugherty Principles of Political Economy, vol. II
The Midyear Economic Report of the President, July 1951
Editors of Fortune, U.S.A. — The Permanent Revolution
* Gayer, Harriss, and Spencer, Basic Economics, A Book of Readings
Hart, Defense Without Inflation
Marx, The Communist Manifesto
Mill, J. S., Principles of Political Economy
* Morgan, T., Introduction to Economics
Office of Defense Mobilization, Meeting Defense Goals
Ruggles, R., National Income and Income Analysis
Schumpeter, J. A., The Theory of Economic Development
Slichter, S., The American Economy
** Spengler, J. J., Theories of Socio-Economic Growth
[“Baumol Economic Analysis” inserted here]

* To be purchased.
** To be handed out in section meeting.

[end of first page]

ECONOMICS 1
Fall Term

PART I. The American Economy—Its Growth, Complexity, Institutions and Problems
  1. The Growth of the U.S. Economy and Its Present Complexity
    1. Change in productivity and income; the increase in population, capital accumulation, and the supply of natural resources.
    2. The functions of the economy.
    3. The complex division of labor and specialization within the U.S. economy for performing these functions.
    4. The role of the price system and market mechanism — the circular flow of economic activity.

Readings:

Slichter, Ch. 1, The American Economy

Gayer, et al., Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 59

Bowman and Bach, Ch. 3, The Economic System — A Summary View; Chapter 4, Private Enterprise, Profits, the Price System

  1. Prerequisites for a Growing Economy
    1. Climate and natural resources, attitudes of the population, capital and technology, institutional conditions and systems, etc.
    2. Comparisons among different economies

Readings:

Clark, Common and Disparate Elements in National Growth and Decline

Daugherty and Daugherty, Ch. 34, Modern Economic Society

  1. Institutions of an Advanced Industrial Economy
    1. Large scale enterprise — the organization of business
    2. The organization of labor and agriculture
    3. The role of the monetary system and its organization
    4. The role of the government

Readings:

Morgan, [Introduction to Economics]

Ch. 4, The Scale and Location of Production

Ch. 5, The Organization of Business

Ch. 6, The Rise of Labor Unions; Social Legislation of the 1930’s

Ch. 7, The Nature of Money

Ch. 8, The Supply of Money

Ch. 9, The Demand for Money

[“Ch. 28” inserted here]

Ch.10, The Control of Money

Ch. 3, Economic Decisions under Laissez-Faire, a Mixed Economy, and Socialism

Editors of Fortune, Ch. 4, The Transformation of American Capitalism

Gayer, et al., Nos. 51, 54, 65 [“, 12” inserted here]

  1. Some Views on Economic Growth
    1. The classical economists
    2. Schumpeter
    3. Marx
    4. Other socio-economic views

Readings:

Mill, Vol. II, Bk. IV, Ch. 6, Of the Stationary State

Schumpeter, Ch. 2, The Fundamental Phenomenon of Economic Development

Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Spengler, Theories of Socio-Economic Growth

  1. The Problems of a Growing and Complex Economy
    1. Business fluctuations and economic stability
    2. Competition and monopoly
    3. The distribution of income
    4. International problems
    5. Economic Power

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 1, Economic Problems and Economic Progress, pp. 3-7

Slichter, Ch. 6, How Good is the American Economy

PART II. Fluctuations in National Income — The Problem of Economic Stability
  1. The Measurement of National Income
    1. Components of national income and their statistical measurement.
    2. Correcting national income figures for price changes over time — the real national income.

Readings:

Morgan, [Introduction to Economics]

Ch. 25, The National Income

Ch. 26, Fluctuations in the Real National Income: The Problem of Index Numbers

[“Ch. 27 Production & Employment” inserted here]

  1. The Sources of the Expenditures Determining National Income
    1. Consumption expenditures.
    2. Investment expenditures.
    3. Government expenditures.

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 31, The Sources of Expenditure

  1. Fluctuations in National Income
    1. The determination of the level of national income.
    2. The effect of changes in spending—the multiplier and acceleration effects.
    3. Business cycle experience of the past.
    4. Counter-cyclical policies
    5. The problem of the national debt

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 32, Fluctuations in Production and employment

Ruggles, Ch. 12, Economic Policy and the Level of Activity

Morgan, Ch. 36, Part C, The Burden of Public Debt, pp. 685-696

Gayer, et al., Nos. 81, 85

PART III. Economic Mobilization
    1. The pattern of mobilization.
    2. Methods of meeting the defense goals.
    3. The problem of checking inflation in the mobilization period.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

[first page begins]

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Spring Term

Sources:

Allen and Brownlee, The Economics of Public Finance
Blakiston Company, Readings in the Social Control of Industry
Buchanan and Lutz, Rebuilding the World Economy
Dean, J., Managerial Economics
Ellsworth, P. T. The International Economy
Federal Budget in Brief, latest available
* Gayer, Harriss, and Spencer, Basic Economics, A Book of Readings
Galbraith, J. K., American Capitalism
* Morgan, T., Introduction to Economics
Peterson, S., Economics
Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
** Slichter, S., Profits in a Laboristic Society

* To be purchased.
** To be handed out in section meeting.

[end of first page]

ECONOMICS 1
Spring Term

PART IV. Economic Behavior of the Individual
    1. The problem of choice — the manner in which the individual will use his services and property to earn income and the way he will allocate his income among consumer goods.
    2. The factors influencing his decisions — marginal utility, prices and types of products and services, “conspicuous consumption,” technology, advertising, habit, etc.

Readings:

Peterson, ch. 19, pp. 478-488

Gayer, et al., Nos. 15, 18

PART V. Business Behavior in a Dynamic Economy
  1. Profit-making as the main objective of business enterprises.

The relevance of the time period, liquidity and safety, potential competition, the anti-trust laws, etc., for profit maximizing.

  1. The influence of market structure on the range of decisions by the firm.

Pure competition — agriculture;
Oligopoly or monopolistic competition — industry;
Monopoly — a limiting case.

    1. Conditions of product demand — income levels, availability of substitutes, the price and nature of the product, advertising, etc.
    2. Sales promotion plane and product improvement strategy — research.
    3. Investment decisions — choosing the best plant size and operating it in the most efficient manner.
    4. Pricing policies.
    5. Labor relations.
  1. The interactions of such decisions among business firms in a dynamic economy.
  2. The effectiveness of business behavior in satisfying consumer demand, allocating resources, and stimulating growth.

Readings:

Dean, Ch. 1, Sections 1, 2, 4, 5

Morgan, Chs. 12, 11, 15, 16

Dean, Ch. 7

Schumpeter, Ch. 8

Gayer, et al., Nos. 20, 21, 26

  1. Public Programs of Promotion and Control of Business.
    1. The historical development of government regulation.
    2. The anti-trust approach.
    3. Public utility regulation.
    4. Government sponsored restraints of competition.
    5. Evaluation of government regulation.

Readings:

Gayer, et al., No. 35

Morgan, Ch. 17

Readings in the Social Control of Industry, Ch. 1

Gayer, et al., Nos. 34, 38

PART VI. The Division of the National Income among the Major Groups
    1. The facts on distribution — past and present.
    2. The manner in which demand and supply factors affect the income of the means of production.
    3. The study of these elements in the determination of wages, rents, interest, and profits.
    4. Interactions among prices, profits, wages and property incomes in a dynamic, industrial economy.
    5. The influence of the government on the distributive shares.

Readings:

Morgan, Chs. 23, 18-22

Gayer, et al., Nos. 42, 41

Slichter, Profits in a Laboristic Society

Galbraith, Chs. 9-11, 14

Gayer, et al., Nos. 44, 50, 88 (Henry George)

PART VII. The International Economy
    1. The development of the world economy.
    2. The breakdown of the world economy.
    3. Reconstructing the world-economy-post-war problems and policies.

Readings:

Buchanan and Lutz, Ch. 1

Morgan, Ch. 38

Ellsworth, The International Economy, Ch. 5, 111-120 or

International Economics, Ch. 2

Gayer, et al., Nos., 100-102, 104, 105

PART VIII. Government Finance and Fiscal Problems
  1. Revenues and Expenditures of the Government
    1. The historical change in the role of the government.
    2. The structure of the Federal Budget.
    3. Financing expenditures from sources of taxation — types of taxes, who pays them, and their effects on the economy.
    4. The use of government borrowing to finance expenditures. Should we have an annual balanced budget? What is the burden of the National Debt.
    5. The role of the government as a credit agency.

Readings:

Allen and Brownlee, Ch. 1

Morgan, Ch. 24

Federal Budget in Brief.

Gayer, et al., Nos. 89, 90, 92, 95

PART IX. The Prospects and Fundamental Problems of the American Economy
    1. The problems of economic growth, economic stability, competition and monopoly, the distribution of income, and international economic relations.
    2. How can these problems best be met within the framework of democratic capitalism?

Readings:

To be assigned later.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 5, Folder “Economics, 1951-1952 (1 of 2)”.

__________________________

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Mid-Year Examination, January 1952]

(Three hours)

Answer FIVE of the following SEVEN questions. Divide your time equally among each of the FIVE questions.

  1. “Although Schumpeter was influenced to a great extent by Marx’s ideas, his views of capitalistic development differed in many basic respects from those of Marx.”
    Develop the major points of similarity and difference of their theories of the process of capitalistic development.
  2. Define Gross National Product and National Income. Discuss some of the conceptual and statistical problems in measuring these economic aggregates including the difficulty of comparing Gross National Product at different times. Comment upon the usefulness of these concepts as measures of economic growth.
  3. Economic growth in the United States has been accompanied by bigness in business, labor, finance, and government. Should this concentration movement be regarded as inevitable in the process of capitalistic development? In your opinion has this trend towards bigness interfered with economic growth or accelerated it?
  4. (a) What powers does the Federal Reserve System have to combat inflationary and deflationary movements in the level of economic activity? Explain the manner in which the application of each measure is designed to influence the economy.
    (b) How has Treasury financing policy during the last decade interfered with the usefulness of these powers as a means of economic control?
  5. Discuss the behavior and interactions of consumption and investment expenditures as Gross National Product fluctuates over the course of the business cycle.
  6. “The Mobilization People seem to have two main goals – to maintain stability, i.e., prevent prices from rising, and to increase production. They are both laudable objectives by themselves. But those Washington bureaucrats don’t seem to realize they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They try to maintain stability by high taxes plus price and resource controls. Yet these are the very measures which strangle the businessman and take away his incentive to increase production. I say, forget the controls. American production in a free economy will achieve both goals.”
    Discuss the issues raised in this statement and, in so doing, suggest the kind of economic policies that you think will best meet our mobilization needs as presently conceived by the federal government.
  7. What in your opinion are the main factors which account for the different rates of growth in real income per capita at different periods of history and in various areas of the world.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28). Vol. 90 Final Exams [in] Social Sciences, January 1952.

__________________________

 1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Year-end Examination, May 1952]

PART I
(One hour)
Answer (a) and (b)

  1. (a) Assuming perfect knowledge and the desire to maintain profits, explain briefly the manner in which the price and output of a commodity are determined (1), under purely competitive conditions and (2) under conditions of pure monopoly.
    (b) How relevant and useful are these theories in adequately explaining business behavior:

(1) under industry conditions in which competitors are few and products differentiated,
(2) when short-run profit maximization may impair the long-run profit position, and
(3) in accounting for the phenomenon of innovation and company policy toward expansion.

PART II
(Two hours)
Answer any FOUR questions. Each will be counted equally.

  1. “The failure of traditional economic analysis to develop a theory of profits which links them to economic growth has in some ways resulted in an unrealistic anti-monopoly program.” Discuss.
  2. In what ways are wages related to the marginal productivity of labor? How does collective bargaining influence wages and employment?
  3. “Equality is a good thing, but so are rising living standards and greater opportunity.”
    To what extent do you think attempts to redistribute income are compatible with policies promoting economic growth? In your answer be careful to distinguish types of redistributive measures and their various effects.
  4. This year every presidential candidate is faced with the need for advancing a tax and expenditure program. As a citizen what economic issues would you want a candidate to cover and what criteria would you employ in evaluating his program?
  5. Answer (a) or (b).

(a) “We shall never have a sound system of international trade until we return to the Gold Standard.” Discuss critically the reasoning underlying this statement, particularly with regard to its implications as to the compatibility of domestic stability and international equilibrium.

(b) “Events in the past fifty years have seen the rise of the United States to a position of dominance in international trade. Yet it may be questioned whether we are willing to accept the responsibilities which our role in the world economy entails.”
Evaluate the statement in the light of the development of United States foreign economic policy in recent years.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28). Vol. 93 Final Exams [in] Social Sciences, June 1952.

Images Sources: Smithies from From Harvard Class Album 1952;
Portrait of Trustee of the University of Chicago, Clarence B. Randall, from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03000-082, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Berkeley Economists Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Graduate Public Finance. Syllabus and Exams. Berkeley professor George Break. 1964-1965

The Harvard archives of course syllabi and final examinations include materials for courses taught by visiting professors from other universities. Graduate public finance was a course normally taught by Otto Eckstein, who was appointed to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in September 1964. To cover that important field course, the Harvard economics department brought in the Berkeley professor of public finance, George Farrington Break for 1964-65. Below you will find Break’s obituary from a University of California (Berkeley) press release, followed by the syllabus and readings for his graduate public finance course at Harvard. Both the mid-year and year-end examinations have been transcribed and can be found at the end of the post. Break’s c.v. can be downloaded at the Wayback Machine internet archive.

 _____________________________

Public finance scholar George F. Break dead at 88

By Kathleen Maclay
30 March 2009

BERKELEY — George F. Break, an emeritus professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and an authority on public finance, died of heart failure at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Berkeley on March 13. He was 88.

George Break conducted influential empirical research on the effects of income taxation on work incentives, intergovernmental relations and tax reform in the United States and Canada.
He chaired UC Berkeley’s Department of Economics from 1969 to 1973. Break also served on numerous campus advisory committees and in 1990 was honored with the Berkeley Citation, one of the campus’s highest honors.

He was born June 10, 1920, in the city of London in Southwest Ontario, Canada. From 1942-1945, Break served in a meteorological office attached to the Royal Canadian Air Force and was a flying officer with its Meteorological Division in 1945. He married Helen Dean Schnacke on July 31, 1948.

Break went on to earn his Ph.D. in economics at UC Berkeley in 1951, and joined the economics department as an assistant professor the same year. Among his many students at UC Berkeley was Michael Boskin, chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George H.W. Bush. Break retired from the faculty in 1990.

Of the 11 books authored by Break, the best known are “Public Finance” (1961), which he wrote with Earl Rolph, and “Federal Tax Reform: The Impossible Dream?” (1975), authored with Joseph Pechman, which served as a foundation for the U.S. Tax Reform Act of 1986. Break also wrote “Financing Government in a Federal System” (1980), edited two books and wrote 74 articles or book chapters.

He was president of the National Tax Association from 1982 to 1984, and was honored in 1996 with the association’s Daniel M. Holland Medal for outstanding contributions to the study and practice of public finance. Break was a member of the American Economics Association, National Tax Association and Canadian Economics Association.

He was appointed by California Gov. George Deukmejian to the Tax Reform Advisory Commission, whose 1985 report suggested reducing corporate and individual income taxes and broadening the sales tax by including food, medical care and household utilities.

Break also assisted the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis, testified before congressional committees, consulted for various tax agencies within the United States and Canadian governments, and evaluated the tax systems of Greece and Jamaica.

Break was preceded in death by his wife, Helen, who died in 2007. He is survived by several nephews and nieces.

[…]

Source: UCBerkeleyNews. Press Release, 30 March 2009.
_____________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 251. Public Finance
Full course. M., W., (F.), at 10. Professor George Break (University of California).

Public finance in the context of the theory of economic policy; fiscal policy and the theory of output and prices; economics of public expenditure; theory of multi-level finance.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe, 1964-65, p. 117.

_____________________________

Syllabus and Course Readings

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 251
Public Finance

Professor George F. Break

Fall Term 1964

  1. Recommended for purchase: R. A. Musgrave, The Theory of Public Finance (McGraw Hill, 1959)
  2. Henry C. Simons, Personal Income Taxation (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1938)
  3. General Texts and Treatises: Due, John F., Government Finance (Irwin, 1959)
  4. Groves, H. M., Financing Government (5th ed. Holt, 1958)
  5. Schultz, W. J. and Harriss, C. L., American Public Finance (7th ed., Prentice-Hall, 1961)
  6. Buchanan, J. M., The Public Finances (Irwin, 1960)
  7. Rolph, E. R. and Break, G. F., Public Finance (Ronald, 1961)
  8. Hicks, U. K., Public Finance (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1955)
  9. Prest, A. R., Public Finance (Quadrangle, 1960)
  10. Dalton, Hugh, Principles of Public Finance (4th ed., Routledge, 1954)
  11. Pigou, A. C., A Study in Public Finance (3rd ed., Macmillan, 1947)
  12. Colm, Gerhard, Essays in Public Finance and Fiscal Policy (Oxford, 1955)
  13. Rolph, E. R., The Theory of Fiscal Economics (California, 1954)
  14. Blough, Roy, The Federal Taxing Process (Prentice-Hall, 1952)
  15. Universities–National Bureau Conference, The Public Finances (Princeton, 1961)
  16. Musgrave, R. A. and Peacock, A. T. (eds.): Classics in the Theory of Public Finance (Macmillan, 1958)
  17. Musgrave, R. A. and Shoup, C. S., (eds.), Readings in the Economics of Taxation (AEA series, Irwin, 1959)
  18. Hall, Challis A. Jr., Fiscal Policy for Stable Growth (Holt, 1960)
  19. Smithies, A. and Butters, J. K. (eds.), Readings in Fiscal Policy (AEA series, Irwin, 1955)
  20. Smith, D. T., Federal Tax Reform (McGraw-Hill, 1961)
  21. Smithies, A., The Budgetary System in the United States (McGraw-Hill, 1955)
  22. Burkhead, Jesse, Government Budgeting (Wiley, 1936)
  23. Harvard Law School International Program in Taxation, World Tax Series (volumes on Australia, Brazil, Mexico, India, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, published)
  24. Joint Economic Committee, The Federal Revenue System: Facts and Problems, 1964
  25. Joint Economic Committee, Federal Tax Policy for Economic Growth and Stability, 1955
  26. Joint Economic Committee, Federal Expenditure Policy for Economic Growth and Stability, 1957
  27. Committee on Ways and Means, Tax Revision Compendium (3 vols., 1960)

Serial Publications and Periodicals

U. S. Treasury Department, Treasury Bulletin (monthly)
U. S. Treasury Department, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury
Budget Message of the President
Economic Report of the President
National Tax Association, Annual Proceedings
National Tax Journal
Taxes, The Tax Magazine
Public Finance (Finances Publiques)
Commerce Clearing House, Inc., and Prentice-Hall publish looseleaf tax services (in Law and Business School Libraries)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

1. The Fiscal Setting

7: Chs. 1, 2, 4, 5.

*1: Ch. 9.

21: Chs. 3-4; (5-7); 8-10.

22: Chs. *6-9; (Part III).

Symposium on Budgetary Concept. RES (May 1963):

Bator
Eckstein
*Musgrave
Taylor, Wendell and Brill

Andrew E. Gantt, II., “Central Governments: Cash Deficits and Surpluses, RES (Feb. 1963).

Survey of Current Business (July, 1964), pp. 1823.

Office of Business Economics, Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Income and Output (1958), pp. 55-7 and 164-79.

Joint Economic Committee (Roy Moor), The Federal Budget as an Economic Document (1962), pp. 524; *109-128; 138-148.

Alan T. Peacock and Jack Wiseman, The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom (NBER, 1961).

Anthony Downs, “Why the Government Budget is Too Small in a Democracy,” World Politics (July, 1960).

2. Principles of Taxation

*1: Chs. 4, 5.

*2: Ch. 1.

16: Knut Wicksell, pp. 72-118.

17: Elmer D. Fagan No. 3, (JPE, 1938).

11: Part II, Chs. 1, 4-7.

20: Ch. 1.

W. J. Blum and H. Kalven, Jr., The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation (Chicago, 1953). Phoenix Paperback Edition, 1963.

Robert J, Lampman, “Recent Thought on Egalitarianism,” QJE (May, 1957).

3. Income, Spending and Net Wealth

*1: pp. 160-64.

2: Ch; pp. 89-100.

17: Robert Murray Haig, No. 4, (The Federal Income Tax, 1921).

*William Vickrey, Agenda for Progressive Taxation (Ronald, 1947), Ch. 1.

Irving Fisher, The Nature of Capital and Income (1906) Chs. 1, 2, 4, 7, 10.

__________, “Income in Theory and Income Taxation in Practice,” Econometrica (January, 1937).

Break, George F., “Capital Maintenance and the Concept of Income,” JPE (February, 1954).

Nicholas Kaldor, An Expenditure Tax (Allen and Unwin, 1955), pp. 21-53.

4. The Scope of Income Taxation

*2: Chs. 5, 7, 8.

*20: Chs. 3, 5.

*Vickrey: Chs. 2, 3, 5-I.

David J. Ott and Allen H. Meltzer, Federal Tax Treatment of State and Local Securities (Brooking, 1963) Chs. 1, 2, 8.

Richard Goode, “Policyholders’ Interest Income from Life Insurance under the Income Tax, Vanderbilt Law Review (Dec. 1962).

C. Harry Kahn, Business and Professional Income Under the Personal Income Tax, NBER, 1964.

5. The Definition of Net Income

*20: Ch. 4.

*Vickrey: Ch. 4.

E. Cary Brown, “The New Depreciation Policy under the Income Tax: an Economic Analysis,” NTJ (March 1955).

Norman B. Ture, “Tax Reform: Depreciation Problems,” AER (May, 1963), pp. 334-53.

Murray Brown, “Depreciation and Corporate Profits,” SCB (Oct. 1963).

Evsey Domar, The Case for Accelerated Depreciation,” QJE (Nov. 1953) and his Essays in The Theory of Economic Growth.

Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, Depreciation Guidelines and Rules, Publication No. 456 (7/62).

C. Harry Kahn, Personal Deductions in the Federal Income Tax (NBER, 1960).

*Richard Goode, “Educational Expenditures and the Income Tax,” in Selma Mushkin, ed., Economics of Higher Education (Washington, 1962).

6. The Taxpaying Unit

*Vickrey, Ch. 10-I, III.

*Harold M. Croves, Federal Tax Treatment of the Family (Brookings, 1963).

Reed R. Hansen, “The Diminishing Exemption — a New Look at Equity,” Canadian Tax Journal (July-August, 1963).

Yung-Ping Chen, “Income Tax Exemptions for the Aged as a Policy Instrument,” NTJ (Dec. 1963).

7. Integration of the Personal and Corporate Income Taxes

*2: Ch. 9.

*20: Ch. 7.

*Vickrey, Ch. 5-II.

*Daniel M. Holland, Dividends Under the Income Tax (NBER, 1962), Ch. 4.

Holland, The Income-Tax Burden on Stockholders (NBER, 1958) Chs. 1, 2, 7.

Goode, The Corporation Income Tax (Wiley, 1951) Chs. 2, 3, 10.

Carl S. Shoup, “The Dividend Exclusion and Credit in the Revenue Code of 1954,” NTJ (March, 1955).

8. Income Tax Administration

*M. Farioletti, “Some Results of the First Year’s Audit Control Program of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,” NTJ (March, 1952).

Harold M. Groves, “Empirical Studies of Income-Tax Compliance,” NTJ (Dec. 1958).

W. H. Smith, “Electronic Date Processing in the Internal Revenue Service, NTJ (September, 1961).

Holland, Dividends Under the Income Tax, Ch. 2.

H. H. Hinrichs, “Underreporting of Capital Gains on Tax Returns…,” NTJ (June, 1964).

9. Income Taxation and Work Incentives

1: Ch. 11.

13: Ch. 10.

17: Goode, No. 29 (JPE, 1949).

*Gershon Cooper, No. 30 (QJE, 1952).

7: pp. 153-58.

*Break, “Income Taxes and Incentives to Work,” AER (September, 1957).

Kaldor, Ch. 4.

Break, “Income Taxes, Wage Rates, and the Incentive to Supply Labor Services,” NTJ (Dec. 1953).

10. Income Taxation and Investment Incentives

*1: Ch. 14.

 7: pp. 159-64.

13: Chs. 11, 12.

17: Domar and Musgrave, No. 31 (OJE, 1944).

E. Cary Brown, No. 32 (Income and Employment and Public Policy: Essays in Honor of Alvin B. Hansen (Norton, 1948).

Brown, “Mr. Kaldor on Taxation and Risk Bearing,” Rev. of Ec. Studies Vol. XXV:1.

Kaldor, Ch. III.

*Brown, “Tax Incentives for Investment,” AER (May, 1962).

*Goode, “Accelerated Depreciation Allowances as a Stimulus to Investment, QJE (May, 1955).

Goode, “Special Tax Measures to Restrain Investment,” IMF: Staff Papers (February, 1957).

*Sam B. Chase, Jr., “Tax Credits for Investment Spending,” NTJ (March, 1962), and comment by Brown in NTJ (June, 1962).

11. Income Taxation and Corporate Financial Policies

7: pp. 221-2; 229-30; and studies there cited by Lintner, Smith and Darling.

John A. Brittain,”The Tax Structure and Corporate Dividend Policy,” AER (May, 1964).

Miller and Shelton, “Effects of a Shifted Corporate Income Tax on Capital Structure,” NTJ (1955).

12. The Incidence of Sales and Excise Taxes

1: Chs. 15, 16, especially pp. 379-82.

*13: Chs. 6, 7. or JPE (April 1952) and AER (Sept. 1952) for Ch. 6.

17:   Harry Gunnison Brown, No. 21 (JPE 1939)

John F. Due, No. 22 (The Theory of Incidence of Sales Taxation, 1942)

Rolph and Break, No. 7 (JPE, 1949)

*Due, “Toward a General Theory of Sales Tax Incidence,” QJE (May, 1953).

*Due, “Sales Taxation and the Consumer,” AER (December, 1963).

*J. M. Buchanan, Fiscal Theory and Political Economy (Chapel Hill, 1960).

Break, “Excise Tax Burdens and Benefits,” AER (September, 1954).

Break, “Allocation and Excess Burden Effects of Excise and Sales Taxes,” in Committee on Ways and Means, Excise Tax Compendium (Washington, 1964).

*J. A. Stockfisch, “The Capitalization and Investment Aspects of Excise Taxes under Competition,” AER (June, 1954).

Paul Davidson, “Rolph on the Aggregate Effects of a General Excise Tax,” SEJ (July, 1960).

13. Incidence of a Corporation Income Tax

17: Shoup, No. 20 (NTJ 1948).

7: pp. 210-20.

27: Harberger, Volume I, pp. 231-50.

*Arnold C. Harberger, “The Incidence of the Corporation Income Tax,” JPE (June 1962)

*Kerzyzaniak and Musgrave, The Shifting of the Corporation Income Tax (Johns Hopkins, 1963).

Diran Bodenhorn, “The Shifting of the Corporation Income Tax in a Growing Economy,” QJE (November, 1956).

*Challis A. Hall, Jr., “Direct Shifting of the Corporation Income Tax in Manufacturing.” AER (May: 1964).

14. Taxation of the Oil and Gas Industry

7: pp. 230-34.

Douglas M. Eldridge, “Tax Incentives for Mineral Enterprises,” JPE (June, 1950).

Stephen L. McDonald, Federal Tax Treatment of Income from Oil and Gas (Brookings, 1963).

McDonald, “Percentage Depletion and the Allocation of Resources: The Case of Oil and Gas,” NTJ (December, 1961); comments by Musgrave and Eldridge in NTJ (June, 1962), and McDonald’s reply in NTJ (September 1962).

Peter O. Steiner, “The Non-Neutrality of Corporate Income Taxation: with and Without Depletion,” NTJ (Sept. 1963), and comments by McDonald and Steiner in NTJ (March, 1964).

Paul Davidson, “Policy Problems of the Crude Oil Industry,” AER (March 1963) and discussion in AER (March, 1964).

A. E. Kahn, “The Depletion Allowance and Cartelization,” AER (June 1964).

15. Taxation of Capital Gains and Losses

25: Walter Heller, pp. 381-94.

2: Ch. 7.

7: pp. 123-29.

Lawrence H. Seltzer, The Nature and Tax Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses (NBER, 1951) Chs. 1, 4-6, 9.

Harold M. Somers, “Reconsideration of the Capital Gains Tax,” NTJ (Dec. 1960).

Martin David, “Economic Effects of the Capital Gains Tax,” AER (May, 1964).

Holt and Shelton, “The Implications of the Capital Gains Tax for Investment Decisions,” JF (Dec. 1961).

Alice J. Vandermeulen, “Capital Gains: Two Tests for the Taxpayer and Proposal for the President,” NTJ (Dec. 1963).

H. H. Hinrichs, “An Empirical Measure of Investors’ Responsiveness to Differentials in Capital Gains Tax Rates Among Income Groups, NTJ (Sept. 1963).

Holt and Shelton, “The Lock-in Effect of the Capital Gains Tax,” NTJ (Dec. 1962).

Lent and Menge, “The Importance of Restricted Stock Options in Executive Compensation, ” Management Record (June, 1962)

Holland and Lewellen, “Probing the Record of Stock Options,” HBR April, 1962).

16. The Redistributive Effects of U. S. Taxation

27:   Pechman, pp. 251-82. (Volume 1)

Hellmuth, pp. 283-316. (Volume 1)

*Musgrave, pp. 2223-2234. (Volume 3)

*Lampman, pp. 2235-2246. (Volume 3)

*Joseph A. Pechman, “Erosion of the Individual Income Tax,” NTJ (March, 1957).

Musgrave and others, “Distribution of Tax Payments by Income Groups: a Case Study for 1948,” NTJ (March, 1951), and discussion in NTJ (Sept.1951) and March, 1952).
Also later computations by Musgrave in No. 25, pp. 96-113.

James R. Beaton, “Family Tax Burdens by Income Levels,” NTJ (March, 1962).

George A. Bishop, “The Tax Burden by Income Class, 1958,” NTJ (March, 1961).

*A. R. Prest, “Statistical Calculations of Tax Burdens,” Economica (Aug. 1955).

Annual articles on the size distribution of income in SCB, e.g. (April, 1964).

17. The Structure of U. S. Taxation

27: Volume 1, pp. 1-250.

*NBER and Brookings, The Role of Direct and Indirect Taxes in the Federal Revenue System (Princeton, 1964), especially papers by Due, Eldridge, Eckstein and Chase.

*Committee on Way and Mean, Excise Tax Compendium (Washington, 1964), especially papers by Due, Eldridge, Shoup, and Stockfisch.

18. The Income Sensitivity of U. S. Taxes

*Pechman, “Yield of the Individual Income Tax During a Recession,” NTJ (March, 1954).

Leo Cohen, “An Empirical Measurement of the Built-in Flexibility of the Individual Income Tax,” AER (May, 1959). See also NTJ (June, 1960).

Paul E. Smith, “Built in Flexibility of the Individual Income Tax: Quarterly Estimates,” NTJ (June, 1962).

Smith, “A Note on the Built-in Flexibility of the Individual Income Tax,” Econometrica (Oct. 1963).

Wilfred Lewis, Jr., Federal Fiscal Policy in the Postwar Recessions (Brookings, 1962) Chs. 2 and 3.

*Groves and Kahn, “The Stability of State and Local Tax Yields,” AER (March, 1952).

*Dick Netzer, “Income Elasticity of the Property Tax: a Post-Mortem Note,” NTJ (June, 1964); also No. 15, pp. 23-40.

D. G. Davies, “The Sensitivity of Consumption Taxes to Fluctuations in Income,” NTJ (Sept. 1962).

Brown and Kruizenga, “Income Sensitivity of a Simple Personal Income Tax, RES (Aug. 1959).

M. O. Clement, “The Quantitative Impact of Automatic Stabilizers,” RES (Feb. 1960).

19. Value Added Taxation

*Shoup, “Theory and Background of the Value-Added Tax,” National Tax Association Proceedings (1955) pp. 6-19.

*Excise Tax Compendium, Papers by Smith and Rolph.

The Role of Direct and Indirect Taxes in the Federal Revenue System. Paper by Musgrave and Richman.

20. Spendings and Net Worth Taxes

7: Chs. 8, 9.

Kaldor, An Expenditure Tax.

Vickrey, Ch. 12.

Katona and Lansing, “The Wealth of the Wealthy,” RES (Feb. 1964).

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 9, Folder “Economics, 1964-1965 (2 of 2)”.

_____________________________

Mid-year Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 251
Fall 1964

Answer any three questions

  1. There has been much discussion concerning, the role that the principle of taxation according to benefits received should play in modern fiscal systems. Contrast the views on this subject of Henry Simons and the voluntary exchange theorists. Set forth your own views and justify them.
  2. Discuss the incidence of a property tax levied by a single State (assume, if you like, that one State raises its tax rates while others hold them constant) on the land, buildings, and equipment of businesses operating within its borders. The tax applies both to local retail enterprises and to manufacturing corporations selling in national markets.
  3. “In a rational system of income taxation according to ability to pay there is no place for a separate tax on corporate income.” Discuss.
  4. Each of the following is a controversial aspect of the federal individual income tax:
    1. Employer contributions to the cost of employee life, accident, hospital and medical insurance.
    2. Social security retirement benefits.
    3. Income splitting.
    4. Deductions for state and local taxes and for interest on consumer indebtedness.
    5. Expenditures for higher education.
    6. Travelling and entertainment expenditures by businessmen.
    7. Personal exemptions.
    8. Interest on state and local debt.

Select any four of the above and discuss the problems to which they give rise. Include in your answer your own recommendations as to their treatment for tax purposes.

  1. Many critics of the U.S. tax system feel that it unduly impairs incentives to invest. Discuss this question both in general and with respect to the following specific characteristics of the tax system:
    1. depreciation allowances,
    2. loss carryovers,
    3. progressive individual income tax rates, and
    4. capital gains and losses.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Papers Printed for Mid-Year Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, … , Economics, … , Naval Science, Air Science (January, 1965) in the bound volume Social Sciences: Final Examinations, January 1965 (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 157).

_____________________________

Year-end Examination

Economics 251
Final Examination
Spring Term, 1965

Part I

Answer both questions.

  1. (25%)
    (a) Compute the built-in flexibility and the yield elasticity of the federal individual income tax from the following data:

Y = 0.6 + 0.38X,

where Y = taxable individual income
and X =  gross national product,
both in billions of dollars

The equation was fitted to the period 1955-1963 during which income tax liabilities were 23 percent of taxable individual incomes in each year, and, on the average over the period, individual income tax liabilities were 7.9 percent of GNP

(b) Are there any reasons to expect the built-in flexibility of the individual income tax to be different in the upswing of the business cycle from what it is in the downswing? In the long run compared to what it is in the short run? Discuss.

(c) What effects, if any, would you expect a reduction in the corporate income tax to have on the built-in flexibility of the individual income tax?

  1. (25%)
    Evaluate each of the following as countercyclical fiscal policies:
    1. changes in excise tax rates
    2. variations in public works spending
    3. public debt operations

Part II

Answer any two questions.

  1. (25%) Write a critical analysis of the balanced budget theorem.
  2. (25%) Evaluate the major ways in which the federal government could increase its financial assistance to state and local governments.
  3. (25%) Discuss the problems involved in estimating social and private rates of return to investment in higher education.
  4. (25%) Discuss the importance of each of the following in benefit-cost analysis as applied to governmental spending programs:
    1. The rate of return on reinvested earnings
    2. Intangible benefits
    3. Pecuniary and technological spillovers
    4. Secondary benefits

Source: Harvard University Archives. Bound volume Social Sciences: Final Examinations, June 1965 (HUC 7000.28, vol. 159).

Image Source: George F. Break’s faculty profile page at the Berkeley economics department website.