Author: Irwin Collier

Berkeley. Ira B. Cross memoir, Portrait of an Economics Professor, 1967

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-12-04

When I tried to find an internet link to a copy of the book Domestic and Foreign Exchange: Theory and Practice by Ira B. Cross (1923) for Paul Douglas’ 1925 Amherst reading list, I came upon the following contribution to the oral history of the Berkeley Economics Department by Cross that includes his “review of the troops”.

Portrait of an Economics Professor. An Interview Conducted by Joann Dietz Ariff (1967)

The transcript and 10 page appendix “Economics at the University of California, 1871-1942” (135 pages includes his “Bibliography on Chrysanthemums”, cf. Simkhovitch at Columbia who himself was an expert on delphiniums)

The actual recording (Two parts, 97 minutes)

I append here some biographical information on Cross who appears to have been quite a character (“gadfly of the Academic Senate”).

_________________________________________

Excerpt from University of California:
In Memoriam, September 1978

Ira Brown Cross, Economics: Berkeley
1880-1977
Flood Professor Emeritus

On April 2, 1953, Professor Cross sent an autobiographical statement to the information office, Berkeley campus. In an accompanying letter, he explained his purpose. “I know what difficulties are involved in obtaining data on a deceased member of the faculty…so I have prepared some `stuff’ for your files–which I hope you won’t have to use for years to come.” His hope was fulfilled; death occurred twenty-four years later on March 24, 1977 in his ninety-seventh year. The statement placed in the files reads as follows:

Ira Brown Cross was born at Decatur, Illinois, December 1, 1880, a descendant of Governor William Bradford and John and Priscilla Alden of Plymouth Colony. He was educated in the public schools of Decatur and Moline, Illinois, at the University of Wisconsin (A.B., 1905; M.A., 1906) and at Stanford University (Ph.D., 1909). In 1951, the University of Wisconsin conferred the honorary degree, Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) upon him in recognition of his contributions to the field of economics.

He served on the faculties of Stanford University, 1909-1914, and the University of California, 1914-1951, where he was Professor of Economics on the Flood Foundation from 1919 until the time of his retirement in June 1951. At various times he has been chairman of the Department of Economics and Acting Dean of the College of Commerce. While at Stanford University he served as chairman of the Probation Committee of the Juvenile Court of Santa Clara County. Because of his interest in criminology he became associated with Professor A.M. Kidd, Chief of Police August Vollmer, and Dr. Hoag of Pasadena in the establishment of the Berkeley Police School, which became internationally recognized, and for several years thereafter participated in its activities as a member of its staff.

Dr. Cross has served as a member of the faculties of the Stockton, Oakland, Fresno, and San Francisco chapters of the American Institute of Banking, which is the educational branch of the American Bankers Association, and from 1915 until 1960 [dates added] served as dean of the faculty of the San Francisco Chapter. In 1928 he prepared texts on “Economics” and “Money and Banking” for the national organization. In 1923 he declined appointment to the position of national educational director of the American Institute of Banking. He was one of the original board of regents of the Graduate School of Banking established at Rutgers College by the American Institute of Banking in 1935.

In 1921 the San Francisco Building Trades Council conferred honorary membership upon him because of briefs which he had prepared at various times for local unions engaged in arbitration proceedings. In 1934 he was chairman of the Fact Finding Committee appointed by the late Governor Rolph, which brought to a satisfactory conclusion the violent cotton pickers’ strike in the lower San Joaquin Valley.

During the First World War and under the auspices of the War Industries Board, Dr. Cross gave a course in employment management to a group of personnel relations men and women who were at that time supervising the labor relations of twenty-eight industries engaged in war work in western states. It was the second course of its kind in the United States, the first having been given at Harvard University. He was also active in the formation of the California State Employment Managers Association in 1918, the first in the nation, and for some years thereafter served as its economist and adviser. He also pioneered in labor education by arranging a series of lectures by University professors before the San Francisco Labor Council and by establishing the first labor school on the Pacific Coast.

Dr. Cross wrote numerous articles on economic subjects and the following volumes: A History of the Labor Movement of California (1935); History of Banking in California (two volumes) (1927); Essentials of Socialism (1911); Collective Bargaining in San Francisco (1917); Cooperative Stores in the United States (1906); Economics (1931); Money and Banking (1931); Domestic and Foreign Exchange (1923); and editor of Frank Roney, Irish Rebel and California Labor Leader (1931). He was on the staff of the San Francisco Evening Bulletin as associate book reviewer during 1907-1913, and was editorial writer on the Coast Banker (San Francisco) during 1914-1916.

He was a recognized grower and hybridizer of iris and chrysanthemums, and was the first president of the East Bay Chrysanthemum Study Club.

“The Doc,” as he was called affectionately by associates, his former teaching fellows, and many hundreds of students, portrayed himself in the traditional format of academic biography; but he did not, and no doubt, could not interpret his finest contribution to the University of California. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest teachers on the Berkeley campus during his career. Quantitatively, it is estimated that more than 60,000 students sat below his rostrum in his classes in elementary economics and in money and banking. In addition, many thousands more were enrolled in his courses in the American Institute of Banking and in his popular public lectures. One of his former students, now an Emeritus Professor at UCLA, informed the chairman of this committee that “The Doc” was “extraordinarily influential as a teacher, probably had more impact on more students than any other professor at the Berkeley campus.” He took clean-cut positions in economic and social issues, was thoroughly iconoclastic with respect to some social mores, and above all, was a stern disciplinarian in handling his large lecture classes. There are literally dozens of stories, often by now with considerable embellishment, about episodes in his classes. An important reason for his enormous impact was his basic desire to shake the students (as well as his colleagues) out of their complacency. He was considered the gadfly of the Academic Senate.

One of his former students, Richard G. Gettell, characterized The Doc’s teaching method as “education by sting.” President Robert Gordon Sproul, in conferring the honorary LL.D. degree in 1957, characterized him as “a teacher blessed in the memory of generations of students as a skillful disturber of complacency and a begetter of inquiring minds, seeking always to lead youth from illusion to reality, through a world of panaceas and proverbs.”

The Doc was not only a great teacher, he was also a trainer of teachers. The teaching fellows working with him became members of an extraordinarily well-organized and supervised educational program. He kept in touch with his former assistants up to the very end. His son, Ira B., Junior, has compiled a list of 228 such persons from his records, many of whom have predeceased him. His former assistants took the initiative in founding the Ira B. Cross room in Barrows Hall with its portrait by Peter Blos.

Ira B. Cross truly enjoyed three careers–one in the field of labor and social reform–another in finance and banking–and finally, after academic retirement, as a practicing botanist. In each of these fields he won outstanding recognition.

In 1911, he was married to Blanche Mobley. They had two sons, Ira B., Jr., and Carleton Parker. His wife and second son both predeceased him. Professor Cross is survived by his son Ira B. Cross, Jr. and his wife and four grandsons, and two great-grandchildren.

E.T. Grether M.M. Davisson R.A. Gordon F.L. Kidner

Source: University of California: In Memoriam, September 1978. A publication of the Academic Senate, UC Berkeley.

Image Source: Blue and Gold 1922. (University of California yearbook)

Tags Cross

Economists

Amherst. Charles W. Cobb and Paul H. Douglas, 1926

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-12-02

Speaking of the Cobb-Douglas production function… In preparing the previous posting on Paul H. Douglas’ honors section of introductory economics at Amherst in 1925, I thought of searching for an internet copy of the Amherst College yearbook, The Olio, for that year and thanks to the Digital Collections folks at the Amherst College Archive, I was able not only to get a picture of Paul H. Douglas but even a portrait of his colleague Professor Charles W. Cobb. So here we have side-by-side Cobb and Douglas during their Amherst years together. This and the following image along with some biographical information (from the 1925 Olio, p. 29) are the only images of Cobb I was able to find on the internet (I admit, I did not look for more at the Olio collection for other years).

Image Source: Amherst College, Digital Collections. Olio 1926: Charles W. Cobb on p. 34; Paul H. Douglas on p. 36.

Tags Cobb, Douglas

Chicago Courses Suggested Reading Syllabus

Amherst. Honors Section of Introductory Economics. Paul H. Douglas, 1925

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-12-02

Paul H. Douglas left the University of Chicago to take a job at Amherst in the mid-1920s because his wife Dorothy was unable to get a job at the University of Chicago due to nepotism rules of that time and she found a job for herself at Smith College in Massachusetts. There he began his collaboration with the mathematician Charles Wiggins Cobb that resulted in the statistical fitting of the specification of the production function now named after them. See Cobb and Douglas, “A Theory of Production”, AER 1920.

I found the following carbon copy of the report Douglas wrote about his pedagogic experiment with an honors section of introductory economics at Amherst during the second semester of the 1924-25 academic year in the papers of the head of the economics department at the University of Chicago in 1925. Besides the reading list of supplemental reading for his honors section, Douglas includes “teaching evaluations” written by the students.

_______________________________________

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

September 26, 1925

Professor L. C. Marshall
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Marshall:

I am enclosing a report of the Honors Section which I conducted in Economics I last year, which you may find of interest, even at this late date.

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Douglas

PHD:EPR

_______________________________________

Amherst, Mass.
June 18, 1925

Report to the President and the Instruction Committee of Amherst College on the Special Honors Section given in Economics I during the year 1924-1925.

I. Composition of Group

With the consent of the President and the Dean, the Special Honors Section was set up in Economics I immediately after New Years 1925. The first men invited to join were Messrs. W. B. Carter, Jr. [William Harrison Carter, Jr. (Class of 1926) from Woodhaven, N.Y.], Sperry Butler [Sperry Butler (Class of 1926) from Hubbard Woods, Illinois], O. R. Pilat [Oliver Ramsey Pilat (Class of 1926) from New York, N.Y.], M. O. Damon [Mason Orne Damon (Class of 1926) from Ft. Dodge, Iowa], W. J. Kyle [William Joseph Kyle, Jr. (Class of 1926) from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania], and E. S. Nole [sic. Everett Stearns Noble (Class of 1926) from Coconut Grove, Florida]; these men were all on the Dean’s List. A few weeks later Douglas Tomkins [Douglas Tomkins (Class of 1926) from Brooklyn, N.Y.] was added with the approval of the Dean. These men were excused from attending the regular class exercises and met one evening a week in the Economic Seminar room with the instructor. These sessions ranged from two to three and one-half hours in length.

II. Work Covered

The group read the text used by the ordinary section in the course, namely, Taussig’s Principles of Economics, 2 volumes, but the chief reading was done in additional assignments amounting on the whole to approximately one book a week. These other readings were in the main the cream of the literature on the economic topics considered. The list of supplementary reading covered was as follows:

First week	Bagehot, “Lombard Street;” Kemmerer, “The A B C of the Federal Reserve System.”
Second Week	Selected chapters from Mitchell, “Business Cycles.”
Third Week	Fisher, “Stabilizing the Dollar;” Keynes, “A Tract on Monetary Reform.”
Fourth Week	One of the following: Withers, “Money Changing;” Clare, “A B C of Foreign Exchange;” Cross, “Domestic and Foreign Exchange: Theory and Practice.”
Fifth Week	Viner, “Dumping;” and discussion of text of McNary-Haugen Bill [JPE 1922, part I, JPE 1922, part II]
Sixth Week	Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations,” Book IV, Chapter 2.
Seventh Week	Taussig, “Some Aspects of the Tariff Problem” Chapter I or II, and “Tariff, Free Trade, and Reciprocity.”
Eighth Week	Wolfe, “[Savers’] Surplus and the Interest Rate,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 1920; Selected Chapters from Clark, “Distribution of Wealth.”
Ninth Week	Hobson, “Economics of Unemployment.”
Tenth Week	Ricardo. “Principles of Political Economy,” Chapter 2. Selected Chapters from Henry George, “Progress and Poverty.”
Eleventh Week	Adam Smith on Differences in Wages, Book I, Chapter 10, part 1.
Twelfth Week	The Basic Rate of Wages; Selected chapters from Clark, “Distribution of Wealth.”
Thirteenth Week	Population—Malthus, “Essay on Principle of Population. Comparative chapters from the 1^st and 2^nd editions. [first edition, sixth edition] Also one of the following: Carr-Saunders, “The Population Problem,” or J. R. Smith, “The World’s Food Resources.”
Fourteenth Week	Profits—Either Hardy, “Risk and Risk Bearing,” or Knight, “Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.”
Fifteenth Week	Mitchell, King and Knauth; “Incomes in the United States.” [Vol. I Summary] [Vol. II Detailed Report]
Sixteenth Week	(1) Webb, “Industrial Democracy.” Chapter on “Higgling on the Market;” and (2) Fitch, “Causes of Industrial Unrest;” or Hoxie “Trade Unionism in the United States.”
Seventeenth Week	Douglas, “Wages and the Family.”
Eighteenth Week	Ripley, “Railway Problems, “ 1^st volume; or Acworth, “Elements of Railway Economics.”
Nineteenth Week	Either Haney, “Business Organization and Combination,” or Jones, “The Trust Problem.”
Twentieth Week	Selected Chapters from Seligman, “Essays in Taxation.”

The members of the group seemed to read virtually all the assignments and to canvas the field thoroughly.

III. Personal Appraisal of Work

Personally I was very much pleased with the results of the work. The group seemed to me to cover several times as much ground as the men in the three ordinary sections of the class; and the work was much more thoroughly treated than it would have been had they been compelled to move in the lock-step of the ordinary sections. As a by-product of the work one of the men, Mr. Butler, worked out an algebraic statement of the Ricardian Theory of Distribution; to my knowledge, this has never before been done in the literature of Economics. In conjunction with Mr. Carter, he also worked out a graph of various elasticities of demand representing them on both an absolute and logarithmic scale. The group as a whole did brilliant work on the final examination which was fare more severe than that given to the rest of the class. Four men secured a grade of ninety-five or better, even with the stringent marking that I applied. Two of the men received low nineties, one of these men having been handicapped by illness. The seventh member, who was the weakest person in the group passed the final with only a grade of 78.

IV. Appraisal by Members of the Class

I asked the various members of the class to give me their criticisms of the work done and I am attaching those written statements.

Question One: Have you enjoyed meeting with the group more than you did as a member of an ordinary section? Do you think you have gained a greater knowledge of economics as a result?

“Meeting in the smaller section has been far more enjoyable than the regular class, and I believe that I have gained a greater knowledge of economics as a result. I believe that being able to talk freely with the instructor and members of a small group such as ours gives a student a chance not only to clarify himself on doubtful points, but to get the opinion of others on topics in which he is especially interested. This is impossible in the large classes, where discussion has to be conducted for the benefit of the whole section.
“Moreover, the longer classes must necessarily be retarded, by their very size, and by the fact that the class as a whole can go no faster (that is, cover no more ground) than the least capable or least industrious members. I think this is often a cause for lack of interest among the men who are able to do advanced work.”

“I have not only enjoyed meeting with the group more than the regular classes, but feel that I have derived greater benefit thereby.”

“I am very glad to have an opportunity to express myself on the matter of the honors section in Economics 1. I feel that it has been the most instructive and interesting course that I have taken at Amherst. In the first place, the group has been small enough so that each of us could have the difficulties which he encountered, explained and discussed by the remainder of the group. Then too, the group was not only small, but uniform, so that it was unnecessary for some members to be held back by other slower members, as is the case in the ordinary section. Undoubtedly we have covered more ground, and covered it more thoroughly, than we could have in the regular class.”

“My time in the honor section has been more thoroughly utilized and consequently more enjoyable than in the regular class. I feel certain that I have learned more economics, as a result.”

“The answer is emphatically yes—both in knowledge and enjoyment the honors section has far surpassed the ordinary class meeting-to this I attribute the attitude of the instructor which I think in any such course must be decisive.”

“I feel sure that as a result of the meetings with the group I have gained a much clearer and more comprehensive knowledge of Economics. This was the result partly of the discussions on the various topics and partly of a heightened interest in the course. A true interest in the subject was aroused which is impossible in the regular class meetings.”

“That I have enjoyed meeting with the group more than with the ordinary section is beyond question. Being an ardent advocate of the honors system I am delighted to find it as agreeable and valuable in practice as in theory. Before this morning (the time of the examination) I was a bit doubtful whether I actually knew more economics than if I had stayed in the regular section. While there were parts of the examination which were very complicated, I didn’t once feel that I was completely at a loss although I am aware of mistakes I may have made. As to the factual knowledge of the course I believe that probably exact definitions and the details of various parts may at this moment be better known by those in the regular division, although I would wager I have a better grasp of the fundamentals, and a clearer idea of the relation of the various factors than most of the regular members. Moreover I believe they will stick whereas the definitions and details will quickly fade from the memories of those who did not have the opportunity to tie up these principles by their application to present day conditions as we did. Therefore I feel that I know more real economics than I would have otherwise.”

Question Two: What is the relative amount of work which you have done in the honors section as compared with that which you did before you entered it?

“It was necessary to do more work in the honor section, for the reasons which are stated in the answer to question one. Also, there is considerable of the element of pride involved; I found that if I didn’t know a thing that others members of the section did, I was, ashamed of myself. Then, too, the honor section, with its freedom of discussion, is conducive to thinking, which is, after all, rather rare among Amherst students. More men in regular classes drop the subject as soon as they have left the class room. I believe that a little thought is particularly valuable in economics, for after the principles are grasped, a little consideration permits them to be developed and applied. I consider this “studying” of a sort more valuable than the perusal of textbooks, though the latter is essential to the former.”

“I have done considerably more reading after having been placed in the group division.”

“I have certainly done more work than I did in the regular section. Since we have not been forced to follow a fixed plan or outline of work, many interesting topics have come up which would have passed by otherwise. In general I have done the work assigned to the regular class plus reading in at least one other book. Since all the members of the group have been able to cover more work than is give, or could be given, in the ordinary section, we have been able to talk over more different books and points of view, than we could have in the regular section where the discussion, to benefit the class as a whole, must necessarily be limited by the reading capacity of the slower members. As the work has been more interesting, the extra time required has been no hardship, but has seemed to be especially remunerative.”

“I have spent from one to two additional hours a week for this section.”

“In actual time I have not done much more; but the type of work has been of a decidedly different character. Instead of rather automatic memorizing has come a feeling that this thing must be thought out independently. This sounds platitudinous, but it is true.”

“The amount of work I did in preparation for the group meetings was considerably greater than that done for the regular class meetings at the beginning of the year.”

“I have generally spent all of Monday afternoon and frequently other hours on the seminar work. This is somewhat in excess of the time needed for the regular class work.”

Question Three: As the work was given out, did it seem excessive or could more have been done conveniently?

“I could have conveniently done more work than was assigned though the hour of the section was not the best possible for me.”

“The work as assigned did not seem excessive.”

“The work did not seem excessive. Except that my schedule was unusually heavy this year, I could readily have done more.”

“The assignments seem well-proportioned. I do not think more would be advisable, however.”

“The work as assigned did at times seem excessive—at least to do thoroughly–, but this was seldom the case.”

“In general the work was not excessive usually being of an elastic nature above a certain minimum. I do not think that under our present system of college education in which every man who is at all able is expected to enter a host of student activities, I could have conveniently put in more time on the work. There were occasions when I did more and others when I did less than the average above mentioned, as the pressure of work in activities varied.”

Question Four: Would you favor the continuance of an honors section and if so what suggestions would you have for the improvement of the work?

“I am strongly in favor of a continuance of this system. It enables men who can and will do work that is more advanced to free themselves from the handicaps mentioned in the answer to question one. It certainly deserves a further trial, at least.”

“I am very strongly in favor of the continuance of such honor sections. We were able to pass over hurriedly some of the more elemental and obvious material, and as a result had more time for the discussion of the complex and deeper questions. A greater interest in the material discussed was aroused, with me at least, because of the removal of the drive and compulsion of the ordinary class-room.”

“I should favor strongly the continuance of an honors section, altho I realize it means much extra work for some member of the Faculty. It seems to me that such a group should not have more that eight members and that these members should not be picked before the middle of the first term. I can offer no suggestions for the improvement of the work. But I believe that this plan has not only benefitted the members of the honors section, but all the members of the ordinary section.”

“I am heartily in favor of an honors section.
“Perhaps the work might be improved by further splitting of the topics studied, allowing each student to specialize on one phase. I feel a general lack, in all my courses, of definite and exact knowledge. I think that possibly more thorough study is a limited field supplemented by well-informed discussion from several points of view would help to clarify my all too vague impressions.”

“Yes!! By all means. Caution: No more than approximately those present now should be admitted in any such section.
“The men must be genuinely interested—not those looking for escape from work—for this reason the selection of the group might well be made on the basis of the first term’s work as at present.
“I like the idea of one man leading the section each week—with a paper preferably which takes a definite stand. This ought to encourage discussion, and occasionally, controversy.”

“Yes, I would favor the continuance of such sections in Economics and other subjects also. I feel that I have derived more enjoyment and more value out of the meetings with the group than I have in any other course I have taken in college.”

“I would most certainly favor the continuance of an honors section in this,–and the introduction of the plan in other courses where the material admitted of treatment of this type. I think each group should be chosen by the professor from his regular group on the combined basis of marks, interest and ability. There are other courses in Amherst where the drag of the work due to the time necessary to explain and re-explain various fundamental phases of the work is even more noticeable than in the regular sections of the economics class. Could those who were fortunate enough to be able to go ahead without this repetition, be placed in a special section similar to our honors group, I feel sure they at least would find their college work vastly more inspiring and helpful.

“There is one suggestion I should like to make which I think might add somewhat to the value of such work. It is that any such group should carry on some definite piece of constructive investigation along the line of the course which appears most interesting to them. Each might contribute a paper or all work together under the direction of the professor on such a research. I believe it would serve to centralize much of the other work done. This might be done by the devotion of an occasional meeting to gathering together such special work at various stages in its progress. Otherwise I see very little which could be desired more than we have had this year.”

_______________________________________

From the Amherst College Catalog 1924/1925

Economics 1. Principles of economics. The present industrial system with special reference to American conditions. A study of the development of the main features of present industrial society, value and distribution and a number of modern social problems.

Elective for Juniors.

Mon., Tu., Wed., 2.00, Chapel 5.
Mon., Tu., 8.35, Thu., 9.30, Chapel 4.
Wed., Sat., 9.30, Fri., 3.00, Chapel 5.

Professor Douglas and Mr. Taylor. [George Rogers Taylor, Ph.D., Instructor in Economics and Political Science]

_______________________________________

Sources:

The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 6, Folder 7.
Amherst College Catalog 1924/25, p. 33, 81, 147ff.

Image Source: Amherst College. Olio 1926, p. 36.

Tags Amherst, Douglas, MarshallLC

Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Final Examination Questions. Economics Courses, 1912-13

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-29

For the academic years 1912-13 through 1915-16 there are complete (or at least nearly complete) sets of examinations for many departments, including economics available at hathitrust.org. In this posting we have final examinations for all economics courses but three for the 1912-13 academic year. Since courses are only identified in these collections by number, I have provided the course titles, instructors’ names and course registration figures available in the annual Harvard Presidential Report for that academic year.

The three courses for which no final examination questions (perhaps the grade was not even determined by examination) were:

Economics 13. Statistics. Theory, method, and practice. Professor Ripley. (6 Graduates, 1 Senior, 3 Radcliffe: Total 10)

Economics 24. Topics in the Economic History of the Nineteenth Century. Professor Gay. (4 Graduates, 1 Senior: Total 5)

Economics 33 ¹hf. Tariff Problems in the United States. Professor Taussig. (5 Graduates, 3 Seniors: Total 8)

FINAL EXAMINATIONS
1912-13

Economics 1. Principles of Economics
Economics 2a ^lhf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century
Economics 2b ²hf. Economic and Financial History of the United States
Economics 3. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises
Economics 4a ¹hf. Economics of Transportation
Economics 4b ²hf. Economics of Corporations
Economics 5. Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation
Economics 6a ^lhf. Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems
Economics 6b ²hf. The Labor Movement in Europe
Economics 7. Theories of Distribution and Distributive Justice
Economics 8. Principles of Sociology
Economics 9. Principles of Accounting.
Economics 11. Economic Theory
Economics 12 ^lhf. Scope and Methods of Economic Investigation
Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848
Economics 16. The History of Modern Socialism
Economics 23. Economic History of Europe to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century
Economics 31. Public Finance
Economics 32 ²hf. Economics of Agriculture, with special reference to American conditions

________________________________________

Economics 1. Principles of Economics.

Professor Taussig and Dr. E. E. Day, assisted by Messrs. Heilman, Jones, Burbank, Crosgrave, and Eldred.
1 Graduate, 21 Seniors, 93 Juniors, 307 Sophomores, 21 Freshmen, 38 Other. Total 481.

[p. 38-39]

ECONOMICS 1

To what extent and in what manner do the following contribute to the formation of capital: (a) a government loan; (b) the stock exchange; (c) commercial banks; (d) the corporate form of business organization?

Explain “margin of cultivation.” Distinguish between the intensive margin of cultivation and the extensive margin of cultivation. What is the relation between (a) the margin of cultivation in agriculture and the price of a bushel of wheat; (b) the margin in gold mining and the value of an ounce of gold?

Assume that a monopoly produces a commodity under conditions of constant cost. What determines the extent to which the monopoly price will be above the price which competition, if existent, would establish? Illustrate by diagram.

The rentals from a New York office building amount to $50,000 a year. The building is worth $200,000. To provide for insurance, depreciation and such fixed items, $10,000 is expended annually. The current rate of interest upon investments of equal security is 5%. What is the value of the land?

What is “dumping “? What induces it? To what extent is it dependent upon (a) monopoly conditions; (b) tariff barriers?

Explain briefly why (a) the rates of wages are generally higher in the United States than in Germany; (b) higher for plumbers than for unskilled laborers; (c) for domestic servants than for women employed in shops and factories. Suppose a socialist community apportioning wages on the basis of equality of sacrifice: would these differences persist?

How are the wages and the number employed within a particular industry affected, immediately and ultimately, by the invention of labor-saving devices in that industry?

Explain: (a) railroad rebates; (b) over-capitalization; (c) public service industries; (d) “reasonable restraint of trade”; (e) stoppage at the source.

________________________________________

Economics 2a ^lhf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.
Professor Gay, assisted by Dr. M. T. Copeland.
16 Graduates, 14 Seniors, 44 Juniors, 17 Sophomores, 3 Freshmen, 5 Other. Total 99.

[p. 39-40]

ECONOMICS 2a¹

“The effect of Peel’s measures of 1842-1845 was to demonstrate how much the trade and industry of the country might be encouraged by the readjustment of fiscal burdens.” Explain.
Is a similar readjustment needed in England at the present time? Why or why not?

(a) How was the capital for the construction of railroads prior to 1870 obtained in the different European countries? Why?
(b) Why was the railroad policy of Prussia modified after 1870? With what results?

Compare the organization of the wool manufacturing industries in England, Germany, and France at the present time, explaining to what the differences are due. How far are these differences typical?

Compare the English and Belgian methods of relieving the recent agricultural depression.

In which industries have Kartells been formed in Germany? Why? Compare with the movement for combination in England.

Explain the statement in regard to English agriculture that “after the middle of the eighteenth century the two revolutions, the industrial and the agricultural, which are indeed only manifestations of the same scientific and commercial spirit, go hand in hand and supplement one another.” Does this statement apply also to Germany? Why or why not?

Discuss briefly —

(a) English ” Friendly Societies.”
(b) Pitt’s Sinking Fund.
(c) Zollverein.
(d) French shipping subsidies.
(e) Charter and line traffic.

________________________________________

Economics 2b ²hf. Economic and Financial History of the United States.
Professor Gay, assisted by Dr. M. T. Copeland.
18 Graduates, 22 Seniors, 50 Juniors, 27 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 6 Other. Total 124.

[p. 40-1]

ECONOMICS 2b

“The most important feature of life in a newly settled community is its commercial connection with the rest of the world.” Why? How is this illustrated (a) by the history of the American colonies and (b) by the history of the West?

What were the causes for the decline of the American merchant marine? What attempts have been made to assist its recovery? With what results?

Compare in its main features the economic history of the decade 1830-40 with that of the decade 1880-90.

Compare the conditions which stimulated industrial combinations in the ’90’s with those which resulted in railroad combinations in the ’70’s.

Within the last twelve months the New England Cotton Yarn Company, the U. S. Finishing Company, and the International Cotton Mills Corporation have each undergone reorganization. What was the earlier history of these companies and how far did that history foreshadow the necessity for such reorganizations?

If you were to establish a mill for manufacturing silk goods at the present time, how would the conditions which you would meet in that industry differ from those which confronted a silk manufacturer forty or forty-five years ago? Why have these changes taken place? How far are they typical of the general industrial development of the United States during this period?

(a) Comment on the following statement, which was made in a speech in Congress in 1846. “It is a protective tariff which gives to American industry the only effectual guaranty that it will not be brought down to a level with the degraded labor of Europe. It furnishes the only security that our standard of wages is not to be measured by the cost of production in those countries where the life of the laborer is but an incessant struggle for bread.”
(b) Judging from the history of the years 1893-1900, as well as from present conditions, is the present year more or less opportune than 1909 for a downward revision of the tariff? Why?

________________________________________

Economics 3. Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises.
Dr. E. E. Day, assisted by Messrs. Ise and F. E. Richter.
3 Graduates, 31 Seniors, 67 Juniors, 16 Sophomores, 1 Freshman, 1 Other. Total 119.

[p. 41-42]

ECONOMICS 3

What factors favored the monetary rehabilitation of silver in the United States during the 70’s? Which of these factors are still operative? Explain the disappearance of the others.

What banking abuses were most common in the United States early in the nineteenth century? When and how, if at all, have these since been eliminated?

What is the relation between the Bank of England rate and the London market rate of discount when (a) funds are abundant; (b) funds are relatively scarce? In what ways does varying the Bank rate accomplish the protection of the English banking reserves?

What is meant by a free gold market? Are the following such: London; Paris; Berlin; New York? In each case, why or why not?

How will the rate of sterling exchange in New York be affected by: (a) a crop failure in the United States; (b) hoarding of specie in Europe; (c) a slump on the New York Stock Exchange; (d) a banking panic in this country?

“The call-loan market . . . furnishes to the banks of the country under the present organization of banking, their only means of mobilizing their reserves, of liquifying their assets, and of securing flexibility in their lending power.” Explain and criticize. How, if at all, should this feature of our system be changed?

In the equation of exchange given by Professor Fisher, what is the relation of M, M’, V, and T (a) during a period of rising prices; (b) during a period of settled prices?

Describe the crisis of 1873 with reference to: (a) its general antecedents; (b) its more important causes in the United States; (c) its final outbreak in this country; (d) the territorial extent of the reaction; (e) the severity and duration of the subsequent depression.

________________________________________

Economics 4a ¹hf. Economics of Transportation.
Professor Ripley, assisted by Mr. Crosgrave.
6 Graduates, 2 G.B., 36 Seniors, 85 Juniors, 24 Sophomores, 3 Other. Total 156.

[p. 42-3]

ECONOMICS 4a

Compare the lease with stock ownership as a means of combination, stating the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Show how recent interpretation of the Federal law may conceivably affect the status of railway traffic agreements.

State very briefly the point raised in the following cases: —

(a) Portland Gateway.
(b) Illinois Central car supply.
(c) Alabama Midland (Troy).
(d) Orange Routing.

Have any of the above points been since corrected by legislation; if so in what manner?

Give reasons for the following differences in net capitalization per mile of line:

Union Pacific $65,000 Reading $170,000
Pennsylvania 86,000 Erie 170,000

What particular circumstance materially affects the success of Government ownership and operation:

(a) In Germany?
(b) In Italy?
(c) In Switzerland?

What is the present attitude of the Federal courts toward the proper basis to be used in the determination of reasonable rates?

How effective practically has been the ” Commodity Clause” of the law of 1906?

To whom properly belongs the surplus earnings of a railroad over and above a rate of return requisite to provide an adequate supply of new capital for future development? State your own view, but set forth your reasons fully.

________________________________________

Economics 4b ²hf. Economics of Corporations.
Professor Ripley, assisted by Mr. Crosgrave.
6 Graduates, 20 Seniors, 86 Juniors, 15 Sophomores, 3 Other. Total 130.

[p. 43-4]

ECONOMICS 4b

Why was the dissolution of the “Tobacco Trust” more difficult than that of the Standard Oil Company? Explain fully.

Indicate certain differences in the eye of the law between monopolization and restraint of trade.

Herewith are two balance sheets of companies A and B respectively. Comment upon them, contrasting one with the other. Which apparently denotes the greater financial stability?

Co. A
Assets		Liabilities
Plant	$3,500,000	Preferred Stock	$5,000,000
Merchandise	1,800,000	Common Stock	15,000,000
Bills Receivable	700,000	Accounts Payable	600,000
Cash	1,400,000
Good-will and Patents	13,200,000
	$20,600,000		$20,600,000
Co. B
Assets		Liabilities
Factories	$15,000,000	Capital Stock	$65,000,000
Securities owned	18,000,000	Debentures	15,000,000
Merchandise	20,000,000	Surplus	3,000,001
Accounts Receivable	30,000,000
Franchises and Good-will	1
	$83,000,001		$83,000,001

Name, with briefest possible description in each case, and in order of seriousness, at least five distinct forms of unfair competition in trade.

Do all the foregoing forms of unfair competition affect thgeneral public as well as direct competitors? Does this factor apparently influence the attitude of the courts?

What was the essence of the U. S. Steel Bond Conversion plan? What became of it?

Contrast administrative and judicial forms of controlling monopoly, pointing out the merits of each.

Outline the plan of reorganization of the National Cordage Company. Was it typical of industrial reorganizations in general?

What are the three leading objections to the so-called “holding company “?

Outline what most appeals to you as a feasible plan for dealing with the existing trust problem. State concisely in definite propositions covering all points at issue.

________________________________________

Economics 5. Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation.
Professor Bullock.
6 Seniors, 14 Juniors, 4 Sophomores, 1 Other. Total 25.

[p. 44]

ECONOMICS 5

Explain and discuss critically the methods employed in the taxation of land in Germany, France, Great Britain, Australia, and the United States.

Compare the general property tax with the general income tax, considering both the theory and the practical operation of these taxes.

Compare the French, Prussian, and British systems of direct taxation.

Compare the British system of indirect taxation with those of France and the United States.

Discuss the taxation of mortgages in the United States.

What changes in the taxation of personal property have recently occurred in the United States?

Compare the British, Prussian, and Italian income taxes. .

Outline what you consider a satisfactory theory of the just apportionment of public charges.

________________________________________

Economics 6a ^lhf. Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems.
Professor Ripley, assisted by Mr. Crosgrave.
3 Graduates, 44 Seniors, 19 Juniors, 4 Sophomores, 2 Other. Total 72.

[p. 45]

ECONOMICS 6a

Answer the first five briefly

What is sabotage?

What is the ” extended ” closed shop?

What is the principal practical difficulty in the “general strike”?

Is it met by the adoption of any positive policy in France by the “syndicates”?

In the syndicalist programme what is to be the unit in the reorganized state?

Contrast collective bargaining under sanction of the law with its adoption by private arrangement; (a) from the point of view of advantage to the employer; (b) from that of the workman.

What are the four main features of the New Zealand legislation. (Each in a sentence.)

What is the principal demonstrated weakness in the above legislation?

What are three disabilities of the individual workmen in negotiating a wage contract?

Wages for women in domestic service and in manufactures seem out of line with one another. What main difference helps to explain this?

What is the present condition of affairs respecting the closed shop in the United States? Outline the course of events for two decades.

How does the law of conspiracy enter into the decision by courts in labor disputes? How has Great Britain settled it?

________________________________________

Economics 6b ²hf. The Labor Movement in Europe.
Asst. Professor Rappard.
5 Graduates, 12 Seniors, 9 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 3 Other. Total 30.

[p. 45-6]

ECONOMICS 6b

Arrange answers in order of questions. Students who wrote theses will omit the first three questions.

Enumerate five of the effects which Engels says the Industrial Revolution had on the manufacturing population of England. What were Engel’s chief sources of information?

How does Sombart distinguish between (a) Rational Socialism (Utopian Socialism and Anarchism) and (b) Historical Socialism?

What effect, according to Marx, does machinery have

(a) Upon real wages?
(b) Upon nominal wages?
(c) Upon “relative surplus-value”?
(d) Upon “absolute surplus-value”?

Why is it customary to mention the English enclosure movement in dealing with the history of labor in Europe in the 19th century?

What were the historical relations between the doctrines of Godwin, Malthus and Darwin?

What was Chartism? Saint-Simonism? Which was more radical? More socialistic? Give reasons.

Write a biography of Marx (300 to 500 words).

Compare the views of Marx and Vaudervelde on ” Capitalist Concentration.”

Give chapter headings of a thesis on “The Socialist Movement in Germany, 1860-1890” in six or more chapters.

Distinguish between (a) Socialism (b) Anarchism (c) Syndicalism.

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs … To every laborer the entire product of his labor … At first sight, these two formulas are absolutely contradictory. We believe, however, that it is possible and necessary to reconcile them and to complete each by the other.” — Vaudewelde.
How does the author do this? What practical suggestions does he make for arranging distribution in the socialist state?

What difficulties does Skelton think a socialist state would encounter

(a) In administering the government?
(b) In determining what commodities should be produced?
(c) In distributing wealth?

________________________________________

Economics 7. Theories of Distribution and Distributive Justice.
Professor Carver.
3 Graduates, 7 Seniors, 13 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 1 Other. Total 25.

[p. 47]

ECONOMICS 7

Explain and illustrate the principle of marginal utility and its relation to the value of consumers’ goods.

Explain and illustrate the law of variable proportions and its relation to the value of the factors of production.

Discuss the various criteria of justice in the distribution of wealth.

Explain and illustrate exactly what you understand by self-interest.

How would the single tax probably affect the demand for labor? Would its effect probably be stronger on unskilled than on skilled labor? On skilled labor than on business talent?

How do mechanical inventions affect the demand for capital and for different grades of labor?

Describe one communistic society, giving some account of its origin, the causes of its success if it succeeded and of its failure if it failed.

Outline a program for raising the wages of all the lower grades of labor.

________________________________________

Economics 8. Principles of Sociology.
Professor Carver.
10 Graduates, 41 Seniors, 74 Juniors, 18 Sophomores, 4 Other. Total 147.

[p. 47-8]

ECONOMICS 8

What, in your opinion, is the ultimate test of progress? Give your reasons.

Compare the views of Buckle and Peschel as to the influence of geographical surroundings on religion.

What is the relation between the institution of the family and the institution of property?

What place has the genius in social progress? Give your own opinion and state the views on this question of authors whom you have read.

Outline the leading forms of waste labor and of waste land, giving briefly the reasons why each form of waste exists at the present time.

Compare the views of Mill and Ross as to the limits of social control.

What, according to Ross, is the relation of resentment to social order?

What are the reasons for the existence of the ballot? How far would these reasons justify the extension of the ballot?

________________________________________

Economics 9. Principles of Accounting.
Asst. Professor Cole, assisted by Mr. Eliot Jones.
7 Graduates, 8 Graduates of Applied Sciences, 62 Graduates of Business School, 147 Seniors, 50 Juniors, 2 Sophomores. Total 276.

[p. 48-50]

ECONOMICS 9

Save one hour for the last question. It will count as one-third of the paper.

Show by journal entries what should be debited and what credited for the following transactions:

(a) Granting a discount to a customer, for early payment of a bill, so that, though the amount of the bill was $100, he pays but $95.
(b) Paying a lawyer $50 for trying to collect a bill that proves uncollectible, and writing off the debt ($250) as bad.
(c) Collecting $75 as full payment, including interest to the amount of $17, for a debt previously written off as bad.
(d) Giving a friend whose credit at banks is not very good, because he is a new-comer in town, and for whom, therefore, you do not wish to endorse notes, your own note for $1000, with the understanding that he will discount it at a bank, and taking in exchange your friend’s note (for the same amount and time) which you intend to keep until maturity.
(e) Discounting at a bank your friend’s note mentioned in (d), because you find his credit has improved in the public mind and you need the money. [Discount $7.]
(f) Returning to the manufacturers, as unsatisfactory, goods billed at $500 and bought to be sold at $650.
(g) Delivering goods from the store as part payment of clerks’ wages, and allowing 5% discount to clerks. [Retail price $50, clerks’ price $47.50.]
(h) Issuing a stock dividend of $50,000.
(i) Selling a new $2,000,000 issue of stock for $2,100,000. [Corporation’s books.]

A bond table gives the value of $10,000 of bonds for January 1 as $10,366.27, and for July 1 as $10,323.60. On the latter day you collect $250 interest. What entry shall you make for the interest?
Assuming that the valuation of the bonds was determined on a 4% basis, how could you prove the correctness of the July 1 valuation if you knew that the valuation for January 1 was correct?

Define and discuss the purpose of the following: —

(a) a machine rate,
(b) a life-insurance reserve,
(c) a national-bank redemption fund,
(d) a stores ledger,
(e) a machine ledger,
(f) a controlling account.

Would expense burden enter into a plan of cost accounting for (a) a department store, (b) a hospital, (c) a college, (d) a gas company? Explain briefly how, or why not, in each case.

Remember in solving problems that time and confusion are often saved by the use of journal entries as guides in determining which accounts are affected.

The balance sheet a year ago was as follows: —

Plant	$125,000	Capital Stock	$140,000
Accounts Receivable	33,000	Bills Payable	10,000
Merchandise	19,000	Accounts Payable	24,000
Cash	5,000	Surplus	8,000
	$182,000		$182,000

An abbreviated tentative income sheet for the year just closing gave the following figures: —

Wages	$85,000	Other Expenses	$71,000
Materials	54,000	Gross Income	240,000

No items relating to the care of property were included in the “other expenses,” and they are now to be provided for. Such items are found on the debit side of the trial balance as follows:—

Depreciation	$5,000	Replacement	$4,000
Repairs	8,000	Additions	12,000

Supposing the only changes in the balance sheet are those caused by the items shown above (profit or loss and care of property) and that cash absorbs the net effect of changes not otherwise indicated, show the income sheet and the balance sheet for the new year.

Prepare such a tabular statement or statements as an accountant should give to his employers or clients for a business yielding the following figures on three trial balances (of ledger balances) taken at the times indicated.

	Trial balance at the opening of business, Jan. 1, 1912		Trial balance, Dec. 31, 1912, before the books are closed		Trial balance at the opening of business, Jan. 1, 1913
	Dr.	Cr.	Dr.	Cr.	Dr.	Cr.
Capital Stock		$200,000		$200,000		$200,000
Bills Payable		30,000		40,000		40,000
Accounts Payable		35,000		37,500		37,500
Surplus		7,000		7,000		9,000
Dividends declared		10,000				10,000
Real Estate and Plant	$135,000		$137,500		$137,000
Accounts Receivable	88,200		80,200		80,200
Goods in process	17,000		17,000		20,000
Finished Goods	25,000		25,000		23,000
Raw Materials Inventory	15,000		15,000		35,000
Raw Materials			57,000
Wages		7,000	52,000			2,000
Taxes		200	2,300			200
Insurance	1,000		2,200		1,000
General Expenses			7,500
Sales				113,200
Cash	8,000		2,000		2,000
	$289,200	$289,200	$397,700	$397,700	$298,700	$298,700

If you give more than one statement, prepare one at a time, and leave the reconciliation between statements until all are complete.

________________________________________

Economics 11. Economic Theory.
Professor Taussig.
20 Graduates, 1 Graduate at Business School, 4 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 1 Other. Total 31.

[p. 50-3]

ECONOMICS 11

[Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions]

Explain the connection between

(a) the rent of mines;
(b) Carey’s doctrine that the total rent received by land-owners is less than interest on the total investment for improving land;
(c) the earnings of barristers or opera-singers;
(d) the earnings of ” successful ” business men.

“Men are not equal. . . . Those capable of organizing and leading industrial enterprise are in a minority, and are indeed few; hence they can put a price on their services which would be impossible if there were many. Their services are not worth more on this account, but they can get more for them. Because the community needs their services, and cannot perhaps get along without them, they can, if they like, put ” famine prices ” on the commodity (organizing and directing talent) which they have to sell; while, on the other hand, those who have only labor or physical skill, though they are just as necessary, are many, and hence can about as readily be taken advantage of as the others can take advantage.” What have you to say? Can the ” famine prices ” be justified?

(a) “There are, in fact, few no-rent men in actual employment; and the reason for this is clear, since work involves a sacrifice, and it does not pay to incur the sacrifice unless the earnings be a positive quantity. In those times and places in which child labor has been employed, with little regard for the welfare of the victims, labor that was not at the no-rent point, but very near it, has been pressed into service. But, where the sacrifice entailed by labor is, in some way, neutralized by a benefit that work confers, labor which creates literally nothing may sometimes be employed. Lunatics or prisoners may be kept at work, in order that they may secure fresh air and exercise, even though the amount of capital that they use, if it were withdrawn from their hands and turned into marginal capital, would produce as much as it does when it is used by them. In such a case the product imputable to their labor is nil.
The existence of any no-rent labor enables us to make the rent formula general and to apply it to every concrete agent of production.”
(b) “The productivity of any capital, whether human or external, will differ with the capital. Men differ in quality, i. e., in productive power, as truly as lands or other instruments differ. Some men have a high degree of earning power and some have not.
Some men can work twice as fast as others. Some men can do higher grades of work than others. The result is that we find men classified as common manual laborers, skilled manual laborers, common mental workers, superintending workers, and enterprisers.
Just as we can measure the rent of any land by the difference in productivity between that and the low-rent, or no-rent, land, in exactly the same way we can measure the difference in productivity between men. There is no grade of workmen called the “no-wages men,” but there would be such a grade if it were customary for their employer to pay for their cost of support (as the employer of land pays for its cost), so that only the excess above this cost were to be called wages.”

Compare the two trains of reasoning; give your opinion; and state by what authors the passages were written.

“If the proprietor of superior land were to say, ‘I will take no rent for it,’ this would not make wheat cheaper. The supply would not be changed; for the same quantity would be raised, the marginal amount raised on the no-rent land would be needed and would be bought at the former price, and all other parts of the supply would command the same rate. … It is a striking fact — but one hitherto much neglected — that similar conclusions apply to the product of every other agent ” [capital and labor]. Do similar conclusions apply? Who do you think is the author of this passage?

What three grounds explain, according to Böhm-Bawerk, the preference for present goods over future? Which of them does he conclude to be the most important? State Fisher’s criticism; and give your own opinion on the controverted question.

“In the present condition of industry, most sales are made by men who are producers and merchants by profession. . . .For them, the subjective use value of their own wares is, for the most part, very nearly nil. … In sales by them the limiting effect which, according to our theoretical formula, would be exerted by the valuation of the last seller, practically does not come into play.” — Böhm-Bawerk.
What is the ” theoretical formula “? and what is the importance of the qualification here stated?

In what sense are the terms “demand” and “increase of demand ” used in the following passages:

(a) “The democratization of society and the aping of the ways of the well-to-do by the lower classes have greatly increased the demand for silk fabrics.”
(b) “The lower price of sugar after 1890, when sugar was admitted free of duty, at once caused an increase of demand.”
(c) “The cheapening of a commodity may mean an increase of demand such that the total sum spent on it will be as great as before, even greater than before.”

Explain the essentials of Veblen’s theory of crises, and state wherein you think it most tenable, wherein least so.

________________________________________

Economics 12 ^lhf. Scope and Methods of Economic Investigation.
Professor Carver.
2 Graduates, 1 Radcliffe. Total 3.

[p. 53]

ECONOMICS 12

Explain verbally, and show by means of an outline, the relation between private and public economics and the main subdivisions of each.
Into what main departments would you subdivide the subject of economics if you were going to write a general text book for college classes. Give your reasons.

What are the characteristic methods of reasoning, methods of collecting information, and methods of exposition in economics? Mention examples, or give illustrations of each. What are the special advantages of each? To what class of problems is each especially adapted?

Comment upon the following: —

“The economist may thus be considered at the outset of his researches as already in possession of those ultimate principles governing the phenomena which form the subject of his study, the discovery of which in the case of physical investigation constitutes for the inquirer his most arduous task; but, on the other hand, he is excluded from the use of experiment.” (Cairnes, pp. 89-90.)

What, according to Warner, are the characteristic methods of determining the causes of poverty? What are the merits and defects of each method? Give illustrations.

Comment upon the statement that “political economy depends more upon reasoning than on observation.” Is this the same as saying that the greatest present need is for sound reasoners rather than for close observers? Would either statement apply to all possible conditions and to all classes of problems?

Discuss Clark’s reasons for describing capital as a sum of money.

________________________________________

Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848.
Professor Bullock.
7 Graduates. Total 7.

[p. 54]

ECONOMICS 14

What significant analyses of economic structure and functions were made by the mercantilists?

Discuss the development of economic opinions as reflected in the writings of Hales, Bodin, Montchrétien, Mun, Petty, Boisguilbert, Cantillon, Vanderlint, and Hume.

Explain the structure and purpose of the “Wealth of Nations,” and give a brief analysis of the doctrines of the first two books.

Discuss the treatment of the subject of population by Aristotle, the Schoolmen, Cantillon, Smith, and Malthus.

At what points did the economic theories of Ricardo differ from those of Adam Smith?

________________________________________

Economics 16. The History of Modern Socialism.
Asst. Professor Rappard.
4 Graduates Total 4.

[p. 54-5]

ECONOMICS 16

Fill out the blanks in the following table according to the Marxian phraseology and theory.

Con-stant capital	Vari-able capital	Rate of surplus value	Capital con-sumed	Indi-vidual rate of profit	Value of commo-dities pro-duced	Cost price of commodities prod-uced	Average rate of profit	Price of com-modities	Deviation of price from value
90	10	50%	20
80	20	50%	10
70	30	50%	—

“The theory of value which Marx presents is a variation of the familiar labor-value doctrine.” Discuss.

State the Marxian theory of rent.

What is meant by the Bernstein-Kautsky controversy? State three of the principal points involved, with the arguments advanced on both sides.

What, according to Skelton, are the distinctive features of Utopianism? How does Shelton classify the Utopian doctrines?
What, according to Skelton, are the two “quite distinct interpretations” of which the Marxian materialist conception of history is susceptible?

“In spite of himself, Marx was the last of the classical economists.” How does Shelton justify this assertion?

“Had the third volume of ‘Capital’ appeared at the same time as the first, little would have been heard about ‘exploitation’ from socialist platforms.” Why not, according to Skelton?

________________________________________

Economics 23. Economic History of Europe to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century.
Dr. Gray.
4 Graduates, 1 Radcliffe. Total 5.

[p. 55]

ECONOMICS 23

Discuss the origin and early expansion of capital in Italy, the Low Countries, Germany and England. (One hour.)

Compare the development of copyhold in England with that of Meierrecht in Germany. In what way were agrarian conditions in southwestern Germany different from conditions in the north-west at the beginning of the sixteenth century.

Trace the growth of the mercantile system in England. Has Cunningham’s treatment any bias? Explain.

Describe fully four of the following documents: —

Notularium Johannis Scribae.
An English Pipe Roll.
Royal licenses to export English wool in 1273.
De institutis Lundonie.
Chrysobullium Alexii I.

________________________________________

Economics 31. Public Finance.
Professor Bullock.
6 Graduates, 1 Junior. Total 7.

[p. 55-6]

ECONOMICS 31

How far does the present British system of taxation conform to the maxims of Adam Smith?

How far does the present French system of taxation conform to Smith’s maxims?

How far does the present Prussian system of taxation conform to Smith’s maxims?

How far would the single tax on land values conform to Smith’s maxims?

Compare the general property tax in Switzerland with the same tax in the United States.

What changes in the general property tax have occurred in the United States in recent years?

Discuss fully the opinions of Leroy-Beaulieu or Eheberg concerning the income tax.

Discuss fully the opinions of Leroy-Beaulieu or Eheberg concerning the inheritance tax.

________________________________________

Economics 32 ²hf. Economics of Agriculture, with special reference to American conditions.
Professor Carver.
8 Graduates, 2 Seniors, 1 Junior. Total 11.

[p. 56]

ECONOMICS 32

What are some of the larger characteristics which distinguish rural from urban life?

Where would you draw the line between large scale and medium scale, and between medium scale and small scale farming, and what are the principal advantages and disadvantages of each?

Exactly what is the distinction between intensive and extensive farming, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

To what system of culture does the horse as a draft animal belong, and what are some of the characteristics of that system?

Where do we find the larger percentage of tenancy in this country, where land is highly productive or where its productivity is low? How would you explain the situation?

Give your ideas as to the function of the middle-man, and to what extent and how that function may be performed by the farmers themselves.

What are the advantages of diversified farming as compared with specialized farming?

Give your ideas as to how country life may be made more attractive to men and women of education and culture.

________________________________________

Sources:

Harvard University Examinations. Papers set for final examinations in history, history of science, government, economics, philosophy, social ethics, education, fine arts, music in Harvard College. June, 1913. Cambridge, MA.

Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1912-13, pp. 57-58.

Tags Bullock, Burbank, Carver, Cole, Copeland, Crosgrave, Day, Gay, Gray, Heilman, Ise, Rappard, RichterFE, Ripley, Taussig

Columbia Courses Curriculum

Columbia. Report of the Dean of the School of Political Science, 1901

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-25

I reproduce here the report of the Dean of the School of Political Science at Columbia University for the academic year 1900-01 in its entirety so we have a fairly complete accounting of the graduate education activities of the entire administrative unit within which the Columbia economics department was embedded at the start of the twentieth century. The document provides enormous detail from course registration totals through seminar participants by name and presentations through the work of those on fellowships and finally to the job placements of its graduates. The structure of the report can be seen below from the links to its individual sections:

Course Registration Data
Seminar in European History
Seminar in American Colonial History
Seminar in American History
Seminar in Modern European History
Seminar in Political Philosophy
Seminar in Constitutional Law
Seminar in Diplomacy and International Law
Seminar in Political Economy
Seminar in Political Economy and Finance
Seminar in Economic Theory
Statistical Laboratory and Seminar
Seminar in Sociology
Work of Fellows
Publications under the Supervision of the Faculty
Educational Appointments
Governmental Appointments
Other Appointments

_______________________________________

[p. 114]

SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF THE DEAN
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1901

To the President of Columbia University in the City of New York:

SIR:

I have the honor to submit the following report of the work of the Faculty of Political Science for the scholastic year 1900-1901. During the year 268 students have taken courses of instruction under the Faculty of Political Science, of whom 18 were women. Of these 68 students were also registered in the Law School, and 13 in the Schools of Philosophy, Pure Science, and Applied Science.

In the Report of the Registrar will be found tabular statements of the courses of study offered in the School, together with the attendance upon each, as follows:

Group I—History and Political Philosophy [page 270, page 271]

A. European History. pages 270-271
B. American History, pages 270-271
C. Political Philosophy, pages 270-271

Group II—Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence [page 291]

A. Constitutional Law, page 291
B. International Law, page 291
C. Administrative Law, page 291
D. Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, page 291

Group III—Economics and Social Science [page 264]

A. Political Economy and Finance, page 264
B. Sociology and Statistics, page 264

[p. 115]

WORK IN THE SEMINARS

Seminar in European History

Professor Robinson. 2 hours fortnightly. 6 members.

The topic treated was the Development of the Papal Primacy to Gregory VII. Each student gave two or more reports on the various phases of the subject, dealing chiefly with the sources.

Seminar in American Colonial History

Professor Osgood. 2 hours a week. 27 members.

This course has been conducted as a lecture course and seminar combined. A paper was presented by each of the students and was discussed in the seminar. Among the subjects treated in these papers were:

Royal Charters and Governors’ Commissions;
Royal Instructions to Governors;
Salaries of Governors;
Agrarian Riots in New Jersey from 1745 to 1790;
Pirates and Piracy;
Paper Money in the Colonies;
Career of Robert Livingston;
Relations between the Executive in New York and the English Government;
Policy of the British Government toward the Charter Colonies subsequent to 1690.

A number of papers, also, were presented on subjects connected with Colonial defence.

Seminar in American History

Professor Osgood. 1 hour a week. 6 members.

In connection with the work of this Seminar the following Master’s theses have been prepared, read, and discussed:

System of Defence in Early Colonial Massachusetts, Sidney D. Brummer.
The Administration of George Clark in New York, 1736 to 1743, Walter H. Nichols.
The Relation of the Iroquois to the Struggle between the French and English in North America, Walter D. Gerken.

[p. 116]

Relations between France and England in North America from 1690 to 1713, Samuel E. Moffett.
France and England in America from 1713 to 1748, Henry R. Spencer.
Conflict between the French and English in North America, Walter L. Fleming.

Seminar in Modern European History

Professor Sloane. 6 members.

The following are the subjects which were discussed and upon which papers have been presented:

The Treaty of Basel, Guy S. Ford.
Hanover in the Revolutionary Epoch, Guy S. Ford.
The 18th Brumaire, Charles W. Spencer.
Beginnings of Administration under the Consulate, Charles W. Spencer.
Origins of the Continental System, Ulrich B. Phillips.
Development of the Continental System, Ulrich B. Phillips.
Napoleon and the Caulaincourt Correspondence, Ellen S. Davison.
Caulaincourt in Russia, Ellen S. Davison.
Custine in Metz, Walter P. Bordwell.
Hardenberg and Haugwitz, Paul Abelson.

Seminar in Political Philosophy

Professor Dunning. 1 hour a week. 1 member.

William O. Easton presented an elaborate paper on the Political Theories of Spinoza with Reference to the Theory of Hobbes.

Seminar in Constitutional Law

Professor Burgess. 1 hour a week. 27 members.

The work in this Seminar during the present year has been the study of the cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving private rights and immunities under the protection of the Constitution of the United States. Each member of the Seminar has prepared an essay upon the cases relating to a given point under this

[p. 117]

general subject, and has read the same before the Seminar, where it has been subjected to general comment and criticism.

Seminar in Diplomacy and International Law

Professor Moore. 2 hours a week. 12 members.

Papers were read as follows:

Decisions of the Courts in the United States on Questions Growing out of the Annexation of Territory, William H. Adams.
The Southwestern Boundary of the United States, James F. Barnett.
The Development of the Laws of War Walter P. Bordwell.
Treaties: Their Making, Construction, and Enforcement, Samuel D. Crandall.
The Diplomacy of the Second Empire, Stephen P. Duggan.
Blockades, Sydney H. Herman.
Diplomatic Officers, William C. B. Kemp.

Seminar in Political Economy

Professor Mayo-Smith. 1 hour a week. 9 members.

In addition to reading and discussing Marshall’s Principles of Economics, in which all the members of the Seminar participated, papers were read upon the following subjects:

Trusts in the United States Hajime Hoshi.
Trusts and Prices, Robert B. Olsen.
The Industrial Employment of Women, Charles M. Niezer.

Seminar in Political Economy and Finance

Professor Seligman. 2 hours fortnightly. 20 members.

The subject of work in this Seminar during the first term was “The Foundations of Economic Philosophy.” During the second term a variety of subjects was discussed. Each member of the Seminar also made a report at each meeting on current periodical literature in economics, including the literature of the following countries: United States, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan. The papers read were as follows:

[p. 118]

Natural Law and Economics, Robert P. Shepherd.
The Economic Motive, Holland Thompson.
The Law of Competition, Walter E. Clark.
The Theory of Individualism, Enoch M. Banks.
Social Element in the Theory of Value, John W. Dickman.
Theory of Insurance, Allan H. Willett.
Theory of Monopolies, Alvin S. Johnson.
Economic Doctrine of Senior, Albert C. Whitaker.
Bounties and Shipping Subsidies, Royal Meeker.
Legal Decisions on the Labor Question, Ernest A. Cardozo.
Commercial Policy of Japan, Yetaro Kinosita.
Early American Economic Theory, Albert Britt.
The Movement toward Consolidation, Robert B. Oken.

Seminar in Economic Theory

Professor Clark. 2 hours fortnightly. 12 members.

Papers were presented on the following subjects:

Labor as a Measure of Value, Albert C. Whitaker.
Value Theories of Say and Ricardo, Robert P. Shepherd.
Rent and Value, Alvin S. Johnson.
Monetary Theories, John W. Dickman.
The Influence of Insurance on Distribution, Allan H. Willett.
Early Socialism, Enoch M. Banks.
Louis Blanc, Royal Meeker.
Fabian Socialism, Albert Britt.
Commercial Crises, Ernest A. Cardozo.
Speculation, Yetaro Kinosita.
Labor Unions in North Carolina, Holland Thompson.
Welfare Institutions, Walter E. Clark.

Statistical Laboratory and Seminar

Professor Mayo-Smith. 2 hours fortnightly. 5 members.

The work of the year was devoted to developing the mathematical theory of statistics with practical exercises.

Seminar in Sociology

Professor Giddings. 2 hours fortnightly. 12 members.

The following papers were read and discussed.

Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Massachusetts, Edward W. Capen.

[p. 119]

Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Connecticut, William F. Clark.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial New York, George M. Fowles.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Pennsylvania, Andrew L. Horst.
Types of Mind and Character in Colonial Virginia, Robert L. Irving.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of North Carolina,Thomas J. Jones.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Kentucky, Edwin A. McAlpinJr.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Indiana, Daniel L. Peacock.
Types of Mind and Character in the Early Days of Wisconsin, Albert G. Mohr.
An Analysis of the Mental Characteristics of the Population of an East-Side New York City Block, Thomas J. Jones.
A Statistical Study of the Response to Lincoln’s First Call for Volunteers, Andrew L. Horst.
The Charities of Five Presbyterian Churches in Harlem, Robert L. Irving.
The Poor Laws of Connecticut, Edward W. Capen.
Parochial Settlement in England, Bertha H. Putnam.
A Critical and Statistical Study of Male and Female Birth Rate,s Daniel L. Peacock.

WORK OF FELLOWS

During the year the following persons have held Fellowships in subjects falling under the jurisdiction of this Faculty:

1. William Maitland Abell, Political Science.

Yale University, A.B., 1887; A.M., 1898.,New York University, LL.M., 1894. Columbia University, graduate student, 1898-1901; Fellow in Political Science, 1899-1900.

Mr. Abell, Honorary Fellow, continued his work in the Seminar in Constitutional Law, and made excellent progress in the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation.

[p. 120]

2. Walter Percy Bordwell, International Law.

University of California, B.L., 1898. Columbia University, graduate student, 1898-1901.

Mr. Bordwell, the holder of the Schiff Fellowship, worked under the direction of Professor Moore upon his Doctor’s dissertation: “The Development of the Laws of War since the Time of Grotius.” He also took part in the Seminars of Professors Moore and Sloane, presenting a paper in each of these Seminars. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

3. James Wilford Garner, Political Science.

Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College, B.S., 1892. University of Chicago, graduate student, 1896-99; Instructor in Bradley Polytechnic Institute, Peoria, Ill., 1899-1900. Columbia University, graduate student, 1900-01.

Mr. Garner worked under the direction of Professor Dunning in American Political Philosophy. Professor Dunning reports that his “Study of the Tendencies Manifested in the Amendments of State Constitutions from 1830-1860” is a noteworthy contribution to science. He also attended the Seminar in Constitutional Law and worked there upon the cases decided by the Supreme Court in the interpretation of private rights under the Constitution of the United States.

4. Alvin Saunders Johnson, Economics.

University of Nebraska, A.B., 1897; A.M., 1898. Columbia University, graduate student, 1899-1901; Scholar in Political Economy, 1899-1900.

Mr. Johnson read a paper in Professor Seligman’s Seminar on “The Theory of Monopolies.” He worked also in Professor Clark’s Seminar, and, in consultation with Professor Clark, upon the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation, “The Classical Theory of Rent.” He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

5. Thomas Jesse Jones, Sociology.

Marietta College, A.B., 1897. Student at Union Theological Seminary, 1897-1900. Columbia University, A.M., 1899; graduate student, 1897-1901.

Mr. Jones worked under the direction of Professor Giddings upon his Doctor’s dissertation, “A Sociological Study of the Population of a New York City Block.” Professor Giddings reports that this dissertation promises to be one of the most minute investigations of modern city life yet undertaken. Mr. Jones also made the annual revision of the list and description of social settlements in New York City which is regularly expected of a Fellow in Sociology. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

[p. 121]

6. Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, History.

University of Georgia, A.B., 1897; A.M., 1898. Tutor in History, 1899-1900. Columbia University, graduate student, 1900-01.

Mr. Phillips worked under the direction of Professor Dunning upon a “Study of the Political History of Georgia,” in connection with which he planned to make researches during the summer in the historical collections at Savannah, Atlanta, and other points in the State. Mr. Phillips also presented several papers on various phases of American Political Philosophy in connection with the course on that subject. He also worked in the Seminars of Professors Sloane and Robinson and presented reports in each.

7. Jesse Eliphalet Pope, Economics.

University of Minnesota, B.S., 1895; M.S., 1897. Columbia University, graduate student, 1897-1901: Fellow in Economics, 1898-1900.

Mr. Pope, Honorary Fellow, worked in Seminar with Professor Seligman, but took a less active part than he desired, owing to his having obtained a professorship in Economics at New York University. He had, however, passed his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree in May, 1900, and was busy through the winter in preparing his Doctor’s dissertation.

8. Charles Worthen Spencer, American History.

Colby University, A.B., 1890. Chicago University, Fellow in Political Science, 1892-94. Columbia University, graduate student, 1894-95, 1900-01. Colgate University, Professor of History, 1895-1900.

Mr. Spencer worked under the direction of Professor Osgood upon the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation, the subject of which is “New York as a Royal Province, 1690-1730.” He also read two papers in Professor Sloane’s Seminar, and participated generally in the work of this Seminar. He passed, in May, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

9. Earl Evelyn Sperry, European History.

Syracuse University, Ph.B., 1898; Ph.M., 1899. Columbia University, Scholar in History, 1899-1900; graduate student, 1899-1901.

Mr. Sperry worked under the direction of Professor Robinson, and besides preparing several reports for the Seminar in European History, completed the first draft of his Doctor’s dissertation upon ” The Celibacy of the Clergy in the Mediaeval Church.” He also passed, in May, the oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

[p. 122]

11. Albert Concer Whitaker, Economics.

Stanford University, A.B., 1899. Columbia University, Scholar in Economics, 1899-1900; graduate student, 1890-1901.

Mr. Whitaker worked in Seminar with Professor Seligman and also with Professor Clark. He made considerable progress in the preparation of his Doctor’s dissertation upon “The Entrepreneur,” and passed, in June, his oral examinations for the Doctor’s degree.

PUBLICATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE FACULTY

Of the Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, under the editorial management of Professor Seligman, there have appeared during the year six numbers.

Vol. XIII.

No. 1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. By Professor Isidor Loeb.
No. 2. Political Nativism in New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco.
No. 3. Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woolley.

Vol. XIV.

No. 1. Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. By Prof. Alexander C. Flick.
No. 2. Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By Allan H. Willett.

Vol. XV.

No. 1. Civilization and Crime. By Arthur Cleveland Hall.

The sale of these monographs and volumes has increased considerably during the past few years and some of the early volumes are now out of print. The foreign demand has also developed to such an extent that arrangements have now been made with agents, both in London and Paris, for placing them upon the European market.

The Political Science Quarterly has continued to prosper. With the close of the year 1900 it completed its fifteenth annual volume. In order to make available for students the great mass of scientific matter contained in these fifteen volumes, a general index has been prepared, to be published in a separate volume. This index will appear during the summer.

[p. 123]

Two very successful public meetings of the Academy were held during the winter. The first was addressed by Professor Goodnow, who had served as a member of the Commission to Revise the Charter of New York City. Professor Goodnow presented a careful analysis of the report and recommendations of the Commission. The second meeting was devoted to a discussion of Trusts by Professor J. W. Jenks, who gave the chief results of the investigations made by him on behalf of the Industrial Commission.

The History Club has about thirty members, and, with invited guests, an average attendance of about fifty persons. During the year it has held eight meetings, of which three were conducted solely by the students. At the other meetings papers were read by James Ford Rhodes, Frederic Harrison, Professor Robinson, and Professor George B. Adams.

I reported in 1899 that a number of former students of the School of Political Science had obtained positions either as teachers or in the administrative service of New York State. I have the pleasure now to report that during the past two years a much larger number have obtained first appointments, or have been advanced to better positions, not only as teachers and as state officers, but also in the Federal Civil Service. The lists appended are probably incomplete, but they will serve to show the widening influence of the School. The dates immediately following each name indicate the period of residence in the School.

I.—EDUCATIONAL APPOINTMENTS

Carl L. Becker, 1898-99, Univ. Fellow, 1898-99,
Instructor in Political Science and History, Pennsylvania State College.

Ernest L. Bogart, 1897-98,
Associate Professor of Economics and Sociology, Oberlin College, Ohio.

Lester G. Bugbee, 1893-95, Univ. Fellow, 1893-95,
Adjunct Professor of History, University of Texas.

William M. Burke, 1897-99, Univ. Fellow, 1897-99; Ph.D., 1899,
Professor of History and Economics, Albion College, Michigan.

[p. 124]

Charles E. Chadsey, 1893-94, Univ. Fellow, 1893-94; Ph. D., 1897,
Lecturer on History, University of Colorado.

Walter E. Clark, 1899-1901,
Tutor in Political Economy, College of the City of New York.

Walter W. Cook, 1898-1900, A.M., 1899,
Instructor in Constitutional and Administrative Law in the University of Nebraska.

Harry A. Cushing, 1893-95, Univ. Fellow, 1894-95; Ph.D., 1896,
Lecturer on History and Constitutional Law, Columbia University.

Ellen S. Davison, 1899-1901, Cand. Ph.D.,
Lecturer on History, Barnard College.

Alfred L. P. Dennis, 1896-99, Ph.D., 1901,
Assistant in History, 1900-01, Harvard University; Instructor in History, Bowdoin College.

Stephen P. H. Duggan, 1896-1900, A.M., 1899; Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor in Political Science, College of the City of New York.

Charles F. Emerick, 1896-97, University Fellow, 1896-97; Ph.D., 1897,
Professor of Political Economy, Smith College, Mass.

Henry C. Emery, 1893-94, University Fellow, 1893-94; Ph.D., 1896,
Professor of Political Economy, Yale University.

John A. Fairlie, 1897-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1898,
Assistant Professor of Administrative Law, University of Michigan.

Guy S. Ford, 1900-01, Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor of History, Yale University.

Delmer E. Hawkins, 1899-1900,
Instructor in Political Economy, Syracuse University.

Allen Johnson, 1897-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1899,
Professor of History, Iowa College, Grinnell ; also Lecturer on European History in the University of Wisconsin, Summer Session, 1901.

Alvin S. Johnson, 1898-1901, University Fellow, 1900-01; Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant in Economics, Bryn Mawr College.

Lindley M. Keasby, 1888-90, Ph.D., 1890,
Professor of Economics and Social Science, Bryn Mawr College.

James A. McLean, 1892-94, University Fellow, 1892-94; Ph.D., 1894,
Professor of History and Political Science, University of Idaho.

Milo R. Maltbie, 1895-97, University Fellow, 1895-96; Ph.D., 1897,
Lecturer on Municipal Government, Columbia University.

Charles E. Merriam, Jr., 1896-98, Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1900,
Docent in Political Science, University of Chicago.

Walter H. Nichols, 1899-1901, Cand. Ph.D.,
Professor of History, University of Colorado.

Comadore E. Prevey, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; A.M., 1899; Cand. Ph.D.,
Lecturer on Sociology, University of Nebraska.

Jesse E. Pope, 1897-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Political Economy, 1900-01, New York University; Professor of Political Economy, University of Missouri.

[p. 125]

Charles L. Raper, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D..
Lecturer on History, Barnard College, 1900-01; Assistant Professor of Economics and History, University of North Carolina.

William A. Rawles, 1898-99, Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology, University of Indiana.

William A. Schaper, 1896-98, University Fellow, 1897-98; Ph.D., 1901,
Professor of Administration, University of Minnesota.

Louis D. Scisco, 1899-1900, Ph.D., 1901,
Teacher of History, High School, Stillwater, Minnesota.

William R. Shepherd, 1893-95, University Fellow, 1893-95; Ph.D.. 1896,
Tutor in History, Columbia University.

James T. Shotwell, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Assistant in History, Columbia University.

William R. Smith, 1898-1900, University Fellow, 1898-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Instructor in History, University of Colorado.

Edwin P. Tanner, 1897-1900, A.M., 1898; University Fellow, 1899-1900; Cand. Ph.D.,
Teacher of History, High School, Stillwater, Minnesota.

Holland Thompson, 1899-1901, University Fellow, 1899-1900; A.M., 1900,
Tutor in History, College of the City of New York.

Francis Walker, 1892-94, University Fellow, 1892-94; Ph.D., 1895,
Associate Professor of Political Economy, Adelbert College, Western Reserve University.

Ulysses G. Weatherby, 1899-1900,
Professor of Economics and Social Science, University of Indiana.

2.—GOVERNMENTAL APPOINTMENTS

Frank G. Bates, 1896-97, Ph.D., 1899,
State Librarian, Providence, R. I.

John F. Crowell, 1894-95, University Fellow, 1894-95; Ph.D.. 1897,
Expert Agent on Agricultural Products, Industrial Commission.

John H. Dynes, 1896-98, A.M., 1897; University Fellow, 1897-98,
Student Clerk, Division of Methods and Results, Twelfth Census.

Charles E. Edgerton, 1898-99,
Special Agent, Industrial Commission.

Frederick S. Hall, 1896-97, Ph.D., 1898,
Clerk, Division of Manufactures, Twelfth Census.

Leonard W. Hatch, 1894-95,
Statistician, Bureau of Labor, Albany, New York.

Isaac A. Hourwich, 1891-92, Ph.D., 1893,
Translator, Bureau of the Mint, Washington, D. C.

Maurice L. Jacobson, 1892-95,
Librarian, Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, Washington, D. C.

William Z. Ripley, 1891-93, University Fellow, 1891-93; Ph.D., 1893,
Expert on Transportation, Industrial Commission.

Frederick W. Sanders, 1895-96,
Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico.

Nahum I. Stone, 1897-99,
Expert on Speculation and Prices, Industrial Commission, Washington, D. C.

[p. 126]

Adna F. Weber, 1896-97, University Fellow, 1896-97; Ph.D., 1899,
Chief Statistician, Bureau of Labor, Albany. N. Y.

Walter F. Willcox, 1886-88, Ph.D., 1891,
Chief Statistician, Census Office, Washington, D. C.

Dr. Max West, 1891-93; University Fellow, 1892-93; Ph.D., 1893, should figure in both of the preceding lists; for he has been appointed Chief Clerk in the Division of Statistics, Department of Agriculture, and has also become Associate Professor of Economics in the Columbian University, Washington, D. C.

The direction of organized charity is a field of labor for which our students in Sociology receive an excellent training; and I am glad to report that Mr. Prevey, whose appointment as lecturer in the University of Nebraska is noted above, has also been made General Secretary of the local Charity Organization Society. I have also to report that Mr. Thomas J. Jones, a student in the School during the past four years and Fellow in Sociology, 1900-01, has been appointed Assistant Head Worker in the University Settlement, New York City.

“To give an adequate economic and legal training to those who intend to make journalism their profession” has always been announced as one of the objects of the School of Political Science; and a considerable number of our graduates have become editors. It is more difficult, however, to keep track of journalists than of teachers and governmental officers, and the only recent appointment in this field of which I have been informed is that of Dr. Roeliff M. Breckenridge, Ph.D., 1894, as financial editor of the New York Journal of Commerce.

Respectfully submitted,

John W. Burgess,

Dean.

June 10, 1901.

Source: Twelfth Annual Report of President Low to the Trustees. October 7, 1901.

Tags BanksEM, Bogart, BrittA, Burgess, BurkeWM, CardozoEA, ClarkJB, ClarkWE, DickmanJW, Dunning, EmerickCF, Emery, Giddings, HawkinsDE, Hoshi, JohnsonA, Keasby, KinositaY, Mayo-Smith, MeekerR, MooreJB, NiezerCM, OkenRB, OlsenRB, Osgood, Pope, Rawles, RobinsonJH, Seligman, ShepherdRP, Sloane, ThompsonH, WalkerFrancis, Weatherby, WestM, Whitaker, WillettAH

Chicago Curriculum Fields

Chicago. Advanced General Survey Courses in Economics. Memo, 1926

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-24

The memo of this posting was written by the head of the Chicago department of economics, Leon Carroll Marshall. I have chosen this to begin a category “Fields”. The groups named below were tasked with preparing bibliographies, not for use in the survey courses, but to make explicit the level of preparation expected of students in those courses. Cox and Mints by the following summer apparently established “Money and banking” as a field distinct from business finance (a memo in the same folder dated August 9, 1927). It is also interesting to note that Marshall seems to have thought it important to pair economics and business in as many fields as he could.

______________________

November 30, 1926

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall to All Persons Mentioned Herein:

The problem attacked in this memorandum is that of carrying through effectively our arrangements with respect to our advanced general survey courses—courses that in the past we have sometimes referred to as “Introduction to the Graduate Study of X,” although we are not now following this terminology.

The following background facts will need to be kept in mind:

We are to have introductory point of view courses designed to give an organic view of the Economic Order. These courses are numbered 102, 103, 104.
Our next range of courses is designed primarily to deal with method. This range includes: 1. Economic History; 2. Statistics; 3. Accounting; 4. Intermediate Theory.
The foregoing seven courses are the only courses for which we assume responsibility as far as the ordinary [Arts and Literature] undergraduate is concerned. It may well be that from time to time some member of the staff will be interested in giving for undergraduates a course on some live problem of the day, but this is an exceptional matter and not a matter of our standard arrangement.
Our best undergraduates may move on to the type of courses referred to above in the first paragraph, such as courses 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. In general the prerequisites for admission to these courses (as far a undergraduates are concerned) would be a certain number of majors in our work plus 27 majors with an average of B. Under the regulations which the Graduate Faculty has laid down, students who have less than 27 majors could not be admitted to these courses except with the consent of the group and Dean Laing.

It is highly essential that our work in these advanced survey courses such as 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. shall:

Really assume the method courses mentioned above: really be conducted at a level which assumes that the student possesses certain techniques.
Really assume an adequate background of subject-matter content.

Will the person whose name is underscored in each group undertake (as promptly as reasonably may be) the responsibility of conducting conferences designed

To lead to explicit definite arrangements looking toward the actual utilization of the earlier method courses in these advance survey courses
To prepare a bibliography that can be mimeographed and placed in each student’s hands who enters one of these advanced survey courses. This bibliography is not to be a bibliography of the course (that is a separate matter) but a bibliography of what is assumed by way of preparation for the course. Whether a somewhat different bibliography should be made for the Economics course and the Business course in a given field is left for each group to discuss. Personally I hope that it will be a single bibliography for the two. Mr. Palyi suggests the desirability of a bibliographical article (worthy of publication) for each field. This seems to me an admirable suggestion—one difficult to resist.

Will each leader of the group referred to below please put the outcome of your discussion in writing and send to the undersigned? It is to be hoped that you will find other matters to report upon in addition to the foregoing.

GROUPS

The Financial System and Financial Administration

Meech, Mints, Cox, Palyi

Labor and Personnel Administration

Douglas, Millis, Stone, Kornhauser

The Market and the Administration of Marketing

Palmer, Duddy, Barnes, Dinsmore

Risk and Its Administration

Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints

Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration

Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas

Government Finance

Viner, Millis, Douglas, Stone

Population and the Standard of Living

Kyrk, Douglas, Viner

Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production

Mitchell, Daines, McKinsey

The following fields are not included in this memorandum either because of specific course prerequisites or because of obvious difficulties in the case:

Economic Theory and Principles of Administration
Statistics and Accounting
Economic History and Historical Method
Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 22, Folder 6.

Image Source: Leon Carroll Marshall. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-04114, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags Barnes, Cox, Daines, Dinsmore, Douglas, Duddy, Kornhauser, Kyrk, MarshallLC, McKinsey, Meech, Millis, Mints, Mitchell, Nerlove, Palmer, Palyi, Sorrell, Stone, Viner, Wright

Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Regulations for Ph.D. candidacy and general examination, 1916

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-23

This posting provides the menu of subject choices for the general examination to be admitted to Ph.D. candidacy in economics at Columbia as of 1916. We see that the history of economics and economic theory were still joined at the hip and that economic history was a compulsory field. Also interesting to note: the optional field “The labor problem” included “Socialism”; two graduate courses in another social science or philosophy were required as was an ability to read at least one of French and German plus one additional language.

To denote insertions in pencil, I have used bold-italics within square brackets. For text to be cut, I have included the original text, crossed-out.

__________________________________

[p. 410]

May 25, 1916

[…]

Professor Seligman, on behalf of the Committee on Instruction, recommended that the Faculty approve of the regulations governing admission to candidacy and the final examination for the doctorate of Philosophy as proposed by the various departments giving work under the jurisdiction of the Faculty of Political Science. This recommendation was adopted by the Faculty. The regulations of the several departments are as follows:

[…]

[p. 413]

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO CANDIDACY FOR THE DOCTORATE OF PHILSOPHY

Each [The] applicant for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Ph.D. whose subject of major interest lies in the field of Economics must satisfy the Department

That he is qualified in the general principles of Economics as taught in Columbia College or a full equivalent thereof.
That he is qualified in such advanced or graduate work in the general field of Economics as is represented by approximately six full graduate courses in Columbia University or the equivalent thereof.
That he is qualified in two full graduate courses as given at Columbia or the equivalent thereof under one of the following Departments:

Politics	Psychology
Public Law	Anthropology
History	Sociology
Philosophy

That he is able to read French and German and to use these languages in seminar work and in research. In the discretion of the Department another language may be substituted for French or German.
That he is able to express himself in correctly written English.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

Every student [The candidate] presenting himself for the degree of Ph.D. under the Department of Economics will be examined in the following three topics:

1) The history and theory of Economics

2) Statistics

3) Economic History

He will also be expected to present for examination four out of the following eight topics:

1) Public finance

2) Money and banking

3) The labor problem (including Socialism)

[p. 414]

4) Trade and transportation

5) Corporations and trusts

6) Business economics, including accounting, business organization and allied topics

7) Insurance

8) Agriculture

He will also be examined in such cognate fields as are intimately related to the special topic of his dissertation.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of The Faculty of Political Science, May 25, 1916.

Image Source: Museum of the City of New York. Kent Hall, Columbia University (1910). McKim, Mead & White.

Tags Seligman

Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics General Examination. Lauchlin Currie and Harry D. White, 1927

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-22

Few characters in the history of economics are quite as titillating as those who serious historians have concluded indeed passed confidential materials to the Soviet Union, namely, Lauchlin Currie and Harry Dexter White. Before they grew up to be card-carrying members of the economics profession, they too were once graduate students. Here from the Harvard General Examination for the Degree of Ph.D. we have their respective examination committees, academic histories, subject fields, and thesis subjects/advisers.

Lauchlin Currie received his Harvard Ph.D. in 1931 with the dissertation “Bank Assets and Banking Theory.”

Harry Dexter White was awarded his Harvard Ph.D. in 1930 with the dissertation “The International Balance of Payments for France, 1880-1913.”

________________________________

From:
Division of History, Government and Economics, Examinations for the Degree of Ph.D., 1926-27, pp. 10-11.

21. Lauchlin Bernard Currie.

General Examination in Economics, Monday, April 11, 1927.

Committee: Professors Young (chairman), Burbank, A. H. Cole, Usher, and Wright.

Academic History: St. Francis Xavier College, 1921-22; London School of Economics, 1922-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. B.Sc., London, 1925

General Subjects.

1. Economic Theory.
2. Economic History since 1750.
3. Public Finance.
4. International Trade and Tariff Policy.
5. History of Political Theory.
6. Money, Banking, and Crises.

Special Subject: Money, Banking, and Crises.

Thesis Subject: Monetary History of Canada, 1914-26. (With Professor Young.)

[…]

23. Harry Dexter White.

General Examination in Economics, Thursday, April 14, 1927.

Committee: Professors Taussig (chairman), Dewing, Elliott, Monroe, and Usher.

Academic History: Columbia University, 1921-23; Stanford University, 1924-25; Harvard Graduate School, 1925-. A.B., Stanford; A.M., ibid., 1925. Instructor in Economics, Harvard, 1926- .

General Subjects.

1. Economic Theory and its History.
2. Money, Banking, and Crises.
3. Economic History since 1750.
4. Economics of Corporations.
5. History of Political Theory.
6. International Trade.

Special Subject: International Trade.

Thesis Subject: Foreign Trade of France. (With Professor Taussig.)

Source: Harvard University Archives. HUC7000.70. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. Folder “1926-27”.

Image Source: Laughlin Currie and Harry D. White from Harvard Class Album 1934.

Tags Burbank, ColeAH, Currie, Dewing, Elliott, Monroe, Taussig, Usher, White, Wright, Young

Harvard

Harvard. Ph.D. General Examination Fields. Charles Beardsley, 1904

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-22

Historians need to deal with “missing values” in their archival work on a daily basis. For instance in the Harvard Archives there is a box with the promising title “Examinations for the Ph.D.” What you find in that box are officially printed lists of candidates (with their respective academic histories) and their general examinations by academic year in which the examiners and thesis advisers are identified together with the six fields covered in the general examination as well as the “special subject” field and the thesis subject. That is the good news.

The bad news is that these printed lists suffer significant gaps in coverage. In this box we find information for the academic years 1902-03 through 1904-05, 1906-07 through 1913-14, 1915-16, 1917-18 through 1918-19, and finally 1926-27. This gives me hope that perhaps in some departmental folder (not necessarily in the economics department) there still are copies of some of those missing listings to fill in the gap and/or extend the range of the examination lists.

This posting provides us the general examination information for Charles Beardsley, Jr. who it turns out was never awarded a Ph.D. from Harvard. More about Charles Beardsley’s life is found in my earlier posting taken from the Secretary’s Report of the Harvard Class of 1892 (1912).

________________________________

From:
Division of History and Political Science Examinations for the Degree of Ph.D., 1903-04, pp. 1-2.

Charles Beardsley.

General Examination in Political Science, Wednesday, February 24, 1904.

Committee: Professors Ripley, Lowell, Haskins, Carver, Bullock, Gay and Dr. Sprague.

Academic History: Harvard College, 1888-92; Graduate School, 1893-94, 1896-97, 1902-03; Harvard, 1897[sic, he received his A.B. in 1892] (A.B.); Harvard, 1902 [sic, he received his A.M. in 1897] (A.M.).

(A) General Subjects.

1. Constitutional History of England since the beginning of the Tudor Period.
2. Modern Government and Comparative Constitutional Law.
3. Economic Theory and its History.
4. Applied Economics: Money and Banking, International Trade, Taxation and Finance.
5. Economic History of the United States, with special reference to the Tariff, Financial Legislation, and Industrial Combinations.
6. Sociology, including the Labor Question.
7. (Special subject.)

(B) Special Subject: Tariff Legislation and Controversy in England since the time of Adam Smith.

Source: Harvard University Archives. HUC7000.70. Harvard University, Examinations for the Ph.D. Folder “1903-1904”.

A catalogue of the doctors of philosophy and of science and of the master of arts and of science of Harvard University, who have received their degrees after examination, 1873-1898, p. 68.

Image Source: John Harvard Statue (1904). Library of Congress. Photos, Prints and Drawings.

Tags Beardsley, Bullock, Carver, Gay, Ripley, Sprague, Taussig

Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Curricular Suggestions and Comments. 1945

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-19

In my examination of departmental records at Columbia, Chicago, Harvard and M.I.T. I have found relatively few written reflections on the rules/regulation/courses of the graduate programs. Today’s posting provides a memo of miscellaneous ruminations by Arthur F. Burns, Carter Goodrich and Carl Shoup who served as members of the Columbia Economic Department’s Curriculum Committee in 1945. Having a major field of comparative economic systems myself, I found Arthur Burns’ rather dismissive remarks about whether the graduate program should add a course in that field noteworthy.

_____________________________

April 30, 1945

To the Members of the Department of Economics:

During the year the Curriculum Committee has given thought to problems growing out of the Department discussions of last spring. Although the Committee is not prepared to place definite recommendations before the Department, I think it desirable that the members of the Department review certain suggestions and other changes that have been considered by the Committee. These suggestions, with comments of Committee members, are enclosed. There should be opportunity to discuss these at our meeting on me second. May 2.

Frederick C. Mills

_____________________________

SUGGESTIONS FOR CURRICULAR AND OTHER CHANGES
with comments by Committee Members

We should formulate a more definite statement of requirements to be met by applicants for admission to the graduate department of economics.
(Can we agree on basic requirements? Should we include mathematics, accounting, statistics, history, economic principles, English composition, psychology, one laboratory science?)

A. F. Burns

I doubt if much progress in this direction can be made this year or next. For one thing, there is likely to be slight unanimity among the staff. For another, each of us will have difficulty in convincing the others unless judgment be implemented by a canvas of experience. What do other graduate departments do? Would there be any advantage in drawing up a sample list of former graduate students in the department and analyzing the undergraduate training of those who proved especially “successful” and those who “got nowhere”?

Carter Goodrich

This is the point on which I am most doubtful of the general tendency. I do not believe we can agree on “basic requirements”. Even on recommendations I think we should be most cautious. We may be justified in making a strong recommendation for things we consider specific prerequisites, – perhaps economic principles, mathematics, accounting or statistics. I should see no justification for such specifications as “one laboratory science”. If we are to make a recommendation regarding preliminary training in economics, I feel strongly that it should be accompanied by a recommendation against over-specialization in economics at the undergraduate level. An excellent statement of this general point of view is contained in the Princeton catalog in a passage referring to pre-professional training.

Carl S. Shoup

As I see it, the Department faces two general alternatives. First, it can continue to admit graduate students who have had little or no economic training during their undergraduate days and who must therefore be given some general courses on a fairly elementary level. Owing to the number of students involved, these courses would presumably be of the traditional lecture type. Students who have already had substantial training in economics might be excused from these courses to take instead either special seminars designed for first-year students, or the usual advanced seminars. This alternative is inviting in many ways, but I fear that, inevitably, two undesirable consequences would follow: (1). Since our resources are not unlimited, even though they may be expanded from the present level, the use of some resources to give the rather elementary lecture courses would, necessarily, decrease the time and effort that the faculty members could otherwise give to the students entering with a good background in economics; (2) The fact that the graduate department would be supplying a pretty complete series of lectures in the various subjects on this level would tend to discourage the better undergraduate schools from maintaining high standards in their economics teaching. This would particularly be the case if students coming here with good undergraduate training in economics were required or allowed to attend these general lecture courses, and I think that experience indicates that this is what would happen: Word would get back to the undergraduate colleges that there is no particular point in working too hard on students who hope to go on for graduate economics work since they will have to, or will be induced to, or will allow themselves to spend a good deal of time in the graduate school going over, at much the same pace and with much the same intensity, the same material they covered in their undergraduate courses. To a certain extent, I believe this hypothetical situation I outlined has already developed in fact it will simply be intensified if we do not set up some sort of professional standards for admission.

The other alternative is to require that a student show a certain degree of proficiency in the elementary subjects of economics before he is admitted to the graduate school. This might be done simply on showing of courses taken and grades given, but I should prefer to work toward a system of entrance examinations without any requirements at all concerning specific undergraduate courses. We would be more sure that we were getting people with the kind of background desired and we would also thereby allow individuals to qualify, if they were able enough to do so, on the basis of study without taking courses. Assuming that the department had the same total resources and manpower is under the first alternative, these resources could then be thrown wholly into the training of graduate students in small groups through individual conferences, on research projects, etc. The resulting rise in the standard of our graduate teaching and in the quality of our product, as embodied in the successful Ph.D. Candidates — and also indeed, in those who get the Master’s degree — would, in my opinion, be marked. Moreover, since all of the graduate students would have shown proficiency in the elementary branches of economics, the could and should be encouraged to branch out in allied fields of graduate work: philosophy, psychology, etc. This alternative, however, has the disadvantage of borrowing from the graduate school able students who have taken little or no economics in their undergraduate days. I look upon this I look upon this as a necessary cost that must be paid if we are really to step up, in any marked degree, the quality and intensity of our graduate training. I wish it did not have to be paid, but I think that we shall be unrealistic if we think that we can change the present situation greatly without incurring that cost. It would, of course, still be possible for an able student, who had decided that he wanted to switch to economics, to get enough economics to pass the entrance examinations by six months or so of intensive study by himself. Only the very able ones could do this, but I doubt whether we should make much effort to get the merely average student who has had no economics at all in his undergraduate days.

Standards of admission to graduate study in economics should be reviewed with the Office of Admissions. Tightening up may be possible, but fairly liberal principles of admission should prevail for the present.

Arthur F. Burns

I Agree.

Carl Goodrich

Yes

Carl S. Shoup

If we follow the first alternative outlined in number 1 above, I should agree that the general standards of admission should be tightened up somewhat. If the second alternative is followed, the nature of the qualifying examinations would pretty much settled this question.

A nuclear program of first-year courses is to be planned. Provision should be made for some flexibility, but most students would be expected to take three or four basic first-year courses (including theory, statistics, money and banking, and economic history). Requirements in these courses would be fairly rigorous, and all students would take examinations and receive letter grades. A special reading course might be taken in view of a basic course by the student already reasonably well-prepared in that subject.

Arthur F. Burns

I agree with some interpretations and qualifications. (a) The essential thing is that in his first year a student attend to certain basic courses (a list to be discussed). (b) If a student has had satisfactory training at college in any one or all of these courses (the latter, of course, is rather unlikely), he should not be required to take them again. (c) Whether letter grades are to be given in these courses should be decided on the basis of the general policy in regard to letter grades. Note also that there are bound to be second-and third-year students in the basic courses. (d) Special reading courses are a very doubtful educational expedient, unless the faculty is willing to give real time to the work.

Carter Goodrich

On the whole, yes, as long there is 5 to provide flexibility and provided that at some stage we really encourage a considerable number of our students to take relevant work outside the Department.

Carl S. Shoup

The program of first-year courses is necessary only under the first alternative in number 1. A student who is already reasonably well prepared in a subject should not, I think, be required to take even a special reading course. He should, instead, be admitted at once to the advanced seminars.

M.A. candidates should be required to have letter grades of B or better in courses carrying 21 points of credit. Department members should be requested to test first-year students systematically and grade rigorously.

A.F. Burns

I am inclined to agree, but I do not expect very much from this proposal. It may merely mean that we will now say B where we formerly said P.

Carter Goodrich

Like Walton Hamilton on monogamy, “I suppose I’d vote for it but I’ll be damned if I’d electioneer for it.”

Carl S. Shoup

I suggest that we give only a “P” grade with the understanding that the passing level is “B” rather than “C”. Under the first alternative in number 1, I would be willing to go so far as to require passing grades in all of the thirty points, both for candidates for M:A. and for those who are not taking the M.A. but want to go on to the Ph.D. If we are to assume real responsibility for the product that we turn out, I do not see how we can afford to give a degree to anybody who is not good enough to pass all of the courses that he takes. (Do the medical schools give degrees to people who are unable to pass all of the courses?)

We should provide seminar courses for first-year students of outstanding ability and satisfactory preparation. Admission would be by consent of the instructor. Admission would be restricted to men of clear promise. Such a man might have a first-year program consisting of three basic courses and two seminars.

A. F. Burns

I think it is desirable to admit qualified first-year students to seminars. But it would be unwise and impractical to run one special seminar for first-year students and another for second-year students. It is an artificial distinction. (However, it might be well to organize a seminar for M.A. students who are writing their theses, one requirement (among others) for admission being that a student have a definite topic that he already has done a little work on and that he expects to complete within the year. This suggestion raises serious questions as to administration, teaching load, etc.)

Carter Goodrich

Yes. These seminars would not in all case have to be for first-year students only.

Carl S. Shoup

This problem is covered in the discussion under number 1 above. I should add that even under the second alternative, I should visualize fairly frequent and rigorous examinations of some kind or other to be sure that the graduate student was not losing his grasp of his tools of analysis and his basic information, and was, indeed, improving them as he went along.

There should be a rigorous weeding out of graduate students at the end of the first graduate year. At the end of the spring term a committee of the department should review the records of all candidates for degrees. Only those of clear merit should be permitted to carry forward studies for the doctorate. We should have a restricted group of second and third-year graduate students of high ability.

A. F. Burns

I agree heartily.

Carter Goodrich

Yes, decidedly.

Carl S. Shoup

I agree with this proposal, whether under the first or second alternatives in number 1 above.

We should consider introducing comprehensive written matriculation examinations, to come before more than 45 residence credits have been acquired.

A. F. Burns

I feel handicapped because I don’t know precisely what matriculation means or involves. Would the comprehensive examination come six months after a student has been encouraged to try for the doctorate? If so, is the interval too short?

Carter Goodrich

Not with this timing. It would be too late for the privileges of matriculation and I think too early for a comprehensive test. Possibly such examinations might supplement the oral on subjects and replace certification.

Carl S. Shoup

I agree that it is desirable to have comprehensive written examinations from time to time through the graduate work (see comments under numbers 4 and 5 above).

Doctoral candidates should be required to pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position. This year should be given to rigorous research training, under the supervision of the department.

Arthur F. Burns

I agree if “Rigorous research training” means the writing of a dissertation on the premises, or at least working on it for a year under the supervision of the department. But there is a good deal to think through before making a definite proposal. For example, would the orals have to be taken before this research year?

Carter Goodrich

Yes, as an ideal to press for as rapidly as possible. In my judgment, this is the direction that promises the most significant improvement.

Carl S. Shoup

This is an excellent idea; if doctoral candidates would pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position, many of our difficulties at the thesis level would disappear.

A sum equivalent to approximately 10 per cent of the departmental budget for salaries should be allocated to research. This would be available to members of the department for employment of research assistants on research activities approved by a departmental committee on research, and for meeting other research costs. It is to be expected that some portion of this research fund could be used for the employment of doctoral candidates during their period of internship.

Arthur F. Burns

Clearly, financial provision for research work is important. I am not sufficiently familiar with the needs of the department (even its boundaries: is the college included?) to have any judgment as to a specific figure. The whole problem should be surveyed before definite recommendations are made.

Carter Goodrich

I am not sure of the ten per cent, but I like the general idea. Something of this sort must be done to make 8 possible.

Carl S. Shoup

I do not think there would be a marked increase in the research work under this proposal (to allocate, say, 10 per cent of the departmental budget to research) since it does not touch what seems to me the real problem; namely, the desire of many faculty members — especially in the younger group — to supplement their University salaries by research fees and salaries. It is possible that the solution may be found in some form of split salary schedule whereby the faculty member is paid a certain basic amount, viewed as compensation chiefly for teaching services, and, upon application, might be granted an additional amount as compensation for devoting his time to unpaid research, thus foregoing outside paid activities. The tendency to grant the supplementary amount almost automatically to anybody who happened not to be doing outside work would be a real difficulty, but it might be met by having the supplementary amounts granted only upon approval by some outside board, specially constituted for this purpose.

The department should consider adding the following courses to its curriculum:

1. First-year graduate course in money and banking
2. A course in accounting, designed to meet the needs of economists
3. A course in comparative economic systems (to be given in cooperation with the School of Business)
4. An additional course in international economics (subject matter to be adapted to that of the present course on international trade).

Arthur F. Burns

10a. Definitely yes

10b. Probably yes. But the man must precede the course.

10c. Probably, no. Who is an expert on such questions? I can’t think of any. I doubt if the department ought to try to develop one, and I doubt if it would succeed if it tried (the man, if he is any good, would soon specialize). If there is a gap here, we might perhaps try a lecture course to be given by several specialists and coordinated by some instructor. This has at least the negative advantage that the department’s hands will not be tied.

10d. Probably, yes. I would want to know the scope of the course before expressing a more definite opinion.

Carter Goodrich

Certainly d, probably the others.

Carl S. Shoup

I should like to discuss these prospective courses further before venturing an opinion, especially with respect to the first-year course in money and banking. I believe there is no unnecessary duplication in this field already than in almost other part of our curriculum.

Source: Columbia University Archives.Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1. Folder: “Committee on Instruction”.

Tags BurnsAF, Goodrich, Mills, Shoup

Excerpt from University of California: In Memoriam, September 1978

Ira Brown Cross, Economics: Berkeley 1880-1977 Flood Professor Emeritus

Report to the President and the Instruction Committee of Amherst College on the Special Honors Section given in Economics I during the year 1924-1925.

I. Composition of Group

II. Work Covered

III. Personal Appraisal of Work

IV. Appraisal by Members of the Class

From the Amherst College Catalog 1924/1925

FINAL EXAMINATIONS 1912-13

SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF THE DEAN FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1901

WORK IN THE SEMINARS

Seminar in European History

Seminar in American Colonial History

Seminar in American History

Seminar in Modern European History

Seminar in Political Philosophy

Seminar in Constitutional Law

Seminar in Diplomacy and International Law

Seminar in Political Economy

Seminar in Political Economy and Finance

Seminar in Economic Theory

Statistical Laboratory and Seminar

Seminar in Sociology

WORK OF FELLOWS

PUBLICATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE FACULTY

I.—EDUCATIONAL APPOINTMENTS

2.—GOVERNMENTAL APPOINTMENTS

SUGGESTIONS FOR CURRICULAR AND OTHER CHANGES with comments by Committee Members

Excerpt from University of California:
In Memoriam, September 1978

Ira Brown Cross, Economics: Berkeley
1880-1977
Flood Professor Emeritus

FINAL EXAMINATIONS
1912-13

REPORT OF THE DEAN
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1901

SUGGESTIONS FOR CURRICULAR AND OTHER CHANGES
with comments by Committee Members