Categories
Bibliography Chicago Germany Harvard

Germany. Articles on German Universities by Edmund J. James, 1880s

This post assembles five articles on German universities published by one of the founders of the American Economic Association, its twelfth president Edmund Janes James who like many of his contemporaries received his training in economics in Germany. It is interesting to see how in the 1880’s “Seminar” was italicized as a foreign word. Visitors to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror with experience in German/Austrian universities should find James’ observations and comparisons interesting as well. Biographical information about James is provided in today’s post as an extra bonus.

Americans studying in Germany, 1878

Biography of Edmund Janes James up to 1896

Publications of Edmund Janes James

“What is a German University” (1881)

“The Lecture versus the Recitation System” (1882)

“German Student Life” (1882)

“Political Economy in German Universities” (1882)

“The Degree of Ph.D. in Germany” (1888)

 

___________________________________

Americans studying in Germany, 1878

The number of American students at German universities during the year 1878 amounted to 94, of whom 35 were at Berlin, 16 at Bonn, 30 at Göttingen. 2 at Breslau, 2 at Greifswald, 4 at Halle, 1 at Kiel, 2 at Marburg, and 2 at Münster. These students were scattered among all the faculties: 8 study theology, 11 law, 25 medicine, 22 philosophy and philology, 25 mathematics and natural sciences, and 8 financial science.

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 3 and 4 (July and August, 1881), p. 43.

 

___________________________________

 

Biography of Edmund Janes James up to 1896

Dr. Edmund J. James, President of the Academy, leaves the University of Pennsylvania for the University of Chicago, February 1, 1896. In the University of Pennsylvania Dr. James was Professor of Public Finance and Administration in the Department of Finance and Economy (Wharton School), and Professor of Political and Social Science in the Graduate Faculty (Department of Philosophy). In the University of Chicago he will be Professor of Public Administration in the Department of Political Science, and Director of the University Extension Department.

Edmund Janes James was born May 21, 1855, at Jacksonville, Morgan County, Ill. He was prepared for college in the High School Department of the Illinois State Normal School, at Normal, Ill., from which he graduated in June, 1873.

He entered college at the Northwestern University at Evanston, Ill., in the autumn of 1873. Having been appointed Recorder on the United States Lake Survey he joined (May 1, 1874) the party of Engineer Terry, engaged on the upper St. Lawrence and the lower part of Lake Ontario. At the end of the season he entered Harvard College, matriculating November 2, 1874.

In July, 1875, he went to Europe to study political economy. He matriculated at the University of Halle, October 16, 1875, and after spending four semesters at that institution—during which time he attended lectures also at Berlin and Leipsic—he graduated from Halle in August, 1877, taking the degrees of M. A. and Ph. D.

On his return home in the autumn of 1877 he was appointed principal of the Public High School, in Evanston, Ill., from January 1, 1878. In June, 1879, he resigned this position to accept the principalship of the High School Department of the Illinois State Normal School at Normal, Ill., beginning work in September of that year. He resigned this position at Christmas time, 1882, in order to continue his studies in Europe, which he pursued during the summer semester of 1883 at various German universities.

On July 3, 1883, he was elected Professor of Public Finance and Administration in the Wharton School of Finance and Economy, University of Pennsylvania, to begin work the following September. Since 1886 he has had practical charge of this department. Under his influence its corps of instructors was largely increased, the subjects of instruction multiplied, and its curriculum extended from two years to four, changes which were followed by a large increase in the number of students. It was owing to his personal efforts that instruction in statistics, journalism, sociology, transportation, municipal government, jurisprudence, and politics was added to the work in history, economics, and finance. During this period the Wharton School of Finance and Economy became not only a successful department for higher commercial education, but also one of the leading centres for the study of economics and politics in the United States.

Shortly after going to the University of Pennsylvania, Professor James was also appointed December 12, 1883, Professor of Political and Social Science in the Graduate Faculty (Department of Philosophy), and from January, 1884, to January, 1888, was Secretary of this Faculty. While Secretary he proposed the regulations which with few changes, have remained the rules governing graduate study in the University until the present. He was also the first instructor of the Faculty to introduce the seminary method of instruction which has become such a marked feature of all advanced work in the University. He was in Europe on leave of absence during the academic year 1888-89.

On April 8, 1891, he was elected President of the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, an association organized to promote the introduction and development of University Extension methods of instruction throughout the United States. He held this position until September 1, 1895, during which time the work of the society was greatly extended and strengthened. The number of lecture courses rose from 42 in 1890-91 to 126 in 1894-95; while the number in attendance increased from 7400 to 20,000.

While at the University Professor James declined various calls to other institutions either as president or professor. He was offered the presidency of two leading western State universities. He was also offered an Assistant Professorship in Political Economy at Harvard in 1890 and the head Professorship of Political Science at the University of Chicago in 1892. He was appointed delegate from the University of Pennsylvania to the tercentenary celebration of Trinity College, Dublin, in 1892, and to the bicentennial of the University of Halle in 1894.

Professor James is an active member of various societies and associations of a scientific and practical character. He has been a member of the National Educational Association since 1879. He was elected a member of the National Council of Education in 1884 and has delivered addresses before the association on “College Education for Business Men,” “University Extension ” and ” Normal School Education.”

He was chosen a member of the American Philosophical Society, April 18, 1884.

Since September, 1885 he has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; since 1891 a Fellow of that body. He was Vice-President and Chairman of Section I in 1891, and has read papers at its sessions on “The Share of Labor in Distribution,” “Manual Training in the Public Schools” and “The Farmer and Taxation.”

Since 1885 he has been a member of the American Social Science Association; was Secretary of the Department of Social Economy, 1887-88, and one of the directors of the association for the years 1890-92. He has read papers on “The Bullitt Bill Charter of Philadelphia,” “Schools of Political and Social Science,” “The Single Tax Theory.”

As one of the early members (1883) of the Public Education Association of Philadelphia he delivered addresses before that body on “Financial and Administrative Aspects of Public Education,” “The Need of Reorganization in Our Public School System,” etc., and has been for two years past Chairman of the Executive Committee of that body.

He was one of the founders of the American Economic Association in 1885, and, as Chairman of the Committee on Organization, reported the plan which has proved so successful in practice. He was for some time Vice-President and has been a frequent contributor to its series of publications.

Having been much interested in the movement for the preservation and better management of our forests, he was one of the original members (1886) of the Pennsylvania Forestry Association and of the Council of that body. He delivered addresses before the association on “The Relation of the State to our Forests,” “The Economic Significance of Our Forests,” etc.

He was actively concerned in the organization of the Pennsylvania College Association in 1887, which was subsequently converted into the Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools in the Middle States and Maryland. He delivered addresses at its sessions on ”The American University,” “University Extension,” and “The American College,” and was for some time treasurer of the association.

He was one of the founders of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, and, at the first meeting for formal organization December 14, 1889, was elected President, an office to which he has since been annually re-elected.

He was one of the first to take part in the recent movement for the improvement of city politics in the United States; was one of the organizers of the Municipal League of Philadelphia (out of which the National Association of Municipal Leagues has grown) and served as its first president from December 1, 1891.

Professor James’ contributions to the literature of the subjects in which he has been interested have been numerous.

With Dr. Charles DeGarmo, President of Swarthmore College, he founded the Illinois School Journal, now the Public School Journal, one of the most influential educational periodicals in the West. As editor of this magazine for two years, 1881-82, he contributed many papers to the current discussion of the time, relating to the pedagogical and administrative aspects of public education.

As editor of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science he has for the past five years directed the policy of this periodical. Under his direction it has expanded from a quarterly to a bimonthly with numerous supplements, and has grown steadily and rapidly in scope and influence.

In addition to the work on the above periodicals, Professor James was one of the leading contributors to the “Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy and United States History,” edited by John J. Lalor, Chicago, 1882-84. (Referred to below as Lalor’s Cyclopaedia.)

Source: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 7 (January, 1896), pp. 78-86.

___________________________________

For more biographical information after 1896:

Edmund Janes James: Twelfth President of the Economic Association, 1910American Economic Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1944).

Ernest Minor Patterson. The career of Edmund Janes JamesThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 301, (September, 1955), pp. 97-100.

 

___________________________________

Publications of Edmund Janes James

James B. Childs. A Bibliography of the Published Writings and Addresses of Edmund Janes James (Library School Seminar, University of Illinois, Second Semester, 1919-20).

 

___________________________________

 

WHAT IS A GERMAN UNIVERSITY?

by Edmund Janes James

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 5 (September, 1881), pp. 1-2.

            A German University is a corporation whose objects are the increase and spread of knowledge. Like all institutions of learning the German University consists of professors and students together with the various directors and officers connected with the corporation. The former are divided into four faculties, according to the various branches in which they respectively give and receive instructions, viz., the Theological, the Medical, the Law and the Philosophical faculty. The first three terms explain themselves— they comprehend about what we in this country include in our Law, Medical and Theological schools. The last mentioned faculty, viz., the Philosophical, gives instruction in all branches not included in the three former. It corresponds, to a certain extent, with our College of Liberal Arts. It teaches, not only Mental, Moral and Speculative Philosophy, but also Ancient and Modern Languages, History, Archaeology, the Physical Sciences, Mathematics, the Fine Arts, Political Economy, Sociology, Diplomacy, etc., including about every branch of human science, and quite a number of arts, such as dancing, fencing, riding, drawing and singing, in all of which branches there are instructors in the ordinary university.

These faculties are all independent of one another and yet all most intimately connected. A student enrolled in one has a perfect right to hear any and all the courses in the other faculties without additional expense. Candidates for graduation in one faculty are often required to take studies in another. As for instance, the Medical students are required in some places to hear a course in Speculative Philosophy, while those in Political Economy are expected to hear courses in International Law and the Constitutional History of Germany. The professors in each faculty, and consequently in the whole university are further divided into three classes, viz., ordinary professors, extraordinary professors and privat docenten. The first mentioned are appointed and paid by the government. Taken together, they either constitute or elect the academical senate—the executive body of the university. The extraordinary professors are nominated by the university senate and confirmed by the government. They are entitled to no pay; but it is almost universally the custom to vote them a small salary,—600 or 1,000 thalers. The privat docenten are appointed by the university authorities. They receive no salary, and depend altogether on their fees in case they have no other means of support. These three terms have been translated into English as full professors, assistant professors, and tutors. But the similarity is not great enough to justify such translation. Our assistant professors are simply assistants. They are expected to take the drudgery off the hands of the professor, to take the classes he doesn’t want, to do the elementary work. And our tutors might be called assistant-assistant professors; for they stand in the same relation to the assistant professor that the latter does to the full professor. The relation of the three mentioned classes to one another in the German institution is, however, radically different. The privat docent is just as independent as the ordinary professor. He has the right to lecture on the same subjects, to appeal to the same class of hearers, in a word to compete in the freest manner for the patronage of the students. His certificate that the student has attended his course of lectures counts for just as much in the eyes of the university authorities as the ordinary professor’s certificate. He is on the same footing as the ordinary professor except that he has no salary from the government. These privat docenten may be considered as candidates for professorships. A young man graduates from the university, and desires to devote himself to a university career. He spends a year or two as the case may be in preparing a course of lectures. He then applies for permission to locate in some university. He posts the announcement of his lecture on the bulletin board, and at the time appointed he begins his lecture. Three or four students drop in to see what the new man is like. If he has something to say and can say it in an attractive and forcible manner, he may count upon a full lecture room. If the ordinary professor in that subject has become fossilized or negligent, he may experience the mortification of seeing his lecture-room deserted, and perhaps be finally compelled to hand over his larger lecture room to the younger man because the latter can draw the larger crowd.

We dwell on this matter of the privat docenthum because it seems to us that it is one of the most important elements in the German system. By it is secured, as a rule, constant exertion on the part of the older professors to furnish something new and solid, and to keep themselves fresh and active, lest the younger men supplant them. It offers further, to those young men who wish to follow a university career, an opportunity to begin their work as soon as they have graduated, and if they have the ability, a chance to succeed from the very first. And thus they retain the very cream of the rising generation for university work.

 

___________________________________

 

THE LECTURE VERSUS THE RECITATION SYSTEM

A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE METHODS OF INSTRUCTION IN GERMAN AND AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES.
by Edmund Janes James

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 11 (March, 1882), pp. 13-14.

            In considering the merits of any system of instruction, we ought to have regard to its relations toward both classes of individuals most affected by it, viz., the pupils and the teachers, the students and the professors. We ought to adopt that system which, on the whole, secures the best results for both parties. The catechetical, or recitation system has too exclusive reference to the pupils; the lecture system as practiced in many places, is too exclusively on the side of the teachers. A college professor is an entirely different person in Germany, from what he is here. The Germans make a world-wide difference between the Professor and the Lehrer, or instructor. That difference disappears in our economy. Our professor, as far as we use the word in a technical sense, is one who teaches college boys—the kind of work is exactly the same as the public school teacher’s—the only difference is that he has different subjects, though that isn’t true to the same extent now as formerly. We confine our teachers to the mere routine work of putting into the minds of their students a certain number of text-books. We overload them with work so that they have no chance to develop. We require them to teach, so many different subjects that they can never acquire more than a text-book knowledge of them. We impose so many hours’ work and so much outside responsibility upon them that they are thoroughly wearied, when they get a few moments’ or hours’ leisure, and need all the time to recuperate their health. This complaint comes from nearly every college in the country. The faculty of Yale College asserted only a few months ago, that every professor in the institution had too much drudgery to perform. In this way we deprive ourselves, as a country, of one of the most powerful means of promoting general culture. We impress upon our professors the fact that they are first, last and all the time, primarily teachers. They are not expected to make new discoveries. We do not care to have them add to the sum total of our knowledge. All that we desire is that they shall teach our boys what is known.

So far has this spirit been carried at times, that, in a prominent institution of one of our large Western States, a professor who was busily engaged in preparing a much needed text-book, was informed that if he engaged in any more such undertakings his services would be dispensed with. In Germany things are radically different. A professor is primarily a scholar. He is expected to be a student. Only about five hours’ work a week is required of him. He can devote his time to original investigations and give the results of his labors to the world in the form of lectures. He has no responsibility of government. He has no examination papers to correct. He can lecture at the time most convenient to him, and as many hours or as few (not less than five a week, however) as he chooses. In a word, he is a man paid by the government for devoting himself to original investigation and research, with the condition of formulating his results into lectures; and indeed this is an actual aid, rather than a hindrance in his work. It compels him to put into a concise shape the result of his investigation, and enables him to present the same in a systematic form, to the consideration of a number of educated young men. How different the case of the American college professor, who stands before a class, one half of whom do not care anything about, and the rest of whom do not stand in need of, that weary quizzing of the know-nothings, which it is a part of his duty to perform. How easy it is for one to become wooden and mechanical in doing that sort of work! and no wonder either, for it is, after all, a mechanical thing.

If, then, our American theory is the correct one; viz., that it is the professor’s business to see to it that a certain number of students have committed a certain text-book to memory, which he himself has previously committed as a part of his preparation, then the dialogical (I had almost said diabolical) method is the correct one. If, on the contrary, the Germans have the right idea, if a college professor is a student, whose business it is to present the result of his studies in an impressive and attractive form to a crowd of enthusiastic and earnest learners, then the lecture system is the only valuable and practicable method of realizing this idea.

 

___________________________________

GERMAN STUDENT-LIFE

by Edmund Janes James

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 9 (January, 1882), pp. 13-15.

Let us look for a moment at the means at their disposal for prosecuting their studies. In the first place we have the lectures which we have already mentioned. We found that they were, for the professors, the best method of instruction. Now we may ask the question how is the lecture system adapted for the student? Can he retain what he hears so as to make it of any permanent value to him? I answer yes! Of the possibilities of the system we know almost nothing in this country. This power of retaining what one hears is a mere matter of practice. You have all heard the story of the father, who required his little boy to tell him each Sunday, what the preacher had said, and who finally succeeded in training him so that he could repeat the sermon almost word for word. The little German child is trained in the same way. Stories are read to him once, and he is required to write them out from memory and to keep up this practice until he can write almost everything he hears in a lecture of forty or fifty minutes. Such is the boy as he comes to the university. He can listen to the professor an hour, and come out and repeat the lecture substantially from beginning to end. We can not realize, I will not say the possibilities, but the actualities achieved under this system, until we have come in actual contact with them.

But even if the lecture system did not serve its end so well as it does, it might still be borne with, since it is supplemented, 1st, by private societies among the students, which are kept up by those who take an interest in some one branch, as for instance, mathematics or history. 2nd, by seminars, or small clubs conducted by the professors. I desire to call your attention especially to this feature as it has been but little noticed so far as I know by writers on German universities, and but little enjoyed by most Americans who study in Germany. In my opinion, these seminars are the most important element, in many respects, of the German university. They are but little more than methodically conducted conversations in reference to the subjects chosen for discussion. They are generally held at the house of the various professors, although, if too large, or if the professor’s house is too far away, they are held in the college building. The plan pursued varies with the subject and the professor. In the politico-economical seminar for instance, a list of subjects was generally proposed at the beginning of the term upon which essays were to be written. Each member chose one or more subjects according to his inclination, and as he had time, studied it up, and gave notice when he should read it. The members of the seminar looked up the same subject somewhat, so as to be ready for the discussion which always followed the essay. After a thorough discussion, the professor summed up what had been advanced on each side, giving his own opinion and his reasons for it.

In the philosophical seminar we read the first term, Spinoza, simply pronouncing the Latin, and if we came across a difficult sentence, stopping long enough to translate it. We would read a paragraph and the professor would stop and ask some one what he thought of that, or if that was a new idea in philosophy, first imported by Spinoza, or where did he steal that point? or who developed it after him? or, is that sound logic? &c, &c, varying his questions now and then by a biographical one. Prof. Haym, who conducted the seminars, was one of the most popular men at Halle. He was a really eloquent speaker, and his lectures on the History of Philosophy were well attended. I must relate a little incident which happened in connection with our seminar under him, and which illustrates the peculiar temperament and manner of the man. It was the close of our term on Spinoza. There had been seven of us in the club; we had met regularly at his house, and he had always set out the cigars and told the boys to help themselves. As the days grew long and warm, for it was the spring semester, he had refreshments of various sorts, and some of the boys concluded that we ought to make him some return for the pains he had taken. After due deliberation, we contributed, as heaven had blessed us, and appointed a committee to purchase a copy of Leibnitzen’s works. For some inscrutable reason which I have never been able to ascertain, the committee concluded to purchase, instead, a bust of the philosopher, Kant. “When I took my book to the professor to sign, he asked me to step into the hall and inquired if I had had anything to do with that thing, raising as he spoke, a cloth which covered a bust of the immortal Kant. “It came from my seminar, I understand. I hope it won’t be repeated. I wish to invite you to take supper with me on next Monday evening where you will meet the other members of the seminar.” At the appointed hour we had all arrived and were sitting in the parlor, expecting every moment that the professor would lead the way to the dining-room, when he slowly arose and said, “Gentlemen, I should like to see you in my study for a moment, if you please.” We followed him into his sanctum, where upon the table stood our bust of Kant. As soon as we had all come in, he turned half way toward the bust, and half toward us, and began: “Gentlemen, although I recognize your honorable intentions in making me this present, yet it has grieved me more than I can tell you, to see that you have tried to pay me off in this way. I gave you my time gladly and will do it again whenever yon feel a desire to pursue your studies on this subject further, but I am very sorry that you should attempt to get even with me in- this manner. I must therefore decline this present, in the first place, because I never accept presents, on principle. In the second place if I should accept a present, I could not take a bust. You see that I have no room for one,” and he pointed to the walls of the room, which really presented no position where a bust could be placed. ” In the third place, if I should be willing to accept a bust, I do not care for one of Kant’s, for I have one already. And finally, even if I should be willing to accept one of Kant, I should not want that, for it is really the poorest bust of Kant that has ever been made. It does not bear the slightest resemblance to him. The merchant has sold you completely. It not only does not resemble Kant, but it has no merit whatever in an artistic point of view. I asked Prof. Herzblerg to-day (who was senior professor of art in Halle) if I might put it in the university chapel, but he said he would not have it there. To save you from all loss, so far as I could, I went to the merchant who sold it to you, and he has agreed to take it back, and refund all the money but two marks, which he claims as expense for delivering and taking it back again, so here is your money; never attempt to make me a present again. Supper is ready, let us go;” and with that he led the way to the dining-room. It is needless to add, that we followed his wishes to the letter, in reference to making him presents:

It will be seen from our above description of seminar work, how valuable these seminars are as supplements to the lectures. If one joins such a society, one is sure of finding young men who are pursuing the subject in earnest, no idlers or dilettants are admitted. As they are gratuitous and private, the professors have the right to refuse admittance to any they choose, and they exercise this right pretty regularly, to keep out those whom they think wish to join for mere appearance-sake. One finds among the members, men who have been pursuing the subject from six months to three years, and consequently has from the very first, the most intimate intercourse with students who know more of the subject than himself. There is, beside, the advantage of personal contact with the professor, as the sessions are generally held at his private house.

 

___________________________________

 

 

POLITICAL ECONOMY IN GERMAN UNIVERSITIES

by Edmund Janes James

Source: The Nation, September 28, 1882. pp. 261-62.

To the Editor of The Nation:

Sir: The notice, in a recent number of the Nation of Professor Fredericq’s report on instruction in history in the German universities, suggests the thought that perhaps a short account of the instruction in political economy in these schools would be of interest to your readers. I describe the work as it is laid out in the University of Halle, both because I am better acquainted with that institution and because, in the opinion of competent critics, the work there is, on the whole, better organized than at any other similar school in Germany.

Instruction in political economy is given, in the first place, by lectures. There are three professors in this department. In the course of a year they offer several series of lectures on the following subjects: History of Political Economy, Theoretical Political Economy, Practical Political Economy (the discussion of the economic problems of modern society), Science of Finance, Statistics, Police Supervision, and Administration. lectures upon other subjects are occasionally given, especially upon economic topics of current interest.

These lectures are supplemented (1) by the politico-economic Seminar, and (2) by the politico-economic debating society. The former is organized as a department of the University; its object is to provide opportunities for those who wish to make a specialty of economics. It is a society of students under the direction of a professor. It meets for two or three hours, regularly, once a week, sometimes oftener. The exercises consist of essays by the students on subjects suggested by the director, followed by discussion and criticism of them. At the beginning of the term the professor prepares a list of subjects, theoretical, practical, and historical, from which each of the members of the Seminar chooses two or more which he agrees to present during the term. A programme is made out, and one or two of these essays assigned to each session. The subjects being known beforehand, each member of the society is expected to prepare himself for the discussion which follows the reading. Such subjects as the following are assigned: Value, Banks of Issue, Double Standard, Income-Tax, State Ownership of Railways, etc. The student is expected to know, for instance, in the first case, the opinions of all prominent economists in reference to the subject, and their definitions of it. He must be able to give reasons for his own view, accompanied with refutation of the views he rejects, etc. It will be seen that the director has an excellent opportunity in his questions to test the thoroughness and extent of the student’s investigation and to form an opinion of his ability.

The object of the society is really to promote original work in economics. A liberal amount of money is appropriated to the purchase of all recent publications of value in any language for the Seminar library. The society, although not yet fifteen years old, has done valuable original work, and its publications are rapidly acquiring an enviable reputation in Germany. A recent pamphlet by one of the members on “American Competition in European Markets” attracted the attention of the Government, and the young man who wrote it was offered a place on a commission which was to come to America and investigate the whole subject and report to the Imperial Government, but he was prevented from accepting by his election to the Reichstag. All possible assistance is given to those who aim to do original work, and the keen but sympathizing criticism of professor and fellow-student is no small aid in preventing mortifying blunders and mistakes. Professor Conrad, who now has charge of the society, is a really great teacher, able to inspire enthusiasm for his work, and wisely to direct the efforts of his students. There is also a statistical Seminar under his charge, which makes a specialty of original work in statistics.

The politico-economic debating society is under the control of the students, and discusses economic questions in the form of resolutions. It occupies itself, naturally enough, rather with practical questions of current interest than with purely theoretical problems. Its work is more serious and valuable than the work of corresponding organizations with us, because each of the members has had a tolerably complete course in political economy before he enters it.

It will be seen that the advantages offered the liberally-trained student who desires to specialize are excellent. Such a system would, of course, be of no value in our ordinary colleges, whose students need the drill and training of school-boys much more than they do opportunities for original research.

E.J. James

Normal, Ill., Sept. 12, 1882.

 

___________________________________

 

 

THE DEGREE OF PH.D. IN GERMANY

by Edmund J. James
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.

Source: The Andover Review, vol. 9, no. 54 (June, 1888), pp. 611-623.

            The conditions on which the degree of Ph. D. should be granted has formed a subject of debate among American college authorities for some years past. The result of the discussion up to the present time has not been all that one could desire who likes uniformity in such matters as the giving of academic honors.

It may help towards its solution if we examine the condition of things in Germany at the present time in regard to this question. As is well known, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is preeminently a German degree. It was the German universities which, by adopting it as the highest literary degree which they conferred, have given it a standing among the learned institutions of the world. It has been used in this country to so large an extent as an honorary degree, and given away so lavishly to men of high station and low station, and, indeed, of no station at all, that those who hold it on examination are almost ashamed of it, and finally, in order to defend themselves, have adopted the expedient so long in vogue in England of writing after their degrees the name of the university from which it is taken.

In the discussions on the subject which have occurred in this country it has been quite generally assumed that the conditions of granting this degree in Germany are practically uniform. This is true in a certain degree, but it is by no means true to the extent generally supposed. I propose in the following article to give a summary of the conditions required for this degree in Germany, so far as they can be deduced from the printed requirements of the various institutions, and from a somewhat extended personal investigation on my own part.

The rules and regulations of the different faculties in regard to the granting of this degree have been all collected and published by Dr. Baumgart, in a small book, dated Berlin, 1885. [3rd edition, 1888]There is a certain normal procedure in course for this degree which may be deduced by taking the requirements which are common to the larger number of universities. The requirements in the Prussian universities are somewhat more uniform than those of the other German states. For the purpose of this article, therefore, it will be best to describe the course for the Prussian degree, and then note the variations in the case of each university.

A Prussian who wishes to take the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from a Prussian university must first graduate at one of the schools which are recognized by law as entitled to prepare students for the university. These schools are of two kinds: the classical colleges or gymnasia, whose course of study, extending over nine years, is chiefly devoted to Latin, Greek, and mathematics, with some attention to history, modern languages, and natural science; and the Latin scientific, or real schools, whose course, of equal length with that of the gymnasia, differs from it in having no Greek, and giving much more attention to modern languages and natural science. After graduating at one of these schools the candidate must attend a German university for at least three years.

If he desires to come up for his degree at the earliest possible moment he must, during these three years, prepare a dissertation on some topic connected with the line of study to which he has devoted most attention. When he applies for permission to be examined for the degree he must present certificates showing his graduation from one of the above-mentioned preparatory schools, and also that he has completed the academic triennium. He must also present his dissertation, and designate two subjects in which he is willing to be examined besides philosophy, in which all candidates must pass an examination. The application must be in Latin. He must append to the dissertation certain propositions or theses which he is willing to defend against all critics. If his dissertation is considered satisfactory, and his certificates are in order, he is then admitted to an oral examination, in the presence of the faculty, on the subjects before mentioned. This examination may last from two to four hours. If the candidate successfully passes this ordeal, he must then defend his dissertation and the appended theses in public against certain specially selected critics, in some cases chosen by himself, in others appointed by the faculty. If this test is pronounced successful, he is then admitted to the formal act of graduation, and the degrees of Master of Liberal Arts and Doctor of Philosophy are conferred upon him.

Such may be called the normal course of events in the progress toward this degree. There are variations from it in almost every university, and the sum total of variations is large, though in no case is a variation made which is regarded as of vital importance. How important such deviations are, can be best seen from a comparison of the requirements of different universities with regard to each of these elements.

The course of pre-university education necessary for this degree is determined in Prussia by the State Department of Education. The government determines what schools may prepare for the university, and then carefully prescribes the course of study of such schools. Prior to 1870 only graduates of the gymnasia or classical schools were admitted to the Prussian universities. In that year the government ordered that graduates of the Latin, scientific, or ” real schools of the first order,” as they are technically called, should also be admitted to the universities in the philosophical faculty, that is, the department which includes everything but law, medicine, and theology. They are admitted to examination for the degree of Ph. D. on the same terms as the graduates of the classical colleges, except they must, of course, not choose subjects in their final examination for which a knowledge of Greek is considered necessary, such as classical philology or ancient history. The law permits students from outside of Prussia to be admitted without these certificates of graduation, on their showing to the satisfaction of the faculty that they possess the requisite maturity and mental discipline to pursue successfully university studies. As a matter of fact, no inquiry is made in regard to students from outside of Germany in regard to their qualifications. All who apply are admitted, unless they are women, or are evidently immature. If they wish to come up for degrees, the case is somewhat different, and will be noticed later.

There are twenty-one institutions within the present limit of the German empire which have power to grant the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Of the ten Prussian institutions only one, namely, Göttingen, makes in its rules any express distinction between the graduates of the gymnasia and the real schools. Göttingen limits the choice of subjects of the latter class, in their final examination, to mathematics, natural sciences, and modern languages. In the case of the other nine universities the same restriction certainly exists tacitly, even if they would admit candidates to a somewhat wider range of choice than the University of Göttingen. The government does not permit the graduates of real schools to present themselves for the public examination for teachers in any other branches than those mentioned in the rules of Göttingen, and while this provision does not bind the universities to make the same requirements in the case of graduation, yet the tendency to do this, it must be admitted, would naturally be very great.

Of the more important non-Prussian universities, Leipzig requires, as a rule, graduation from a gymnasium, but the faculty may, in its discretion, accept the diploma of a real school as the equivalent of the former. Erlangen and Würzburg accept the real school certificate when one of the following subjects is selected as the principal branch: mathematics, physics, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, botany, or zoology. In all other cases they require the gymnasium certificate. Freiburg requires simply “evidences of satisfactory preparation,” and reserves to the faculty the right to decide what evidences are satisfactory. As a matter of fact it accepts the two certificates as equivalent. Giessen accepts the real school certificates in the case of candidates who have chosen either natural, mathematical, political, or technical science, but requires the gymnasium certificate in other cases. Heidelberg takes much the same position as Freiburg. Jena accepts the same rule as Göttingen. Munich follows the same policy as Erlangen, except that it also grants a doctor of political science, for which it accepts real school certificates, and in general reserves to the faculty the right to accept other certificates as the equivalent of either of these. Rostock and Strasburg make no distinction between the two certificates. Tübingen grants the doctor of philosophy only in philosophy, philology, languages, and history, for which it requires the gymnasium certificate; but it also grants a doctor of science of equivalent rank, for which it accepts the real school or any equivalent certificate.

All the universities admit foreigners to the examinations if they can show by satisfactory testimonials or by examination that they possess what the faculty regard as a preparation fairly equivalent to that required of German students. Strasburg requires, however, that all candidates, whether German or foreign, shall prove their ability to translate from Greek or Latin, while the rules of Leipzig provide that, in the case of foreigners, the school and university certificates usual in the country of the candidate will be accepted, if they are sufficient to convince the faculty of the fitness of the candidate.

In general, then, it may be said that the German universities all require some knowledge of Latin, mathematics, and modern languages as a prerequisite to the degree of Ph. D. How much is required can be known from the fact that the course of the school whose certificate is accepted as unquestionably giving the necessary preparation is nine years in length, and keeps a boy busy from his ninth to his eighteenth year. On the other hand, no German university requires a knowledge of Greek for its highest literary degree, including not merely the doctor of philosophy, but also the master of arts as well. A German Ph. D. need not know one Greek letter from another, and will yet be acknowledged as entitled to the privilege of entering the academic career.

The requirement of three years’ residence at the university is made in nearly all the German universities, except those of Bavaria, where four years are required of Bavarians. The certificate of any German university is accepted by each of the other universities as fully equal to its own. Berlin and Göttingen accept the certificates of attendance not only from German universities, but also from all universities organized on the general plan of German universities. Erlangen accepts three years spent in a polytechnic school as equivalent to two of the three years required. Freiburg and Rostock accept time spent in foreign universities and foreign or domestic technical schools of high rank as equivalent, term for term, to that spent in the university. Giessen permits the faculty to make such requirements of foreigners as may seem proper to it, allowing them to dispense with testimonials of the sort required of native students. Heidelberg and Kiel do not require any definite number of years, reserving it for the faculty to decide whether the candidate has studied a satisfactory length of time. Three years is probably taken here also as the normal period. Leipzig demands, ” as a rule,” from candidates from the German empire, a certificate of three years’ attendance at some university where the German language is used as the ordinary medium, recognizing in this way the equality of Austrian, Swiss, and Germano-Russian universities. Corresponding certificates are required of foreigners, though the faculty can waive the requirement in either case. Munich and Würzburg require “evidence of several years’ study of the principal branch offered,” and at least four years in the case of Bavarian applicants. Strasburg requires at least three years in the case of native students, though the faculty is authorized to make exceptions when it may seem good to them. The rules of the other universities contain nothing at all on this point, or simply provide that three years’ attendance at a university is required.

The dissertation must be in the Latin language. Provision is made in all cases for special exceptions to be made, except when the candidate comes up for examination in ancient philology. Berlin, Bonn, Göttingen, and Königsberg prescribe that if the thesis relates to topics connected with classical and Oriental philology and antiquities or ancient history and philosophy it must be written in Latin. In all other cases the faculty may, at its discretion, accept a thesis in German, but in case it does so, the candidate may be required at the public examination to show that he can read and translate a passage assigned him from some Roman classic. Breslau and Greifswald limit the topics in which Latin must be used to classical philology and ancient history. Erlangen, Jena, Munich, Tübingen, and Würzburg allow either Latin or German, and the faculty may accept other languages. Freiburg says nothing of the language in which the thesis shall be written. Giessen allows either Latin or German, but in case of students of philology the thesis must be in one of the languages which the candidate chooses for his principal subjects. Göttingen expressly prescribes “that no translation, poems, or any other writings whose excellence consists chiefly in their rhetorical or stylistic form, nor any mere expressions of personal convictions on religious, political, aesthetic, and other questions, will be accepted. There must at least be an attempt to treat the subject in a scientific manner, either historico-critical or demonstrative.” Halle requires Latin in all cases, except “those in which the subject offers serious difficulties to the use of Latin,” and the faculty must decide whether this is true or not. Heidelberg does not require a dissertation, and is indifferent as to what language is used, if one be submitted. Kiel, Leipzig, Marburg, and Strasburg require Latin only in case the thesis relates to classical philology. The faculty of Leipzig may accept theses in other languages. Minister requires Latin only in case the thesis relates to the classical languages or literatures. Rostock requires Latin, as a rule, in the case of classical philologists; in other cases, German, English, or French will be accepted.

Freiburg, Giessen, and Jena require that the dissertation shall be truly scientific in character. Kiel requires that the dissertation shall be a science-furthering one. Konigsberg speaks of it as a “specimen of the scientific knowledge of the candidate.” Leipzig prescribes that “the dissertation will not be satisfactory unless it shows clearly that the candidate is thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and can discuss it with some independence of judgment. It must contain exact references to all the more important sources of information used by the candidate. A good form and correct language are absolutely necessary conditions.” Munich provides that in case there are any serious doubts as to the scientific value of a dissertation it is to be refused forthwith. Tübingen uses almost the same language in describing the kind of dissertation which will be satisfactory, as Leipzig. The other statutes merely call for a dissertation, or a ” scientific dissertation,” or a “dissertation on some scientific topic.” Some of the universities permit papers previously published to be used for theses, others require that they shall be specially prepared for graduation.

The oral examination comprises, as a rule, three subjects, one of which must be designated as the principal subject, and two as subordinate branches. In Munich alone, a written examination is also required. Three questions are agreed upon by the professors of the principal branch selected by the candidate, and handed, sealed, to the candidate, who must answer them, in writing, within two hours, in the presence of the Dean and one professor. The object of the oral examination is declared in the rules of Leipzig to be chiefly to ascertain in how far the special knowledge displayed in the dissertation is associated with a more comprehensive knowledge of the whole department, and of those departments most closely allied with it. In many universities philosophy and Latin are required in all such examinations. Philosophy, as used in the requirements, except where it is taken as a principal subject when it means much more, includes usually such a knowledge of logic, mental philosophy, ethics, and history of speculative philosophy as a student might get from preparing himself to pass examination in a course on each topic embracing, say sixty to ninety lectures, or in some text-book on each topic, such as we use in our American colleges. Berlin prescribes nothing as to the number of subjects chosen, but prescribes that the examination is to be conducted by four ordinary, that is, full professors, two of whom must represent the principal branch of the candidate, and every other ordinary professor shall have the right to put any questions he chooses to the candidate. This would seem to imply that the candidate will also be examined in subordinate or allied branches. The choice of subjects may be made from the whole list of subjects represented in the faculty of philosophy. In Bonn the examination consists of two parts, that looking to the degree of master of arts, and that looking toward the doctorate. In the first part the candidate is examined in philosophy, mathematics, natural sciences, ancient languages, and history. In the latter the proficiency of the candidate is tested in the special knowledge of those branches in which he professes to have made special studies. In the statutes of Bonn there is a distinct acknowledgment of the professional character of the degree of Ph. D. They say in one clause that the doctor examination differs from that for master of arts by a particularly careful and thorough test in those branches to which the candidate has specially devoted himself, and in which he thinks that he can soon begin his career as teacher. In another place they say distinctly that the degree of Ph. D., which is higher than master, may be properly conferred only on those of whom it can be truly said that they possess a tested efficiency as teachers in their branch of study. Breslau provides that the examination shall include the chief subject of the candidate, and some subordinate branches, including philosophy, and in the case of philologists history also. Erlangen prescribes that the examination shall extend to the branch to which the thesis relates as principal branch, and also to two other branches to be chosen by the candidate, and designated by him to the Dean before the examination. The choice of subjects is limited somewhat by the division of the faculty and studies. The studies are arranged in two groups, as follows: —

  1. Systematic Philosophy, History of Philosophy, Pedagogics, Classical Philology, Classical Literature, Classical Antiquities, Germanic Philology, Romanic Philology, English Philology, Oriental Philology, History, History of Art, and Political Science.
  2. Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Mineralogy, Geology, Botany, Zoology.

The three studies chosen may all either be taken from one group, or the candidate may take two from one and one from the other.

Freiburg prescribes three subjects to be approved by the faculty. Giessen prescribes three subjects to be chosen from the following list: Philosophy, Classical, Oriental, German, Modern Philology, History, Science of Art, Political Economy, Forestry, Agriculture, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Mineralogy, Botany, Zoology. Göttingen prescribes two subjects, “which may not be mere branches of one and the same subject.”

Greifswald prescribes that every candidate must be examined in philosophy, also in his principal branch, and the appropriate subordinate branches, according to the following scheme: —

  1. If Philosophy is the principal subject, the candidate must be examined in all branches of philosophy, and one subject out of the philological-historical field, and one out of the mathematical or scientific fields.
  2. To Classical Philology belong Greek and Latin Philology and Ancient History. To German Philology, German Language and Literature, and one other historical or linguistic branch. To modern Philology, Romanic and English Philology and one other philological or historical subject. To Linguistics, comparative philology and some branch of ancient or modern Philology. To Oriental Philology, that language to which the candidate has specially devoted himself, with the allied languages of the same system, and in one branch of Classical Philology.
  3. To History, as principal subject, belong all parts of historical science, and one language.
  4. To Mathematics belong all branches of Mathematics and Physics.
  5. To Physics belong Mathematics and Chemistry.
  6. With Chemistry must be taken Physics, and any one of the descriptive Natural Sciences.
  7. With the descriptive Natural Sciences, Physics and Chemistry.
  8. With Geography, Physics, and either Mathematics, Natural Science or History.
  9. With Politics, History, History of Civilization, and Political Science.
  10. With Cameralia, Statistics, Political Science, and Industrial Science.

It will be seen that the choice in the subjects is much limited by thus grouping them together. It is significant that the faculty should think it necessary to thus prescribe the combination of subjects.

Halle prescribes three subjects, one of which must be philosophy. Heidelberg gives a list of subjects from which three must be selected by the candidate. In addition to those mentioned in the list of Erlangen, the following may be noted, — paleontology, agriculture, public law, international law, administrative law, statistics, science of administration. It is also prescribed that in case such a subject is taken as Shemitic languages, for example, a thorough knowledge of at least one language will be required, and a general acquaintance with all the languages of the group. It is furthermore provided that, besides the subjects given in this list, parts of them, or branches, or allied sciences, may be chosen as secondary subjects. But in such cases a more thorough knowledge of the subject will be demanded. It will be seen from this that a candidate can practically limit himself to one subject in his examination, and still get his degree. Jena gives a list of seventeen subjects from which a choice of three must be made. The list is similar to that of Erlangen. Königsberg prescribes that the candidate shall be examined chiefly in the subjects to which ho has specially devoted himself, but every professor has the right to put questions in other branches also, particularly philosophy, philology, history, mathematics, and natural sciences. Leipzig requires three subjects, which shall be related to each other, and shall be selected with due regard to the wishes of the candidate. Marburg prescribes philosophy and the subjects allied to the chief subject selected by the candidate. Munich prescribes three subjects, and gives a list of eighteen from which the choice is to be made, but reserves to the faculty the right to accept others, or parts of others, if the candidate wishes it. Münster prescribes four subjects, one of which must be philosophy. If the chief subject is philosophy, the other three may be selected by the candidate, with the restriction that one at least must come from philology or history, and one from mathematics or natural science. If the chief subject is one of the classical languages, the other must be offered also. If German, then history. If a Romanic language, then Latin. If English, then German. If Sanskrit, Latin or German. If history, then Latin. If art, political economy, or related sciences; the choice of the other subjects is free. The choice of the fourth subject is free, but is limited to one of the foregoing subjects. If the chief subject is mathematics, physics or astronomy must be offered. If physics or astronomy, then mathematics. If chemistry, then physics. If one of the descriptive natural sciences, then at least another of these same sciences. The choice of the fourth subject is free. Rostock prescribes three subjects, and gives a list of seventeen from which they must be chosen. It is interesting to note that whereas Rostock gives political science as one of the subjects of three which must be chosen, Heidelberg divides the subject so that one can limit himself to political science. Strasburg prescribes three subjects, and that candidates in classical philology shall be examined in Latin, that is, that language used in the examination, and that all candidates shall be examined in the translation of a Latin author. Tübingen prescribes two subjects only, and faculty may excuse from oral examination. Würzburg prescribes the combinations, any one of which may be chosen for the examination. They closely resemble those given above for Greifswald.

A public disputation or defense of the thesis, and the appended theses, is absolutely required at Berlin after the oral examination. The disputation is to be in Latin, except when the faculty gives permission to use German. Bonn prescribes that among the opponents of the candidate in this public debate there shall be at least one ordinary professor appointed by the faculty for this purpose, and who closes the side opposed to the candidate. Latin must be used in the disputation when the thesis is required in Latin. Erlangen, Leipzig, Freiburg, Giessen, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Jena, Rostock, Strasburg, and Tübingen do not require a public disputation. Göttingen allows the candidate his choice between a public ceremony, to which the public disputation belongs, or a private ceremony in a committee of the faculty, without disputation. Halle requires a public disputation by all who wish to enter a Prussian university as privat docenten. Other candidates may dispense with this ceremony. Kiel requires the candidate to deliver a short lecture on some topic chosen by himself, and make a public defense of his dissertation and appended theses, though the faculty may dispense with the defense of the dissertation. Königsberg, Munich, Münster, Würzburg, require a public disputation. The faculty of Marburg may excuse from the disputation at the request of the candidate.

The graduation ceremony is, at different universities, quite different, and on different occasions, at the same university, depending often, as described above in the case of Göttingen, on the wish of the candidate. It varies from a very solemn and ceremonious act, with a procession of members of the faculty in full academic costume, to the mere handing over to the candidate of his diploma by the Dean of the faculty, in a private room, in the presence of two or three professors.

The degree of Ph. D. is not granted by any of the universities in absentia, except when it is honoris causa. Bonn allows the faculty to grant the doctor’s degree ” without examination, only as a voluntary acknowledgment of excellent services to science. In very exceptional cases it may also be granted to show respect of the faculty for other than scientific services.” Würzburg also provides in the published rules for degrees honoris causa, in case two thirds of the corresponding committee of the faculty agree to it. The rules of the other faculties say nothing of such graduations, but in nearly all of them the degree is granted honoris causa, but, as a rule, only in the case of distinguished services to science.

The rules of Halle prescribe that “whoever wishes the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy must not only possess that general culture which is necessary to any high degree of scholarship, but must also have pursued with success some branch of science which is represented in the philosophical faculty. The certificate of graduation from a gymnasium or real school testifies to the former, and the dissertation and examination before the faculty to the latter.”

A careful consideration of the foregoing provisions will give one a clear idea of the conditions of the German Ph. D. It is evident that any boy of good abilities and good health, who can go to school from the beginning of his seventh year, can attain to the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy by the close of his twenty-first year, having divided his time as follows: three years in the primary school, nine years in the gymnasium, and three years in the university. As a matter of fact, owing to the circumstance that the average age of those who graduate from the gymnasium and real school is about nineteen, and that the average student spends much of the time at the university, during the first year, in recreation, thus requiring another year to complete his course, he will not get his degrees before he is twenty-three or four.

When we compare this condition of circumstances with that prevailing in American colleges, most of us will, I am sure, be surprised at the result. If we take any of our leading colleges we shall find that twenty is below the average age at which the classes leave college, and that if the college gives the doctor’s degree on examination, it usually prescribes at least two years’ further study, bringing the lowest age at which this degree is granted to at least twenty-two. The average age of some of the recent graduating classes at Harvard College was twenty-three and one half. Counting two years more as necessary for the degree, candidates would be on the average twenty-five and one half before they would be admitted to the examination. In some of the other colleges, where the average age is at least one or one and one-half years younger, as at the University of Pennsylvania, the age of applicants would still be twenty-three or twenty-four, — the same age as that of the German applicants.

One can also get a pretty clear idea as to the extent and severity of the examinations for the degree. They certainly cannot fairly require more in the way of knowledge than what a man can acquire within three years faithfully devoted to study. This means, of course, very much more in some studies than in others, owing to the place which certain lines of study hold in the preparatory course of study. Thus the gymnasium course is a special preparation for the course in philology, and it is, of course, perfectly fair to require of the candidate in this department a much more extensive knowledge of his subject than in political economy, for example, where all the candidate knows of the subject is what he has acquired in his three years’ course.

Taken all in all, it is pretty certain that it requires more hard work to get the degree of Ph. D. from a good American college, requiring post-graduate residence for two years, than from a German university. Why is it that the latter is considered of more value? This can only be answered after a discussion of the different conditions under which the two degrees are acquired, which would take a lengthy article for itself.

 

Image Source:  Edmund Janes James: Twelfth President of the Economic Association, 1910American Economic Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1944).

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Alumnus, economics Ph.D. Harold Glenn Moulton, 1914

 

 

________________________

Besides being of interest to us as the first President of the Brookings Institution, Harold Glenn Moulton started his career on the faculty of the University of Chicago after having earned a doctorate there in 1914. This post provides a time line of his career followed by links to some of his early books, a few of which (Principles of Money and Banking, Exercises and Questions for Use with “Principles of Money and Banking”, and The Financial Organization of Society) clearly include course readings used in the Department of Political Economy and the School of Commerce and Administration (i.e. Business School) of the University of Chicago at the time.

Another posting provides interesting anecdotes of a biographical nature up to the time that Moulton moved from Chicago to Washington, D.C. in 1922.

________________________

Harold Glenn Moulton: Life and Career

1883. Born November 7, in Rose Lake Township (later LeRoy), Michigan.

1903-5. Student, Albion College.

1905-7. Student, University of Chicago. Ph.B. (1907)

1908-1909. Teacher at Evanston Academy.

1909-10. Fellow in Political Economy, University of Chicago.

1910. Travelling Fellow (to Europe for research on transportation systems).

1910-11. Assistant in Political Economy at the University of Chicago.

1911-14. Instructor in Political Economy at the University of Chicago.

1914. Ph.D. awarded, University of Chicago. Thesis title: Waterways vs. railways.

1914-18. Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Chicago.

1918-22. Associate Professor of Political Economy at the University of Chicago.

1921. Head of the Institute of Economics, Washington, D.C.

1922. Professor of Political Economy at the University of Chicago.

1927-52. President, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

1952. Retirement. Brookings President emeritus.

1965, December 14. Died in Charles Town West Virginia.

 

Selected early (i.e. downloadable) works by Moulton

Principles of Money and Banking: A Series of Selected Materials, with Explanatory Introductions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916.

Exercises and Questions for Use with “Principles of Money and Banking”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916.

Readings in the Economics of War. J. Maurice Clark, Walton H. Hamilton and Harold G. Moulton (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1918.

The War and Industrial Readjustments. In The University of Chicago War Papers, No. 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, April 1918.

The Financial Organization of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1921.

America and the Balance Sheet of Europe (together with John Foster Bass). New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1921.

The Control of Germany and Japan (together with Louis Marlio). Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1944.

 

Image Source: The University of Chicago Magazine, Volume V, No. 4 (February 1913), p. 115

 

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. (1903), Canadian Humorist Stephen Leacock.

It is not every day that one stumbles upon a history-of-economics arc connecting Thorstein Veblen to Groucho Marx and Jack Benny. The economist that connected the iconoclast economist to those veterans of vaudeville comedy is the Canadian humorist and Chicago student of Thorstein Veblen, Stephen Butler Leacock.

First I post here some data (the actual starting point of my background check of Leacock, the Chicago Ph.D.) found in the University of Chicago’s registers of its Ph.D.’s and annual catalogues.

The author’s autobiographical Preface to Leacock’s greatest hit, Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912) follows. The stories themselves strike most, if not all, of the same chords that Garrison Keillor’s News from Lake Wobegon has played over the past decades. 

Finally I will allow myself the short-cut of quoting Wikipedia to complete the sketch of both sides of this most interesting fellow. 

The McGill economics department entry for Stephen Leacock.

 

_____________________

Stephen Butler Leacock
University of Chicago Ph.D. in Political Economy, 1903.

Thesis Title: The doctrine of laissez faire.

 A.B. University of Toronto, 1891.

1889-99. Instructor in French and German, Upper Canada College.
1899-1900. Graduate Student, University of Chicago.
1921. Head of Department of Economics and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
1931, April 1. Professor and Head of Department of Economics and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
1938, April 1. Professor Emeritus of Economics and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

 

_____________________

Author’s Preface to Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912)

               I KNOW no way in which a writer may more fittingly introduce his work to the public than by giving a brief account of who and what he is. By this means some of the blame for what he has done is very properly shifted to the extenuating circumstances of his life.

I was born at Swanmoor, Hants, England, on December 30, 1869. I am not aware that there was any particular conjunction of the planets at the time, but should think it extremely likely. My parents migrated to Canada in 1876, and I decided to go with them. My father took up a farm near Lake Simcoe, in Ontario. This was during the hard times of Canadian farming, and my father was just able by great diligence to pay the hired men and, in years of plenty, to raise enough grain to have seed for the next year’s crop without buying any. By this process my brothers and I were inevitably driven off the land, and have become professors, business men, and engineers, instead of being able to grow up as farm labourers. Yet I saw enough of farming to speak exuberantly in political addresses of the joy of early rising and the deep sleep, both of body and intellect, that is induced by honest manual toil.

I was educated at Upper Canada College, Toronto, of which I was head boy in 1887. From there I went to the University of Toronto, where I graduated in 1891. At the University I spent my entire time in the acquisition of languages, living, dead, and half- dead, and knew nothing of the outside world. In this diligent pursuit of words I spent about sixteen hours of each day. Very soon after graduation I had forgotten the languages, and found myself intellectually bankrupt. In other words I was what is called a distinguished graduate, and, as such, I took to school teaching as the only trade I could find that needed neither experience nor intellect. I spent my time from 1891 to 1899 on the staff of Upper Canada College, an experience which has left me with a profound sympathy for the many gifted and brilliant men who are compelled to spend their lives in the most dreary, the most thankless, and the worst paid profession in the world. I have noted that of my pupils, those who seemed the laziest and the least enamoured of books are now rising to eminence at the bar, in business, and in public life; the really promising boys who took all the prizes are now able with difficulty to earn the wages of a clerk in a summer hotel or a deck hand on a canal boat.

In 1899 I gave up school teaching in disgust, borrowed enough money to live upon for a few months, and went to the University of Chicago to study economics and political science. I was soon appointed to a Fellowship in political economy, and by means of this and some temporary employment by McGill University, I survived until I took the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1903. The meaning of this degree is that the recipient of instruction is examined for the last time in his life, and is pronounced completely full. After this, no new ideas can be imparted to him.

From this time, and since my marriage, which had occurred at this period, I have belonged to the staff of McGill University, first as lecturer in Political Science, and later as head of the department of Economics and Political Science. As this position is one of the prizes of my profession, I am able to regard myself as singularly fortunate. The emolument is so high as to place me distinctly above the policemen, postmen, street-car conductors, and other salaried officials of the neighbourhood, while I am able to mix with the poorer of the business men of the city on terms of something like equality. In point of leisure, I enjoy more in the four corners of a single year than a business man knows in his whole life. I thus have what the business man can never enjoy, an ability to think, and, what is still better, to stop thinking altogether for months at a time.

I have written a number of things in connection with my college life — a book on Political Science, and many essays, magazine articles, and so on. I belong to the Political Science Association of America, to the Royal Colonial Institute, and to the Church of England. These things, surely, are a proof of respectability. I have had some small connection with politics and public life. A few years ago I went all round the British Empire delivering addresses on Imperial organization. When I state that these lectures were followed almost immediately by the Union of South Africa, the Banana Riots in Trinidad, and the Turco-Italian war, I think the reader can form some idea of their importance. In Canada I belong to the Conservative party, but as yet I have failed entirely in Canadian politics, never having received a contract to build a bridge, or make a wharf, nor to construct even the smallest section of the Transcontinental Railway. This, however, is a form of national ingratitude to which one becomes accustomed in this Dominion.

Apart from my college work, I have written two books, one called “Literary Lapses” and the other “Nonsense Novels.” Each of these is published by John Lane (London and New York), and either of them can be obtained, absurd though it sounds, for the mere sum of three shillings and sixpence. Any reader of this preface, for example, ridiculous though it appears, could walk into a bookstore and buy both of these books for seven shillings. Yet these works are of so humorous a character that for many years it was found impossible to print them. The compositors fell back from their task suffocated with laughter and gasping for air. Nothing but the invention of the linotype machine or rather, of the kind of men who operate it made it possible to print these books. Even now people have to be very careful in circulating them, and the books should never be put into the hands of persons not in robust health.

Many of my friends are under the impression that I write these humorous nothings in idle moments when the wearied brain is unable to perform the serious labours of the economist. My own experience is exactly the other way. The writing of solid, instructive stuff fortified by facts and figures is easy enough. There is no trouble in writing a scientific treatise on the folk-lore of Central China, or a statistical enquiry into the declining population of Prince Edward Island. But to write something out of one’s own mind, worth reading for its own sake, is an arduous contrivance only to be achieved in fortunate moments, few and far between. Personally, I would sooner have written “Alice in Wonderland ” than the whole Encyclopaedia Britannica.

In regard to the present work I must disclaim at once all intention of trying to do anything so ridiculously easy as writing about a real place and real people. Mariposa is not a real town. On the contrary, it is about seventy or eighty of them. You may find them all the way from Lake Superior to the sea, with the same square streets and the same maple trees and the same churches and hotels, and everywhere the sunshine of the land of hope.

Similarly, the Reverend Mr. Drone is not one person, but about eight or ten. To make him I clapped the gaiters of one ecclesiastic round the legs of another, added the sermons of a third and the character of a fourth, and so let him start on his way in the book to pick up such individual attributes as he might find for himself. Mullins and Bagshaw and Judge Pepperleigh and the rest are, it is true, personal friends of mine. But I have known them in such a variety of forms, with such alternations of tall and short, dark and fair, that, individually, I should have much ado to know them. Mr. Pupkin is found whenever a Canadian bank opens a branch in a county town and needs a teller. As for Mr. Smith, with his two hundred and eighty pounds, his hoarse voice, his loud check suit, his diamonds, the roughness of his address and the goodness of his heart, all of this is known by everybody to be a necessary and universal adjunct of the hotel business.

The inspiration of the book, —a land of hope and sunshine where little towns spread their square streets and their trim maple trees beside placid lakes almost within echo of the primeval forest, is large enough. If it fails in its portrayal of the scenes and the country that it depicts the fault lies rather with an art that is deficient than in an affection that is wanting.

STEPHEN LEACOCK.

McGill University,
June, 1912.

Source: Stephen Leacock, Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town, London: John Lane, 1912, pp. vii-xii.

 

_______________________

Academic and political life

Disillusioned with teaching, in 1899 he began graduate studies at the University of Chicago under Thorstein Veblen, where he received a doctorate in political science and political economy. He moved from Chicago, Illinois to Montreal, Quebec, where he eventually became the William Dow Professor of Political Economy and long-time chair of the Department of Economics and Political Science at McGill University.

He was closely associated with Sir Arthur Currie, former commander of the Canadian Corps in the Great War and principal of McGill from 1919 until his death in 1933. In fact, Currie had been a student observing Leacock’s practice teaching in Strathroy in 1888. In 1936, Leacock was forcibly retired by the McGill Board of Governors—an unlikely prospect had Currie lived.

Leacock was both a social conservative and a partisan Conservative. He opposed giving women the right to vote, disliked non-Anglo-Saxon immigration and supported the introduction of social welfare legislation. He was a staunch champion of the British Empire and the Imperial Federation Movement and went on lecture tours to further the cause.

Although he was considered as a candidate for Dominion elections by his party, it declined to invite the author, lecturer, and maverick to stand for election. Nevertheless, he would stump for local candidates at his summer home.

Literary Life

Early in his career, Leacock turned to fiction, humour, and short reports to supplement (and ultimately exceed) his regular income. His stories, first published in magazines in Canada and the United States and later in novel form, became extremely popular around the world. It was said in 1911 that more people had heard of Stephen Leacock than had heard of Canada. Also, between the years 1915 and 1925, Leacock was the most popular humorist in the English-speaking world.

A humorist particularly admired by Leacock was Robert Benchley from New York. Leacock opened correspondence with Benchley, encouraging him in his work and importuning him to compile his work into a book. Benchley did so in 1922, and acknowledged the nagging from north of the border.

Near the end of his life, the American comedian Jack Benny recounted how he had been introduced to Leacock’s writing by Groucho Marx when they were both young vaudeville comedians. Benny acknowledged Leacock’s influence and, fifty years after first reading him, still considered Leacock one of his favorite comic writers. He was puzzled as to why Leacock’s work was no longer well known in the United States.

During the summer months, Leacock lived at Old Brewery Bay, his summer estate in Orillia, across Lake Simcoe from where he was raised and also bordering Lake Couchiching. A working farm, Old Brewery Bay is now a museum and National Historic Site of Canada. Gossip provided by the local barber, Jefferson Short, provided Leacock with the material which would become Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912), set in the thinly-disguised Mariposa.

Although he wrote learned articles and books related to his field of study, his political theory is now all but forgotten. Leacock was awarded the Royal Society of Canada’s Lorne Pierce Medal in 1937, nominally for his academic work.

Source: From the Wikipedia article “Stephen Leacock”.

Image Source: PMA Productions, Extraordinary Canadians. Margaret Macmillan’s Episode on Stephen Leacock.

Categories
Chicago Curriculum Fields

Chicago. Gordon, Fischer and Friedman Memos on Money Core Courses. 1972

When Milton Friedman went on leave from the University of Chicago in 1971-72, two assistant professors who had received their Ph.D.’s from M.I.T. were left minding the two core courses in “money” (a.k.a. “macroeconomics”) at Chicago. In this post I first provide the course listings and staffing for the core fields and then the transcription of an exchange of memos between Robert J. Gordon and Stanley Fischer (the two assistant professors just mentioned) on the one hand and their senior colleague Milton Friedman on the other.

The (then) young colleagues have tread most gingerly in the matter of overhauling the Chicago money courses. Friedman for his part has given them a “revise-and-resubmit” sort of response for their efforts. Perhaps Economics in the Rear-View Mirror will get lucky and receive a comment from Messrs. Gordon and Fischer about their memos’ ultimate impact on the Chicago core.

______________________________

 

Graduate Courses in 1971-72
Core Fields and Faculty

PRICE THEORY

300. Price Theory. McCloskey.
301. Price Theory. Becker, Evenson, Harberger.
302. Price Theory. Becker, H. Johnson
303. General Equilibrium Theory. Mundell.
307. Mathematical Methods in the Social and Administrative Sciences. Theil.
309. The Theory of the Allocation of Time. Ghez, Becker.

 

THEORY OF INCOME, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE PRICE LEVEL

330. Money: The Supply Side. Gordon
331. Money. Fischer, Telser.
332. Theory of Income, Employment, and the Price Level. Sjaastad, Zecher.
337.  Special Topics in Monetary Theory. Fischer.

 

 

 

Becker, Gary (Ph.D., Chicago, 1955; John Bates Clark Medal Winner, 1967). University Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1970).
Recent research: Investment in human capital; the allocation of time; household production functions and non-market behavior; marriage and fertility; law and economics.

Evenson, Robert E. [visiting faculty] (Ph.D., Chicago, 1968; Associate Professor of Economics, Yale).
Recent research: economic development and agriculture.

Fischer, Stanley (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1969). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1969).
Recent Research: Monetary growth models; lags and stabilization policy; trade and capital flows.

Friedman, Milton [on leave, 1971-72] (Ph.D., Columbia, 1946; John Bates Clark Medal Winner, 1951; President of A.E.A., 1967). Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service, Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1946).
            Recent Research: The optimum quantity of money; secular and cyclical changes in money and income; a theoretical framework for monetary analysis.

Ghez, Gilbert (Ph.D., Columbia, 1970). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1969).
Recent Research: A theory of life-cycle consumption; consumption and labor force participation; effects of education on consumption patterns.

Gordon, Robert J. (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1967). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent Research: Labor market theory and inflation; econometric models of wage and price determination; problems in measurement of capital.

Harberger, Arnold C. (Ph.D., Chicago, 1950). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1953).
Recent Research. Applied welfare economics; measurement of social opportunity costs of labor, capital, and foreign exchange; taxation and resource allocation.

Johnson, Harry G. (Ph.D., Harvard, 1958). Professor of Economics (Joint appointment with London School of Economics) (at Chicago since 1959).

Recent Research: Theory of international inflation; theory of effective protection; the two-sector model of general equilibrium; Keynesianism and monetarism.

McCloskey, Donald (Ph.D., Harvard, 1970). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent Research: Topics in the application of economics to British economic history; the Old Poor Law as a negative income tax; the economic effects of Britain’s move to free international trade.

Mundell, Robert (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1956). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1965).
Recent Research: Monetary systems and economic development; world inflation and unemployment; African currency systems; global trade policy.

Sjaastad, Larry A. (Ph.D., Chicago, 1961). Associate Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1962).
Recent research: Project evaluation in underdeveloped countries; economics of research.

Telser, Lester (Ph.D., Chicago, 1956). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1958).
Recent research: Theory of competitive markets; game theory; the theory of the core; economics of information; determinants of the returns to manufacturing industries; equilibrium price distributions.

Theil, Henri (Ph.D., Amsterdam, 1951). University Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1965).
Recent research: Econometric methodology and applications; mathematical and statistical methods in other social and administrative sciences.

Zecher, Joseph Richard (Ph.D., Ohio State, 1969). Assistant Professor of Economics and Director of the Undergraduate Program (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent research: Models of commercial banking; interest rates and expectations.

 

Source: Economics at Chicago (Departmental Brochure, 1971-72), p. 23, 26-30. This copy of the brochure found in the Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 194, Folder 4.

______________________________

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

May 22, 1972

 

To: Department of Economics Faculty
From: R. J. Gordon

Re: First Year Money Sequence

Stan Fischer, Dick Zecher, and I would like to propose the following reorganization of the topics taught in the first year graduate money-macro sequence. We have long felt that the present organization is suboptimal because (1) the student is taught two approaches to static income determination, one in 331 and one in 332, without sufficient coordination and integration of the two approaches, and (2) the separation between money supply in 330 and money demand in 331 does not work well, because money demand is involved in most of the topics covered in 330. The following reorganization puts static income determination of both the Quantity Theory and Keynesian varieties into course no. 1, in the sequence, then combines the money demand theory from the present 331 with the most important topics in the present 330 in course no. 2, and creates a third course devoted to dynamic topics.

We would like reactions, suggestions, and ideas. Presumably each course would be given twice on a staggered schedule.

 

COURSE NO. 1, to be called 331
taught in Fall and Winter

Static Income Determination in the style of Bailey and Patinkin
Elements of National Income Accounting
Doctrinal history and issues: General Theory, Patinkin vs. Friedman, Leijonhufvud
Theory of Consumption Function
Theory of Investment Behavior from Wicksell to Jorgenson

 

COURSE NO. 2, to be called 330
taught in Fall and Spring

Money demand theory
Tobin-Markowitz approach to portfolio allocation
Money supply theory
Financial intermediaries
Term structure and debt management
Modigliani-Miller and other issues in capital market theory

 

COURSE NO. 3, to be called 332
taught in Winter and Spring

Neoclassical nonmonetary growth models
Monetary growth models in the style of Foley-Sidrauski
Optimum Quantity of Money and welfare economics of inflation
Stability of inflation in Cagan-Mundell-type models
Multiplier-accelerator cycle models, simple inventory models
Models of Labor Market and Inflation
Simple models of open economies (could go in course no. 1)

 

______________________________

 

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date: July 20, 1972

To: Professor Robert J. Gordon, Department of Economics
From: Milton Friedman, Department of Economics

In re: Your Memo of May 22 on First-Year Money Sequence

 

I have been hesitant to react to your schedule of topics both because I believe a teacher must decide for himself what he is going to teach but also because my reactions naturally derive from my own experience in teaching these courses and I have not re-thought the question afresh, particularly not in the light of 330.

Nonetheless for what they are worth, let me give my offhand reactions. The basic thing that disturbs me about all three courses is that they are set up as a series of separate topics with no organizational structure in them. For both the monetary approach and the income expenditure approach there is a clear logical structure which it seems to me it is desirable to use in organizing the material. For money as for price theory the obvious structure is the demand for money, the supply of money and the equilibrium produced by their interaction. In Course 2 called 330 you have the elements of money demand theory and money supply theory, but they are put in as if they were on the same level as approaches to portfolio allocation, financial intermediaries, term structures, and the like. Obviously they are not. If financial intermediaries have any relevance to the theory of money it is because they partly enter into the money supply process; it is partly because they may affect the demand for money. Similarly, the Tobin-Markowitz approach to portfolio allocation is simply a fuller exploration of the individual decisions that underlie the demand for money. Similarly, in the income expenditure approach the logical organization has to do with aggregate demand on the one hand and aggregate supply on the other side and their interactions. Consumption theory and investment theories of income then become components of aggregate demand.

I can understand elements of national income accounting and institutional and descriptive material about the monetary and banking system coming early in the courses and preceding the kind of formal theoretical apparatus that I have been talking about, but I find it hard to see the optional history and issues coming where they do in your outline. It seems to me that the desirable thing in these courses is to teach, as best we can, the substance of what we know and believe to be the correct theory. The history of the thought enters in both in introducing and motivating the discussion; also it has always seemed to me desirable that so far as possible we should use the writings of the great men in the field to develop the points that remain valid out of their writings, and finally at the very end I can see where in discussing where we go from here and what the open issues are it is desirable to bring out the question of current and past controversies.

In connection with Course 3, that also seems to be a collection of topics. It is very hard for me to see the organizational structure that underlies it. Presumably what really is in the back of this is the notion that Courses 1 and 2 will deal with static equilibria opposition and Course 3 will deal with dynamic change. But yet that doesn’t quite fit the role of the optimum quantity of money and the welfare economics of inflation. What precisely is a logical structure underlying this? Indeed let me repeat that question for all three courses.

Needless to say, there is more than one organization that would be logically coherent and would be effective in teaching the material within these three courses, so I don’t mean to put any special weight on the one I outlined above, but I do believe that you need to bring the skeleton of your organization more clearly in the open than it is brought in the list of topics in these three courses. Incidentally, one minor item is that I do not see anywhere in any of the topics where quantity equations à la Irving Fisher, Marshall, and the early Keynes would be discussed at all.

(Dictated but not read)

MF:gv

______________________________

 

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date: July 26, 1972

To: Milton Friedman, Department of Economics
From: Bob Gordon and Stan Fischer, Department of Economics

In re: First Year Money Sequence

Thanks for your memo to Bob of July 20th. Before reacting to your comments in more detail, let us attempt to restate the aims of the proposed revision. There were two major problems with the previous arrangement: (i) overlap of material in 330 and 331, (ii) 332 as a separate course was taught either as a hodge-podge of topics or as Keynesian multipliers run riot – by the time students had got through 331 the excuse for a separate income-determination course was slim.

The basic organizational structure, which the memo admittedly did not spell out, is based on the use of a common static model, as in Patinkin, Bailey, and equations (9) – (14) of your 1970 piece – as a starting point for discussion of both monetary and income-expenditure approaches (in 331). Once the basic issues are discussed in the framework of the common model – and this will occupy much of the 331 course – the examination of the building blocks of the model will begin. Since more time is needed for the building blocks than remains in 331, some pieces had to be placed in another course and it seemed sensible to separate out money supply and money demand. This makes 330 a self-contained course with the unifying principle that each topic contributes to a model of the monetary and financial markets, whereas the building blocks allocated to 331 are those of the commodity market. The placement of the labor market in the third course is the most arbitrary decision; it should probably be shifted to 331 so that the interaction between aggregate supply and demand can be adequately developed. (Incidentally, we apologize for giving the impression that each topic mentioned is to be given equal weight – we had in mind precisely the considerations mentioned in the second half of your second paragraph in writing, for instance, “Money demand theory” followed by “Tobin-Markowitz….”)

The idea in course 3 is indeed to emphasize dynamic elements. Here the intention is to use a simple common dynamic model, which has naturally to involve expectations and intertemporal maximization, and examine its behavior under a variety of assumptions on expectations etc. This leads naturally into the other topics mentioned in 3 – with the exception of the multiplier-accelerator and inventory models which tend to be sui generis and hard to fit into the overall scheme. (The open economy models also do not fit in very well.)

On your specific comments:

  1. We also realize that each teacher decides what he wants to teach, but in view of the facts that these are the basic money courses and that students take them from different people, we feel it important to try to have some uniformity of coverage.
  2. On the history of thought: we too use this to introduce and motivate the theories and we intend that it permeate the courses rather than be discussed in the middle of 331, as our memo now indicates.
  3. The optimum quantity of money comes right out of discussions of intertemporal optimization by individuals (as in your article) and it does seem that the “Dynamic” course is a good place to discuss it.
  4. The early quantity theorist’ views will obviously be discussed in great detail in the demand for money side of 330, and also in 331; this was one of the sub-topics we intended to be included under the 331 heading “doctrinal history.”

We would very much appreciate your commenting on this since we ourselves discussed several alternative organizations for the courses, and are far from certain that our proposal is optimal. Indeed, in the light of the fact that, as you say, everyone teaches what he wants, we felt some diffidence in making our proposal. But we do think it important to have some generally-greed-upon division of material for the three courses, if only to be fair to the students faced with the Core exam.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder 5.

Image Source: Milton Friedman (undated). University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06230, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Placement Salaries

Chicago. Economics Job Offers, Salaries and Teaching Loads, 1971

 

The papers of the economic historian Earl J. Hamilton are a sammelsurium of boxes of folders with labels that are broadly chronologically descriptive but essentially useless. A scholar must plow through item by item, folder by folder as though in the attic of your deceased (messy) uncle who had hoarding issues, hoping to find the one or other family jewel between old receipts and magazine articles.

Today in my photos of a small subset of Hamilton’s papers I came across the following memo from Professor Marc Nerlove to his colleagues in the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago that tabulates the job offers received by people on the “Placement List” in early 1971. Besides naming the institutions, he provides information on the distribution of salary offers and teaching loads.

This memo is such a random find that I figured I should transcribe and post it immediately before forgetting where I found it.

________________________

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date March 1, 1971

To       All Members [of the Economics Department]
From Marc Nerlove, Chairman Placement Committee

In re: Job Placement

The following institutions have made offers to people on our Placement List

Bank of Canada

California State College
at Hayward

Eastern Michigan University

Georgia State University

Oberlin College

Princeton University

The RAND Corporation

Southern Methodist University

Trasury Board-Govt. of Canada

University of Maryland

University of Minnesota

University of Pennsylvania

U. Of Rochester (Graduate School of Management)

Vanderbilt

Western Ontario

California Institute of Technology

Clemson University

Cleveland State University

Federal Reserve Board

McMaster University

Ohio State University

Queen’s University

Rutgers

S.U.N.Y. at Binghamton

University of California, Berkeley

University of Massachusetts

University of Montreal

University of Rochester (Economics Dept)

City College of New York

University of Toronto

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

York University

 

Salaries offered have been:

$11,000** – 2 offers; $11,100 – 1 offer;
$11,400 – 2 offers; $11,500 – 1 offer;
$12,000 – 4 offers; $12,400 – 1 offer;
$12,500 – 7 offers; $13,000 – 6 offers;
$13,500 – 5 offers; $14,000 – 3 offers;
$14,500 – 2 offers; $15,000 – 2 offers;
$16,000* – 1 offer; $16,242* – 1 offer;
$17, 325* – 1 offer

Teaching loads have been:

4 offers – none;
31 offers – 2 courses per term;
1 offer -3 courses per quarter;
2 offers – 4 courses per quarter

Salaries are for the academic year unless noted.

_____________________

* Eleven months
**One offer was for half-time, eleleven months

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Earl J. Hamilton Papers. Box 2, Folder “Correspondence 1960’s-1970’s”.

Image Source: Marc Nerlove in Economics at Chicago (Departmental Brochure, 1971-72), p. 29.  This copy of the brochure found in the Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 194, Folder 4.

Categories
Bibliography Chicago

Chicago. Public Policy, Reform and Ethics. Frank Knight, 1940

Slightly over eleven pages of bibliography for two courses offered in the Fall Quarter of 1940 by Frank Knight on Economics and Social Policy (we would probably say “Public Policy” now) and the Ethics of Social Reform are found in an economics department folder in the papers of the University of Chicago President, Robert Maynard Hutchins. There is no cover letter that explains why a copy of Knight’s Economics 304 classified bibliography should have been sent to President Hutchins. 

I just wonder how Knight was able to distill this bibliography into lectures that fit into a single quarter and what was his subset of “required readings” for these courses.

___________________________________

[Course descriptions]

  1. Economic Theory and Social Policy.—A critical examination of the economic system based on property and competition; its strength and weakness as a mechanism for the reconciliation and promotion of individual and social interests, in comparison with possible alternative types of organization. Prerequisite: Economics 301 [Price and Distribution Theory (Viner)] and 302 [History of Economic Thought (Knight)] or consent of the instructor, Autumn, Tu., Th., 3:30:5:30, Knight.
  1. Ethics and Social Reform (identical with Philosophy 424).—Study of the ethical, methodological, and economic problems involved in the formuation of social policy. Prerequisite: Graduate work in economics, or philosophy, or consent of the instructors. Autumn, W., 7:30-9:30 P.M., Knight, [Charner M.] Perry.

Source: The College and the Divisions for 1940-41. Announcements, The University of Chicago, Vol. XL, No. 10 (April 25, 1949), p. 335.

___________________________________

C O P Y

Economics 304
Classified Bibliography
Fall Quarter, 1940

 

I.  Methodology

Cohen, Morris R. “The Social Sciences and the Natural Sciences” in The Social Sciences and Their Interrelations, Edited by Ogburn and Goldenweiser, pp. 437-465.

Ibid. Article “Scientific Method,” in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

Copeland, Morris A. Psychology and the Natural-Science Point of View. Psychological Review 37-6 (Nov., 1930), pp. 461-487.

Ibid. Economic Theory and Natural Science Theory, AER XXI-1 (March, 1931), pp. 67-79.

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Article on Economics. Sections on approaches, various authors.

Hutchinson, T. W. The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. See also Knight, F. H.

Keynes, J. N. The Scope and Method of Political Economy.

Knight, F. H. “Economic Theory and Nationalism”, last essay in Ethics of Competition. Part IV of this essay “Social Sciences and Social Action” was reprinted slightly abridged in Int. Jl. of Ethics, XLVI (October, 1935), pp. 1-33.

Ibid. “Nature of Economic Science in Some Recent Discussion” (review article on Ralph William Souter, Prolegomena to Relativity Economics), q.v., AER, XXIV, pp. 225-38.

Ibid. “’What is Truth’ in Economics” (review article on Hutchison, T.W., JPE, XLVIII (Feb., 1940), pp. 1-32.

Ibid. “Professor Parsons on Economic Motivation”, Canadian Jl. of Ec. and P.S. 6-3, (August, 1940), pp. 460-465.

Lundberg, George A. “Is Sociology too Scientific?” 9 (September, 1933), pp. 298-322. Also other writings.

Mayer, Joseph. “The Techniques, Basic Concepts, and Preconceptions of Science and Their Relation to Social Study.” Philosophy of Science 2 (October, 1935), pp. 431-483. Also by the same author “Social Science Methodology,” (Review of Rice Case Book) Journal of Social Philosophy I-4 (August, 1936), pp. 360-81. “Broader Value Concepts in Economics,” Journal of Social Philosophy, V-3 (April, 1940), pp. 250-69.

Nogaro, Bertrand. Le Méthode de L’Économie Politique, (rev. FHK, Annals A.A., Nov., 1939).

Parsons, T. “Some Reflections on the Nature and Significance of Economics”, QJE, XLVIII, (1938) pp. 511-45. (Rev. article on Robbins and Souter, q.v.)

Ibid. “The Motivation of Economic Activity”, Canadian J. of Ec. and P.S., 6-2 (May, 1940), pp. 187-202. See also “Reply to Professor Knight, Can. J. of Ec. and P.S., 6-3 (August, 1940), pp. 466-472.

Rice, Stuart A. (Ed.) Methods in Social Science, Case Book, 1931.

Robbins Lionel. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. (2nd ed., revised, 1935). (See also Knight rev., Int. Jl. of Ethics, XLIV, pp. 358-61.) (Rev. L. M. Fraser, Ec. J., 42, 1932, pp. 555-570—“How do we want Economists to Behave?”) See also Parsons, Souter.

Souter, Ralph W. Prolegomena to Relativity Economics, 1933. (Cf. Parsons, Knight).

Ibid. “The Nature and Significance of Economic Science” in Recent Discussion, QJE, 47, 1932-3, pp. 377-413.

 

R= on reserve.            PC = private copies at desk.

II. The Modern Economic Order.

See practically any textbook in Principles of Economics.

Clark, J. B. Distribution of Wealth. Especially Chapter I, also Preface.

(R) Knight, F. H. Syllabus for Social Science II, U. of C. (Editions before 1936.) PC

Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics. Esp. Bk. I.

(R) Marshall, L. C. The Coordination of Specialists through the Market. (Part 3 of “Industrial Society”)

(R) Roberson, D. H. The Control of Industry.

(R) Slichter, S. H. Modern Economic Society.

Taussig, F.W. Principles of Economics, Vol. 2, Chapters 67 and 68.

(R) Taylor, F. M. Principles of Economics.

 

III. (and IV.) Criticisms of the Economic Order.

See textbooks on Principles of Economics, relevant chapters; books on socialism by advocates; also “Labor” literature; also later heading “Collectivism.”

(R) Carlyle, T. Past and Present.

(R) Cole, G. D. H. The Simple Case for Socialism. Chap. I.

Davenport, Economics of Enterprise, esp. Chapters 7, 9, 11, 26, and 28.

(R) Davis, Jerome. Capitalism and its Culture.

(R) Hobson, Work and Wealth. (Also other works.)

(R) Laidler, H. W. Socialism in Thought and Action. (Especially Chapters I and II, PC)

Morris, William. News from Nowhere. (And other works.)

(R) Ruskin, John. Crown of Wild Olive. (Also other works.)

(R) Veblen, T. Theory of the Leisure Class; Theory of Business Enterprise, also other works.

(R) Ward, H. F. Our Economic Morality and the Ethic of Jesus.

(R) Webb, S. and B. The Decay of Capitalist Civilization.

 

V. Note: For Topic V (Ethics: Economic and Political Ideals),
See reading List for Economics 405. next following.

Economics 405

R = reserve, Harper Ell. PC = private copies at Desk, H.Ell.

Acton, Lord. History of Freedom and other Essays.

(R) Albee, E. History of Utilitarianism.

Anderson, B. M., Jr. Social Value. (Summarized in Value of Money, Chapter I.)

Arnold, Matthew. Prose and Poetry. Ed. A.L.Bouton (Scribner’s)

Essays in Division II, Society; Sweetness and Light, etc. P.C.

Ayres, C. E. The Nature of the Relationship between Ethics and Economics.

Ibid. Moral Confusion in Economics, Int. Jl. of Ethics, Vol. XLV (Jan., 1935) pp. 170-199. Also Knight, F. H. “Intellectual Confusion on Morals and Economics,” Int. J. of Ethics, Vol. XLV (Jan., 1935), pp. 200-220. PC (Bound together).

Bagehot, Walter, Physics and Politics.

Bonar, James. Philosophy and Political Economy.

(R) Bosanquet, B. The Philosophical Theory of the State.

(R) Burns, C. Delisle. Political Ideals. PC

(R) Bye, R. T. and Blodgett, R. H. Getting and Earning. (Rev., FHK in Ethics “Economists on Economic Ethics” (Oct., 1937), pp. 98-108.

Carritt, Edgar F. Morals and Politics.

Clarke, Mary E. A Study in the Logic of Value.

(R) Dewey, John. Liberalism and Social Action.

Ibid. Theory of Valuation (Rev., FHK in Am. J. of Soc.)

(R) Dewey and Tufts. Ethics.

Doob, L. The Plans of Man.

Dunning, Wm. A. Political Theories. (Index: Nature, Natural, etc.)

Eliot, T. S. The Idea of a Christian Society.

Elzbacher, E. Anarchism.

(R) Federal Council of Churches. Our Economic Life in the Light of Christian Ideals.

(R) Fosdick, Dorothy. What is Liberty? (Rev., FHK, JPE XLVIII (August, 1940), 586-589.)

Gooch, G. P. Political Thought in England from Bacon to Halifax.

(R) Gore, Charles, Bishop. Property: Its Rights and Duties.

Green, T. H. Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (and other writings).

(R) Halévy, E. The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism.

(R) Ibid. Original French edition (La formation du radicalism philosophique), preferable, account omission of notes in translation.)

(R) Hasbach, Wilhelm. Die Allgemeinen philosophischen Grundlagen der…politischen Ökonomie.

Hayek, F. A. V. (Ed.) Collective Economic Planning.

Ibid. Economics and Knowledge, Economica (Feb., 1937).

Herskowitz, M. W. Anthropology and Economics.

(R) Hetherington, J. W. and Muirhead, J. H. Social Purpose.

(R) Hobhouse, L. T. Elements of Social Justice.

Ibid. Liberalism (Home Univ. Lib.)

Ibid. The Rational Good.

Ibid. The Metaphysical Theory of the State.

(R) Ibid. Morals in Evolution. (On reserve in Psychology Lib.)

(R) Hocking, W. E. The Lasting Elements of Individualism. (Rev., FHK, Int. Jl. of Ethics XLVIII (Oct., 1937) pp. 109-116.

Hook, Sidney. John Dewey.

Huxley, T. H. Evolution and Ethics, etc.

(R) Jodl, Friedrich. Geschichte der Ethik.

(R) Knight, F. H. Ethics of Competition. (Especially first two and last essays). Section 4 “Social Science and Social Action” of final essay “Economic Theory and Nationalism” (PC) reprinted in Int. Jl. of Ethics, 46 (October 1936), pp. 1-33.

(R) Ibid. Ethics and Economic Reform. Economica, 1939. I. The Ethics of Liberalism; II. Idealism and Marxism; III. Christianity, published in the issues for February, August, and November, respectively. PC

Levy, Herman. Economic Liberalism.

(R) Lippman, Walter. The Good Society. (Rev., FHK, JPE XLVI (Dec., 1938) pp. 864-872)

Lyon, L. S. Government in Economic Life.

MacIver, Robert M. Society: a textbook of Sociology.

Mackenzie, F. (Ed.) Planned Society.

Mackenzie, J.S. Outlines of Social Philosophy.

Malinowski, B. The Foundations of Faith and Morals.

Marriot, J. A .R. Economics and Ethics.

May, Mark and Doob, L. Competition and Cooperation.

Mayer, Joseph. “Social Science Methodology.” (Rev., of Rice Case Book) Journal of Social Philosophy I-4 (Augusts, 1936), pp. 360-81.

Ibid. Broader Value Concepts in Economics. Journal of Social Philosophy. V-3 (April, 1940), pp. 250-69.

Ibid. Techniques and Basic Concepts of Science and their Relation to Social Study, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2-4 (Oct., 1935), pp. 431-83.

Mecklin, John M. Social Ethics.

Mezes, S. E. Ethics, Descriptive and Explanatory.

(R) Mill, J. S. Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Representative Government.

(R) Myrdal, Gunnar. Das politische element in der Nat. Ökon. Doktrinbildung.

(R) Osborne, H. Foundations of the Theory of Value.

Parsons, T. The Structure of Social Action.

(R) Ibid. The Place of Ultimate Values in Sociological Theory. Int. Jl. of Ethics, Vol. XLV (April, 1935), pp. 282-316. PC

Paulsen, Friedrich. A System of Ethics.

Perry, Charner M. “The Arbitrary as Basis for Rational Morality” Int. Jl. of Ethics, Vol. XLIII (Jan., 1933), pp. 127-144. Criticisms by various authors.

(R) Ibid. Knowledge as a Basis for Social Reform, Int. Jl. of Ethics, XLV (April, 1935), pp. 253-281. PC

Perry, R. B. The General Theory of Value. Discussion in Int. Jl. of Ethics, 40 (1930) 465-95. By various critics. Also other writings.

Pipkin, C. W. The Idea of Social Justice.

(R) Pound, R. Law and Morals.

Ibid. Introduction to the Philosophy of Law.

Ibid. The Limits of Legal Action. Int. J. Ethics. PC

Ibid. Articles in Encyclopedia of Social Sciences “Jursprudence”; “Common Law,” “Contract.”

Pribram, Karl. Die Entstehung der individualistischen Sozial-philosophie.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. The Functional Approach in Anthropology (?)

Rashdall, Hastings. Theory of Good and Evil.

Ibid. Ethics (Peoples’ books).

(R) Ritchie, D. G. Natural Rights

(R) Russell, Bertrand. Power. (Rev., FHK “Bertrand Russell on Power.” Ethics, XLIX (April, 1939), pp. 253-285 PC)

(R) Sabine, George H. History of Political Theory. (Especially Chapter XXXI on Liberalism, Chs. VIII, XXI on Natural Law; Index, Freedom, Natural Law, Utilitarianism.)

Schiller, F. C. X. Article “Value” in Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

Schmoller, Gustav. The idea of Justice in Political Economy. Annals of the A.A., Vol. IV-5 (March 1894) pp. 1-41.

Seth, James. Ethical Principles.

Sidgwick, Henry. Methods of Ethics.

Ibid. Elements of Politics.

Spann, O. The History of Economics.

(R) Spencer, H. Man versus the State

(R) Ibid. Data of Ethics.

(R) Stamp, Josiah (Lord). Christianity and Economics. (Rev., FHK Ethics. Vol. L-2 pp. 226-27.

Ibid. Motive and Method in a Christian Social Order.

Stephen, Sir Leslie. The English Utilitarians. Three volumes.

Sutherland, Alexander. Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct.

Taylor, A. E. The Problem of Conduct.

Thilly, Frank. Ethics.

Urban, W. M. Valuation.

Ibid. Article “Value Theory and Esthetics” in Schaub, Philosophy Today. (Also other articles.)

Wallas, Graham. The Great Society.

(R) Ward, Harry F. Our Economic Morality and the Ethic of Jesus. (For Econ. 304.)

Ward, Leo R. (C. S. C.) Philosophy of Value. (Valuable for Bibliography.)

Westermarck, Edward. Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas.

Wissler, Clark. Man and Culture.

Wootton, B. Plan or no Plan.

 

ECONOMICS 304
VI. CO-OPERATION

Encyclopedia of Social Sciences Article. Sections by various authors. Use for Bibliography.

Fay, C. R. Co-operation at Home and Abroad.

Warbasse, Peter. Various writings. (Leading American apostle of co-operation.)

Woolf, Leonard S. Co-operation and the Future of Industry.

 

VII. POLITICO-LEGAL ACTION; GENERAL THEORY

Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. Articles on “Political Science,” (by Hermann Heller) and on “Politics” (by Lindsay Rogers). See cross references and bibliographies.

Pound, Roscoe. Law and Morals.

Ibid. Introduction to the Philosophy of Law.

Ibid. Limits of Legal Action, Int. Jl. of Ethics. XXVII (Jan., 1917), pp. 150-167. PC

Clark, J. M. Social Control of Business. Part II.

 

VIII. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS

Backman, Jules. Government Price-Fixing.

Ibid. Articles

Blaisdell, Thomas C. The Federal Trade Commission

Childs, Marquis W. Sweden: The Middle Way.

Clark, J. M. Social Control of Business. Especially Part III.

Ibid. Preface to Social Economics.

Hardy, C. O. (et al) Wartime Control of Prices.

Hawtrey, R. G. The Economic Problem.

Herring, E. Pendleton. Public Administration and the Public Interest.

Lippincott, Benjamin E. (ed.) Government Control of the Economic Order.

Lippmann, Walter. The Good Society.

Lyon, Abramson, and Watkins and Associates. Government in Economic Life.

Lyon, L. S. and Others. The National Recovery Administration.

National Industrial Conference Board. (Myron W. Watkins) Public Regulation of Competitive Practices.

Pigou, A. C. Economics of Welfare. Chaps. in Part III.

Robertson, D. H. Control of Industry.

Soltau, R. H. The Economic Functions of the State.

Salter, Sir Arthur. The Framework of an Ordered Society.

Davis, Joseph S. On Agricultural Policy, 1926-1938. (1939, pp. 494)

Black, John D. Agricultural Reform in the United States. (1929, pp. 511).

 

IX. TAXATION AND RELIEF

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Articles on “Public Finance” (by E. R. A. Seligman) and “Taxation” (by R. M. Haig). “Inheritance Taxation” (by Wm. J. Schultz). “Income Tax” (by E. R. A. Seligman). See Cross Reference and Bibliographies.

Ibid. Articles on “Charity” (by K. L. M. Pray); “Institutions, Public” (by S. P. Breckenridge), “Public Welfare” (by E. C. Lindeman). “Poor Laws” (by Ch. W. Pipkin). See Cross References, Bibliographies.

Bastable, C. F. Public Finance.

Brown, Harry G. Economics of Taxation.

Douglas, Paul H. Social Security in the United States. (1936, 384 pages)

Epstein, A. Insecurity, a Challenge to America.

Pigou, A. C. Economics of Welfare. Chaps. in Part IV.

Ibid. A Study in Public Finance.

Seligman, E. R. A. Essays in Taxation.

Simons, H. C. Personal Income Taxation.

Warner, A. G., Queen, S. A., and Harper, E. B. American Charities and Social Work.

Wedgewood, Josiah. The Economics of Inheritance.

Woodbury, R. M. Social Insurance and Economic Analysis.

Commerce Clearing House. Social Security Act as Amended 1939.

 

X. COLLECTIVISM: ECONOMIC PLANNING

Balogh, T. H. The National Economy of Germany. E. J. 48 (1938), pp. 461-497. PC

Cole, G. D. H. Principles of Economic Planning.

Ibid. The Simple Case for Socialism

Dickinson, H. D. The Economics of Socialism.

Ibid. Price Formation in a Socialist Community. Ec. J. 43 (1933) pp. 237-250. PC

Dobb, M. Political Economy and Capitalism: Some Essays in Economic Tradition. (1937, pp. 360). (Rev. A. P. Lerner, JPE, Aug., 1939. Reply and Rejoinder JPE, April, 1940).

Durbin, E. F. M. Economic Calculus in a Planned Economy, Ec. J. 48 (1938) pp. 676-690. PC

Florinsky, M. T. Fascism and National Socialism.

Hall, R. L. The Economic System in a Socialist State. (Rev. F. H. Knight in JPE April, 1938, pp. 241-50—with Pigou.)

Hayek, F. A. v. (Ed.) Collectivist Economic Planning.

Ibid. Freedom and the Economic System. (Pub. Policy Pamph. 29)

Knight, F. H. The Place of Marginal Economics in a Collectivist System. AER, Supp. 36 (March, 1936), pp. 255-266. PC

Ibid. Socialism: The Nature of the Problem. Ethics 50 (April, 1940), pp. 253-289.

Lange, Oskar and Taylor, Fred M. On the Economic Theory of Socialism. (Lange articles previously published Rev. Ec. Studies, Vol. IV.; Taylor, AER, 19 (March, 1929), pp. 1-8.

Loucks, W. N. and Hoot, J.W. (Eds.) Comparative Economic Systems.

Mackenzie, Findlay. Planned Society.

Martin, P. W. “Some Aspects of Economic Planning.” in Economic Essays in Honor of Mitchell, pp. 315-354.

Mises, L. von. Socialism.

Pigou, A. C. Socialism versus Capitalism. (Rev. F. H. Knight, JPE April, 1935.

Robbins, Lionel. Economic Planning and International Order.

Soule, George. A Planned Society.

Speier, Hans. Freedom and Social Planning, Am. Jl. Soc. (Jan., 1937)

Sutton, E. The Relation between Economic Theory and Economic Policy. PC

Sykes, E. R. Contemporary Economic Systems.

Welk, Wm. G. Fascist Economic Policy.

Westmeyer, R. E. Modern Economic and Social Systems.

Wootton, Barbara. Plan or no Plan. (F. H. Knight rev. “Barbara Wootton on Economic Planning,” JPE XLIII (Dec., 1935), pp. 809-14.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 72, Folder 9 “Economics Department, 1939-1943”.

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03515, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Fields

Chicago. Ph.D. Exam for Money, Banking and Monetary Policy, 1946

This transcribed Ph.D. examination for Money, Banking and Monetary Policy comes from a copy of the exam in the papers of Norman Kaplan at the University of Chicago archives. According to the Course Announcements, this field was covered by four quarter courses: both Money (330) and Banking Theory and Monetary Policy (331), and either The Theory of Income and Employment (335) or Business-Cycle Theory (432). In 1945-46 the first two courses were taught by Lloyd Mints. Jacob Marschak and Oscar Lange were scheduled to teach Economics 335 and 432, respectively, but I believe Lange was away that year in Washington, D.C. In any event the questions reveal emphasis on the material covered by Mints.

_________________________

 

MONEY, BANKING AND MONETARY POLICY
Written examination for the Ph.D.

Autumn Quarter, 1946

 

Time: 4 hours. Answer all questions.

 

  1. Discuss the effect of tax reduction on employment.
  2. Discuss the comparative advantages of fixed and flexible foreign exchange rates.
  3. A newspaper story of Jan. 21, 1946, on President Truman’s budget message, had the following headlines and first two paragraphs:

“TRUMAN MAPS FIRST DEBT CUT SINCE 1930
CASH ON HAND TO OFFSET ’47 DEFICIT.

“Washington—President Truman’s first budget proposes to spend $4,300,000,000 more that the government will collect, but for the first time since 1930, it won’t increase the national debt.
“Mr. Truman proposes to withdraw from the Treasury sufficient funds no only to offset this deficit but also to reduce the debt by $7,000,000,000.”

Discuss the monetary effect of this budget proposal. Would one expect the proposed debt cut to be deflationary or inflationary? Why? How would the effect compare with such alternatives as refunding the debt? Borrowing more to add to cash balances?

  1. The average amount of money (deposits plus hand-to-hand currency) in circulation in 1929 was $55 billion. At present (1946) the stock of money is $170 billion, or approximately three times the $55 billion of 1929. If we assume that the volume of transactions would normally (with a continued high level of employment) increase at the rate of 4% per annum, the volume of transactions in 1947, with a high level of employment, would then be approximately twice that of 1929 (1 compounded annually at the rate of 4% for 18 years amounts to 2.03). If we then assume that velocity will be the same in 1947 as it was in 1929, and that the stock of money will be the same in 1947 as in late 1946, we have approximately the following index numbers for 1947, using 1929 as a base:

M = 3.0
V = 1.0
T = 2.0

Therefore      P = 1.5

Discuss the reasonableness of the various assumptions made in this analysis and of 1.5 as the possible index of the price level in 1947. Is there any good reason for using 1929 as the base year rather than, say, 1940?

  1. The following statement, made in a recent CED [Committee for Economic Development] monograph, refers to the high post-war level of holdings of cash and government bonds by the public as compared with pre-war holdings:

“It is sometimes implied that the liquid assets will disappear as they are used. But money is not extinguished by use; it simply passes from the hand of the buyer to the hand of the seller. The use of liquid assets by some members of the public to buy goods, services, or securities from other members of the public will not reduce total liquid-asset holdings but only transfer their ownership.”

Suppose the liquid assets were used to such an extent as to bring on a substantial rise in the price level. Does the fact that they are not extinguished by use imply that the danger, from this source, of a further rise in prices would be unchanged?

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Norman M. Kaplan Papers, Box 3, Folder 5.

Image Source: 1936 Social Science Research Building. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf2-07476, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Stanford Syllabus

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus Simon James McLean, 1897

It all began as a humble search for a single mosaic tile — where did Simon James McLean study before going to the University of Chicago and becoming one of its first four Ph.D.’s in Political Economy? Before getting an answer to that question, I uncovered many other details of a life begun in Brooklyn (1871) with first academic degrees from the University of Toronto (A.B., 1894; LL.B., 1895), then A.M. at Columbia (1896) and finally Ph.D. from the University of Chicago (1897).

After getting the Ph.D. McLean’s career literally went south, namely to the University of Arkansas (1897-1902), then west to Stanford (1902-05), and then back north to the University of Toronto (1906) at the age of 35.

From the University of Chicago’s registers of its Ph.D’s. for the years 1921, 1931, and 1938 I discovered that McLean morphed from a leading academic light regarding the economics of railroad regulation into a policy mover-and-shaker on the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada (1908-1938). The man covered a lot of territory in his life.

But wait, there’s more. While on McLean’s trail through Fayetteville, Arkansas, I came across the course descriptions at the University of Arkansas for economics and sociology that included his textbook choices. Since there is no indication of anyone else offering any of these courses, it would appear the young professor had a teaching load for each semester of 14 hours per week. I think it is reasonable to assume that his choices of topics and texts represent an average of his own earlier coursework at Columbia and Chicago. I have added links to all the texts given in the course descriptions.

 

Sources:

Theses of the University of Chicago, Doctors of Philosophy. June 1893—December 1921. Chicago: Harper Memorial Library, University of Chicago.

University of Chicago Announcements, Register Number, Doctors of Philosophy. June, 1893—April, 1931. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 122-127.

University of Chicago Announcements, Register of Doctors of Philosophy. Jan, 1893—April, 1938. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 139-144.

______________________________

 

McLean, Simon James.
University of Chicago thesis (1897):
The railway policy of Canada.

McLean’s Ph.D. thesis does appear to have been published as such. However, he did write a series of articles for the Journal of Political Economy that together account for much of his dissertation work.

An early chapter in Canadian railroad policy. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 6 (June 1898), 323-352.
Canadian railways and the bonding question. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 7 (September 1899), pp. 500-542.
The railway policy of Canada, 1849 to 1867: I. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 9 (March 1901), pp.
The railway policy of Canada, 1849 to 1867: II. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 9 (June 1901), pp. 351-383.

______________________________

 

Arkansas University.—Dr. Simon James McLean has been appointed Professor of History and Political Economy at the University of Arkansas. He was born at Brooklyn, N.Y., June 14, 1871. After passing through the public schools of Quebec and Cumberland, Canada, and the Ontario Collegiate Institute of Ottawa, he entered the Toronto University. Here he obtained the degree of A.B. in 1894 and that of LL.B. in 1895. He then pursued further graduate studies at Columbia, receiving his A.M. in 1896, and at Chicago, where, in 1897, he obtained the degree of Ph.D. In the same year he was appointed Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Arkansas. Professor McLean has published:

Tariff History of Canada.” University of Toronto Studies, 1895. Pp.53.
The University Settlement Movement.” Canadian Magazine, March, 1897,
Early Railway History of Canada.” Ibid., March, 1899.
Early Canadian Railway Policy.” Journal of Political Economy, June, 1898.
Canadian Railways and the Bonding Question.” Ibid., September, 1899.

 

Source: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 14 (September 1899) p. 64 [page 220 in printed volume].

______________________________

 

Course offerings in economics and sociology at the University of Arkansas
1899-1900

ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY.
S. J. McLean, Professor.

 

The courses offered in this department are designed to afford such instruction as will be advantageous to those who intend to enter public life, or those callings which will bring them closely in touch with the activities of citizenship. Course 1 is required before more advanced courses in this department are taken.

  1. Principles of Economics (both terms)……….2

Recitations, prescribed readings, reports and debates. Text-book: Walker, Political Economy [3rd edition, 1888 ].

  1. Industrial History of America and Europe since 1763 (first term)……….3

The leading industrial facts of this period are considered, including panics and trusts. A detailed study of some of the more important industries will also be made. Lectures, reports, and prescribed readings. Selected portions of Rand’s Economic History [Selections Illustrating Economic History since the Seven Years’ War 3rd ed., 1895]will be studied.

  1. Banking (first part of second term)……….3

The principles of Banking and the history of Banking Systems. [Chapters on the theory and history of banking. 1st ed., New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891. ] Lectures, recitations, reports, and readings. Text-book: Dunbar, Chapters in the Theory and History of Banking.

  1. Money (latter part of second term)……….3

The principles of Money and the history of Monetary Systems are considered. [From 1898-99 Catalogue: “Text-books: Walker and Jevons” [Francis A. Walker, Money (1878). William Stanley Jevons, Money and the mechanism of exchange (1875).]

  1. Tariff History and Problems (first term)……….2

United States, England, France and Germany. Special attention will be devoted to the tariff history of the United States. Text-book: Taussig, Tariff History of the United States. [1888] This will be supplemented by lectures and use of government documents.

  1. History of Economic Thought, from Plato and Aristotle to the Present (second term) ……….2

Text-book: Ingram’s History of Political Economy [1887]; supplementary readings and reports will also be required.

  1. Public Finance (first term)……….3

Principles and history of taxation, management of public debts, consideration of governmental activities, etc. Text-book: Plehn, Introduction to Public Finance [1896]. Lectures, readings and use of government documents.

  1. Transportation. Its History and Problems (second term)……….3

The economic aspects of water transportation, the great lakes, canal systems, and the Mississippi; the evolution of the railroad system, railroad geography, state versus private ownership, methods of government control, railroad finances, etc. Lectures, prescribed readings, and use of original material. Text-book: Hadley, Railroad Transportation. [1885]

  1. Principles of Sociology (first term)……….2

This course considers the elements and conditions of social growth and progress. Recitations, lectures and reading of assigned chapters in Spencer’s Principles of Sociology [Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3.] and in Gidding’s Principles of Sociology [1896]. Text-book: Fairbanks’s Introduction to Sociology [1896].

  1. Problems of Social Growth (second term)……….2

Trade-unionism, arbitration and conciliation, socialism, communism, co-operation and profit-sharing. Lectures and reports. For reference: Ely, The Labor Movement in America [1886], and Ely, French and German Socialism [1883].

  1. Commerce (first term)……….2

Theory of foreign commerce; investigation of the commercial resources of the leading countries of the present. Students will be expected to acquaint themselves with the United States Consular Reports. Text-book: Chisholm, Smaller Commercial Geography [1897 Handbook of Commercial Geography.].

  1. Labor Legislation (second term)……….2

History and critical investigation of the attitude of the State towards Labor; apprenticeship laws, combination laws, trade union recognition, factory legislation, etc. For reference, Stimson, Handbook to the Labor Law of the United States. [1896]

 

Source: Catalogue of the University of Arkansas, 1899-1900. Fayetteville, Ark., pp. 77-79.

______________________________

PROF. M’LEAN [sic] RESIGNS
HEAD OF ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT TO GO TO TORONTO.

Will Leave Stanford in January to Take Professsorship in Economics of Commerce and Transportation.

Professor Simon James McLean, present head of the Department of Economics, has tendered his resignation and will leave Stanford at the end of the present semester. He goes to accept the professorship of economics of commerce and transportation at the University of Toronto in Canada. Professor McLean has been contemplating this step for some time, as, aside from the fact that the work at Toronto will be along lines offering him better opportunities for advancement, the call from his alma mater was one which he felt he could not refuse. Dr. Jordan has accepted Professor McLean’s resignation and in his letter accepting it speaks as follows: “We recognize your ripe scholarship, your high ideals in education, your calmness of judgment, and your possession of those traits of character and thought which mark the gentleman among other men. As a teacher in a line of work so much afflicted by hasty judgment, by sensationalism and emotionalism, you have always held the attitude of a careful and patient investigator, one of the most solid and accurate within the range of my acquaintance.” It is still too early for any definite statement regarding the filling of Professor McLean’s place in the Department of Economics, as he will continue in charge of his classes until the twenty-second of December. Professor McLean came to Stanford in 1902 from the University of Arkansas, where he was professor of economics and sociology. He took his A. B. at the University of Toronto in 1884 and his degree of LL.B. in 1895 from the same university. The degrees A. M. from Columbia and Ph.D. from Chicago came in 1896 and 1897. Professor McLean is a recognized authority on the subject of railway rates, and has been a member of several special commissions appointed by the government to investigate conditions along this line.

 

Source: The Stanford Daily, Vol. XXVII, Issue 66, November 28, 1905.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Economists

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus Henry Rand Hatfield, 1897

Henry Rand Hatfield (1866-1945) was among the first four Ph.D.’s in Political Economy at the University of Chicago in 1897. The following items present a reasonably complete picture of the life and career of this scholar. Numbers people can be sorted into accountants and statisticians. In the early years of graduate economics education they shared the same tidal pool on the eve of their respective evolutionary development paths. Hatfield had a long and distinguished career in accounting. Of particular interest to historians of economics is his paper “An Historical Defense of Bookkeeping,” originally published in The Journal of Accountancy, April 1924.

For an appreciation of his contributions to accounting, see the biographical note  from S.A. Zeff and T.F. Keller, eds. Financial Accounting Theory I: Issues and Controversies, Second edition. McGraw Hill, p. 502 (posted at the website Accounting Hall of Fame). 

____________________________________

 

660. HENRY RAND HATFIELD.

Brother of Nos. 368 [Emily Marcia Hatfield (Hobart)]  and 389 [James Taft Hatfield].

            Born 27 Nov. 1866, in Chicago. Prepared in Northwestern University Academy. A.B. [Northwestern, 1892]. Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1897. Adelphic. Beta Theta Pi; Phi Beta Kappa. Kirk contestant. Graduate student University of Chicago, 1892-94. Fellow in Political Economy, University of Chicago. Instructor, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., 1894-96 and 1897-98; Instructor in Political Economy, University of Chicago, 1898-1902; Assistant Professor of Political Economy, and Dean of College of Commerce and Administration, 1902 . Contributor to Journal of Political Economy.

Married Ethel A. Glover, 15 June 1898, at Washington, D. C.

Children—      John Glover, born 24 Jan. 1900.

                       Robert Miller, born 16 Aug. 1902.

Residence, 5825 Kimbark Ave., Chicago, 111.

 

Source: Northwestern University. Alumni Record of the College of Liberal Arts, 1903 (Charles B. Atwell ed.). Chicago: Lakeside Press, 1903, p. 225.

____________________________________

 

Henry Rand Hatfield, Accounting: Berkeley and Systemwide

Henry Rand Hatfield was born in Chicago, Illinois, on November 27, 1866, son of Reverend Robert Miller Hatfield and Elizabeth Taft Hatfield; and died on December 25, 1945 in Berkeley, California. He was married to Ethel Adelia Glover in 1898, and is survived by his widow and two children, John Glover Hatfield and Elizabeth Glover, and six grandchildren. A second son, Robert Miller Hatfield, died in 1927 at the age of twenty-five.

Professor Hatfield attended school in Evanston, Illinois and here, in 1884, he entered Northwestern University. After two years of college he withdrew to take employment in a bond house; but five years later he returned to complete work for a bachelor’s degree. Following this he enrolled at the University of Chicago where he received, in 1897, the degree of Ph.D. His chief college interest was in the classics. He studied economics and political science, however, at Northwestern and Chicago and these studies enabled him to accept an instructorship at Washington University, St. Louis, in 1893. In 1898 he was appointed instructor at the University of Chicago. Two years later, at the suggestion of the University but not at its expense, he visited Germany to observe the organization of business teaching in that country. The University of Chicago had established its College of Commerce and Administration in 1898, the same year in which he had joined its staff, and the survey of German practice was undertaken in the interest of this technical program. In 1902 he was appointed assistant professor and dean of the new college, serving until 1904.

His connection with the University of California began in 1904, when he was appointed Associate Professor of Accounting. Five years later, he was appointed Professor of Accounting and Secretary of the College of Commerce. In 1916 his title was changed to Dean of the College of Commerce–a position which he held until 1920. From December, 1915 to June, 1916; from May, 1917 to July, 1918; and from 1920 to 1923, he was Dean, Acting Dean, and Dean of the Faculties. As Dean of the Faculties he served as the principal administrative officer under the President of the University. As Secretary and Dean of the College of Commerce, he was able, during eleven years, to guide the development of the expanding College of Commerce. Emphasis upon sound fundamental training, broad, rather than highly specialized instruction, and insistence upon intellectual discipline were characteristics of his plans. In his capacity as teacher, he conducted classes in geography, economics, banking, international trade, and business organization, as well as in accounting and finance; but after 1917 he confined himself to accounting and finance. Perhaps his greatest interest was in the elementary course in accounting, in his advanced seminars in accounting problems, and in the history of accounting. In all he achieved more than ordinary results.

During World War I Professor Hatfield was on leave from the University of California from July, 1918 to June, 1919. For most of this time he was Director of the Division of Planning and Statistics of the War Industries Board–a responsible position in which his technical competence, his administrative ability, and his skill in establishing friendly relations with his associates, were displayed. After the War Industries Board ceased operations he remained in Washington for a few months as expert with the Advisory Tax Board, discussing the formulation of government policy during the period immediately following the war.

His friends and associates will always remember him as a shrewd, witty, and affectionate person, endowed with a breadth of interest which caused him to be helpful to many people in many ways. This was true of community and church matters to which he gave his time, and of University affairs in which he played a significant and sometimes a very influential role. His permanent reputation will, however, rest upon his contributions to accounting and to the accounting profession.

His contribution to the profession includes organization work of the first quality assisting in the reorganization of the State Board of Accountancy, and in the formation of the California State Society of Certified Accountants soon after he arrived in California. These new or revived institutions introduced new methods into local practice at a time when the morale of California accountants was at its lowest ebb.

His ideas upon accounting were even more significantly expressed in written form. Here his major work was the volume Modern Accounting, published in 1908, repeatedly reprinted, and in 1927 rewritten and enlarged under the title of Accounting, its Principles and Problems. Before 1908, when Modern Accounting was first issued, almost nothing above the level of discussion of technical rules and perfunctory procedures had been written on the subject for many years; Hatfield’s original and systematic discussion has been described as a white light in a previously rather dark landscape. By 1927 the situation had changed somewhat; but his fuller treatment was again welcomed with appreciation and respect, and the later volume has preserved its significance during the following years. In 1938 and 1940 he rounded out his contribution by preparing considered statements of accounting principles in collaboration with other writers.

Besides these major works, Professor Hatfield exerted influence through a long succession of reviews and articles providing selective, constructive, and critical discussion of accounting principles as they were stated and restated in England and in the United States over more than two decades. His concise and vigorous style, his clarity of thought and tinge of humor, and his practice of restricting each article to the consideration of a few points enlarged the impact of his ideas upon the accounting and legal professions for which he wrote.

Finally, and this amounted to more than a diversion in his long career, Professor Hatfield maintained a consistent interest in the history of his subject, which resulted in the accumulation of a substantial body of little-known material and in the publication of many articles. In this work he benefited from the classical training of his early days. It is probably safe to say that he was the best informed scholar on the history of accounting in the United States and perhaps in any country. His persistent historical studies and his sound general knowledge enabled him to trace the beginnings of practice and of theories upon which modern systems have been built. It is a loss to economic and to cultural history that the fruits of his research were never gathered together and comprehensively set forth.

Professor Hatfield, at one time or another, was president of the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting, vice president of the American Economic Association, delegate of the United States Government to the International Congress on Commercial Education, and Honorary Member of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants. From 1923 to 1928 he was Senator of Phi Beta Kappa. In 1928 Beta Alpha Psi, the national accounting fraternity, gave him an award for the most outstanding contribution to the literature of accountancy for that year. He was Dickinson lecturer at Harvard in 1942. He received the LL.D. degree from Northwestern University in 1923 and from the University of California in 1940. In conferring this last degree President Sproul referred to him as a “constant champion of the logical approach, the sane view, and the clear disclosure of the essential facts of goods and proprietorship; discoverer of scientific principles and sound philosophy in a field obscured by dogma and convention; one able to find life and even humor in the dust of ledgers.” The essential modesty of the man was a quality which endeared him to his friends, but it will be pleasant to remember that he received during his life some of the recognition which he so richly deserved.

Academic Senate Committee Stuart Daggett Ira B. Cross Lucy Ward Stebbins

 

Source: 1945, University of California: In Memoriam, pp. 98-102.

 

Image Source: Website Berkeley Heritage, Henry Rand Hatfield house (Berkeley’s Northside), 2695 Le Conte Ave. at La Loma, 1908.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business M.I.T. Undergraduate

Chicago. Paul Samuelson’s 50th Class Reunion Questionnaire, 1985

For his 50th class reunion Paul A. Samuelson filled out the following one page questionnaire. Besides revealing the youthful musical taste of this Chicago educated Wunderkind, Samuelson’s responses sometimes even illustrate his writing style (e.g. 7 8/9 grandchildren). I was most struck by his declared favorite professor during these formative years. Guess, then read.

____________________________________

CLASS OF 1935 SURVEY

Your former classmates are interested in what you’re doing.

 

Name Paul A. Samuelson                Maiden Name [blank]

Address MIT E52-383

City/State/Zip Code Cambridge, MA 02139

Your past and present occupation and employer Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Anything you wish to mention about your job Overpaid/underworked

Spouse’s name and occupation Risha Samuelson, Painter

No. of children 6       No. of grandchildren 7 8/9            No. of great-grandchildren [blank]

Degrees received and institutions attended AB U of C 1935; AM 1936, Ph.D. Harvard 1941, 2 dozen honorary degrees, including Chicago

Favorite class and professor at the University, and why Henry Simons, Economics! Great economist, great person.

Most rewarding, exciting, or unusual experience as a student Being reborn as a scientist-scholar

Most memorable moments since graduation Nobel Prize, 1970; birth of triplets, 1953; first-born, 1946

Favorite song or band of the ‘30s Wayne King, Hal Kemp, Paul Whiteman

Other affiliations (clubs, professional associations, political parities) [blank]

Have you received any civic, community, or academic honors? Yes

Accomplishments, interests, hobbies that you find especially significant Tennis

Future plans Economic writing

Please share any other information that your classmates may find interest I was given a great education, in the Midway’s golden age

 

Please return this form by April 15, 1985. You may attach an additional sheet if needed. Mail to: Reunion ’85 Network, 5757 S. Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637

[pencil note: Sent 2/22-85]

 

Source: David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Paul A. Samuelson Papers, Box 4, Folder “Personal”.

Image Source:  Henry Calvert Simons. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07614, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.