Category: Chicago

Categories
AEA Chicago Funny Business

Chicago Hotel Costs for the 1924 AEA Meeting

Part of the cost-of-professors involves the costs of attending professional meetings. Just for a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how hotel rates have changed, we see that the headquarters hotel for the 1924 AEA meeting was The Congress where a double room (with private bath) cost $6.00 and up. (The rates quoted below appear to be day rates when one compares with rates quoted, e.g. for the La Salle Hotel, in The Official Hotel Red Book and Directory 1920.) 

A quick check of Booking.com and Orbitz gives rates for today at The Congress Plaza Hotel  “from $149”. I presume that rate is for double-occupancy-with-bath as well. We have an increase of $149/$6.00, a nearly 25-fold increase in the price over a 91 year period, about an average 3.5% annual rate of increase. OK, maybe the TV, phone and internet connections plus all that shampoo and conditioner should be adjusted for so this is an overstatement of hotel rate inflation.

Over the same period the Consumer Price Index for the U.S. has grown nearly 14-fold, about an average annual rate of increase of 2.9%. Of course there is room for discussion about how well this particular index handles the changing market baskets and quality differences over nearly a century.

1924_HotelCostsAEAmeetingChicago

More historical images of the Congress Hotel.

Postcard of the Auditorium Hotel.

Postcard of the Sherman Hotel.

 

Source: Announcement of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association to be held at Chicago, Illinois, beginning Sunday Evening, December 38, and closing at Noon Wednesday, December 31. 1924. Issue of November 10.  From the University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 22, folder 8.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. J. Laurence Laughlin thoughts on “Problems of the Young Scholar”. 1916

A quarter of a century is a long-time in dog-years but does not even span a healthy scholar’s productive lifetime. Nonetheless, the University of Chicago (founded in 1890 with classes beginning October 1892) celebrated its Quarter-Centennial with much pomp and proportionate circumstance. The address to the Chicago Ph.D.’s attending the celebration was given by the founding and long-serving head of the Department of Political Economy, J. Laurence Laughlin. He was among the earliest domestically trained American Ph.D.’s. These reflections on the life of a young scholar cover the first forty years of economics Ph.D.’s, Made-in-USA. The address provides unique insight into the formative years of organized graduate education in North American economics and academic career paths.

_______________________________

THE ASSOCIATION OF DOCTORS OF PHILOSOPHY

The Association of Doctors of Philosophy met in the Quadrangle Club at 12:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 6 [1916]. Two hundred and forty-eight doctors were present, and many more sent congratulatory messages. In the absence of President Judson, Dean James Rowland Angell welcomed the guests at luncheon, and expressed the great satisfaction of the University in the large body of doctors who so ably represent it in all parts of the world. In response to an invitation from the Association, Professor J. Laurence Laughlin delivered an address.

 

PROBLEMS OF THE YOUNG SCHOLAR

By J. Laurence Laughlin Professor and Head of the Department of Political Economy

I

Perhaps it will be allowed me to discuss with you for a few minutes some problems of the young scholar in the United States; for the problems of the doctor are practically those of the scholar. In the widest sense they raise the old questions of idealism versus materialism. To vow one’s self to scholarship means renouncing “the world, the flesh, and the devil,” a dedication unto the hopeful, but often disappointing, search for the unknown. On the shining brow of the young scientist there should be the same glow as that which transfigured the face of Sir Galahad when he set out, uplifted in heart and purpose, to search for the Holy Grail.

Whatever the elevation of purpose, however, we must face the matter of preparation. In scholarship, as in war, he who is prepared is favored by the gods. How are scholars made? The only factories are our universities. This inevitably brings us face to face with opinions as to what the university should be. In these days the mobilization of educational resources in any great university involves such questions of administration that executive ability of a high quality is as essential in a faculty as in the departments of a great business house. Men must, therefore, be found in our membership who are not distinguished as scholars; and such men may not even be good teachers. Again, in this country, it goes without saying that the teaching function of the college cannot be wholly separated from the higher activities of the university. Men never can be fitted for research, the highest function of the university, without first passing through the systematic accumulation of knowledge and getting a seasoning of intellectual fiber to be obtained only under good teaching in the secondary school and the college. Teaching is in the main imparting to students the learning of others; but the successful teacher, while engaged in imparting the results of past thinking, may also create a thirst for knowledge and an eventual desire to discover new truth. I doubt if the teaching function ever can be much reduced in the university. It is the condition precedent to final achievement in research; for the inspiration to the possible student investigator usually comes through the medium of highly successful teaching. This opinion of mine may not be in accord with that which decries teaching because it hinders investigation. And yet I fully believe research to be not only the most important, but indeed the highest, function of the university — the brightest jewel in its crown.

It is a question as to what we mean by teaching. In the development of investigators some men, who are not themselves effective producers, are very successful in sending out men who are producers. If by teaching we mean guidance to the nascent investigator, then teaching is directly necessary to research. In the usual lament, that the drudgery of teaching stifles research, reference is undoubtedly had to the heavy work of introductory teaching and the time-consuming reading of students’ papers and reports. Here is one of the serious problems of the young scholar. The fabric of the educational system that leads up to the heights of research and discovery necessarily requires much teaching of a fundamental character. There must be preparation of the student for the final achievements of scholarship. To many a trustee a university should be created for the students, and success is measured by the numbers of students; to many a professor a university should be created for the professors, and success is often measured by the leisure allowed them for study. To others, a university is a place consciously organized so that by constant tests, gradation, and selection a few chosen persons may be evolved competent to carry on the highest tasks of research and discovery. In short, the recipe for stimulating investigation is, first catch your carp; first find the man capable of investigation. To one kind of man a splendid laboratory seems to give him a sense of importance; but the real man of research gives the laboratory importance. Big thinking may go on in a very small room.

II

Perhaps my only qualification for speaking to you today are that I am old enough — or young enough — to bridge with my memory the whole doctoral history in this country. It seems to be well established that I was part and parcel of the first seminar work in our universities, and among the first Ph.D.’s. Before Johns Hopkins University was established in 1876, three of us — of whom one was the present Senator Lodge of Massachusetts — had been engaged in research under Henry Adams, the historian, and we were made doctors at Harvard in 1876. The light literature which resulted from our investigations was contained in a volume of “Anglo-Saxon Law.”

With you have I trod the typical path of all doctors, who had to begin with a salary less than a policeman’s. I wonder how many of us feel like describing that wearisome path from five hundred dollars a year to an assistant professorship, in these words of Milton :

Long is the way

And hard, that out of hell leads up to light.

A president who was able to raise the salaries of learned young doctors was a very Jehovah on a golden throne, whose locks glowed like a thousand searchlights — before whom we stood, wistful acolytes of learning, with the dust of libraries on our brows.

Certainly one thing came prominently forth from my doctoral training. Never afterward could I balk at work because it was hard. The lesson of persistence in getting materials at no matter what cost of time or labor was learned, never to be forgotten. In a study of the origins of English law and institutions I was never supposed to whimper at re-reading the whole body of Anglo-Saxon laws six times in search for procedural methods from feud to jury, or to pore over twenty-five thousand pages of capitularies in mediaeval Latin. Never since has any task seemed impossible.

We young doctors must have been interesting to onlookers. We supposed that the whole world was watching us. We were distinguished in most cases by a big pipe in our mouths, a large sense of condescension to the non-doctoral universe, and by the air of great candor, which obliged us, solely in the interests of truth, to indicate that we were in the line of direct descent from Minerva. We might well have been admonished to “Tarry at Jericho until our beards are grown.”

There was the sort fresh from German kneipen, greatly respected,

For he by geometric scale
Could take the size of pots of ale.

But how many of us, having gone forth with the morning dew on our shining armor, have come back after long days with the cup? What a lot of rusty, dinted old harness is scattered along the doctoral highway!

If many of us have fallen short of our early promise, it is probably due to a loss of our inspiring vision. There are two possible reasons for such failures: First, in our egotism we thought we were investigators, when really we were not. For the advance of research there is nothing so deadly as conceit, and nothing so productive as humility. Learning is an essential to a teacher whose function it is to impart knowledge; but, as we all agree, education is not information. To collect the learning of others may impress the ignorant; but it is not research. To succeed in research one must have extended the boundaries of human knowledge, discovered a new principle, conquered the unknown. Sometimes the investigator comes with awe into the presence of a new truth. One day a young man came out of his laboratory, a new and strange expression on his face, and said, “Today I have just seen something that no man has ever seen before.” Columbus on the deck of his ship, when the dim coast line of America rose over the sea, could not have had a nobler thrill of discovery. Indeed, the uncharted seas of science today offer as many prizes of discovery as ever before in history.

It is a well-recognized fact that many persons seek and often obtain the doctorate merely for the purpose of increasing their revenue as teachers. These never had the vision, and never will be discoverers of truth. Our real interest is in the picked few. It remains true in research, as in the church, that “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

III

Failures, however, are more often ascribable, in the second place, to what may be called economic reasons. Before he has fairly mounted, on his journey the young doctor has added unto himself the burdens of a family. If never before, he must now exert himself to the utmost to be a bread-winner. Then comes the situation which has become so familiar to us all — and, I suppose, to every university president. The would-be scholar finds himself of necessity taking on routine teaching as a means of income; while the less gifted soon give up the hope of research, and the gifted few chafe against the bars of repressive drudgery, constantly hoping to find out a way of research while still earning a living. In short, even with the flower of young scholars the problem is to earn a living and yet to cling to the ideals of research. It must be frankly admitted that, if he has had obligations thrust upon him, it is his first duty to earn a living. That duty every man must face. But not infrequently a young idealist, full of his vision, feels that the world owes him a living, in spite of the burdens he himself has voluntarily assumed, in order that he may be free to hunt in the unknown fields of knowledge. Bitterly— but quite naturally— he is inclined to assail his university as unappreciative of the investigator; and his heart grows heavy.

It will not, I hope, be regarded as brutal to say plainly that if the will to produce is in us no power in heaven or earth can keep it down. No drudgery of teaching kept Moody from expressing himself; nor Ricketts from penetrating to the secrets of disease. And as to Shorey, no drudgery of teaching could prevent him, on receipt of a telegram, from packing his valise and in twenty-four hours beginning a course of twelve lectures in Boston on the “Efflorescence of the Diastole in the Poems of Pausanias.” If the divine fire burns within us, it must come forth somewhere, somehow. When a young scholar says life is too distracting, too noisy, for the serious work of production, he is publishing his own inadequacy. Was it not Chesterton who said, in reference to this matter when men complained of an unsympathetic environment, that Bacon and Shakespeare turned out their products as naturally and easily as we perspire? If a young scholar feels the inner surge to produce, let him somehow give a sample product by which he may be rated. It has been said of Jacques Loeb that if he were cast away on a coral reef with only a shoestring and a collar button he would probably soon be producing sea urchins, or frogs, by parthenogenesis.

IV

There is, to be sure, another and economic side to this matter. The price of a scholar is not difficult to explain. If scholars of the productive type are scarce, they “come high”; they occupy a monopoly position as truly as the successful captain of industry. Moreover, the statement of a new truth is often the heresy of today. The scholar who penetrates into the unknown must be content to be lonely; not infrequently he is obliged to go without a publisher. To be unappreciated, if not to be unpopular, is the part of the scholar who finds himself in antagonism to some illogical, but accepted, opinion of the day. Hence it may be said that

Learning hath gained most by those books by which the printers have lost.

Not only are men of research scarce, but their value to the university is infinite. The productive scholar is the one every university is seeking. At the time when President Jordan was gathering his faculty at Stanford, he wrote me on hearing of my coming to Chicago: “If a few more universities are established the position of a professor will soon become respectable, even in the eyes of the richest trustees.” But, if scholars are in such demand, why is there any complaint as to their economic conditions?

The truth is that a would-be teacher — like a horse — is not always what he seems. To invest in a professor is as much a gamble as to buy a horse. After being permanently corralled he is apt to lose speed, and to develop unexpected peculiarities. A university should be as experienced as a Kentucky breeder in picking promising colts. When a scholar has arrived, it is easy enough for an institution to know that he is a desirable man to have. We come to see, then, that a young scholar cannot expect to be discovered until he has somehow indicated his quality; but that, on the other hand, a very great responsibility rests upon the university to be keen in recognizing the productive quality early in life, to nourish and feed it, and be proud to give it that environment which will encourage production and thereby greatly honor the university. For, after all, the institution that is putting forth new growth of research at the top is the only institution that is really alive. If it is content to teach merely the accumulated learning and results of others, and itself to put out no new growth, it is really moribund.

Therefore, if productive scholars are not easy to find, and yet are absolutely essential to a live university, I may be permitted to suggest some practical means for mending the ills we now endure. Many men of promise have been crushed by untoward conditions of poverty. There are some trees that rise splendidly to heaven because they are planted in good soil and are favored by sun and rain; others of the same species are stunted and gnarled by an evil environment. So it is with scholars — most sensitive of all plants to kindly influence. What can be done by the university to find the stock true to species and give it its full growth?

Without doubt endowment funds should be set aside for the purpose of freeing men capable of research from the drudgery of elementary teaching. But — keeping in mind the frailties of human nature — these funds should be transferred from one man to another, and not given permanently to one. If a promising investigator were disclosed, such a man could be encouraged; if the promise failed of fulfilment, the man was not the one to be encouraged. Thus could be devised a practical means of discovering which of the many aspirants for research were fit for further trial. By some such method as this, without doubt, the university could gradually build up a corps of effective producers. Then, certainly, if the producer is found, the duty — and the ambition — of the university is clear. An investment in productive men is the highest possible use of the university’s funds. The creation of a permanent fund to be devoted to the encouragement of research, gradually accumulated or enlarged by gift, is the one clear sign by which an enlightened and progressive university may be known. To such an institution will come the pick of ambitious graduate students from everywhere. Doubly rich in investigators and in students of ability who are worthy of attention, then indeed will science grow from more to more in that place of learning.

V

In these past twenty-five years much has been done; more remains to be done. In many directions encouragement has been given to research; but while emphasis has been put upon good teaching — and teaching should aim to develop, not only the mind, but also character and good form — would we not make even more progress in the future if greater emphasis were placed on the methods of trying out promising producers and making possible to the gifted few the highest university distinctions?

We are turning out increasing numbers of mediocre doctors. They are too often given a degree for the careful collection of the learning of others. Very soon the degree of Ph.D. will have — as it may already have — gained the connotation of the routine A.M. degree. Some means should be found for separating collectors of learning from the productive investigators.

To some of us who have nearly reached the end of an academic career there is much of inspiration and cheer on an occasion like this. About to leave the stage and turn our faces to the sunset, we pause here a moment to look back to the sunrise; and out of the morning is seen the long line of young scholars sweeping on to the present hour, aflame to take up the tasks of scholarship we are leaving, and to carry forward the work of research far beyond our own expectation. Iturus salutat.

 

Source: The Quarter-Centennial Celebration of the University of Chicago, June 2 to 6. A record by David Allan Robertson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1918, pp. 161-168.

Image Source: Cap and Gown, 1906.

Categories
Chicago Michigan

Interdisciplinary Moment. Max Sylvius Handman, Chicago Sociology Ph.D. 1917

This interdisciplinary moment comes as the result of my shallow acquaintance with American institutional economics. In the previous posting I ran across the name of M. S. Handman who was listed #2 in Frank Knight’s list of American Institutional Economists after Veblen but with the sarcastic addition “Perhaps the one true example [i.e. Veblen], except Handman, who has written little.” Knight then goes on to put Handman’s name in the #2 position without any bibliographic reference. The name rang no bells with me to be honest.

In the meantime I have consulted JSTOR to obtain a very convenient history of American Institutional Economics, Malcolm Rutherford’s Presidential Address before the Association for Evolutionary Economics: “Towards a History of American Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jun., 2009), pp. 308-318. This provides us with more context.

Max Handman received his Ph.D. in Sociology and Anthropology rather than in Political Economy. The title of his thesis was “The Beginnings of the Social Philosophy of Karl Marx.”

_________________________

[from the University of Michigan]

Memorial
Max Sylvius Handman
LSA Minutes

On December 26, 1939, while the University was in recess, Professor Max S. Handman, one of its outstanding personalities, died of coronary thrombosis; a scant two weeks after he had passed his fifty-fourth birthday. The first of the heart attacks to which he finally succumbed occurred in the spring of 1938, while he was devoting his sabbatical leave to a research project in South America. He returned to Ann Arbor early that summer and carefully nursed his ailment, both at the University Hospital and at home, to the end of the first semester of the academic year 1938-39. During the second semester of that year he was able to resume his teaching, and during the summer of 1939, though not a member of the teaching staff, he participated actively in the Institute of Latin-American Studies which was being conducted by the Summer Session. He then prepared and delivered his last paper, soon to be published, on the historical function of foreign investments in Latin-America. He was planning, of course, to continue his regular work during the present academic year, but a further severe attack shortly before the opening of the University in the fall confined him to bed till his untimely death. While the course of this illness afforded some preparation for the fatal outcome to his associates and friends, the actual loss of our widely known and beloved colleague came as a profound and lamented shock to all who knew him.

Max Sylvius Handman, son of Melchior and Rosa (Sayman) Handman, was born in Roman, Rumania, December 13, 1885. He remained in his native land into his eighteenth year. His father was engaged in commercial pursuits, but was dominated by a deep love of learning. In this environment the seeds were sown for a lifetime of scholarly interest and devotion. Young Handman received instruction at home as well as all available public schooling, through the Gymnasium at Roman. Upon his arrival in this country in 1903 he proceeded immediately to the far west, where he devoted himself for a period of two years to working at miscellaneous tasks and learning the English language. Two years later, in 1907, he received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oregon. Then followed ten years of graduate study, both at American and foreign institutions, including the University of Chicago, the University of Missouri, Columbia University, the College de France, and the University of Berlin. He received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in 1917, and during the same year he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Some three years earlier, on September 3, 1914, he had married Della Dopplemayer of Marshall, Texas, after he had established himself as a young instructor.

His teaching experience, like his academic training, embraced a number of institutions. In 1913 he served as Docent in Sociology at the University of Chicago; from 1913 to 1916 he was Instructor in Sociology at the University of Missouri; from 1917 to 1926 he was Professor of Sociology, and from 1926 to 1931 Professor of Economics, at the University of Texas; and during the academic year 1930-31, just before he left Texas, he was Visiting Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. From 1931 till his death he was Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan. During this relatively brief period he devoted himself on the instructional side to economic theory, labor economics, the history of economic thought, economic history, European economic problems, and Latin-American economic problems. While in recent years his independent studies were largely in the latter two fields, he adjusted himself in a fine spirit of cooperation to the curricular needs of the Department of Economics, and his qualifications were so diverse and his personality so stimulating that these varied tasks were entrusted to him with unquestioning confidence and were performed by him with high competence.

The breadth of Professor Handman’s interests is further evidenced by his outside contacts and activities of an academic and public character. In 1918 he served as a special investigator for the Library of Congress and as a member of the Committee on Public Information; and he was also attached, during the same year, to the staff of the United States Inquiry on Terms of Peace. In 1919 he was Director of the Red Cross Social Service Institute for Texas; in 1924 he was President of the Texas Conference for Social Welfare, holding at the same time, and for a number of years, the position of Trustee of the Texas Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor; and for a period of some six or seven years, from 1926 to 1932, he served in various capacities as a member of the National Conference of Social Work. In 1929-30 he was a special investigator for the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (the so-called Wickersham Commission); and for a period of three years, from 1931 to 1934, he represented the American Economic Association on the Social Science Research Council. In the summer of 1932 he was sent to Rumania by the Council to study race and culture contacts in that territory, the results being published as a chapter on conflict and equilibrium in a border area; and in connection with this visit he was decorated by the Rumanian Government as Knight, First Class, of the Order of Cultural Merit.

For the most part Professor Handman’s publications are more noted for the range of their subject matter and the suggestiveness of their approach than for the detailed factual or analytical treatment accorded by thorn to the varied matters with which they deal. His only book-length manuscript, a socio-economic study dealing with standards of living and pecuniary valuation, he did not deem ripe for publication, although he labored upon it for many years. His score or more of journal contributions deal in part with concrete social and economic conditions in Texas and Mexico, particularly in their reciprocal impacts; but his more generalized writings, reflecting a broad philosophical attack upon the questions at issue, are the papers of primary significance. He has written illuminatingly, for example, on the sociological methods of Pareto, on scientific trends in economics, on economic history and the economist, on conflicting ideologies in the American labor movement, on the sentiment of nationalism, on the bureaucratic culture pattern and political revolution, on war, economic motives, and economic symbols. These writings cannot be cramped into the traditional molds of the established disciplines. They embrace, with varying degrees of emphasis, the fields of sociology, economics, psychology, political science, and history. His approach was that of the so-called social sciences as a group, rather than of more or less artificially delimited segments of the field; and while he chiefly charted channels of thought through this means, rather than cultivated intensively the areas of his special interest, he performed his chosen tasks with much knowledge and deep insight.

For such results his long training and experience in both sociology and economics were not alone responsible; of equal importance was the broadening effect of his enormously wide reading and extensive travel. His great library was in no sense the reflection of a collector’s hobby. Visitors to his home, earlier in Austin and later in Ann Arbor, were frequently amazed at his ability to locate without the slightest difficulty any book he wanted from among his many thousands of uncatalogued volumes; and what is much more significant, as those who ever had the privilege of conversing with him at any length repeatedly learned, he knew what was in his books. He wrote and spoke from a full mind, which was also enriched by personal contacts and observations in much travel in Europe and the Americas. His great linguistic facility–embracing the spoken tongue as well as the written word in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Rumanian–rendered these travels a source of genuine enlightenment in the various fields of his interest. These factors, and not merely his actual publication record, contributed to Professor Handman’s wide recognition as a scholar. His professional colleagues in all parts of the country–particularly among the sociologists, economic historians, and students of Latin-America–entertained the highest respect and admiration for his knowledge and understanding. His counsel was sought often and in numerous quarters, and the meetings of the learned societies were very few in which he was not invited to participate as critic of the contributions of his older as well as younger colleagues.

In the last analysis, however, Professor Handman’s most significant service was rendered as a stimulating teacher and associate, who exerted a large influence upon the human beings with whom he came into contact. He was a highly cultivated gentleman, of broad sympathies and incisive understanding, who labored always in furtherance of human welfare. His great store of knowledge was not confined to the social sciences. He was steeped in general history, literature, philosophy, music, and the arts. The spirit molded by these humanistic influences was directed to the improvement of social living, in the narrower range of personal contacts as well as in the more complicated relationships of the great society. Toward this end he gave of himself unstintingly to his students, his associates, and the general community. Because of his lofty ideals, intellectual integrity, and endearing personality, he evoked satisfying and even gratifying responses throughout his career. That he was affectionately known to so many, both old and young, as Uncle Max was no mere accident. He built well and fruitfully. His memory will long endure.

D. H. Parker,
P. E. James,
I. L. Sharfman, Chairman

Source (also of image): University of Michigan Faculty History Project.

_________________

[from the University of Texas]

IN MEMORIAM
MAX SYLVIUS HANDMAN

Max Sylvius Handman, professor of sociology and economics, died in December of 1939.

Professor Handman was born on December 13, 1885, in Roman, Romania. He received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Oregon in 1907 and a PhD from the University of Chicago in 1917.

Dr. Handman taught at the University of Chicago and the University of Missouri. He joined the faculty of The University of Texas at Austin in 1917 and resigned in 1931, when he accepted a position at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

Professor Handman served on the Committee on Public Information in 1918. He was a special investigator for the Library of Congress and for the Wickersham Commission on Law Enforcement. He was also president of the Texas Conference on Social Work in 1924.

During the early 1930s Professor Handman was recalled to Romania by King Carol to carry out a study on the problems of minority populations. He was later decorated by King Carol with the Order of Cultural Merit, Knight, first class, for his service.

<signed>

John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty

Source: Biographical sketch prepared by Teresa Palomo Acosta and posted on the Faculty Council web site on January 18, 2001.

Categories
Chicago Courses Syllabus

Chicago. Economics From an Institutional Standpoint. Knight c.1934

Frank Knight’s teaching at Chicago covered four bases: core economic theory, the history of economics, social control of the economy and institutional economics. 

One truly can’t fault 1930’s Chicago economics for failing to be aware of the surrounding disciplines. On the other side of the political spectrum we witness the same breadth in Paul Douglas’ 1938 course, Types of Economic Organization.

The following course outline is out of place in the folder for Econ 304 in the Homer Jones Papers. Note that the “general alphabetical bibliography” mentioned in the outline was not in this folder.   The copy of the outline transcribed below apparently came from Homer Jones’ classmate, A.H. = “Alice Hanson”,  later his wife.

Milton Friedman’s 1976 remembrance of Homer Jones was reprinted in the St. Louis Fed’s Review November/December 2013, 95(6), pp. 451-54.

__________________

 Course Description

305. Economics from an Institutional Standpoint.—The relations between the classical-mathematical and institutional-historical views of economic phenomena; institutional factors as the framework and much of the content of the price economy; late nineteen century economic society as a complex of structural forms. Prerequisite: Economics 301 and some European economic history. C. 10:00, Knight.

Source:   Course description from the University of Chicago’s Announcement of courses for Summer Quarter 1934

_____________________________

[ penciled addition:] A. H. (n.d.)

Economics 305
Economics from Institutional Standpoint

Main Topics and Notes on Literature
(To be used with general, alphabetical bibliography)

I. American Institutional Economics

1. Veblen, Th. (Perhaps the one true example, except Handman, who has written little.)

a. The Place of Science in Civilization. (1919) Collected Essays. “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science,” 3rd paper, contains most of Veblen’s position. For his criticism of classical economics, especially “Professor Clark’s Economics” and “Limitations of Marginal Utility”; also three papers on “Presuppositions of Economic Science.” For V’s positive contribution, the title essay and second, on “Evolution of the Scientific Point of View” most important, to be followed with “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments,” “Gustav Schmoller’s Economics” and papers on Capital, Marx, and Socialism.

b. Economics in the Visible Future. A.E.R., 1925 (Cf. Discussion of J. M. Clark).

c. Other works: Instinct of Workmanship, Theory of the Leisure Class, and Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution most important. Theory of Business Enterprise social-critical, on line of Industrial and Pecuniary Employments. Later books (Nature of Peace, Higher Culture in America, Vested Interests, Engineers and Price System, Absentee Ownership, etc.) More satirical, and literary or controversial in appeal.

2. Handman, M. S.

3. Commons, J. R., Legal Economist. (Laws are not institutional in origin, but become institutions if long kept in force).

a. Legal Foundations of Capitalism. (Cf. Reviews, Mitchell, A.E.R., June, 1924 and Scharfman, Q.J.E., 1924-5.

b. “Institutional Economics,” A.E.R., Dec. 1931. (Corres. Regarding same, ibid., June, 1932.)

4. Mitchell, W. C. (Quantitative or statisticial economist, properly at opposite pole from institutionalism, but usually included in the movement. Has, like most economists, written some things of a really institutionalist character

a. “Quantitative Method in Economics” (Presidential Address) A.E.R., 1925. (His main position: not institutionalistic).

b. “Prospects of Economics.” (Leading Essay) in Tugwell, The Trend of Economics. (Institutional only in sense of being more or less critical of the older classical economists).

c. “The Role of Money in Economic Theory” (Institutional) A.E.R. 1916 Sup.; “The Backward Art of Spending Money.” A.E.R., 1912. “Human Behavior in Economics.”….Rev. of Sombart, Q.J.E. 1928-9; Bentham’s Felecific Calculus, P.S.Q., June, 1918.

d. On Mitchell’s main work on Business Cycles, see review by J. M. Clark, in Rice’s Case-Book, with Mitchell’s comment.

5. Copeland, Clark, Hale, Mills, Tugwell, Wolfe, etc., see Tugwell, (Editor) The Trend of Economics. Sometimes treated as an institutionalist manifesto, but with several “black sheep.” Cf. Review of the volume by A. A. Young, Q.J.E.

6. Other authors more or less sympathetic with the “movement,” see Boucke[sp?], Clark, Edie (uses the word for all recent economics he approves of) Hamilton.

 

II. Criticism of Institutional Economics.

1. Eva Flügge, in Jahrb. f. Nationalökon. u. Statistik, LXII, 1927. Important; on relations to German Historical School Position.

2. Homan, P. T. Essays on Veblen and Mitchell in Contemporary Economic Thought. Also Paper, A.E.R., Sup., Mar., 1932, and Discussion following, by various members. Cf. J.P.E., 1927 (Impasse, etc.) Q.J.E., 1928 (Issues, etc.)

3. Morgenstern, Schumpeter, Suranyi-Unger.

 

III. Earlier Historical Economics

1. Leslie, T.E.C. “The Philosophical Method in Political Economy” and “History of German Political Economy” in Essays in Moral and Political Philosophy.

2. Schmoller, The Mercantile System. (Example of an argument for the method. Cf. Veblen’s essay on Schmoller, under Veblen, above.

3. Ashley, W. J. Trans. of Roscher Program; also “The Study of Economic History” and “The Study of Economic History after Seven Years,” first two in Q.J.E., all in Surveys Historical and Economic.

4. Cohn, G., A.A.A., 1894 and Ec. Jour., 1905; Dunbar, Q.J.E. Vol. I (and in vol. Econ. Essays); Keynes, J.M., in Scope and Method of Pol. Econ.; Ingram, in History of Pol. Econ.; Nasse, Q.J.E., 1886; Rae, in Contemporary Socialism, pp. 193-221; Seager, J.P.E., 1892; Wagner, Q.J.E., 1886.

 

IV. The Neo-Historical School in Germany, and Related Work.

1. Parsons, T., Capitalism in Recent German Literature (Somart and M. Weber; best thing in English. For orientation see also Parsons, “Economics and Sociology” in Q.J.E., February, 1932).

2. Sombart, W., “Economic History and Economic Theory”, Ec. Hist. Rev.; Nationalökonomie u. Soziologie, Kieler Vorträge; also in G.D.S., Vol. III.

3. Diehl, Carl, Life and Work of Max Weber, Q.J.E. Vol.33.

4. Abel, Th., Chap. on Max Weber in vol., Systematic Sociology in German.

5. Weber, M., Protestant Ethic; and General Economic History.

6. Sombart, W., Die drei Nationalökonomien. Der modern Kapitalismus.

7. Weber, M., Essays in Ges. Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, esp. on Roscher und Knies, and Objektivität; finally, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (2 vols., in Grudriss d. Sozialökonomie).

8. Brinkmann, C., in Überbau etc., Schmollers Jahrb., 1930.; von Schelting, Zum Streit um die Wissenssoziologie, in Archiv. f. Sozialwiss. u. Sozialpol., v. 62, 1930. And references in both.

9. Related work in other countries. Tawney. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and other work; Simiand[sp?], La method positive dans l’économie politique (and French Neo-Positivism generally).

10. Another German movement closely related to neo-historism is the Universalistic economics of Spann. See in English his History of Economics. Also, C. Schmitt, Politische Romantik.

11. On the problem of Objectivity (Wertfreiheit) an essential issue throughout this movment, but especially under the influence of communism and fascism, see E. Spranger, Der Sinn d. Voraussetzungslosigkeit d. Wissenschaft (1930 and references.

 

V. ISSUES INVOLVED IN INSTITUTIONALISM

1. General Problems of Behavior (above bio-mechanics and chemistry and histology). Surveys, chiefly on level of physiology and animal behavior in Parmelee, Problem of Human Behavior; Allport, Social Psychology. Cf. Metchnikoff, Nature of Man; Wheeler, Ants; Emerson, Termites. Psychology Symposia, Clark University, Psychologies of 1925, also 1930; also, The Unconscious, sponsored Mrs. E. Dummer. Cf. Cooley, Dewey, Ellwood, McDougall, Sumner, Wallas. Survey of General Sociology, Park & Burgess, Introduction. Sociology from standpoint of society as a unit, Spann, Gesellschaftslehre; from that of personalities in relation, Hornell Hart.

2. History and Economic History. Müller-Lyer; Hobhouse, also Hobhouse, Wheeler & Ginsburg; Gras; E. Gross. On Economic Interpretation of History; Communist Manifesto: Engels; Labriola; See; Seligman. (Hanson; Knight; Matthews). History and Historical Method: Adams, G. B. [sp.?]; Adams, Brooks; Barth; Bernheim; Cheyney; Flint; Fueter; Teggart; Rickert; Windelband. (For Rickert-Windelband view of history, Chap. I of Park & Burgess Sociology with Bibliography. Cf. Small, Origins of Sociology.

3. Institutions. Besides Sociology, see Anthropology, works of (esp.) Lowie, Goldenweiser; also, Boas, Kroeber, Wallis, Wissler, etc.

4. Particular Institutions, (all more or less economic in basis and function). Language: Sapir; The Family; Westermarck, Calhoun; Law: Commons, Pound, Jenks, Holdsworth, Maine, Maitland, Vinogradoff. Religion: Barton, Carpenter, Carus, Cumont, Harnak, Simkhovitch, Sohm, Lagarde, Walker.

5. Economic Institutions, Specifically. Bibliographies in Sombart, Der modern Kapitalismus; use table of contents and index. Surveys of Economic History; Knight, Barnes & Fluegel, Economic History of Europe; H. See, Modern Capitalism (both with chapter bibliographies).

6. Methodology. See M. R. Cohen, “Social Science and Natural Science,” in Ogburn & Goldenweiser (Ed.) The Social Sciences in their Interrelations; also most of the 33 papers in the volume, all with bibliographies. Rice, S. A., (Ed.) Methods in Social Science, a Case-Book; 52 papers, mostly analyses of particular works or groups of works from methodological standpoint. Keynes, J. N., Scope and Method of Political Economy.

7. Idea of Style and Culture-Pattern. Compare Wöfflin, Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe; Sapir in Ogburn and Goldenweiser.

_____________________________

Source: Homer Jones Papers, Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Box 2, Folder “Frank H. Knight, Economics 304, lecture, notes, 1933, Oct.-1934.”

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03516, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

__________________

Other sources for this course:

  • F. T. Ostrander’s “Notes on Frank H. Knight’s Course, Economics from an Institutional Standpoint, Economics 305, University of Chicago, 1933-34,” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 23(B), 2005.
  • Earl Hamilton’s  Economics 305 notes in Summer Quarter 1935, (Frank Knight Papers, Box 38, Folder 8) are cited among other places in Malcolm Rutherford’s “Chicago economics and institutionalism” in The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics (Ross B. Emmett, ed.).
  • In the Hyman Minsky Archive at Bard College are notes Minsky took in Economics 305 during the Spring Quarter 1942.
Categories
Chicago Courses Economists

Chicago. Undergraduate Macro. Stanley Fischer, 1973

While organizing my material from George Stigler’s papers, I ran across this reading list for an undergraduate macro course taught in 1973 at the University of Chicago by the then thirty year-old future professor of the so-called MIT gang that included Ben Bernanke, Mario Draghi, Olivier Blanchard, Maurice Obstfeld, and Paul Krugman (yes, there were others… worth another post). Learn this stuff (and I mean really learn this stuff) and you too might become chief economist of the World Bank, or first managing director of the IMF, or vice chairman of Citigroup, or governor of the Bank of Israel, or Vice Chairman of the Fed. Excuse me, I mean “and/or”.

_____________________________

Winter 1973

Stanley Fischer

ECONOMICS 202
Reading List

Texts:

Branson: Macroeconomic Theory and Policy, Harper and Row, 1972.

Friedman: An Economist’s Protest, Thomas Horton, 1972.

 

I. Introductory

Friedman, M. “A Theoretical Framework for Monetary Analysis,” JPE, March/April, 1970, 193-238.

Johnson, H. G. “The Keynesian Revolution and the Monetarist Counter-Revolution,” AER Papers and Proceedings, May, 1971, 1-14.

Leijonhufvud, A. “Keynes and the Classics: Two Lectures on Keynes’ Contribution to Economic Theory,” London, Institute of Economic Affairs, 1969. Occasional Paper 30.

Tobin, J. Manuscript on Monetary Theory, Chapter 1. (This is on reserve in the library.)

 

II. Quantity Equation

Fisher, I. The Purchasing Power of Money, Macmillan, 1913, Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8.

Keynes, J. M., Tract on Monetary Reform, Macmillan, 1924, Chaps. 2, 3.

Patinkin, D. “The Chicago Tradition, the Quantity Theory, and Friedman,” JMCB, Feb., 1969, 46-70.

Pigou, A. C. “The Value of Money,” originally in Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1917, reprinted in Lutz and Mints.

 

III. The Demand for Money

Baumol, W. J. “The Transactions Demand for Cash: An Inventory Theoretic Approach,” QJE, Nov., 1952, reprinted in Thorn.

Cagan, P. “The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation” in Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money, M. Friedman (ed.), University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Friedman, M. “The Quantity Theory of Money: A Restatement,” in OQM (also in Thorn and in Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money).

Keynes, J. M. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, 1935, Chaps. 13, 15, 17.

Laidler, D. E. W. “Some Evidence on the Demand for Money,” JPE, Feb., 1966, 55-68.

Latané, H. A. “Cash Balances and the Interest Rate—A Pragmatic Approach,” RE and Sta., Nov., 1954, 456-60.

Tobin, J. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Toward Risk,” RES, Feb., 1958, 65-86, reprinted in Thorn.

 

IV. The Supply of Money

Cagan, P. Determinants and Effects of Changes in the Money Stock, 1875-1960, Columbia University Press, 1965.

 

V. Inflation

Friedman, M. “The Role of Monetary Policy, “ AER, March 1968, 1-17, reprinted in OQM.

Phillips, A. W. “The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wages in the U.K., 1862-1957,” Economica, Nov., 1958, 283-99.

_____________________________

[References completed]

Lutz and Mints.   Lutz, Friedrich A. and Mints, Lloyd W. Readings in Monetary Economics.Volume 5 of The series of republished articles on economics. R.D. Irwin, 1951.

Thorn. [probably] Money and banking: theory, analysis, and policy; a textbook of readings. Edited with introd. by S. Mittra. [Consulting editor: Richard S. Thorn]. New York, Random House [1970]

OQM. Friedman, Milton. Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1969.

_____________________________

Source: Source: Stigler, George. Papers, Box 3, Folder “U of C Other, Miscellaneous, Corresp. w. Pres., etc”, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Image Source: MIT Museum.

 

Categories
Chicago Courses

Chicago. Imperfect Competition (Econ 307) Reading List. Lange, 1941

Today’s posting  comes from Norman M. Kaplan’s student notes from his graduate studies: a carbon copy of the reading list for Oskar Lange’s course at the University of Chicago given in the Autumn Quarter of 1941.

The Course description from the 1941-42 course announcements:

307. Imperfect Competition.—A study of price formation and production under various transitional forms between perfect competition and pure monopoly, such as monopolistic and monopsonistic competition, noncompeting groups, oligopoly and bilateral monopoly. The problem of equilibrium under such forms. Noncompeting groups and social structure. Application of the theory to the study of distribution of incomes, collective bargaining, excess capacity, price rigidity, and business cycles. Imperfect competition and economic policy. Prerequisite: Economics 301 or equivalent. Summer, 9:00; Autumn, 1:30; Lange.

Source: University of Chicago. Announcements of the College and the Divisions for the Sessions of 1941. Vol. XLI, No. 10 (April 25, 1941), p. 307.

_______________________________________

ECONOMICS 307
Autumn, 1941

 

E. Chamberlin. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition

Joan Robinson. Economics of Imperfect Competition

Roy F. Harrod. “Doctrines of Imperfect Competition,” QJE (May 1934)

G. Stigler. “Notes on the Theory of Duopoly,” JPE (Sept. 1940)

A. C. Pigou. Economics of Stationary States. Chap. 14-19, 23, 40-44

R. Triffin. Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory.

Testimony of Frank Fetter before TNEC. Hearings before TNEC, Part 5

N. Kalder. “The Equilibirum of the Firm” Econ. J. (1934)

__________. “Monopolistic Competition and Excess Capacity,” Economica (Feb 1935)

P. Sweezy. “Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly,” JPE (Aug 1939)

R. L. Hall and C. J. Hitch. Price Theory and Business Behavior. Oxford Economic Papers No. 2, May, 1939

M. W. Reder. “Inter-Temporal Relations of Demand and Supply within the Firm,” Canadian J. of Economics and Political Science (Feb 1941)

H. Smith. “Advertising Cost and Equilibrium,” RES (Oct 1934)

G. Tintner. “Note on the Problem of Bilateral Monopoly,” JPE (1939)

M. Bronfenbrenner. “The Economics of Collective Bargaining,” QJE (Aug. 1939

Turner. “Theory of Industrial Disputes,” RES (Feb 1934)

G. Tintner. “Note on the Problem of Bilateral Monopoly,” JPE (1939)

M. Bronfenbrenner. “The Economics of Collective Bargaining,” QJE (Aug. 1939)

Turner. “Theory of Industrial Disputes,” RES (Feb 1934)

A. P. Lerner. “The Concept of Monopoly and Measurement of Monopoly Power,” RES (Feb 1934)

____________. “From Vulgar Political Economy to Vulgar Marxism,” JPE (Aug 1939)

M. Kalecki. Studies in Theory of Economic Fluctuations. Chap. 1.

 

Optional

J. E. Meade. An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy, part II

E. A. G. Robinson. Structure of Competitive Industry.

F. Zeuthen. Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare, part 4.

F. Harrod. Price and Cost in Entrepreneur’s Policy. Oxford Economic Papers No. 2, May, 1939.

S. Nelson and W. G. Keim. Price Behavior and Business Policy. TNEC Mon. No. 1

Report of the Federal Trade Commission on Monopolistic Practices in Industry, Hearings before TNEC, part 5A

R. Triffin. “Monopoly in Particular and General Equilibrium Economics,” Econometrica (April 1941)

M. W. Reder. “Monopolistic Competition and the Stability Conditions,” RES (Feb 1941)

R. Shone. “Selling Costs,” RES (June 1935)

E. Hoover. “Spatial Price Discrimination,” RES (June 1937)

J. R. Hicks. “The Theory of Monopoly,” Econometrica, 1935

H. Hotelling. “Stability in Competition,” Econ. J., 1929

M. Bronfenbrenner. “Application of the Discontinuous Oligopoly Demand Curve,” JPE (June 1940)

R. H. Coase. “Some Notes on Monopoly Price,” RES (Oct. 1937)

Structure of the American Economy, chaps. 7, 8, 9

J. Robinson. “What is Perfect Competition?” QJE, 1934

E. Chamberlin. “Monopolistic or Imperfect Competition,” QJE, 1937

N. Kaldor. “Professor Chamberlin on Monopolistic and Imperfect Competition,” QJE, 1938

R. F. Kahn. “Some Notes on Ideal Output,” Econ. J, 1935

_______________________________________

Source: Kaplan, Norman Maurice. Papers, Box 2, Folder 7, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library

Image Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Yzgmunt Berling, Box 2. Lange is the civilian in the front left, soon to be General Yzgmunt Berling is the uniformed man on the right. The picture is from 1943.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Harvard Michigan Pennsylvania Research Tip Salaries

Professors’ and Instructors’ Salaries, ca. 1907

Some 103 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada provided useable answers to a survey of higher educational institutions having annual instructional salary budgets of over $45,000 (note assistant professors at the time cost about $2,000 per year) conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Results were published in 1908 (the Preface is dated April 1908), so we can reasonably presume the information reported is either from budgetary data for the academic year 1907-08 or for the academic year 1906-07. The 101 page Bulletin even went on to present data for professorial incomes in Germany!

As the entire Carnegie Foundation Bulletin can be downloaded, this posting is more of a research tip/teaser. I present below an excerpt for the top ten universities (out of 103), ranked by their annual appropriations for the salaries of instructional staff.

Plucking two sentences in lieu of an executive summary, I offer the following quotes from the Bulletin:

“Good, plodding men, who attend diligently to their profession [law, medicine and engineering are meant here] but who are without unusual ability, often obtain in middle life an income considerably higher tthan a man of the greatest genius can receive in an American professor’s chair.” [p. 25]

“A German who possesses such ability that he may expect in due time to become a full professor and who prepares himself for university teaching must expect to study until the age of thirty with no financial return, to study and teach as a docent till nearly thirty-six with an annual remuneration of less than $200, and to teach from thirty-six to forty-one with an annual remuneration of from $600 to $2,000, by which time he may become a full professor and will continue to receive his salary until his death [my emphasis]…If he succeeds… he may hope for a much larger reward and be assured of security in old age.” [p. vii]

____________________________

Average Salaries for Ranks, Age at Start of Rank, Student-Instructor Ratios

Columbia Harvard Chicago Michigan Yale
Total annual income
(thousands of dollars)		 1.675 1.828 1.304 1.078 1.089
Annual Appropriation for Salaries of Instructing Staff
(thousands of dollars)		 1.145 .842 .699 .536 .525
Average Salary of Professor $4,289 4,413 $3,600 $2,763 $3,500
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Professor 37.5 39 … … 35
Average Salary of Associate Professor … $3,600 $2,800 $2,009 …
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Associate Professor … … … … …
Average Salary of Assistant Professor $2,201 $2,719 $2,200 $1,624 $2,000
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant Professor 32 33 … … 29
Average Salary of Instructor $1,800 $1,048 $1,450 $1,114 $1,400
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Instructor 29 28 … … 24
Average Salary of Assistant $500 $347 $666 … …
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant 24 26 … … 23
Total Number of Students in University 4,087 4,012 5,070 4,282 3,306
Total Instructing Staff in University 559 573 291 285 365
Ratio 7.3 7 17.4 15 9
Total Number of Students in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 2,545 2,836 3,902 2,899 2,620
Total Instructing Staff in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 253 322 211 198 236
Ratio 10 8.8 18.4 14.6 11.1

 

Average Salaries for Ranks, Age at Start of Rank, Student-Instructor Ratios

Cornell Illinois Wisconsin Pennsyl-vania UC Berkeley
Total annual income
(thousands of dollars)		 1.083 1.200 .999 .589 .844
Annual Appropriation for Salaries of Instructing Staff
(thousands of dollars)		 .511 .492 .490 .433 .408
Average Salary of Professor $3,135 $2,851 $2,772 $3,500 $3,300
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Professor … … 32.8 … …
Average Salary of Associate Professor … $2,168 $2,081 … $2,200
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Associate Professor … … 29.6 … …
Average Salary of Assistant Professor $1,715 $1,851 $1,636 $1,850 $1,620
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant Professor … … 28.6 … …
Average Salary of Instructor $924 $1,091 $1,065 $1,000 $1,100
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Instructor … … 27.5 … …
Average Salary of Assistant  … $660 $542 $650 $850
Average Age at Entrance to Grade of Assistant … … 24.5 … …
Total Number of Students in University 3,635 3,605 3,116 3,700 2,987
Total Instructing Staff in University 507 414 297 375 350
Ratio 7.1 8.7 10.4 9.8 8.5
Total Number of Students in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 2,917 2,281 2,558 2,618 2,451
Total Instructing Staff in Undergraduate Colleges and Non-professional Graduate Schools 283 190 231 166 218
Ratio 10.3 12 11 15.7 11.2

 

[From the table notes:]

“The grade of associate professor is only given when there is also the distinct grade of assistant professor in the same institution; otherwise the associate professor is classed throughout this discussion as an assistant professor.

Professors who are heads of departments received on an average $5,800 at the University of Chicago.

Figures for Cornell do not include the medical school.

 

Source: Table II in The Financial Status of the Professor in America and in Germany. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin Number Two. New York City, 1908, pp. 10-11.

Image Source: Website of the Carnegie Foundation.

P.S. A list of all Carnegie Foundation Publications.

Categories
Chicago Computing Economists Salaries

Chicago. Purchasing order for a calculator for Henry Schultz. 1928.

Monroe KAA-203

Here is an item to file away under the cost of computing. Henry Schultz, the young hot-shot professor for mathematical economics and statistics wanted a fully-automatic Monroe calculator with an electric motor drive (pictured above). With discounts, the calculator and stand cost $631.  To get a relative price (in a hurry), I note that the nine month salary for Henry C. Simons at the rank of Lecturer was $2790, i.e. $310 per month. Thus figure that calculator-with-stand ran roughly two months of (approximately) instructor rank pay today.

Recommendation to appoint Henry C. Simons May 20, 1927: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President, Mason Administration. Box 24, Folder 2.

Cf. a request to purchase two calculators for the use of the Columbia University economics faculty in 1948.

_______________________

[carbon copy]

January 8, 1928

 

Mr. J. C. Dinsmore [Purchasing Agent]
Faculty Exchange

My dear Mr. Dinsmore:

I am enclosing a requisition against the instruction fund of the Department of Economics for $652.13 [sic] which is to cover the purchase of the following material:

1 Monroe Machine – KAA 203…$825.00

less 15% and 10%…….$631.13

1 Fowler Manson Sherman Stand (low)… 21.00

Total                                       $651.13

 

Professor Henry Schultz is anxious to have these articles delivered as promptly as possible. Will you please telephone me when they arrive so that I can tell you to what room they should be delivered.

So that there will be no delay in the attached requisition being approved promptly, I quote a paragraph taken from a letter of September 24 from Mr. Woodward to me:

“I have arranged with Mr. Plimpton for you to draw on the instruction budget of the Department of Economics for the sum of $2600 in order to provide Mr. Schultz with equipment, supplies, and clerical assistance. It should be clearly understood that this arrangement is for the present year only.”

Yours very sincerely,

L. C. Marshall [chairman of the department]

LCM: GS

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Economics Department. Records & Addenda. Box 6, Folder 2.

_______________________

About the KAA model:

“Model KA from 1922 was the first Monroe calculator with an electric motor drive. The machine has an AC induction motor of about 5″ diameter mounted externally on a cast-iron bracket at the left-hand rear. The motor occupies the dead area under the extended carriage, and so requires no additional desk space. The motor rotates in one direction only at 1500RPM. The mechanism is driven through a planetary gearset, with two dog clutches operated by the Add and Subtract bars to select forward or reverse rotation. The case has been widened by an inch and a half to accommodate the control mechanisms on the left-hand side. The winding handle has been replaced with a knurled brass knob, but the crank can easily be re-fitted to operate the machine by hand.

The carriage has glass windows above the numerals, but carriage shift and register clearing are still manual. The item count knob is at the lower left of the keyboard, with an additional control lever at the upper left to silence the overflow bell.

…[The] Monroe’s head office, which was in New York City until the mid-1920s.

A fully-automatic variant (the Model KAA) was built during the mid to late 1920s. The KAA is wider again than the KA, and has a single column of “on-the-fly” multiplier keys to the left of the main keyboard.”

Source:  John Wolff’s Web Museum. The Monroe Calculating Machine Company

Image Source: KAA-203 photo attributed to contribution by Helmut Siebel. See the link above.

_______________________

For a history of the company.

_______________________

An image of a representative typewriter stand made by a Chicago company (note: a bicycle manufacturer) from the antique dealer Urban Remains of Chicago.

FowlerMansonShermanTubularStand

Categories
Chicago Courses

Chicago. Price Theory. Econ 300 A&B. Friedman Readings ca 1947

 

 

When compared to the list of Milton Friedman’s reading assignments for Economics 300 A&B for 1948, we note that the following handwritten list of readings taken from the student notes of Norman M. Kaplan who attended both 300A and 300B during the Winter Quarter 1947 do not include the 1947 items found in the 1948 list:

Pigou, A. C., “Economic Progress in a Stable Environment,” Economica, 1947, pp. 180-90.

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

This leads me to conclude that we indeed have the assigned Winter Quarter readings for Friedman’s second iteration of Economics 300A and his first iteration of Economics 300B. There is much more in Kaplan’s student notes, but this is enough for one posting.

______________________________

[undated, handwritten copy by Norman M. Kaplan]

Friedman’s readings 300 A&B

 

F. H. Knight, “Social Econ. Organization”; “The Price System & the Econ. Process” (in The Economic Organization, pp. 1-37)

 

Marshall

Bk III, ch. 2, 3, 4,5
Bk V, ch. 1,2,3,4,5,12, Appendix H
Bk IV, ch. 1, 2, 3
Bk V, ch 6
Bk VI, ch. 1-5           (ch. 1,2 done)

 

H. Schultz, Meaning of Statistical Demand Curves, pp. 1-10
E.J. Working, “What do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show?”

 

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, ch 3
Hicks, J. R., Value and Capital, Part I (pp 11-37)
W. A. Wallis & M. Friedman, “Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions” (in Lange, Studies in Math. Econ. & Econometrics, U of C Press)

 

A. L. Myers, Elements of Modern Economics, ch 5, 7, 8, 9
J. Robinson, Econ. of Imperfect Competition, ch 2 (in 209 notes)
J. M. Clark, Econ. of Overhead Costs, ch 9
J. Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves”
E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, ch 3, secs. 1, 4, 5, 6; ch 5
R. F. Harrod, “Doctrines of Imperfect Competition”, QJE, May 1934, esp. sec. 1, pp. 442-61

 

J. B. Clark, Distr. of Wealth, Preface, ch 1, 7, 8, 11, 12 (in 209 notes), 13, 23

 

J. S. Mill, Prin of Pol Econ, Book II, ch 14
Hicks, Theory of Wages, ch 1-6 (in 209 notes)
Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk I, ch 10

 

Friedman and Kuznets, Income from Independent Professional Practice,

Preface, pp. v to x,
ch 3, sec 3, pp. 81-95,
ch 4, sect 2, pp. 118-137,
app to ch. 4, sec 1 & 3, pp 142-151, 155-61

 

F.H. Knight, “Interest” in Ethics of Competition
Keynes, GT [General Theory], ch 11-14

 

Cassell, Fundamental Thoughts in Econ, ch. 1, 2,3
[____], The Theory of Social Economy, ch 4

 

Hicks, “Keynes & the Classics”, Econometrica, Apr 1937, pp. 147-159
Modigliani, “Liquidity Preference & the Theory of Interest & Money,” Econometrica, Jan 1944, esp. Part I, sec. 1 through 9, sec 11 through 17, part II, sec 21
Pigou, “Classical Stationary State,” Econ Journal, Dec 1943, pp. 343-51

 

Source: Kaplan, Norman Maurice. Papers, Box 1, Folder 8, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library

Image Source: The Mont Pelerin Society webpage “About MPS”.

 

Categories
Chicago Courses Syllabus

Chicago. Price Theory. Economics 300 A&B. Metzler. 1948-49

Milton Friedman wasn’t the only person teaching graduate price theory at the University of Chicago in the postwar years. During the academic year 1948-49 both the Harvard-trained Lloyd A. Metzler and Milton Friedman offered parallel sessions of Economics 300 A&B during the same quarters. Both taught the course going into the early 1950s. While the overlap is significant to be sure, the differences of the two approaches, Chicago vs. Harvard, are fairly clear. 

One of the advantages of consulting multiple archives is that I was able to find this Autumn 1948 reading list for Economics 300A, not in Lloyd A. Metzler’s papers at Duke but in Milton Friedman’s papers at Hoover. This list of readings does not square with Friedman’s course organization but also has no name and the course catalogue for 1948-49 does not identify Metzler. Since it matches the later years’ reading lists found in the Metzler papers, we know the nameless Economics 300A for the Autumn Quarter at the University of Chicago was taught by Metzler too.

____________________________

Economics 300A
Autumn 1948

I. The Theory of Consumer’s Choice

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book III.

J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Chapters I – V, and appendices to these chapters.

W. S. Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, Chapters I – IV.

P. A. Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Chapters III, V, VII.

M. Friedman [& L. J. Savage], “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy, LVI (August, 1948) 279-304.

I. Fisher, “Measuring Marginal Utility,” in Economic Essays in Honor of John B. Clark (1927).

II. Production Functions and Cost Schedules

J. M. Cassels, “On the Law of Variable Proportions,” in Explorations in Economics (1936).

J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Chapter VI, VII, VIII, and appendices to those chapters.

J. Robinson, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Chapter II.

P. A. Samuelson, Foundations, Chapter IV.

G. J. Stigler, The Theory of Price, Chapters VII, VIII.

III. Market Price under Perfect Competition.

J. Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Book III.

A. Marshall, Principles, Book V.

G. J. Stigler, The Theory of Price, Chapters IX, X.

IV. Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition.

J. Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Books II, IV, V, and X.

E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, IV, V, VI, VII.

V. Duopoly, Oligopoly, Bilateral Monopoly.

J. Marschak, “Neumann’s and Morgenstern’s New Approach to Static Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, LIV, (April 1946).

E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chapter III.

H. G. Lewis, “Some Observations on Duopoly Theory.” American Economic Review, XXXVIII (May 1948, supplement) 1-9.

O. Morgenstern, “Oligopoly, Monopolistic Competition, and the Theory of Games,” American Economic Review, XXXVIII (May 1948, supplement) 10-18.

VI. Modern Price Theory and Welfare Economics.

A. Burk (Bergson), “A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (1937-38).

A. C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (4th Edition), Part II, Chapters I – XI.

A. P. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Chapters I – XIX.

P. A. Samuelson, Foundations, Chapter VIII.

J. R. Hicks, “The Foundations of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal XLIX (1939).

G. J. Stigler, “The New Welfare Economics,” American Economic Review, XXXIII (1943), 355-359.

Source: Hoover Institution, Milton Friedman Papers. Box 76, Folder 9 “University of Chicago Econ. 300 A”.

____________________________

Economics 300B
Major Topics and Selected Readings
Winter, 1949
Lloyd A. Metzler

The principal books to be used are as follows:

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, eighth edition, reprinted 1947.

J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, second edition, 1946.

B. Haley and W. Fellner, editors, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, reprinted 1947.

G. J. Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories, 1941.

I. Production Functions and the Doctrine of Marginal Productivity

B. Haley and W. Fellner, Readings, Chapters 5, 6, 7, 11.

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories.

P. H. Douglas, “Are There Laws of Production?”, American Economic Review, XXXVIII (1948) 1-41.

II. The Theory of Wages

B. Haley and W. Fellner, Readings, Chapters 13, 14, 16, 17, 19.

J. R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages, 1932.

R. A. Lester, “Shortcomings of Marginal Analysis for Wage-Employment Problems”, American Economic Review, 1946.

F. Machlup, “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research”, American Economic Review, 1946.

G. J. Stigler, “The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation,” American Economic Review, 1946.

III. Capital and Interest

E. Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, 1891.

I. Fisher, The Theory of Interest, 1930.

W. Fellner and B. Haley, Readings, Chapters 20, 21, 22, 23,24, 26.

J. M. Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Book IV.

A. Marshall, Principles, the relevant chapters in Books IV and VI.

J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Parts III and IV.

IV. Inter-relations of Wages, Interest, and Profits.

F. H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profits.

J. A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development.

O. Lange, Price Flexibility and Employment.

K. Wicksell, Interest and Prices.

K. Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy, Vol. I, Part 2.

Source: Duke University David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder: “Reading Lists 300 A & B — 302”.

Source Image: “From family album, taken while Lloyd Metzler was a student at Harvard.”
“Lloyd A. Metzler” by Margiemetz – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.