Category: Columbia

Categories
Business School Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. (1923) alumnus and Columbia Business School Dean, J. E. Orchard Memo on Galbraith, 1946.

 

John Ewing Orchard (b. 19 July 1893 in Exeter, Nebraska; d. 28 January 1962 in Charlottesville, Virginia) wrote the following summary of a telephone conversation with his former boss, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (who supervised the work of John Kenneth Galbraith at the Lend Lease Administration during WWII) and incidentally went on to serve as the Secretary of State). From this memo it is clear that Galbraith’s name came up for consideration for the Deanship of the Columbia School of Business. Orchard, a Harvard economics Ph.D. (1923), might have had ulterior motives in entering this document into the record — it can be found in the papers of then chairman of the economics department, Robert Haig, that have been deposited in the Central Files of the Columbia University administration. We see below that Orchard himself was later appointed to the Deanship of the business school…coincidence?

In any event, in case there might be any doubt in somebody’s mind, John Kenneth Galbraith had done nothing in government service that would have enhanced his prospects to become an academic Dean. His comparative advantage was to be found in other endeavors. Whether John Kenneth Galbraith indeed had “poison in his soul” as noted by Stettinius is left to his legions of admirers and detractors to determine. However, given Galbraith’s life motto “Modesty is a most overrated virtue”, I presume Stettinius had confused poison with an ego of legendary proportion.

____________________

Kenneth Galbraith

Stettinius on Galbraith

Telephone conversation with Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., concerning Galbraith, October 23, 1946.

Galbraith worked with Stettinius on the National Defense Council in 1940. Stettinius stated that there was no question but that Galbraith was a brilliant economist, but he was a difficult person to work with. He seemed always to be taking a belligerent left wing position and never was in the middle of the road. I gathered that there was little give and take as far as Galbraith was concerned. Stettinius also said he seemed to have “poison in his soul”.

After Galbraith left OPA, Stettinius, as a result of considerable pressure, took him into the Lend Lease Administration. His experience with him there was not satisfactory, for after Stettinius had assigned him to a responsible position, Galbraith did not establish friendly working relations with his associates. He did not seem to be interested in the work or in the organization and after a couple of months he quit. Stettinius stated that he did not believe that Galbraith would make a good dean.

John E. Orchard

Source:  Columbia University.  Central Files. Box 386, Folder 7/7 “Haig, Robert Murray”.

____________________

John Ewing Orchard,
Harvard economics Ph.D. 1923

John Ewing Orchard, A. B. (Swarthmore Coll.) 1916, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1920.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Economic Resources. Thesis, “The World’s Coal Resources and some of their Influences on National Economy.” Instructor in Economic Geography, Columbia University.

Source:  Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1922-1923, p. 52.

____________________

Guggenheim Fellowship, 1931

JOHN E. ORCHARD
Fellow: Awarded 1931
Field of Study: Economic History
Competition: US & Canada

As published in the Foundation’s Report for 1931–32:

ORCHARD, JOHN EWING:  Appointed to study the transition that is occurring in China from agriculture and from household industries to modern manufacturing, investigations to be carried on chiefly in China; tenure, eight months from June 20, 1931.

Born July 19, 1893, at Exeter, Nebraska. Education:  Swarthmore college, A.B., 1916; Harvard University, M.A., 1920, Ph.D., 1923; University of Pennsylvania, 1917–18; University of Chicago, Summer, 1920.

Assistant in Geography and Industry, 1917–18, University of Pennsylvania; Assistant Mine Economist, United States Bureau of Mines, 1918–19; Instructor in Economic Geography, 1920–24, Assistant Professor, 1924–29, Associate Professor, 1929—, Columbia University.

Publications: Japan’s Economic Position: The Progress of Industrialization, 1920; chapter on Marine Insurance in Influence of the Great War on Shipping, by J. Russell Smith, 1919; chapter on Gold in Political and Commercial Geology, edited by J. E. Spurr, 1920. Articles in Quarterly Journal of Economics, Geographical Review, Journal of Geography, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

 

Source:  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Website. Fellow page: John E. Orchard.

____________________

Dr. Orchard New Business School Dean
[Columbia Daily Spectator, 9 January 1947]

Dr. John E. Orchard, professor of economic geography at Columbia and one of the country’s outstanding authorities on the Far East, will replace Dean Robert D. Calkins as director of the School of Business, it was announced yesterday by Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, acting president of the University.

Dean Calkins, who has been the head of the Business School since 1941, resigned in order to accept an appointment as vice president and director of the General Education Board in New York City.

Professor Orchard, a graduate of Swathmore and Harvard Universities, has been a member of the teaching staff of the School of Business since 1920.

Active In Government

From May 1941 until January 1946, he served as a member of several important government agencies in Washington D. C. He was senior assistant administrator to Edward Stettinius when the latter was Lend-Lease Administrator. Later Dr. Orchard was appointed special assistant to Mr. Stettinius when he was Under Secretary of State. Dean Orchard served as special assistant to William Clayton, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Affairs. His last Washington assignment was as senior consultant to the Foreign Liquidation Commissioner, Thomas B. McCabe. He spent the years of 1926-27, 1931-32, and 1938-39 in Asia and in 1930 published a book entitled “Japan’s Economic Problem”.

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LXIX, Number 34, 9 January 1947.

Image Source: John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Website. Fellow page: John E. Orchard.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs

Columbia. Memo from economics chair to department members with three recommendations, 1945

October 30, 1945

To the Members of the Department of Economics:

            During the past two years the members of the Department have reviewed the contents of the various courses in the present curriculum, and have discussed problems of departmental organization. Certain of the issues raised in these discussions, and one or two related general problems, should be settled within the present year. Questions that were academic during the period of reduced registration are more pressing at the present time, and will be insistent under the heavy registration to be expected next year.

            The following are some of our present and pending problems:

  1. The numbers of students registered in certain courses are too large for effective instruction by the methods preferred by the instructors. This problem promises to become more serious.
  2. The heterogeneity of the student body with respect to training and experience makes it difficult to do justice to the well-prepared students while meeting the needs of the less well-prepared.
    Like problems arise from the mixture of part-time and full-time students, and from the mixture of students planning to become professional economists with students who have no serious professional interests. Standards of instruction suffer, as a result.
  3. Failure to week out weaker students lessens the effectiveness of the work we can do with capable advanced students.
  4. Under present arrangements for the preparation of dissertations it is difficult properly to supervise the research work of advanced graduate students, and to give them adequate training in research procedures.

            The following recommendations bear upon these and related problems. The considerations that prompt each recommendation will be familiar to members of the Department, and need not be expounded in detail.

  1. I propose that we set up a clear distinction between two classes of graduate students.
    1. Standard candidates, whose objective is the doctoral degree, with or without the M.A. as an intermediary degree.
      Standard candidates will be selected upon the basis of their own statements of intention, and after careful review of their educational records by the Office of Admissions and the Department of Economics. High standards will be enforced. Standard candidates must register each term for a minimum of 12 points (or for a smaller number if that number will complete residence requirements for the doctorate).
      Standard candidates may be designated at the time of admission to the Graduate School, or later.
      The status of all standard candidates will be reviewed by the Department at or before the close of their first full year of graduate study. This review may take the form of special written examinations. Only with explicit approval of the Department may standard candidates register for a second year of graduate work. The Department may subject standard candidates to review at later stages of their work, as well as at the close of the first year.
      Certain courses of instruction and certain seminars will be open only to standard candidates.
    1. Terminal M. A. candidates. These are students whose final objective in the graduate school is the Master’s degree. In general, the present rules for the M.A. degree will apply to this group.
      The one important modification proposed is that grades of B or better be required for the 21 points of examination credit that must be offered for the M.A. degree. This tightening of M.A. standards seems essential. With it we might, to advantage, enforce more rigorous standards for the M.A. thesis.
      The students placed in this class would include all those who contemplate no graduate work beyond the M.A., and those whose intentions regarding graduate work beyond the M.A. are uncertain.
      The accomplishments of students in this group would be subject to periodic review and those with definitely unsatisfactory records would not be allowed to continue their graduate work.

Unclassified graduate students, students provisionally admitted to the graduate school and students not candidates for a higher degree will be grouped with Terminal M.A. candidates in determining admissibility to graduate courses and seminars. Students desiring to work for the doctorate but whose educational records do not warrant immediate acceptance as standard candidates will also be grouped with terminal M.A. candidates. The Department may transfer such students to the standard category on the basis of demonstrated capacity.

Under this proposed classification, we shall set off for special attention legitimate candidates for professional training as economists, and for this group shall enforce standards of attendance and accomplishment more rigorous than those applied to other graduate students. If we are to preserve high standards of instruction and training for the doctorate there is only one alternative to the proposed segregation. That is the drastic curtailment of the size of the graduate group. Under present conditions this does not appear to be a feasible alternative.

            In determining what courses are to be restricted to standard candidates, account will be taken of the wishes of the instructors, the specified pre-requisites and the manner in which the instructors wish to handle their classes (e.g. lectures, or discussion), as well as subject matter.

            Some review of our curriculum will be called for, if this division is to be enforced. Small classes, with more emphasis on seminars and specialized research, will be appropriate in the programs of the standard candidates. Large lecture courses and courses of fairly wide scope will continue to be given for the terminal M.A. candidates and unclassified students. There will be, of course, a mixing of groups in some classes.

            There should be considerable flexibility in the framing of programs for the standard candidates, so that men who come to Columbia with a considerable background of work in economics will not be obliged to take certain of the general courses intended for men who come with a liberal arts background and little specialization in economics.

            2. I recommend that every doctoral candidate be required to devote a period equivalent to at least one semester, and preferably one year, to rigorous research training, under the supervision of the Department. In general this should mean a year in residence, or in an approved research position, following the oral examination on subjects. During this period the candidate’s dissertation should be substantially completed. An appropriate administrative rule, when formulated, will have to make some allowance for flexibility of application, but the objective should be clear. The writing of the doctoral dissertation is an integral part of the candidate’s professional training. It should be completed under the guidance of the Department, or under other conditions that will assure appropriate supervision and sound training in research techniques.

            3. I recommend that the Department approve, in principle, the organization of two specialized centers of economic research. Plans for these institutes, or research centers, will be submitted to the President. Financial support will be sought within and without the University. It is hoped that these institutes will provide members of the faculty with research funds and research facilities, and that they will strengthen the educational work of the Department by providing advanced graduate students with opportunities to assist in research projects during their period of graduate training.

            The centers now proposed are an Institute of Public Finance and an Institute of International Economics. Detailed memoranda on the organization of these institutes have been prepared.

            If the Department favors these three general recommendations consideration will have to be given to requisite curricular changes and, possibly, to admission procedures and minor administrative matters. Appropriate recommendations can be placed before the Department at a later time.

Frederick C. Mills

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-.  Box 396. Folder: “1.1.288 1/1 Mills, Frederick Cecil.”

Categories
Columbia Gender

Columbia. Faculty of Political Science Not Yet Supporting Admission of Women, 1892

 

It is not clear whether the undersigned were actually against the admission of women to the graduate courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University in 1892 or procedural sticklers navigating troubled waters (or both). In any event, this is a pretty curious document.

___________________

Names, Ranks, and Fields of Signers

Edmund Munroe Smith, Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence
Frank J. Goodnow, Professor of Administrative Law
Edwin R. A. Seligman, Professor of Political Economy and Finance and Secretary of the Faculty
William A. Dunning, Adjunct Professor of History
John Bassett Moore, Professor of History and Political Philosophy
Herbert L. Osgood, Adjunct Professor of History

___________________

Admission Interruptus

Columbia College
In the City of New York
School of
Political Science

Jan. 15, 1892

Seth Low, LL.D.,
President of Columbia College.

Dear Sir:

We, the undersigned members of the Faculty of Political Science, desire to withdraw for the present our assent, given separately and without consultation, to the admission of women to our University courses. It is evident to us, on reflection, that the admission of women to certain courses makes it very difficult to exclude them from any, and that the assent of each professor in so far prejudices the decision of all: and we think that a change of policy of such importance should be made only by the Faculty, and after general and full discussion.

We see moreover the possibility of great detriment to the work of the School of Political Science if this question should be determined without a degree of harmony in the Faculty which does not as yet exist.

Yours respectfully,
[signed]
Munroe Smith
Frank J. Goodnow
Edwin R. A. Seligman
Wm. A. Dunning
J. B. Moore
Herbert L. Osgood

Source: Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 339. Folder: “1.1.19; Smith, Munroe; 5/1891-11/1909”.

 

 

Categories
Cambridge Chicago Columbia Economists Harvard Ohio State Vanderbilt

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. alumnus, James W. Ford, 1954.

 

In this latest addition to our series “Get to Know an Economics Ph.D.”  we meet a Harvard Ph.D. from 1954, James William Ford.  His Ph.D. dissertation’s title was “International monetary relations and the British monetary system, 1920-1939”.

Ford’s academic path began as an undergraduate at Oberlin, then he went on to Harvard for his graduate work. Before getting his Ph.D., Ford received one of the very first round of Fulbright Fellowships to attend Cambridge University. He taught at Columbia, Vanderbilt, and Ohio State followed by two years working at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. His long final career stage was with the Ford Motor Company as a leading financial economist.

_____________

James William Ford (1923-2017)
Obituary

James William Ford, a beloved father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, died at age 94 on November 23 at his home in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mr. Ford was born February 1, 1923 in Alameda, California, the son of Eunice George Ford and Shelton C. Ford, and older brother of Eunice Ford. He is survived by his second wife, Phyllis Ford; three children, Julian Ford, Amy Milkovich, Carol Arkin; two step-children, Jessica Leix and Peter Leix; 10 grandchildren; 1 step-granddaughter; and 7 great-grandchildren. In the first three decades of his life, Mr. Ford was an outstanding student and a City of Detroit High School Debate champion, served in the Army as a meteorologist during World War II, a graduate of Oberlin College in 1947, a Master of Arts recipient in economics from Harvard University in 1949, one of the first class of Fulbright Scholars in 1951 (at Cambridge University in Great Britain), and Doctor of Philosophy recipient in economics from Harvard University in 1954. Mr. Ford taught economics at Columbia University from 1951 to 1953, at Vanderbilt University from 1953 to 1957, and Ohio State University from 1957 to 1959, before becoming a postdoctoral fellow at the University Chicago with the eminent economist Milton Friedman. Mr. Ford served as Economist to the Board of Governors at the U.S. Federal Reserve from 1959-1961. He then moved to Ford Motor Company where he worked for the rest of his career until retiring in 1988. Mr. Ford was the Assistant Controller for the Ford Motor Company Finance Staff from 1961 to 1975, Executive Vice President for Insurance and Special Finance Operations at Ford Motor Credit Company from 1975-1977, then president from 1977-1980 and Chairman,1980-1987, of Ford Motor Credit Company. At Ford Motor Company he became Vice President from 1980-1987, Executive Vice President from 1987-1988, and President of Ford Finance Services Group from 1987-1988. Under his leadership, Ford Motor Credit Company developed a program and portfolio of financial policies and investments that achieved unprecedented fiscal success for the company. He visited and met with Ford Motor Company dealership executives all over the country, developing a network of successful entrepreneurs and many close friendships that lasted throughout his retirement. After retiring at age 65, Mr. Ford was very active for the next 25 years as a Board member for several nonprofit agencies serving children and families, investment firms, and most especially with the United Methodist Retirement Community and the Towsley Center in Chelsea, Michigan, where a wing is dedicated to his mother and a garden is dedicated to his beloved first wife Anne, and with Starfish Family Services. Mr. Ford was an avid tennis player for most of his life and captained a small sailboat every weekend for many years, and followed in his mother’s tradition by traveling widely around the world. He was a devoted brother to his younger sister, Eunice, and was much loved by many other members of the Ford family and in-laws on the Farley side of his and Anne’s family, and countless close friends including members of a potluck group in Ann Arbor that convened monthly for more than four decades. According to his wishes, a gravesite service will be held at Botsford Cemetery in Ann Arbor in the Spring…

Source:  Published in Ann Arbor News on Dec. 3, 2017.

Image Source: Oberlin College Yearbook, The Hi-O-Hi, p. 32.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Columbia Economist Market Modigliani Ohio State Salaries

Columbia. Economist salaries below market. Examples of Modigliani and James W. Ford, 1956

 

The following letter provides interesting testimony to Franco Modigliani‘s market value in 1956 as well as how A. G. Hart hoped to offer Modigliani’s other offers together with an offer extended to James William Ford (Harvard economics Ph.D., 1954) by Ohio State University as evidential ammunition in the economics department plea for a significant increase in Columbia University salaries to remain competitive.

_________________

COPY

[Stamp: Office of the Vice President, July 13, 1956, Columbia University]

July 8, 1956

Prof. Carl S. Shoup
Executive Officer
Department of Economics
503 Fayerweather

Dear Professor Shoup:

This is to give further background on the scrap of evidence about the adequacy of Columbia University salary scales that is offered by Franco Modigliani’s comment on our offer of a visiting professorship for next year. As your note points out, the interpretation hinges largely on his professional status.

Against our offer of $10,000 for a one-year visit, as I read Modigliani’s letter with its gentlemanly absence of specific figures, he was offered $12,000 for a year as visiting professor at Harvard and at least $12,500 as permanent professor at Berkeley, and settled for (I take it) $12,000 to stay at Carnegie Tech. His age is 37 or 38, I believe, and he has been professor for two or three years at Carnegie Tech.

Modigliani’s reputation is established, but not very wide. He has published several distinguished articles, and has important work in progress; but his only book publication to date has been a collaboration with Neisser. Furthermore, he has lacked the backing of the major graduate schools (being an immigrant with a doctorate from the New School), and has thus tended to be undervalued by the market. Besides, he suffered a setback because he had the misfortune to be in the thick of the fracas at the University of Illinois. When working conditions there became intolerable, he felt such an unconditional urge to leave that he sacrificed the bargaining power of his tenure there as associate professor. At the time he went to Carnegie Tech, he could not command a tenure appointment but went on a term arrangement which however it took them only a few months to convert to an appointment with tenure.

In short, here is the kind of man we will want when next we have an appointment to make—and undervalued rather than overvalued on the national economics market—and our salary scale is at least $2500 below what he can command at good centers with about our teaching load, and with a lower cost of living. Another interesting comparison has come in meanwhile. James Ford, whom we let go from a Columbia instructorship to be assistant professor at Vanderbilt, writes that he has refused a post at Ohio State as associate professor at $8100. This is for a man of about the caliber and stage of development we think suitable for an assistant professorship at Columbia. We must be a good $1500 below the market at that level, if this is evidence.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Albert Gailord Hart
Professor of Economics

Source:  Columbia University Archives, Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files, 1890-, Box 400. Folder “Shoup, Carl Sumner (2/2); 1/1956—6/1948”.

Image Source: Franco Modigliani, from MIT Museum website.

Categories
Columbia Economic History Race

Columbia. John W. Burgess charged with “anti-Negro thought” by W.E.B. Du Bois, 1935

 

Preparing for class tomorrow, I was reading the concluding chapter of W.E.B. Du Bois‘s book, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880, that includes the following unflattering portrait of the founder of Columbia University’s School of Political Science, John W. Burgess. Since Burgess’s School of Political Science was the home of graduate economics education at Columbia University and the boundaries between the disciplines of law, history, political science, economics, and sociology were much less well-defined then than today, I think it is worth including W.E.B. Du Bois’s observations here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. 

Image Source: W.E.B. Du Bois (ca. 1919 by C. M. Battey) in Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

_____________________

Excerpt from
Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880
by W.E.B. Du Bois.

The real frontal attack on Reconstruction, as interpreted by the leaders of national thought in 1870 and for some time thereafter, came from the universities and particularly from Columbia and Johns Hopkins.

The movement began with Columbia University and with the advent of John W. Burgess of Tennessee and William A. Dunning of New Jersey as professors of political science and history.

Burgess was an ex-Confederate soldier who started to a little Southern college with a box of books, a box of tallow candles and a Negro boy; and his attitude toward the Negro race in after years was subtly colored by this early conception of Negroes as essentially property like books and candles. Dunning was a kindly and impressive professor who was deeply influenced by a growing group of young Southern students and began with them to re-write the history of the nation from 1860 to 1880, in more or less conscious opposition to the classic interpretations of New England.

Burgess was frank and determined in his anti-Negro thought. He expounded his theory of Nordic supremacy which colored all his political theories:

“The claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind. To put such a race of men in possession of a ‘state’ government in a system of federal government is to trust them with the development of political and legal civilization upon the most important subjects of human life, and to do this in communities with a large white population is simply to establish barbarism in power over civilization.” [Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, p.133 ]

Burgess is a Tory and open apostle of reaction. He tells us that the nation now believes “that it is the white man’s mission, his duty and his right, to hold the reins of political power in his own hands for the civilization of the world and the welfare of mankind.”4

4 Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, pp. viii, ix.

For this reason America is following “the European idea of the duty of civilized races to impose their political sovereignty upon civilized, or half civilized, or not fully civilized, races anywhere and everywhere in the world.”5

5 Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, p. 218.

He complacently believes that “There is something natural in the subordination of an inferior race to a superior race, even to the point of the enslavement of the inferior race, but there is nothing natural in the opposite.”6 He therefore denominates Reconstruction as the rule “of the uncivilized Negroes over the whites of the South.”7 This has been the teaching of one of our greatest universities for nearly fifty years.

6 Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, pp. 244-245.
7 Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, p. 218.

Dunning was less dogmatic as a writer, and his own statements are often judicious. But even Dunning can declare that “all the forces [in the South] that made for civilization were dominated by a mass of barbarous freedmen”; and that “the antithesis and antipathy of race and color were crucial and ineradicable.”7a The work of most of the students whom he taught and encouraged has been one-sided and partisan to the last degree. Johns Hopkins University has issued a series of studies similar to Columbia’s; Southern teachers have been welcomed to many Northern universities, where often Negro students have been systematically discouraged, and thus a nation-wide university attitude has arisen by which propaganda against the Negro has been carried on unquestioned.

7a Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, pp. 212, 213.

The Columbia school of historians and social investigators have issued between 1895 and the present time sixteen studies of Reconstruction in the Southern States, all based on the same thesis and all done according to the same method: first, endless sympathy with the white South; second, ridicule, contempt or silence for the Negro; third, a judicial attitude towards the North, which concludes that the North under great misapprehension did a grievous wrong, but eventually saw its mistake and retreated.

These studies vary, of course, in their methods. Dunning’s own work is usually silent so far as the Negro is concerned. Burgess is more than fair in law but reactionary in matters of race and property, regarding the treatment of a Negro as a man as nothing less than a crime, and admitting that “the mainstay of property is the courts.”

In the books on Reconstruction written by graduates of these universities and others, the studies of Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Louisiana are thoroughly bad, giving no complete picture of what happened during Reconstruction, written for the most part by men and women without broad historical or social background, and all designed not to seek the truth but to prove a thesis. Hamilton reaches the climax of this school when he characterizes the black codes, which even Burgess condemned, as “not only … on the whole reasonable, temperate and kindly, but, in the main, necessary.”8

8 Hamilton, “Southern Legislation in Respect to Freedmen” in Studies in Southern History and Politics, p. 156.

 

Source:   W.E. Burghardt Du Bois, Black Reconstruction. An Essay Toward a History of the Part which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880, pp. 718-720.

Image Source: John W. Burgess in Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2. Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1899,  p. 481.

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Latin and Ancient Greek are too much of a good thing. Munroe Smith, 1891

 

A long time before economics graduate degree programs in the United States were to completely abolish requirements for demonstrating a basic competency in some language other than English [e.g. M.I.T. in 1969], there was a battle over the number of ancient languages expected. In this post we have a member of Columbia University’s Faculty of Political Science, Prof. Munroe Smith (legal historian), giving his opinion on the matter to President Low back in 1891.

I have included brief biographical material from an 1899 publication along with the Columbia University newspaper’s report of Smith’s funeral service in 1926.

Fun Fact:  Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay and Hewlett Packard and unsuccessful candidate for Governor of California in 2010, happens to be a great-grandaughter of Munroe Smith.

__________________

Letter from Legal Historian Munroe Smith to Columbia President Seth Low

Columbia College,
October 7, 1891

Dear Sir:

In reply to your circular letter of June 12, I have to say that I heartily endorse the plan proposed by the University Council—as far as it goes. I should prefer to see an election permitted in the entrance examinations also between Greek and some equivalent. But I accept the plan of the Council as meeting the immediate necessities of the situation at Columbia.

It is impossible longer to insist on both the ancient languages in our undergraduate curriculum. We have ourselves made it impossible. For the degree of Ph.D., two of our own University faculties already demand a reading knowledge of Latin, French and German. It does not seem possible for the student to acquire this knowledge in the School of Arts as long as he is held to Greek. At least, we constantly find graduate students who are obliged to give up the hope of attaining this degree, unless they are able and willing to go back into undergraduate courses and there make good their linguistic deficiencies. But this seems hardly fair to them.

I am opposed to the proposal to confine the A.B. degree to those who have studied Greek in college. It seems to me a reactionary suggestion. Whatever may have been the case a generation ago. A.B. does not now, in our most progressive and popular colleges, imply any knowledge of Greek. It does not even imply that the bearer has forgotten Greek. Even at Columbia we have broken with the older tradition as regards the higher degree of A.M. We have conferred the degree of A.M. upon men who not only have no Greek, but who have neither Greek nor Latin, or at least have not studied either language within the preceding five years. This I consider too great an innovation. I think we shall best combine healthy progress with sound conservatism by requiring for all academic (non-technical) degrees a good knowledge of one ancient language. But I do not think we can insist on two.

I am opposed to the suggestion that the degree of Ph.B. be conferred in all cases where Greek has not been studied in college, because in the common opinion this is an inferior degree. The distinction proposed casts a slur upon all other liberal studies and unduly exalts the older as opposed to the newer humanities.

Respectfully
[signed]
Munroe Smith

President Seth Low, LL.D.

 

Source: Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 339. Folder: “1.1.19; Smith, Munroe; 5/1891-11/1909”.

__________________

SMITH, Munroe. 1854-[1926]

Born in Brooklyn, N.Y. 1854 educated at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute. Amherst College (A.B. 1874), Columbia Law School, and Universities of Berlin, Leipzig and Göttingen (J.U.D 1880); Lecturer and Instructor at Columbia 1880-83; Adjunct Professor and Lecturer 1883-90; Professor 1890-; Managing Editor Political Science Quarterly 1887-92, 1898-99.

MUNROE SMITH, J.U.D., Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence at Columbia, was born in Brooklyn, New York, December 8, 1854, son of Dr. Horatio Southgate and Susan Dwight (Munroe) Smith. His ancestors were English and Scotch settlers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine. Having acquired his preparatory education in the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, he entered Amherst College in 1870 and was graduated in 1874. After a year in post-graduate work at Amherst with Professor John W. Burgess, he spent the next two years (1875-1877) at the Law School of Columbia, and continued his studies in Germany, at the Universities of Berlin, Leipzig and Göttingen, for the three years 1877-1880, taking the degree of Doctor of Civil Law at Göttingen in the latter year. On returning  from abroad he became Lecturer on Roman Law and Instructor in History at Columbia, and filled that position for three years. In 1883 he was made Adjunct Professor of History and Lecturer on Roman Law, and after officiating in that capacity for seven years, was in 1890 transferred to the Chair of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, which he now holds. Professor Smith while filling his Chair with thoroughness and ability, has devoted some measure of his time to literary work, and besides being Managing Editor of the Political Science Quarterly, for several years, has been a contributor to various journals, and to Lalor’s and Johnson’s Encyclopædias. He published in 1898: Bismarck and German Unity, An Historical Outline. He married April 17, 1890 Gertrude Huidekoper, and has one daughter, Gertrude Munroe Smith.

 

Source: Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2 (1899), pp. 399-400.

__________________

DOCTOR E. M. SMITH TO BE BURIED TODAY

Bryce Professor Emeritus Victim of Pneumonia—Funeral Services from St. Paul’s.

Dr. Edmund Monroe Smith [18]77 L, Bryce Professor Emeritus of European History, died at his home Tuesday, a victim of pneumonia. Professor Smith was a member of the Columbia Faculty since 1880. Funeral services will be held this afternoon at 2 P.M. from St. Paul’s Chapel. Dr. Smith was born in Brooklyn in 1854. He entered Amherst College in the Class of 1874, and after receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree he enrolled in Columbia in the Class of ’77 Law. After graduation from Law School, Doctor Smith went abroad and studied at the University of Göttingen, where he was awarded a J.U.D. He also received the honorary degrees of Doctor of Law from Columbia, in 1904 and Amherst in 1916, and Doctor of Jurisprudence from Louvain University in 1909.

Author of Many Books.

From 1891 to 1922, during his forty-five years of teaching at Columbia, Doctor Smith was Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence. He was also a lecturer on Roman Law at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Doctor Smith was the author of numerous books, among which are, “Bismark and German Unity”, “Out of Their Own Mouths” and “Militarism and Statecraft” which was published during the World War. He edited several publications, one of the most important of which is, “The Political Science Quarterly”.

Dr. Smith is survived by his wife, formerly Miss Gertrude Huidkoper of Philadelphia, and a daughter, Mrs. Cushing Goodhue of Boston. The honorary pallbearers this afternoon will be President Nicholas Murray Butler, Frederick Coudert, Brander Matthews, Judge John Bassett Moore of the Permanent Court at The Hague, George A. Plimpton, Franklin H. Giddings, Lyman Beecher Stowe, Charles D. Havens, Rev. Dr. Willam Adams Brown, George Northrop, Algernoon S. Frissell, Carlton J. Hayes, B. M. Anderson, Howard Lee McBain, Frederick Keppel, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone of the United States Supreme Court, and President John H. Goodnow, of John Hopkins University.

 

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. XLIX, No. 135 (April 15, 1926), p. 1.

Image Source: Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2 (1899), pp. 399-400.

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Harvard Johns Hopkins Wisconsin Yale

Graduate economics enrollments in the seven leading departments (U.S.), 1909

 

The following tabulation of enrolled graduate students in economics and sociology at Columbia University and its “six leading competitors” in 1909 is striking because of  1) the modest scale of the graduate enrollments and 2) the fact that economics and sociology are reported together (an indication of their continued academic proximity). 

 

_______________

Letter from E.R.A. Seligman to Chairman of the Trustees of Columbia University

No. 324 West 86 street,
New York, February 13, 1909

My dear Sir:

You may be interested in the enclosed statistics which have been compiled by me from answers to questions sent out to the various universities. It shows the relative position of Columbia compared to its six leading competitors, and it is a curious coincidence that the totals of Columbia on the one hand, and of the six universities together on the other, should be precisely the same.

Faithfully yours
[Stamp] Edwin R. A. Seligman

(Enclosure)

To Mr. George L. Rives,
New York City

*  * *  *  *  *

 

STUDENTS WITH DEGREES ENROLLED IN
GRADUATE COURSES, Dec. 1909

Economics

 Sociology

Total of Economics and Sociology
Harvard

27

 —

27
Yale

16

 12

28
Cornell

10

 4

14
Johns-Hopkins

12*

 —

12*
Chicago

12

 19

31
Wisconsin

22

 4

26
Total in the 6 universities

99

 39

138
 

Columbia

  

67

  

71

  

138

*including duplications.

 

Source:  Columbia University Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary. Columbia University Archives. Central Files, 1890-. Box 338. Folder “2/5; Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson; 7/1904-12/1910”.

Image Source:  The Library of Columbia University, New York. H.C. White Co., Publishers, 1909. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.

 

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus, Clement Lowell Harriss, 1940.

 

In this post we have a nice pair of bookends for the career of Columbia economics Ph.D. (1940) and later Columbia professor, C. Lowell Harriss:  a letter from 1946 recommending his appointment to an assistant professorship and a memorial webpage from the Columbia economics department.

________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Faculty of Political Science

November 26, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library

Dear Mr. President:

On recommendation of the College Committee appointed in accordance with your letter of October 3d and with the approval of the Committee on Instruction of Columbia College, the Department of Economics requests the promotion of C. Lowell Harriss from instructor to assistant professor, effective January 1, 1947.

The Department considers that this promotion would be a well earned recognition of ability and service. The reasons set forth in the enclosed letter from Professor Horace Taylor, chairman of the College Committee, in our judgment amply justify our request that this action be taken at an exceptional time.

Dr. Harriss’ salary as instructor is $3,300 for the year. We recommend that his salary as assistant professor should be at the rate of $3,600. Funds for the additional $2150 required on the 1946-47 budget are available in the unexpended salary of Carl T. Schmidt.

Respectfully yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive officer, Department of Economics

*  *  *  *  *  *

________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Faculty of Political Science

November 26, 1946

Professor Carter Goodrich
Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University

Dear Professor Goodrich:

The newly constituted Committee on Economics Instruction in Columbia College held its first meeting on October 28. I have reported separately the formal action taken at this meeting with regard to the nomination of a Departmental Representative.

Its most urgent matter of regular business in the view of the Committee is its unanimous recommendation that Dr. C. Lowell Harriss, instructor in Economics, be promoted to Assistant Professor of Economics. It is the opinion of the Committee that Dr. Harriss has reached a maturity and a competency in this field that cause him to be considerably underranked in his present position. The Committee not only recommends promotion for Dr. Harriss, but strongly urges that the promotion be made immediately and to take effect January 1, 1947. This recommendation is made both because it would provide immediate recognition to a man who, in the Committee’s judgment, thoroughly deserves it, and also because we believe that action of this kind would have distinct morale value, both for Dr. Harriss, and for other members of the College staff who feel as we do about Dr. Harriss as a teacher, a scholar, and a person.

Dr. Harriss is thirty-four years old. He joined this Department as an instructor in economics in 1938. He is a man of such broad intellectual background and training that he has been extraordinarily well qualified for work in the course in Contemporary Civilization, and has made substantial contributions to the planning and teaching of this difficult course. He also has contributed materially to the Departmental work in the College, and one of our plans for the next academic year is that Dr. Harriss will offer an undergraduate course in his speciality [sic], which is Public Finance. During the current year, he is giving a course in this field designed for University Undergraduates. If Dr. Harriss receives the promotion that is recommended, it is planned that he will be a member of the Faculty of Columbia College and also of the Faculty of the new School for General Studies. One of the reasons that we strongly believe that we should, in the interests of the University, increase the number of young men of professorial rank is that the College Faculty will be expected to provide members to the Faculty of the School for General Studies.

Dr. Harriss’s intellectual attainments are extraordinarily high. He received the B.S. degree at Harvard Summa Cum Laudein 1934, having majored in history. My impression is that the degree with highest distinction is awarded to a major student in a particular department only once in several years at Harvard or, at least, it averages out about this way. On graduating from Harvard, Dr. Harriss was awarded the highest scholarship (one for travel in Europe) that is given to a graduate of Harvard College. He then became a Council for Research in the Social Sciences Fellow in economics and pursued graduate studies at both Chicago and Columbia. He was awarded our Ph.D. in 1940. As a graduate student, he won the high opinion of his professors. His dissertation on “Gift Taxation in the United States” was written under the direction of Dr. Haig. This dissertation was of such excellence that it immediately established Dr. Harriss as an authority on this subject. This was pointedly demonstrated when he was made head of the Gift Tax Section in the Division of Research of the United States Treasury Department. He held this post from November 1941, until April, 1943. He then entered the Army and rather rapidly rose to the rank of Captain. His distinction as a student was continued in the fact that he was the first ranking man in his class in Officers Candidate School. During his service in the Army, he was in charge of important work connected with procurement for the Army Air Forces, and was stationed at Air Force Headquarters, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. For his work there, he received the Army Commendation Award. He returned to his work with us at the beginning of the Spring Term.

Last summer Dr. Harriss received a firm offer of an Associate Professorship at Syracuse University at a salary of $4,000. He also received inquiries which appear to anticipate firm offers from both Rice Institute and the University of Indiana. Both of these institutions talked with him in terms of an Associate Professorship at a salary of about $4,000. Dr. Harriss declined to consider the inquiries and turned down the offer made by Syracuse. I believe that I am not exaggerating when I say that there is not a young man in this country of greater competence or promise in the field of public finance than Dr. Harriss, and I believe that Professors Haig and Shoup rate him at about the same level.

During his time with us and the period that he was in the Army, Dr. Harriss has outgrown his academic rank. Our Committee believes that his appointment in the fashion we have recommended will be in the long-run interest of education and scholarship in Columbia College and in the University at large.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]
Horace Taylor

HT:mdl

Source:Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-, Box 406, Folder “Goodrich, Carter 1/4”.

________________

C. Lowell Harriss (1912-2009)
In Memoriam

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EDUCATOR, ECONOMIST AND ADVOCATE OF LAND TAX REFORM DIES

C. Lowell Harriss, an economist whose groundbreaking theories on land tax reform led to a widening of public spaces and improved quality of life in domestic and international urban and rural areas, died on December 14, 2009 at his home in Bronxville, N.Y. He was 97.

He died from natural causes.

An author of 16 books on economics and hundreds of articles, Professor Harriss was one of the last living economists to experience the Depression. He was known for his seminal work on taxation of land, property tax, finance reform, land values and planning land use.

He was a professor emeritus of economics at Columbia University, where he taught for 43 years, from 1938 to 1981. He also taught at Stanford University, UC-Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, The Wharton School, the New School for Social Research and Pace University. He earned Fulbright professorships from the Netherlands School of Economics (now Erasmus University), Cambridge University, and the University of Strasbourg, France.

His professional interests beyond education were extensive, including: Executive Director of The Academy of Political Science; President, National Tax Association-Tax Institute of America; Vice President, International Institute of Public Finance; Chairman, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, Inc.; Trustee, American Institute for Economic Research; Advisory Member, American Enterprise Institute; Academic Advisor, Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Advisor, Thomas Jefferson Research Center. He was a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and a board member of the American Institute of Economic Research in Cambridge, both institutions that serve as leading resources for policy makers and practitioners including the use, regulation and taxation of land.

He advised state, federal and foreign governments on tax policy including the U.S. Department of Treasury; the City of New York; New York State; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; the Federal District of Venezuela; the Ministry of Finance, Republic of China; the United Nations; and the Agency of International Development of the U.S. Department of State.

In addition to his academic and professional pursuits and achievements, Professor Harriss was well known for his great respect of the role that humor has in making daily life enjoyable and more civilized. He often said that “a smile costs nothing.” He was known for his frequent compilations of cartoons, which he distributed in his mailings to colleagues and friends. As he said, “they get people’s attention”.

Clement Lowell Harriss was born Aug. 2, 1912, in Fairbury, Nebraska. He attended Harvard College and graduated summa cum laude in 1934. Upon graduation, he received a Sheldon Fellowship which enabled him to travel for 13 months throughout Europe, the Balkans, Turkey and Northern Africa, before arriving in Berlin the day Hitler assumed the presidency. This experience was the beginning of a lifetime of travel that would take him around the world nine times and stimulate his academic and personal curiosity and inquiry.

Professor Harriss met and married Agnes Bennett Murphy in 1936. While pursuing graduate studies at the University of Chicago and Columbia University, he began his teaching career in 1938 at and received his Ph.D. in 1940 from Columbia University.

Professor Harriss served as an officer in the Army Air Corps from 1943 to 1946, working on aircraft and manpower procurement, later on the economic problems of the shift of fighting to the Pacific, and finally, on the problems of economic demobilization and the postwar aircraft industry.

He is the namesake of the C. Lowell Harriss Scholarship at Columbia College, the C. Lowell Harriss Chair of Economics at Columbia University, and the Professor C. Lowell Harriss Scholarship at the School of General Studies at Columbia University. In 1996 he accepted the Nobel Prize in Economics on behalf of long-time Columbia colleague William Vickrey, who had died shortly before the ceremony.

He is survived by his sister, Marion Engelhart, of Gross Pointe, Michigan, his four children, L. Gordon Harriss, of Bronxville, New York; Patricia Harriss, of Bronxville, New York, Martha Harriss, of New York, and Brian Harriss, of Greenwich, Connecticut, five grandchildren, and by his two daughters in law, Elizabeth Harriss, Bronxville, New York, and Lucinda Harriss, Greenwich, Connecticut. His wife died in 1992.

Source:  Columbia University. Department of Economics. Webpage: In Memoriam; C. Lowell Harriss (1912-2009).

 

________________

In Memoriam: from Columbia College Today

C. Lowell Harriss ’40 GSAS, professor emeritus of economics, died on December 14, 2009, at his home in Bronxville, N.Y. He was 97.

Born in Fairbury, Neb., on August 2, 1912, Harriss graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in 1934. Upon graduation, he received a Sheldon Fellowship, which enabled him to travel for 13 months throughout Europe, including Berlin and the Balkans, as well as Turkey and Northern Africa. This trip was the beginning of a lifetime of travel that would take him around the world nine times.

Harriss served as an officer in the Army Air Corps from 1943–46, working on aircraft and manpower procurement, on the economic problems of the shift of fighting to the Pacific, and finally on the problems of economic demobilization and the postwar aircraft industry. He began teaching at Columbia in 1938 while pursuing a Ph.D. in economics at GSAS and remained at Columbia until retiring from teaching in 1981.

University Trustee Mark E. Kingdon endowed, in 1998, the C. Lowell Harriss Professorship of Economics in honor of “my teacher, mentor and friend.”

“I took Professor Harriss’ public finance course in the late 1960s, when it was not cool to be a conservative, especially at Columbia,” said Kingdon. “I remember Professor Harriss warning us about the extraordinary power of the government: ‘Nothing can be as cruel as the government.’

“During the 1970 student strike, I learned later, a classmate was picketing a building that the professor wanted to enter. ‘You can’t go in,’ my friend declared. ‘Why not?’ Professor Harriss asked. ‘Because then you would be a scab.’ In response, Professor Harriss brushed by and entered the building while declaring, ‘A scab is part of the natural healing process.’

“Teachers in the department on both the left and right loved the man. He was soft-spoken, tolerant, smart, non-dogmatic but firm in his beliefs. His classroom style was brusque, informative and clear. He committed many random acts of kindness, such as writing a complimentary note about me to my father, and helped students with letters of recommendation to his many friends that led to jobs or entry into grad school.

“I watched him age gracefully almost to the very end, vigorous in mind, body and spirit, an inspiration to us all. I miss him very much.”

Harriss also taught at Stanford, UC Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, The Wharton School, the New School for Social Research and Pace. He earned Fulbright professorships from the Netherlands School of Economics (now Erasmus University), Cambridge and the University of Strasbourg, France.

One of the last living economists to have experienced the Depression, Harriss authored 16 books on economics and hundreds of articles. He was known for his seminal work on taxation of land, property tax, finance reform, land values and planning land use.

Harriss also had advised state, federal and foreign governments on tax policy including the Depart- ment of Treasury; the City of New York; New York State; the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico; the Federal District of Venezuela; the Ministry of Finance, Republic of China; the United Nations; and the Agency of International Development of the U.S. Department of State.

Harriss met and married Agnes Bennett Murphy in 1936. She predeceased him in 1992. Harriss is survived by his children, L. Gordon ’68, Patricia, Martha and Brian; five grandchildren; and sister, Marion Engelhart.

Source: In Memoriam. Columbia College Today, March/April 2010.

Image Source:  In Memoriam. Columbia College Today, March/April 2010.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Harvard Michigan Pennsylvania Salaries

Chicago. Instructional Staff Salaries by Rank, 1919

 

The following transcription of a draft copy of a report on the University of Chicago salary scale for instructional staff from ca. 1919 is interesting because it begins with a brief chronology of the salary scale from the founding of the University of Chicago to the time of the report. Since pay raises were being recommended, figures are given for other universities for comparison. The ratio between a Head professor to a beginning assistant professor was 3.5 to 1 during the early years of the University of Chicago. The compression was relatively minor by 1919, with the committee recommending a ratio of 3.33 to 1. For nearly  the first thirty years the top salary for a professor at the University of Chicago was $7000.

Handwritten additions to the draft are indicated by the use of italics in the transcription that follows.

________________

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SALARY SCALE

The Board of Trustees,
The University of Chicago,

Gentlemen:

The Committee appointed at the May meeting of the Board herewith submits the following report on the scale of salaries in the teaching staff of the University with recommendations for the modifications of the same.

At the time of the organization of the University in the autumn of 1891, the following scale of salaries was informally determined:

Head Professor, $4000, to $5000.
Professor, $3000.
Associate Professor, $2500.
Assistant Professor, for a four year term, $2000.
Instructor, for a three year term, $1200, $1400, $1600.
Associate, for a two year term, $1000, $1100.

            In the minutes of the Board there is no record of this definite scale, which the various actions recorded implied. At the November meeting, 1891, the salary of the Head Professors was fixed at $6000. At the December meeting, 1891, it was increased to $7000. This change in the salary of a Head Professor, was due to obvious circumstances connected with securing suitable men for the new institution. No change was made in the rest of the scale.

In 1894 and thereafter new Head Professors were appointed, but on the original scale of $4000 to $5000. It thus appears, although not specifically recorded in the minutes of the Board, that the $7000 salaries were merely adapted at the organization of the University as a temporary expedient.

In 1907 the salary question was again taken into consideration by the Board. It was plain that the salary of a Professor, $3000, was too low, and that a general reorganization was desirable. At the meeting of the Board in December, 1907, it was tentatively agreed, 1st: that for members of the permanent staff in each of the three grades a maximum and a minimum salary shall be fixed, and that for any individual within those grades the exact salary paid shall depend, not on the time of service, but on the discretion of the Board, and, 2nd: that for members of the Faculty appointed for a term of years, a maximum and a minimum salary shall be fixed, with advances depending on term of service.

At the meeting of the Board in January, 1908, the following salary scale was enacted:

Heads of Departments, maximum [sic] $4000, minimum [sic], $6000.
Professors not Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $4500.
Associate Professor, Minimum, $2500; Maximum, $3000.
Assistant Professor, four years, $2000; On reappointment, $2500.
Instructors, three years, $1200, $1400, $1600; On reappointment, $1800.
Associates, two years, $1000 to $1200.

*  * *  *  *  *

            At the meeting of the Board in January, 1911, it was voted that thereafter the administration of Departments should ordinarily be conducted by a chairman, to be appointed by the President, to serve three years, at the end of which term a new Chairman shall be appointed or the same one reappointed.

At the meeting in February, 1908, action was taken ratifying the action of the Trustees of the Baptist Theological Union, of the previous day. Scale of salaries in the Divinity School was enacted as follows:

Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3500; Maximum, $4500.
Professors not Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $4000.

            The remaining scale as in the Faculties of Arts, Literature, and Science.

It was also voted that salaries paid or ranks given to members of a Department shall be determined without reference to the method of departmental administration, and that whenever the interest of the University seems to make it desirable, more than one person in the same Department may be given the maximum rank and salary.

Considering conditions relative to the cost of living, it becomes desirable now in all institutions of learning so far as practicable to provide larger salaries. This matter is receiving similar consideration throughout the country. In the University of Michigan the State Legislature made an additional appropriation of $300,000.00 at its last session for the purpose of increasing salaries. The scale was altered for Professors from the former rate of minimum $2500 and maximum $4000, to a minimum of $3200 and a maximum usually of $5000. Several have been advanced to $5500, and a small number to $6000. The increase in the salaries of Professors has reached an average of approximately 25%. Associate Professors have been advanced from a scale of $2100 to $2400, to a scale of $2800 to $3100, the advance in individual cases being about twenty five percent.

Assistant Professors are advanced from a scale of $1500 to $2000, to a scale of $2200 to $2700, the increase being about 30%.

Instructors are advanced from a scale of $900 to $1600, to a scale of $1300 to $2100, an increase of about 30%.

In Yale University the salary of an Associate Professor isadvanced to $3500, being about 30% increase. The salary of Assistant Professors isadvanced to $2500 for three years and $3000 for two additional years, or about 20%. Instructors for four years have salaries ranging from $1250 to $2000, at an increase of 25%. In the Law School the maximum for Professors isadvanced from $7000 to $7500. The present scale for Professors is at a minimum of $4000 and a maximum of $6000. It is intended to increase that in the autumn at a probable rate of about 25% in individual cases. The new maximum is therefore not yet enacted.

In Harvard the present scale of Professors salaries has a minimum of $4000 and a maximum of $5500; Associate Professors at $3500—after five years service—$4000; Assistant Professors, for the first five years, $2500, for the second five years, $3000; Instructors ranging from $1000 to $1500. Harvard is engaged in a plan for raising an $11,000,000 endowment, the greater part of which is to be used for salaries.

Columbia University has not an exact scale. Professors’ salaries range from $4000 to $15,000. There are twenty receiving a salary of $6000, eight a salary of $6500 to $7000. Those whose salaries are above $7000 are mostly in professional schools. There are thirty with a salary of $5000. No immediate change in the salary scale is contemplated.

In the University of Pennsylvania the maximum for a full time professorship is $8000. As a matter of fact there are very few whose salaries are $6000, or more. It is intended to make an increase of 20% for all receiving $4000 or $6000, 10% for all receiving over $6000, and 20% for all receiving less than $4000. This increase is to come into effect in the autumn of 1919.

Under all the circumstances and with the funds available from the present income of the University the committee recommends the following:

PROPOSED NEW SCALE.

            In the Faculties of Arts, Literature and Sciences.

Professor, Minimum, $4000; Maximum, $7000.
Associate Professor, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $3600.
Assistant Professor, Minimum, $2100; Maximum, $2700.
Instructors, for three years, $1500, $1600, $1700. On reappointment to a maximum of $2000.
Associates, for two years, $1200, $1300.

            In the Faculty of the Divinity School.

Professor, Minimum, $4000; Maximum, $5000.
Other ranks as in Arts, Literature and Science.

            In the Faculty of the Law School.

Professor, Minimum of $6000, increased by $500 at the end of each three years of satisfactory service to a maximum of $8500. For Assistant and Associate Professors no change. These last appointments in the Law School are usually temporary and a considerable flexibility is desirable. It is recommended that for the Faculty of the Law School the new scale take effect fro the fiscal year 1920-1921. It will involve an addition of $5250 to the budget of that year over the present budget of 1919-1920.

Respectfully Submitted
[Signed] M. A. Ryerson
H. G. Grey
H. P. Judson

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations. Records. Box 76. Folder: 4, “Salaries, 1916-1920”.

 

Image Source: 1894 University of Chicago Convocation. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf3-00416, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.