Category: Columbia

Categories
Columbia Courses Economists Gender Germany Harvard Social Work

Harvard, Boston University & Berlin. Career of alumnus Edward Everett Ayers

 

From the E.R.A. Seligman papers at Columbia I came across an unsolicited application for employment in economics and sociology submitted to the President of Columbia University by a man who received his A.M. from Harvard and a pair of doctorates from Boston University and the University of Berlin (I suspect the dissertation did double duty since both degrees were apparently awarded in 1901, but have not checked that out). Edward E. Ayers turns out to be a nice example of the mixture of economics, sociology and social reform that was found in economics departments around the turn of the 20th century. Before getting to the document-artifacts found in the Seligman papers, I have included information about Ayers’ life and career and a review of his German doctoral dissertation. The post ends with course descriptions for Ayres’ non-Biblical teaching at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College. 

From his yearbook portrait for Greensboro College (The Echo) 1927 we see that Edward E. Ayers appears to have switched into Religious Education and entirely dropped economics/sociology/social reform at the end of his teaching career.

___________________

Rev Edward Everett Ayers

Bio by: David Ayers

BIRTH:           16 Jul 1865. Egypt, Belmont County, Ohio, USA

DEATH:         20 Apr 1939 (aged 73). Lynchburg, Lynchburg City, Virginia, USA

BURIAL:        Fort Hill Memorial Park, Lynchburg, Lynchburg City, Virginia, USA

 

Edward Everett Ayers was the 9th of 14 children of Philander and Nancy (Eagon) Ayers. He grew up on their farm in Kirkwood Twp, Belmont Cty, Ohio.

Despite these humble beginnings he obtained an amazing education – B.C.S. from Mount Union College in Ohio in 1891 and then a Ph.B. from the same institution a year later, a Bachelor of Sacred Theology from Boston University in 1896, then an A.M. from Harvard University in 1898, then separate Ph.D.s from both the University of Berlin (Germany) and Boston University in 1901. He published a small book on worker’s insurance and care for the poor, in German, in 1901. He also studied at Andover Theological Seminary from 1901-1903.

In the midst of all that he served 4 churches in and around Boston, MA between 1894 and 1908 as a Methodist Episcopal clergyman.

He married Caroline Eleanor Elder in Boston in 1899.

He then obtained another degree — S.T.D. – from Mount Union College in 1908.

In 1908 he secured a faculty position at Randolph Macon Women’s College in Lynchburg, and remained there until 1925. He was Professor of Sociology and Bible. The later-famous Pearl Buck graduated from there in 1914, and given her interests and the size of the college he almost certainly had her as a student. He then accepted a faculty position at Greensboro Women’s College in 1926, staying there until he retired in 1936. He kept his home in Lynchburg during this time and it appears that his wife Caroline, stayed there. His daughter Virginia was in Wellesley College when he made this shift to Greensboro (1924-28). He appears in yearbooks for Greensboro Women’s College and appears to have been very well liked by students. He was certainly amazingly well-educated. Given his subject area, while he was studying in Berlin he almost certainly would have attended lectures by the great Georg Simmel.

 

Source: Memorial page for Rev. Edward Everett Ayers at the Find a Grave website. Includes pictures.

___________________

Review of Ayres’ German dissertation

Arbeiterversicherung und Armenpflege. Von Edward E. Ayres, Ph.D. Berlin: E. Ebering, 1901.

Dr. Ayres belongs to an increasing number of young American clergymen who supplement their training in theology with a course in sociology. In selecting the above subject for his doctor’s thesis at Berlin he has appropriated one of the very choicest bits from the great social laboratory which the German states seem to have become. It appears that the German compulsory insurance — against sickness, accident, and old age — applies, in these different classes, to about 9,000,000, 16,500,000, and 12,000,000 of German working people, respectively. Dr. Willoughby, in his book on Workingmen’s Insurance, which appeared in 1898, explained the spirit and the letter of these experiments in paternalism, and now, after about twenty years of testing, it is time we were told something of the incidents, and it is to be  hoped that Dr. Ayres will turn his little book into English.

The chief thesis of the essay is that compulsory insurance has had a salutary influence upon conditions of dependency. This conclusion is reached after a study of the number of applicants for relief, for different periods, in a selected group of twenty-one towns, averaging in population about 40,000. The first discovery is that the number of cases of relief on account of sickness falling to women, who are less protected by the insurance, increased between 1880 and 1893 by about 20 per cent., while the population increased by nearly 50 per cent., and on account of sickness falling to men, who are more protected, there was an actual falling off in the number of cases. The showing is not quite so favorable in the class of relief on account of accident; but it is much more favorable in the class of relief on account of old age. The author’s conclusion is buttressed by a remarkable consensus of opinion, on the part of the administrators of the poor funds in the cities from which the figures are taken, that the burden of poor relief is greatly lightened as a result of measures of state insurance, and a number of them offer statistical reasons for their faith.

The general favorable view of the author is further strengthened by reports showing an increase of small savings-bank accounts, by different evidences of a higher standard of living, by the increased average annual income of insured persons from 641 marks in 1886 to 735 marks in 1898, and by a decline in emigration from 120,089 in 1891 to 20,837 m 1898.

The thesis certainly contains an interesting marshaling of pertinent coincidences, but in weighing the causal elements Germany’s phenomenal industrial awakening during the period studied should be considered, and this the author seems to neglect. Here he might shift his ground a trifle and say, “if insurance paternalism, as its enemies assert, leans in the direction of a slothful content (the future being cared for), it does not press sufficiently heavy to prevent the present era of industrial prosperity, and it has not proven to be as bad as some have prophesied.” But to say that “it was the cause of the industrial awakening” — not even Dr. Ayres would go that far. And that the industrial growth has been a factor in all the phenomena enumerated he would probably agree.

James H. Hamilton.
Syracuse University

 

Source: Review of Arbeiterversicherung und Armentpflege von Edward E. Ayres (Berlin, 1901) by James H. Hamilton in The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 7, No. 2 (September 1901), pp. 281-282.

___________________

Cover letter to President Butler
and Ayers’ c.v.

College Park, Lynchburg, Va.
Feb. 1, 1915.

Pres. N.M. Butler, LL.D.
New York

Dear Sir:-

Please find enclosed some personal testimonials of my preparation and work in economics and sociology. I would be very much pleased if you would keep these on file and, in case of a vacancy in this department of your institution, communicate with me.

Yours very truly,
[signed] Edward E. Ayers

* * *

            With a desire to make larger provision for my family I wish to be considered for any vacancy in the department of Economics or Sociology in your institution.

The following is a brief account of my education and experience: I spent five years in Mt. Union College, having received my preparatory education in the public schools of Ohio. In the college I completed the business course, the teacher’s course, and the philosophical course, and received the degrees C.S.B. and Ph.B. in 1892. Entering immediately upon a course of study in Boston University, I remained four years and completed a theological course, receiving the degree S.T.B. During my stay there I also took all the philosophy taught by Professor Borden P. Bowne and all of the economics and sociology offered in the University. In 1896 I entered Harvard University to specialize in sociology and remained there two years, and received the degree A.M. in 1898. Much of my time while in Boston University and Harvard was spent in a study of the practical social problems of Boston and vicinity. In 1899 I entered Berlin University, Germany, and spent two years in special work on sociology and economics under Professors Schmoller, Wagner, Sering and Von Halle. In connection with my university work I made excursions over Germany, Austria, Switzerland and France to study social questions and economic conditions. I took all the courses offered in agricultural economics, and with the professors made excursions out to the farms to study actual conditions. My early life until entering college was spent on a farm in Ohio. In 1901 I received the degree Ph.D. from Berlin. In the same year I also received Ph.D, from Boston University.

From 1901 to 1908 I spent in directing church work in the following cities or their suburbs: Lawrence, Mass., Boston and Springfield, Mass., at the same time continuing my work and interest in economics and social subjects.

In 1908 I received a call to Randolph-Macon Woman’s College of Lynchburg, Va., as head professor of the department of Bible and Sociology. My work has been a pleasure from the beginning. I am now offering courses in economics, money and banking, pathology, labor movement and socialism.

In 1908 I received the honorary degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology from my Alma Mater, Mt. Union College.

Trusting that I may hear from you, I am

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] Edward E. Ayers

[Note: testimonials have not been included here because they are not particularly informative]

Source:   Columbia University Archives. E.R.A. Seligman Collection. Box 98B [now in Box 36], Folder “Columbia, 1913-1917 (unarranged and incomplete)”.

___________________

Faculty listing for E.E. Ayers at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College

Edward Everett Ayers, S.T.D.  Professor of Sociology and English Bible.

B.C.S., Mount Union College, 1891; Ph.B., 1892; S.T.B., Boston University, 1896; A.M., Harvard University, 1898; Ph.D., Boston University, 1901; Ph.D., University of Berlin, 1901; S.T.D., Mount Union College, 1908; Student, Andover Theological Seminary, 1901-03; Professor of Sociology and Bible, Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, 1908—.

* * *

Economics/Sociology Courses taught by Ayers at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College

SOCIOLOGY
Professor Ayers.

            Course 1. Introduction to Economics.— This course deals with the rise of modern industry and its expansion in the United States; production, distribution and consumption; value, price and the monetary system of the United States; tariff, labor movement, natural and legal monopolies; American railroads and trusts; economic reform; government expenditures and revenues; taxation and economic progress.

The last half of this course deals with the development of economic thought. This will include a brief survey of economic thought in classical antiquity and its development in Europe, England, and America. Mill, Turgot, Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, and other writers will be considered.

The members of the class will be taken on tours of inspection through industrial institutions in and about Lynchburg.

Lectures, recitations, and discussions. Three hours a week throughout the year.

 

            Course 2. Introduction to Social Science.— This course deals with early social development, achievement, civilization, and the growth of modern social institutions; elimination of social evils; the social ideal; charities, compulsory insurance, and corrective legislation.

Particular problems of city and country life will be discussed. Students will be directed in personal investigation of social conditions in Lynchburg.

Prisons, almshouses, and other institutions will be studied. The aim of the course is to prepare students for social service.

One thesis is required of each student. Three hours a week throughout the year.

 

            Course 3. Socialism.— The purpose of this course is to acquaint the student with the various Utopian schemes of government in order to separate the transient from the permanent in political society. Some attention will be given to such writers as Plato, Fourier, Proudhon, Louis Blanc, Thomas More, and Edward Bellamy; but most of the time will be given to present socialistic theories and development. The nature, strength, and weakness of socialism will be considered; the golden mean of practical reform will be studied. Lectures, recitations, and discussions. One thesis will be required of each student. Three hours a week throughout the year.

 

            Course 4. The Labor Movement.— This course embraces a brief survey of the conditions of labor in the nations of antiquity and in mediaeval Europe. Most of the time will be given to modern labor movements in Europe, England, and America; the rise of labor organizations, strikes, boycotts, and injunctions, the sweating system, woman and child labor; wages, hours of labor, sanitary and safety devices. The labor of factories, farms, and stores will be studied to furnish concrete examples for the course. One thesis required of each student. Three hours a week throughout the year.

Any student taking two courses in sociology may be allowed to concentrate her work in writing one thesis instead of two.

 

Source: Randolph-Macon Woman’s College Catalogue 1913-1914 (Announcements 1914-1915), pp. 6, 61-2. Lynchburg, Virginia.

Image Source: Edward E. Ayres. Greensboro College. The Echo, 1927.

Categories
Columbia Computing Statistics

Columbia. Statistician Robert Chaddock and his Statistical Laboratory, 1912

 

 

The Statistical Laboratory at Columbia University in the second decade of the 20th century was run by the young assistant/associate professor, Robert E. Chaddock. An earlier post provided Chaddock’s 1911 request for equipment and literature for the Statistical Laboratory along with information about the calculating machines being considered and included a newspaper account of his suicide in 1940. From Professor Seligman’s papers I include today a recommendation for a promotion in rank for Robert E. Chaddock and his 1912 request for more equipment and literature. It is interesting to read that a Mannheim slide rule cost $10 in 1912. Finally from a letter from 1913, we can see that Brunsviga electric “Millionaire” must have been ordered for the Statistical Laboratory (cost $520).

_______________

Recommendation of promotion to rank of associate professor for Robert E. Chaddock
[Copy of letter to President Butler from Professor E.R.A. Seligman]

March 30, 1912

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.,
President, Columbia University,
New York.

My dear President Butler:-

Referring to our conversation of the other day, I should like to bring before you more formally the matter of Professor Chaddock.

Professor Chaddock is at present assistant professor of Statistics on the Barnard Foundation, at a salary of $2,500. His work during the year as head of the Statistical Laboratory has been exceedingly fine. The Laboratory has now become a busy hive of industry at almost any time of the day or night, and Professor Chaddock has been no less successful a teacher than he has been a director.

So successful has his work been as to have attracted attention in various quarters. The New York School of Philanthropy, together with the Sage Foundation, proposes to start a comprehensive scheme of statistical investigation into social problems and on looking over the whole country decided on Professor Chaddock as by all means the best man. They have, therefore, offered him the position of head of that investigation at a salary of $1,500 in advance of what he is getting at Columbia and with all the assistance and possibilities of European travel that might be needed. After carefully considering this proposition he has finally decided to remain at Columbia on the understanding that his salary would be increased to $3,000 and with no further obligation on the part of the Department or of anyone else, except the general understanding that he will take his chance of gradual promotion with the other members of the Department as opportunity offers.

The $500 addition to his salary has been made possible by the School of Journalism. Professor Chaddock will give a one-term course in Statistics to the third year men, for which the budget in the School of Journalism appropriates the sum of $500.

The Department deems itself exceedingly fortunate in being able to keep Professor Chaddock on these terms. But precisely because he made no other conditions and because of the fine spirit manifested by him, as a married man with a family, in being willing to make this considerable financial sacrifice, we feel that we ought to do our utmost possible for him. Our proposition is that his title be changed from assistant professor to associate professor.

When Professor Chaddock was called to Columbia he was offered a full professorship at the University of Pennsylvania, but he preferred to come to Columbia. He would naturally have been given an associate professorship, which he fully deserved, but unfortunately the financial adjustments which were made by Barnard College on the resignation of Professor Clark left only $2,500 available for his salary, and under the circumstances we were compelled to offer him an assistant professorship. Now that this financial difficulty has been removed, we respectfully suggest that the spirit rather than the letter of the rule be observed and that Professor Chaddock be given the title which he would surely have received originally had it not been for this financial complication. The Department feels that not only from every point of view is Professor Chaddock worthy of an associate professorship but wishes especially to emphasize the desirability of rewarding his loyalty and the fine spirit that he has displayed in staying by us. We feel that with Professor Moore to represent the theoretical side and Professor Chaddock to represent the sound, common sense, practical side, there is no reason why the Statistical Laboratory of Columbia should not very soon become a unique institution of its kind in this country. If for no other reason than that, Professor Chaddock, as the director of the Laboratory, ought to have a title corresponding to the dignity of his position.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

[presumably E.R.A. Seligman]

_______________

Chaddock’s Additional Budgetary Request for his Statistical Laboratory

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

April 19, 1912

Professor E. R. A. Seligman
Columbia University

My dear Professor Seligman:-

At your suggestion I am describing the most pressing needs for our statistical laboratory for the coming year. As you know, the equipment has been in pretty constant use during the past year and the effort has been made to divide the group into laboratory sections of from 6 to 10 persons in order that all might have a chance to learn the use of the mechanical devices by which the statistician makes his work possible, i.e., the Burroughs Adding Machines, the Brunsviga Calculating Machines, the graphic devices of various sorts, and the calculating tables.

With the added courses in the School of Journalism and the School of Commerce which we are undertaking for next year and the increasing use of our equipment by our graduate students, it has seemed to me that our numbers using the laboratory at one time will be larger and our present equipment will be quite inadequate.

We have one set each of tables of squares and cubes and tables (Crelle’s) for multiplication. We have no drawing set, no drawing crayon, and only 2 slide rules. I suggest the following additions, in order that a group may be kept working at the same time to better advantage.

 

10 copies Barlow’s tables of squares, etc. @ $2.50

$25.00
10 copies J. Peters’ Neue Rechentafeln for multiplication—English introduction–@15 m.

$30.00
1 Drawing set,

$20.00
Drawing crayons for graphic and map work

$10.00
3 Mannheim slide rules for calculating

$30.00

In addition, I am very anxious to see one more calculating machine added to our equipment which will do all four operations. Thus, adding one machine at a time we shall be able gradually to build up such a mechanical equipment as will enable our students to do their statistical calculations with facility and put their thesis and other statistical work in the best possible form. We have now 3 Brunsviga Machines which do all the operations but there are machines that do multiplication and division with more facility. I suggest an electric “Ensign” machine at $450. or the long tested “Millionaire” at $375. or electric “Millionaire” at $520. The selection of one of these three would be only after careful testing in our laboratory for our particular needs, altho the “Millionaire” is widely used in statistical laboratories, government offices, and insurance companies, and the “Ensign” is a Boston machine meeting with rapid adoption.

I make these suggestions only after the most careful consideration and information by correspondence with other laboratories and persons doing statistical training work, and in view of the added burdens to be placed next year upon the laboratory facilities.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Rob’t E. Chaddock.

_______________

Approval of Chaddock’s Budgetary Increase

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

May 6, 1912

Dear Prof. Seligman:

Thank you for sending me President Butler’s letter. It pleases me more than I can say to have our laboratory work thus recognized. It is due to your untiring interest in every detail of our whole department’s work, and for your care over my end of the work I wish to thank you very cordially.

I shall try to see that the added appropriation is well spent.

With best wishes for all your plans, I am

Sincerely
[signed]
Robt. E. Chaddock

Prof. E.R.A. Seligman
Kent Hall, Columbia U.

_______________

Regarding a Bill to the Statistical Laboratory for $520

February 3, 1913

Mr. Charles S. Danielson,
Columbia University.

My dear Mr. Danielson:-

Professor Chaddock advises me that a refund of $90.00 made by W. A. Morschhauser on bill of October 31st, 1912 has been turned over to your office. This $90.00 covers the import duty which had been included in the bill of $520.00.

Will you therefore please apply this $90.00 to the account “Special Appropriation for Statistical Laboratory,” and recharge to the same account $22.00 of the $29.20 overdraft charged to the “Economics” appropriation at the end of last year? When these entries and transfers have been made the “Economics” appropriation balance should show an increase of $22.00 and the balance of the “Special Appropriation for Statistical Laboratory” should be $68.00.

If this is not correct, kindly let me know.

Very sincerely yours.
[presumably E.R.A. Seligman]

 

 

 

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. E.R.A. Seligman Collection. Box 98A [now in Box 36], Folder “Columbia (A-Z), 1911-1913”.

Image Source: Robert Emmet Chaddock from Barnard College, Mortarboard, 1919.

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Requirements for M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics, 1946-47

 

The following excerpts from the 1946-47 Announcement of Courses for the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University provide a clear outline of the requirements and the sequence of thirteen steps an economics Ph.D. candidate needed to take to be successful in the quest for a doctoral degree. The rules and regulations are organized like a set of Matryoshka (nesting) dolls:  from a common set of requirements for the three faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science, through those rules and regulations common for the departments within the Faculty of Political Science, to those specific to the Department of Economics. For 1946-47 I only have the last two dolls (now), but they are the two most relevant for understanding the structure within which graduate education in economics at Columbia was being conducted.

Favorite quote:

General Undergraduate Preparation. Since graduate study in economics necessarily entails a high degree of concentration in this field, a student planning to enter graduate work is advised not to specialize narrowly in economics during his undergraduate study. Basic training in economics and a knowledge of its general literature and methods are desirable, but for the purposes of more advanced work on the graduate level, there is a greater advantage in the study of history, philosophy, modern languages, and mathematics than in narrowly specialized courses in economics taken as undergraduates.

The previous post includes a 1946 memo regarding the conduct of the oral doctoral examinations.

__________________

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION AND FOR DEGREES

The general academic requirements for admission as a regular graduate student and the requirements for the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy are stated in the Graduate Announcement of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science. That Announcement should be consulted by every applicant for admission under those Faculties.

[…]

ADMISSION AND REGISTRATION
[THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE]

REQUIREMENTS

The requirements for admission as a graduate student to work toward an advanced degree in any one of the departments under the Faculty of Political Science are: (a) a Bachelor’s degree in arts, letters, philosophy, or science from an institution approved by Columbia University; (b) a thorough preparation for graduate study as evidenced by a good undergraduate record and a better than average performance on the Graduate Record Examination.

A prospective applicant who does not have a Bachelor’s degree, but who believes that he has had equivalent preparation, may present his credentials to the Director of University Admissions for evaluation.

PROCEDURE

Application and Records. An application blank may be obtained from the Office of University Admissions.

Every applicant must fill out the blank and file it with the Director of University Admissions, and must arrange with each of the colleges or universities he has previously attended to send to the Director full official transcripts of his academic record.

Graduate Record Examination. Before being permitted to register for courses to be credited toward an advanced degree in any of the departments of the Faculty of Political Science, each applicant for admission must file a report of his performance in the Graduate Record Examination. This examination is administered annually in a number of colleges and universities and at other centers throughout the United States. For information regarding time and place of the examination, the prospective applicant should consult the dean of his college or the Graduate Record Office, 337 West 59thStreet, New York 19, N.Y. This requirement is effective for students applying for admission to begin residence subsequent to September 1946.

Students will be admitted to study under the Faculty of Political Science in September 1946 without having taken the Graduate Record Examination, subject to the understanding that the requirement will be met immediately after registration. The Office of University Admissions will arrange one or more dates for the administration of the examination and will notify all students required to take it.

Students for whom English is not the mother tongue will be admitted on the basis of their school and university credentials. They are asked, but not required, to take the Graduate Record Examination as a matter of record.

Permit to Register. After the application and credentials have been examined and the English requirement satisfied, the applicant, if accepted, will be given a permit to register. This permit will grant admission as (1) a regular graduate student, (2) a probationary graduate student, or (3) an unclassified graduate student. (For explanation of these terms, see the Graduate Announcement, pages 14-15.)

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVANCED DEGREES

For a general statement of the regulations of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science consult the Graduate announcement, obtainable from the Secretary of the University.

Attention of students under this Faculty is directed particularly to the paragraph on page 15 of that Announcement to the effect that, while no time limit is set for the period of candidacy for the degree of Master of Arts or Doctor of Philosophy, a student must satisfy the requirements that are in effect at the time of the award of the degree.

 

REQUIREMENTS OF THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

MASTER OF ARTS

  1. Preliminary Training.The prospective candidate must have received a Bachelor’s degree from Columbia University or from some other approved university or college, or have had an education equivalent to that represented by such a degree, and must have been accepted as a regular graduate student by the Director of University Admissions.
  2. Residence. Every candidate for the degree must register for and attend courses at this University aggregating not less than thirty points distributed over a period of not less than one academic year or its equivalent.
  3. Courses. From the courses for which he has registered to satisfy the residence requirements, the candidate must complete with a satisfactory passing grade courses aggregating not less than twenty-one points, of which at least fifteen must be selected from those offered by departments in this faculty under the heading “General Courses.”
  4. Essay. The candidate must present a satisfactory essay prepared under the direction of some member of this faculty.
  5. Departmental Requirements. Special departmental requirements appear [in] this Announcement. Departmental requirements are in addition to, not a substitute for, the faculty requirements.

 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

  1. General. The degree will be conferred upon students who satisfy the requirements as to preliminary training, residence, languages, matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, subjects, and dissertation.
  2. Preliminary Training. The requirement is the same as for the Master of Arts candidate.
  3. Residence. The prospective candidate must have pursued graduate studies for at least two academic years, one of which must have been spent at this University while registered under this Faculty, and the other of which, if not spent here, at an institution accepted as offering courses of similar standard. A year’s residence at this University is defined as registration for and attendance upon courses aggregating not less than thirty points distributed over a period of not less than one academic year or its equivalent. Those desiring credit for graduate work completed elsewhere should send to the Director of University Admissions as soon as possible a request for the evaluation of such graduate work.
  4. Language. The prospective candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least two languages beside his mother tongue; and he must be able to read such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate department, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies.
  5. Matriculation. Upon the completion of not less than one year of graduate residence, after satisfying the department concerned that he is proficient in such languages as it prescribes for a candidate, and that he is prepared to undertake research under its direction, the prospective candidate will be recommended by the department to the Dean for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
  6. Fields. The candidate must have familiarized himself with one field of primary interest and one field of secondary interest. The major and minor fields need not be under the same department.
    1. Field of primary interest. The field shall be chosen from the following list:

Ancient history
Medieval history
Modern history of western continental Europe
Modern history of eastern Europe
History of Great Britain and the British Empire
American history
Latin American history
East Asiatic history
History of European thought
Jewish history
Political and social philosophy
American political institutions (including constitutional law)
Foreign political institutions
Public administration (including constitutional and administrative law)
International law and relations
Roman law
Comparative jurisprudence
Economics (including economic theory, economic history, and statistics)
Public and private finance
Social economic problems
Sociology
Anthropology

    1. Field of secondary interest. The field of secondary interest may be either an adaptation of one of the subjects in the foregoing list or a special combination of studies selected with a view to the student’s peculiar interests and needs. Such a combination may involve work in more than one department in the Faculty, or work in more than one faculty, or may be wholly under some other faculty of the university. In any case, the choice of the field of secondary interest must be approved by the Executive Officer of the department in charge of the primary field, subject to review by the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty.
      The candidate’s competence in the chosen fields of primary and secondary interest is tested by an oral examination, which is scheduled by the Dean on recommendation of the department concerned. This examination is normally taken toward the end of the second year of graduate study. It must be passed before the student is admitted to the defense of the dissertation. To be examined in any given academic year the student must apply for examination prior to April 1.
  1. Dissertation. The main test of the candidate’s qualifications is the production of a dissertation that will demonstrate his capacity to contribute to the advancement of learning within the field of his selection. This dissertation must give evidence of the candidate’s ability to present in good literary form the results of original researches upon some topic approved by the department concerned. It may be completed either during the period of residence or in absentia. In advance of its being presented before the Faculty for defense, it must be approved by the professor in charge and by the Executive Officer of the department concerned. Such approval, however, is not to be construed as acceptance by the Faculty.
  2. Final Examination. Upon the recommendation of the department concerned the Dean will admit a candidate for the degree to final examination and will appoint a committee to examine him. The department will recommend a candidate for final examination if he has pursued graduate studies for not less than two academic years, at least one of them while a student under this Faculty, if he has satisfied such preliminary examinations or requirements as the Faculty and the department concerned may specify, and if he has prepared a dissertation, embodying the results of his researches, which has been certified by the department as being in form for defense. For the defense, the dissertation may be in galley proof or typescript. If in galley proof, eight copies must be available to examiners at least ten days prior to the examination; if in typescript, five copies must be available three weeks prior to the examination. After its successful defense, the Dean will issue to the candidate a certificate stating that all requirements for the degree except the deposit of printed copies of the dissertation have been met.
  3. Printing Requirement. After the examining committee has approved the dissertation and certified that the candidate has passed the final examination, the candidate shall deliver to the University Libraries seventy-five copies of his dissertation, printed in a form acceptable to the Faculty, before the degree will be conferred. In exceptional cases and as a temporary substitute, the Dean will accept a satisfactory guarantee of such delivery before a specified date, and the degree will then be conferred. (For fuller statement, see the Graduate Announcement, page 19.) The Faculty also requires that printed copies of the dissertation, not to exceed forty-five in number, be delivered to the office of the department concerned for distribution to members of the Faculty.
    In the printing of the dissertation certain options are allowed: (a) It may be printed from type and published in book form; (b) it may be published as an article or series of articles in a scholarly journal; (c) with the permission of the Executive Officer of the department concerned, it may be reproduced by an offset process approved by the Dean.
  4. Departmental Requirements. Special departmental requirements appear on succeeding pages of this Announcement. Departmental requirements are in addition to, not a substitute for, the faculty requirements.

 

[…]

DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

As soon as possible after deciding upon economics as the subject of primary interest for the degree of Master of Arts or Doctor of Philosophy, the prospective candidate should report through the secretary of the Department of Economics, in Fayerweather Hall, to the Executive Officer of the Department or his representative to receive fuller instructions.

General Undergraduate Preparation. Since graduate study in economics necessarily entails a high degree of concentration in this field, a student planning to enter graduate work is advised not to specialize narrowly in economics during his undergraduate study. Basic training in economics and a knowledge of its general literature and methods are desirable, but for the purposes of more advanced work on the graduate level, there is a greater advantage in the study of history, philosophy, modern languages, and mathematics than in narrowly specialized courses in economics taken as undergraduates.

Mathematical Preparation. The use of mathematics, including higher mathematics, has become important in several branches of economics and statistics. Much of the recent important literature of general economics is written in a language not easily understood without some knowledge of the differential and integral calculus. A student planning to work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in economics will therefore find it advantageous to acquire familiarity with the calculus and with higher algebra before beginning graduate studies in economics.

 

Master of Arts

General Requirements. In addition to fulfilling the general faculty requirements the student must include graduate courses in economics aggregating not less than fifteen points among the courses aggregating not less than twenty-one points in which he is required to receive examination credit before being recommended for the degree.

Essay. The candidate must select his essay subject, submit it to the appropriate professor within two months after registration as a candidate for the degree, and list this subject in the office of the secretary of the Department.

The selection of a subject of importance within the field of his interests must be made by the student himself, and the ability to make a proper choice will normally be regarded as an essential qualification for the degree. The completed essay must be submitted for approval not later than four weeksbefore the date on which copies of the approved essay are to be filed with the Registrar (see Academic Calendar, pages 77-78). Under no circumstances should the candidate proceed beyond the preparation of his detailed program of investigation and the completion of a preliminary chapter or section without submitting his work to his adviser. In the approval of an essay attention will be paid to excellence of presentation and to expression in correct English as well as to specific content and ability to use original material.

 

Doctor of Philosophy

Prospective Candidacy.  As soon as possible after the beginning of his graduate residence the student shall notify the Executive Officer of the Department of Economics of his intention to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics. A choice of subjects will be made in consultation with the Executive Officer or his representative.  A written examination, intended for students who have thus indicated their intentions, will be given near the end of each session. This examination must be taken before the student may register for more than thirty points of course credit for graduate work. (Students given credit for fifteen or more points for graduate courses completed at other institutions must take the examination before registering for more than forty-five points of course credit, including points credited from another university.) Upon passing this examination a student is classed as a prospective candidate. Prospective candidates are eligible to register for all courses designed for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, for which they have specific prerequisites.

Students taking the examination for prospective candidacy will be required to indicate the field or fields of their research interests.

The Department may deny registration privileges to students who have completed graduate courses aggregating thirty or more points of course credit and who fail to pass the examination for prospective candidacy.

The examination for prospective candidacy will not be required of students who receive credit for 30 or more points of graduate course work completed before June 30, 1946, and who present themselves for oral examination on subjects prior to June 30, 1948.

Languages. The prospective candidate must satisfy the Department of Economics that he can read two modern languages besides his native tongue. The combination of French and German is preferred, but Spanish, Italian, or Russian and another language may be selected with the written permission of the Executive Officer of the Department in cases where it is of particular value to the student’s scholarly interests. The student must pass the test in at least one of the languages before registering at Columbia for courses that will bring the sum total of his graduate credit (for work done at Columbia or elsewhere) to more than thirty points. (Thus a student who already has thirty or more points of graduate credit for work done at another university must pass at least one of the language tests before his initial registration at Columbia for work leading to the doctorate.) The other language test must be passed before he may register for more than forty-five points of course credit (including points credited from another university). The examinations in languages will be held on the following dates: Monday, September 23, 1946 from 2 to 4; Thursday, January 30, 1947, from 2 to 4; Friday, May 2, 1947, from 10 to 12. Students are required to register with the secretary of the Department of Economics at least one week prior to the date of the examination their intention to take such an examination. In case of emergency, and by special permission of the Executive Officer of the Department, an examination in languages may be given at other times.

Matriculation. Upon recommendation of the Department’s matriculation committee a prospective candidate who has completed not less than one year of graduate residence, has met Departmental language requirements, and has satisfied the Department that he is prepared to undertake research under its direction, will be recommended by the Executive Officer of the Department to the Dean for matriculation. Matriculation constitutes formal admission to candidacy for the degree.

Examination on Subjects. The candidate who has fulfilled the preliminary requirements for this degree may make application, through the Executive Officer of the Department, to the Dean for examination in subjects. Such application may be made at any time, but must be made before April 1 in the academic year in which the examination is to be held. The applicant will be notified by the Dean of the date of his examination. This examination is oral and is conducted by a committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the applicant will be expected to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the subjects selected for this examination and of the literature pertaining thereto.

At the time the candidate applies for his examination on subjects he shall submit a memorandum outlining his dissertation project in some detail, analyzing it with respect to source material and the research techniques required for its successful prosecution, and setting forth his plan for carrying the project forward. This memorandum must be approved by the candidate’s adviser and by the Executive Officer of the Department or a committee designated by him before the candidate may be admitted to the oral examination.

The examination on subjects will be focused in part on the area of the candidate’s research interests and the candidate’s research project.

Every candidate for the doctorate must give satisfactory evidence of his grasp of six of the subjects listed below. Three of these subjects must be economic theory, economic history, and statistics. Four of the subjects listed below (among which must be included the three subjects specified in the preceding sentence) are considered to constitute the student’s field of primary interest. The procedure for meeting this requirement is as follows:

  1. The candidate must offer himself for oral examination in four of the subjects listed below. The examination will be on subjects, not on courses.
  2. Before making formal application for this oral examination on subjects, the candidate must satisfy the appropriate professors of economics in the Faculty of Political Science that he has done work which is adequate both in scope and in quality in two subjects (also chosen from those listed below) other than the four to be offered in the candidate’s oral examination. This requirement may be met in any manner satisfactory to the professors concerned—by taking courses, by formal or informal examination, or in other ways. When the requirement has been met, the candidate must secure written certification to this effect from the professors concerned. Arrangements for certification will be made with the Executive Officer of the Department.

The subjects are as follows:

1. Accounting 13. Money and banking
2. Business cycles 14. Prices
3. Corporation and investment finance 15. Public finance
4. Economic geography 16. Public utilities (including transportation)
5. Economic history (required) 17. Socialism and types of national economic organization
6. Economic theory (required) 18. Statistics (required)
7. Industrial organization and control 19. Any other subject approved by the Executive Officer of the Department. Such an optional subject must be included among the four presented for the oral examination.
8. Insurance
9. International trade
10. Labor problems and industrial relations
11. Marketing
12. Mathematical economics

It is the policy of the Department of Economics to encourage students to devote part of their effort to studies outside the Department. The student’s field of secondary interest, to the extent of the equivalent of two of his six subjects, may fall in one of the departments under the Faculty of Political Science, in Philosophy, Psychology, or in another discipline dealing with matters germane to the student’s scholarly interests.

Economic Theory. The candidate will be expected to show acquaintance with the ways in which economic theorists have conceived and treated broader issues, as well as ability to apply economic theory to problems that interest him. The Executive Officer of the Department should be consulted before making a choice of emphasis in preparation for examination.

Dissertation. Investigations and researches for the dissertation may be pursued either in connection with the work of some research course or under the direction and supervision of some member of the Faculty of Political Science independently of any course. Students working on dissertations must keep their advisers informed of the status of their work.

Final Examination: Defense of the Dissertation. At least one month in advance of the time at which he wishes to present himself for the defense of his dissertation, but not later than April 1 in any academic year, the candidate must make application therefor to the Dean, who will thereafter notify him of the date of the final examination. This examination is an oral examination conducted by a committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the candidate will be held to a defense of his dissertation in respect of its content, the sources upon which it is based, the interpretations that are made, the conclusions that are drawn, as well as in respect of the candidate’s acquaintance with the literature and available sources of information upon subjects that are cognate to the subject of his dissertation.

The dissertation topic and plans for the prosecution of the study leading to the dissertation will be reviewed at the time of the candidate’s examination on subjects. It is desirable that a substantial start be made on the dissertation while the student is still in residence. If a candidate works on his dissertation in absentia an annual written report of progress will be required.

In summary, the following are the steps to be taken by a student seeking the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics:

  1. Submit to the Office of Admissions an application for admission to the graduate Department of Economics. Arrange to have transcripts of all previous academic records sent to the Office of Admissions by the institutions concerned.
  2. Notify the Executive Officer of the Department of intention to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
  3. Make a preliminary choice of subjects in consultation with the Executive Officer or his representative.
  4. Register with the secretary of the Department for examination for prospective candidacy. This examination must be taken before the student may register for more than thirty points of course credit for graduate work, but see fourth paragraph of “Prospective Candidacy” ([see] above). Students taking the examination are required to indicate the field or fields of their research interests.
  5. Apply for test in one foreign language. The test in one language must be passed before the student may register for more than thirty points of course credit for graduate work. (Language tests may be taken at any of the scheduled dates after admission to graduate status.)
  6. Apply for test in second foreign language. The second language test must be passed before the student may register for mort than forty-five points of course credit for graduate work.
  7. Apply through the secretary of the Department to the Matriculation Committee of the Department for Matriculation (i.e. formal admission to candidacy for the doctoral degree).
  8. Arrange with professors concerned for certification examinations on two of the six subjects offered. Certification examinations may be taken at any time, on consultation with the professor in charge, after admission to graduate status.
  9. Apply to the Executive Officer for permission to take examination on subjects. This application must be made before April 1 in the academic year in which the examination is to be held. At the time of application, the candidate must submit to the Executive Officer a memorandum outlining his dissertation project. This memorandum must previously have been approved by the candidate’s adviser and by the Executive Officer or a committee named by him.
  10. Submit dissertation to the professor in charge and to the Executive Officer of the Department. Obtain the Department’s assurance that the dissertation is in form for defense, and the Department’s recommendation to the Dean that the candidate is prepared for final examination.
  11. Apply to the Dean of the Graduate Faculties for admission to final examination for the Doctorate (defense of dissertation).
  12. Deliver seventy-five copies of the printed dissertation to the University Libraries.
  13. Arrange with the secretary of the Department for distribution of copies of the printed dissertation, not to exceed forty-five in number, to members of the Faculty of Political Science.

 

Source:   Columbia University Bulletin of Information, Forty-sixth Series, No. 37 (August 10, 1946). History, Economics, Public Law, Sociology, and Anthropology. Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions, 1946-1947, pp. 2, 13-16, 19-23.

Image Source:  Columbia University graduation. New York, NY The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography Collection, The New York Public Library. “”. The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1940 – 1979.

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Memo on Doctoral Exams in the Faculty of Political Science, 1946

 

The subject of oral examinations has come up in earlier posts:  Columbia 1932-3, Columbia 1967, and Harvard 1958. This post takes us to the immediate post-WWII years.

For visitors to this page who are unfamiliar with the divisional organization of Columbia University earlier: the department of economics was located within the faculty of political science that also included departments of history, public law and government, sociology, and anthropology — a disciplinary spectrum similar to that of Harvard’s Division of History, Government, and Economics.

____________________

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

23 April 1946

MEMORANDUM on the Conduct of Doctoral Examinations

TO:     Members of the Faculty of Political Science

Following are a few suggestions, occasioned by comments of members of the Faculty relative to our oral examinations for the doctorate, both on subjects and in defense of the dissertation. They are distributed to call attention of members of examining committees to procedures previously agreed upon but sometimes forgotten or overlooked.

  1. That our system of departmental representatives at examinations is breaking down furnishes the subject of most frequent comment. This was understandable during the war when the staff was depleted and overworked; and provision of representatives for all examinations by the smaller departments is always a difficult problem. But the Committee feel that the principle is a good one and should be maintained. It makes for the equalization of standards in examination throughout the Faculty and serves as a constant reminder that examining committees, more particularly for the defense of the dissertation, are committees of the Faculty. Since the Faculty has for long been too large for all members to attend all examinations, the system of departmental representatives affords the means of maintaining faculty solidarity in the examination.
  2. There is further question relative to examining committees keeping within the allotted time. This is particularly important during the crowded period in late April and May, when examinations are frequently scheduled with no interval between. Lack of promptness in ending the examination causes confusion and irritation and detracts materially from the dignity of the examination. Obviously if the examination is concluded promptly on the hour, the committee must have some time to decide on the performance of the candidate, with the result that the next committee is kept waiting during the deliberation. This matter has been discussed with Miss Neare of the Dean’s office. She will do her utmost to allow at least one-half hour between each examination. If the schedule becomes so crowded that this is impossible, some other locale for the examination will be sought.
    It should be noted that this arrangement may involve: (a) the commencing of some examinations on the half hour, and (b) the necessity of bearing in mind that some examinations will probably be scheduled in a room other than 304 Fayerweather.
  3. Your committee would like to call attention of all chairmen of examining committees to the desirability of rigid adherence to the faculty agreement that 15 minutes at the end of every examination should be reserved for questions by departmental representatives, or more general questions by any member of the committee. At the same time we should like to point out that this rule has validity only if departmental representatives accept the responsibility of posing questions.
  4. The examining committee for defense of the dissertation is a committee of the Faculty charged to act for that body in the matter of certifying candidates for the doctorate. Occasionally when a question relative to the dissertation, or some unusual circumstance in the examination, has arisen reference has been made to the Committee on Instruction. It is the feeling of this committee that the decision of the examining committee should be final and that in all cases involving an unusual decision full and accurate record should be made of such decision, either on the reporting blank or on a sheet attached thereto.

Respectfully submitted,

James C. Bonbright
Austin P. Evans, Chairman
Philip C. Jessup
Robert K. Merton

APE:v

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives.  Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1940-1949.

Image Source: Fayerweather Hall from Columbia University Department of History website

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. Appointment of Marcus Fleming as Visiting Professor, Spring 1951

 

I have transcribed the following paper-trail regarding the appointment of Marcus Fleming for a one term visiting Professor appointment because of the biographical information of this important economist included in the letter requesting formal approval from the provost of Columbia University as well as its providing an example of the minimal paperwork apparently required for a visiting position in 1950 compared to what is required in most universities at the present time.

________________

COMMITTEE ON INSTRUCTION
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

MINUTES OF MEETING: October 3, 1950

Present: Professors A.R. Burns, Goodrich, Malone, Peffer, Strong
Absent: Professor Abel
Present by Invitation: Professor Lazarsfeld

[…]

Approval of new appointments

Economics

  1. Marcus Fleming, recent Deputy Director of the British Cabinet Secretariat, as Visiting Professor of Economics (European Institute), for the Spring Session at a salary of $4,500 plus a travelling allowance. (The hope of the Department is to extend this appointment during the period for which funds for the European Institute are at present provided.
  2. Evsey Domar, Associate Professor of Economics at The Johns Hopkins University, as Visiting Associate Professor of Economics 146 while Professor Bergson in on part-time leave.

[…]

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962.

________________

Letter from Department Head Professor James W. Angell
to Vice-President and Provost Dr. Grayson L. Kirk

October 10, 1950

Dr. Grayson L. Kirk,
Vice President and Provost
of Columbia University,
Low Memorial Library.

Dear Dr. Kirk:

I enclose herewith a Nomination for Appointment, requesting the appointment of John Marcus Fleming to the position of Visiting Professor of Economics (European Institute.) I believe this appointment has already been acted upon favorably by the Committee of Instruction of the Faculty of Political Science.

Mr. Fleming, who is married and has several children, is a little past forty. He received the degree of Master of Arts, with Honours in History (1932), and in Economics (1934), at Edinburgh University. He studied Economics further at the London School of Economics, 1934-35. He then became a member of the Secretariat of the League of Nations in Geneva, 1935-38, and in the latter part of that period was a member of the Economic Intelligence Service. He spent 1938-39 in the United States as a Rockefeller Fellowship. Since 1939 he has held a series of posts I the service of the British government, combined with extensive teaching at the University College in London. Beginning with the latter part of the war, and down to this past summer, he has been Deputy Director of the Economic Section in the British Cabinet Secretariat. He has served as a British representative to the Organization for European Cooperation in Paris, and to the United Nations at Lake Success. His written work includes a large study of American business cycles, prepared for the League of Nations just before the war, as a working document, but not formally published, and some half dozen important articles in leading professional journals, on problems of economic theory and international trade.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
James W. Angell
Executive Officer
Department of Economics

[Penciled note in margin: OK/GK]

Source:   Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 409, Folder “Angell, James W. 7/1950-6/1953”

________________

Carbon copy of response of Dean John A. Krout to Professor James W. Angell

16 October 1950

Professor James W. Angell
Executive Officer
Department of Economics
Fayerweather

Dear Professor Angell:

I have your letter to Provost Kirk about the nomination for appointment of John Marcus Fleming to the position of Visiting Professor of Economics (European Institute) during the period from February 5, 1951 to June 30, 1951. Since this nomination has the approval of the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty of Political Science, I am sending through the appropriate authorization.

Cordially yours,

John A. Krout
Dean

mp
cc: Miss Mullen

Source:   Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 409, Folder “Angell, James W. 7/1950-6/1953”

Image Source:  Marcus Fleming (1911-1976) page at Policonomics.com

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Columbia Curriculum M.I.T. Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. Memos from Ando and Dhrymes to the curriculum committee, 1965

 

The significance for the history of economics of the following three memos is that they provide an illustration of the diffusion (infiltration?) of the M.I.T. canon to other departments. Albert Ando taught a few years at M.I.T. before coming to Penn and Phoebus Dhrymes (M.I.T., Ph.D., 1961) wrote his dissertation under Kuh and Solow.  The memos were sent to the curriculum committee of the department of economics at the University of Pennsylvania in January 1965 (at least the Ando memo is dated January 14, 1965 and it explicitly refers to the Phoebus memo and their recommendations to the Mathematics Committee that are undated).

Obituaries for both Ando and Dhrymes have been added to this post and precede the three memos.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror thanks Juan C. A. Acosta who found these memos in the Lawrence Klein Papers at the Duke University Economists’ Papers Project and has graciously shared them for transcription here. 

Addition to post: At Banca d’Italia, N. 7 – Albert Ando: a bibliography of his writings.

_______________________________

Albert Keinosuke Ando
1929-2002
Obituary

Dr. Albert Ando, professor of economics, SAS and professor of finance, Wharton, died on September 19 [2002] at the age of 72.

Dr. Ando was born in Tokyo, Japan in 1929 and came to the United States after World War II. He received his B.S. in economics from the University of Seattle in 1951, his M.A. in economics from St. Louis University in 1953, and an M.S. in economics in 1956 and a Ph.D. in mathematical economics in 1959 from Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie Mellon University). Dr. Ando came to Penn in 1963 as an associate professor of economics and finance and became professor of economics and finance in 1967. He held this position until his death.

Dr. Lawrence Klein, Nobel laureate in economics and professor emeritus of economics wrote the following about his colleague.

After World War II many Japanese scholars visited the United States for general education and to modernize their training in some key subjects. Albert Ando, Professor of Economics and Finance, who died of Leukemia last week was an early arrival in the 1940s. He was educated at Seattle and St. Louis Universities and often expressed gratitude at the career start provided by his Jesuit teachers in an adopted country.

He completed the doctoral program in mathematical economics at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, where he was strongly influenced by Herbert Simon with whom he collaborated in research papers on aggregation and causation in economic systems. He also worked closely with another (Nobel Laureate to be) Franco Modigliani on the life cycle analysis of saving, spending, and income.

Dr. Ando was on the faculties of the Carnegie and of the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, where he remained since 1963. He had visiting appointments at universities in Louvain, Bonn, and Stockholm. He consulted with the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve Board, The Bank of Italy, and the Economic Planning Agency of Japan. He held many positions as an editor of scholarly journals and wrote numerous articles and books.

The main contributions of Professor Ando were in econometrics (theory and applications), monetary analysis, demographic aspects of household economic behavior, economic growth, and economic stabilization. His work on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania, and Social Science Research Council (MPS) model was of great benefit for the research department of the Federal Reserve Board, and his more recent work on econometrics for the Bank of Italy had been very fruitful.

He served as chairman of the graduate group in the economics department, 1986-1989, and developed excellent working relationships with many advanced students. He set very high standards, and those he worked with as thesis supervisor benefited greatly. He was extremely loyal and dedicated to their work, maintaining close connection with them after they departed from the University.

During his long and fruitful career, he earned many honors–as Fellow of the Econometric Society, as a Ford Foundation Faculty Research Fellow; as a Guggenheim Fellow, and a Japan Foundation Fellow. He was given the Alexander von Humboldt Award for Senior American Scientists.

Albert Ando is survived by his wife of 35 years, Faith H. Ando, two professorial sons, Matthew and Clifford, and a daughter, Alison, who has just been admitted to the New York Bar. His mother, sister, and brother, live in Japan.

–Lawrence Klein, Professor Emeritus of Economics

Source: University of Pennsylvania. Almanac. Vol. 49, No. 6, October 1, 2002.

_______________________________

Phoebus James Dhrymes
(1932-2016)

Phoebus J. Dhrymes (1932-2016), the Edwin W. Rickert Professor Emeritus of Economics, was a Cypriot American econometrician who made substantial methodological contributions to econometric theory.  Born in the Republic of Cyprus in 1932, Phoebus Dhrymes arrived in the United States in 1951, settling with relatives in New York City. After a few months, he volunteered to be drafted into the US Army for a two-year tour of duty; afterwards he attended the University of Texas at Austin on the GI Bill. In 1961 he earned his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Edwin Kuh and Robert Solow (Nobel Laureate 1987).  After a year-long post-doctoral fellowship at Stanford, he began his professorial career at Harvard, then moved to the University of Pennsylvania, and then UCLA.  In1973 he joined the Department of Economics at Columbia University; he was named the Edwin W. Rickert Professor of Economics in 2003 and retired in 2013.

Econometrics refers to that aspect of the economist’s work concerned with quantifying and testing economic trends. Phoebus Dhrymes‘early research focused on problems of production and investment, but he soon turned to more methodological work and produced important results on time series and on simultaneous equations.  Throughout his career, Phoebus Dhrymes placed much emphasis on the dissemination of scientific knowledge. In the early 1970s he helped found the Journal of Econometrics, which has become the leading journal in this field.  He was also on the advisory board of the Econometric Theory, and was managing editor and editor of the International Economic Review.He was a fellow of the Econometric Society and the American Statistical Association.Dr. Dhrymes was also one of the founders of the University of Cyprus, from which he was later awarded an honorary degree.

He wrote a series of influential textbooks including Distributed Lags:  Problems of Estimation and Formulation. This work was translated into Russian and published by the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, and in the 1970s Dr. Dhrymes was invited to visit the (now former) Soviet Union, specifically Moscow and Novosibirsk. At the time such visits were unusual events for westerners, requiring rarely-issued visas and security clearances, particularly for centers of research such as Novosibirsk.

In a 1999 interview he characterized his books as “filters that distill and synthesize the wisdom of many contributors to the subject.   On this score, I was influenced in my writing by the way I learn when studying by myself.”  (Econometric Theory, 18, 2002)

Dr. Dhrymes is survived by his daughter, Alexis, and his sons, Phoebus and Philip. In his personal life, he was regarded as a generous, kind and gentle man, always there for his family. He came from humble beginnings, and garnered great respect from his family and friends for his achievements. He spoke often of how much he enjoyed teaching. He was always available to his students.He encouraged individualized thinking and understanding of processes rather than rote memorization in learning. He had a warm and affable demeanor, recalled fondly by former students and family members. He will be sadly missed.

Source: Obituary for Phoebus J. Dhrymes at the Columbia University Department of Economics Website.

_______________________________

Memorandum

To: Herbert Levine, Chairman, Curriculum Committee
From: Albert Ando
Subject: Offerings and Requirements in Macroeconomics, Monetary Theory, and Related areas in General Economics Ph.D. Program

  1. Macroeconomics

Enclosed herein is a copy of the outline and references of Economics 621 [The outline and references will be posted later] as I am offering it this fall. It is fairly similar to [the] one year course in macroeconomics which is required of all Ph.D. students at MIT. I am sure that opinions would vary on details, but it is my view that this represents more or less the topics and literature that all Ph.D. students in economics should be familiar with. Ideally, I think there should be another major topic at the end of the outline dealing with current problems and policies.

It is fairly clear that this outline could not be covered in one term, particularly under our present system in which there are only 13 to 14 weeks of classes for a term. As a matter of fact, this fall, with a great deal of rushing throughout the term, I will be able to finish the static part of the outline by the end of the fall term, but certainly no further.

This suggests that the required macroeconomics for Ph.D. students should be two term sequence of courses, the first term dealing essentially with the Keynesian static analysis, and the second term with dynamics, i.e., business cycles and growth models.

  1. Monetary Economics

I have just discovered that Economics 622 is taught without any prerequisite, and that there will be some students in 622 who have not had any macroeconomic theory this spring. I am somewhat stunned, and do not see how I will be able to teach a satisfactory course under the circumstances. This situation is indicated by the fact that 622 is required not only of Ph.D. students in economics but also of master’s candidates, and therefore it is apparently impossible to exclude the students from 622 who have not had 621. An obvious temporary solution is to make those students who have not had 621 wait until next year to take 622. In my view, elements of monetary problems should be included in the first term of the required macroeconomics course, and courses in monetary theory should be made elective. The course in monetary theory should then be taught assuming that students have had adequate preparation in macroeconomics and microeconomics, particularly the theory of general equilibrium, at the level where we can discuss the research and developments in the past dozen years or so, bringing students up to a point where they can draw a thesis topic from their work in the course. There is a room for an argument that there should be another course in addition to the advanced theory course, which deals with more traditional money and banking material. As a matter of fact, I offered two courses in monetary economics at MIT for several years, one dealing with traditional money and banking material taking the one term each of macro and micro economics as prerequisites, and another highly theoretical and advanced course taking two terms each of macro [and] micro economics as prerequisites. It seems to me, however, that Economics 639, Monetary Problems and Policies, should serve as the good traditional money and banking course, so that only one additional course seems to be needed.

  1. Microeconomics and Mathematics

After some discussion with Dhrymes, it is fairly clear that microeconomics should also be taught as a two term sequence. A possible division between two terms would be to deal with partial equilibrium analysis of consumers and firms during the first term, and with the general equilibrium analysis and welfare economics in the second term.

During this fall term, Dhrymes and I found it necessary to conduct a few special remedial sessions in mathematics so that some rudimentary notions of calculus and linear transformation will be available in the discussions in theory courses. The idea, of course, is to arrange so that all students are equipped with minimum of mathematics by the beginning of the second term. If the recommendation of the committee on mathematics is adopted, so that students will learn elementary calculus and the matrices and linear transformation, including rudiments of linear differences and differential equations at the level suggested by the committee it is possible to synchronize it with theory courses so that theory courses will be using only those mathematics students are learning in mathematics remedial courses. For instance, the first term of macro theory would not require too much mathematics except the notion of the systems of equations and their solutions, and the first term of micro theory not much more than the condition of extremum in a fairly informal manner. In the second term, on the other hand, theory courses will require conditions of stability in the general equilibrium analysis, and the difference and differential equations in dynamic models in macroeconomics.

  1. Overall First year program and Second year fields of specialization.

In addition to micro and macro theories and mathematics required for these theory courses, students should be asked to learn minimum of statistics and econometrics. The level of statistics and econometrics should be maintained at the level of text books such as Frazer, Brunk, or Mood plus Johnston.

The implication of the above statement is that the course schedule for typical first year Ph.D. students should look as follows:

First term:

Microeconomics I (Partial equilibrium analysis)
Macroeconomics I (Static Keynesian analysis, including some monetary considerations).
Mathematics I (Elementary calculus)*
Mathematics II (Elementary Linear Algebra)*
Economic History (For those with Adequate mathematical training)

*For the suggested content of mathematics courses, see recommendations of Mathematics Committee.

Second Term:

Microeconomics II (General equilibrium analysis and welfare economics).
Macroeconomics II (Dynamics, business cycles and growth)
Econometrics (6 hour course)

This schedule, of course, would be subject to variations depending on the background and preparations of students. For instance, students who already have sufficient mathematical training might be encouraged to take a course in economic history and a course in somewhat more advanced mathematics, such as mathematical theory of probability or a course in topology in the first term in place of Mathematics I and II.

_______________________________

Lists of Topics for Mathematics for Economists
[Recommendations of Ando and Dhrymes submitted to the Mathematics Committee]

(Mr. Balinski is to suggest some alternative text books)

  1. Calculus
    1. Sets and Functions.
      1. Definitions
      2. Operations on Sets and Subsets.
      3. Relations, Functions.
        K.M.S.T. Chapter 2, Sections 1 through 6, possibly Sections 10 through 13.
    2. Functions, Limits, and Continuity.
    3. Differentiation and Integration of Functions of one variable.
      1. Concepts and Mechanics.
      2. Infinite series and Taylor’s Theories.
      3. Extremum Problems.
    4. Differentiation and Integration of Functions of many variables.
      1. Concepts and mechanics.
      2. Extremum problems, nonconstrained and constrained.
      3. Implicit Function Theorem.
        Any elementary text book in Calculus (e.g. Thomas; Sherwood and Taylor), Supplemented by some sections of a slightly more advanced text on Implicit Function Theorem and La Grange multipliers.
  2. Linear Algebra and others.
    1. Vector Spaces and Matrices.
      1. Vector Spaces and Matrices, Definitions, and Motivations.
        Perlis, Chapters 1 and 2.
      2. Linear Transformations.
        K.M.S.T., Chapter 4, Sections 7 through 12.
      3. Equivalence, Rank, and Inverse.
        Perlis, Chapter 3.
        Perlis, Chapter 4.
      4. Quadratic Forms, Positive Definite and semi-definite Matrices.
        Perlis, Chapter 5, Sections 1, 2, and 5
      5. Characteristic Vectors and Roots.
        Perlis, Chapter 8, Sections 1 and w[?], Chapter 9, Sections 1, 2, 5, and 6.
      6. Difference and Differential Equations; Linear with Constant Coefficients.
        Goldberg, Chapters 1, w, e, and Chapter 4, Sections 1 and 5; Perlis, Chapter 7, Section 10. Some reference to two dimensional phase diagram analysis of non-linear differential equations with 2 variables. Lotke?
      7. Convex Sets.
        K.M.S.T., Chapter 5.

_______________________________

MEMORANDUM
January 14, 1965

To: Curriculum Committee
From: Phoebus J. Dhrymes
Subject: Mathematics, Microeconomics, Statistics and Econometrics in the Economics Graduate Training Program

  1. Mathematics

It has become quite apparent to me during the course of the last term that our students are woefully equipped to handle instruction involving even very modest and elementary mathematics.

I think it is quite generally accepted that a student specializing in Theory, Econometrics and to a lesser extent International Trade and Industrial Organization would find it increasingly difficult to operate as a professional economist, and indeed seriously handicapped in satisfactorily carrying on a graduate study progress, without adequate mathematical training. With this in mind Albert Ando and I have prepared a tentative list of topics that graduate students ought be minimally familiar with and which has been presented to the Mathematics Committee.

This could form a remedial (and a bit beyond) course to extend over a year and to be taken (by requirement or suggestion) by students intending to specialize in the fields mentioned above during their first year of residence.

  1. Microeconomics

It has been my experience in teaching Econ. 620 that one semester is a rather brief period for covering the range of microeconomic theory a graduate student in Pennsylvania ought to be exposed to. As it is the case at both Harvard and MIT, I would propose that the course Econ. 620 be extended to a year course. Roughly speaking, the topics to be covered might be:

  1. Theory of Consumer Behavior
    1. the Hicksian version
    2. the von Neumann-Morgenstern version, including the Friedman-Savage paper
  2. Demand functions, elasticities, etc.
  3. Theory of the firm; output and price determination
    1. Production functions
    2. Cost functions and their relations to i.
    3. Revenue and profit functions and the profit maximizing hypothesis
    4. The perfectly competitive firm and industry, and their equilibrium; comparative statics; supply functions
    5. The monopolistic firm
    6. Monopolistic competition
    7. Duopoly and oligopoly
  4. Factor employment equilibrium
    1. Factor demand functions
    2. Factor employment equilibrium under various market institutional arrangements
    3. Some income distribution theory
    4. Factor supply.
  5. General Equilibrium Analysis; Input-Output models
  6. Welfare Economics (Samuelson; Graaf)
  7. Capital Theory (Fisher, Wicksell, recent contributions)
  8. (Marginally) Some revealed preference theory; or neoclassical growth models; or alternative theories of the firm (e.g., Cyert and Marsh)

It would be desirable if students were sufficiently well-equipped mathematically to handle these topics at some level intermediate between Friedman’s Price Theory Text and Henderson and Quandt; however, since this is not the case at present some other alternative must be found, such as in the manner in which the propose mathematics course is taught, and the order in which topics above are covered. The split of the subjects could be a) through c) or d) for the first semester and the remainder for the second semester. Clearly, neither the topics proposed nor the split represent my immutable opinion and there is considerable room for discussion.

  1. Statistics

At present the statistical training of our students suffers from their inadequate mathematical preparations.

It is my opinion that minimally we should require of our students that they be familiar with the elementary notions of statistical inference, estimation, testing of hypotheses and regression analysis at the level of, say, Hoel, or Mood and Graybill, or any other similar text, (a semester course). For students intending to specialize in Econometrics or other heavily quantitative fields, then it should be highly desirable that a year course be available, say at the level of Mood and Graybill, Graybill, or Fraser, Hogg and Craig, Brunk, etc., with suitable supplementary material. Since, we do have access to a statistics department it might be desirable for our students to take a suitable course there.

Again, due to the problems posed by the mathematics deficiency of incoming students, some accommodation must be reached on this score as well.

  1. Econometrics

Econometrics should not be a required subject; rather the requirement—minimal requisite—should be confined to the one semester course indicated under III. It would be desirable to offer a year course to be taken after the statistics sequence and which would cover at the level of, say, Klein, Goldberger, or my readings showing applications and problems connected thereto.

Topics, could start by reviewing the general linear model, Aitken estimators and similar related topics; simultaneous equation and identification problems, k-class estimators, 3SLS, maximum likelihood estimation, full and limited information, Monte Carlo methods.

Also selected topics from Multivariate Analysis; specification analysis, error in variable problems; elements of stochastic processes theory and spectral and cross spectra analysis.

It might be desirable to teach these subjects in the order cited above, although it would appear preferable to have multivariate analysis precede the review of the general linear model.

  1. General Comments:

I generally agree with Albert Ando’s memorandum on proposed curriculum revision in so far as they pertain to Mathematics requirements, Macro-economics and Monetary Theory.

I think that at present we require our students to take too many courses. I would favor only the following requirements; the basic Micro and Macro year courses. At least a semester of statistics, as indicated under III, and one semester in either economic history or history of economic thought—although I do not feel too strongly on the latter. I presume, in all of this that students in our program are only those ultimately aiming at specialization in Theory, Econometrics, International Trade, Industrial Organization, and possibly Comparative Systems, or Soviet Economics. It is my understanding that our curriculum will not cover those concentrating in Labor Relations, Regional Science or Economic History.

Thus, through their first year our students would be taking more or less required courses, with the second year essentially left open for their special fields of concentration.

Thus, the course program of a typical first year student will look more or less as shown in Albert Ando’s memorandum, p. 4, although I would be somewhat uneasy about requiring 6 hours of mathematics in the first term and 6 hours of statistics (econometrics) in the second term of the first year. Nonetheless I do not object strongly to this, and indeed in this past term many of the students taking 620 and 621 had in effect taken a six-hour course in Mathematics, 611 as taught by Dorothy Brady and approximately 3 hours as taught by Albert Ando and myself.

Quite clearly the above are merely proposals intended to serve as a basis for discussion an ultimately for guidance of entering students in planning their program of study rather than rigid requirements.

 

Source: Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive, Lawrence Klein Papers, Box 19, Folder “Curriculum”.

Images: Left, Albert Ando; Right, Phoebus Dhrymes. From the respective obituaries above.

Categories
Business School Columbia Dartmouth Harvard Pennsylvania

Columbia School of Business Opens. Seligman’s Thoughts, 1916

 

Columbia University economist provides “the history of the movement which has culmination in the adoption of this project”, i.e. the founding of Columbia School of Business. The earlier resistence of the economics department to a School of Business is explained as well as the flip-flop to its support of opening of the School of Business in the autumn term of 1916.

_______________

A UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
by Edwin R. A. Seligman

[I]

THE opening of the Columbia School of Business in the autumn of 1916 marks another milestone in university education. The history of the movement which has culminated in the adoption of this project is highly interesting.

Less than a generation ago the only opportunities offered in education for business were the classes in single and double bookkeeping, usually conducted both here and abroad under the high- sounding title of “Business Institutes.” All they did was to give a smattering of ordinary bookkeeping with occasionally some slight instruction in English or a foreign language thrown in. One or two farsighted men already at that early period appreciated the need of a more systematic preparation for business life; but theirs were voices crying in the wilderness. It was the time when any kind of institutional education, except for the ministry, counted but little, the time when the lawyer was supposed to prepare himself for his work by serving an apprenticeship in a law office, and when the college graduate desirous of entering business life was at a disadvantage in the estimation of the employer as compared with the youth who had started from the bottom and who had enjoyed a few years of business experience. One of the broad-minded exceptions was Mr. Joseph Wharton of Philadelphia, through whose liberality the Wharton School was created at the University of Pennsylvania in the early eighties. This school, however, had at first only a moderate success, as did the similar schools started from time to time by other colleges and universities. The time was not yet ripe. When Columbia came to consider the problem, it preferred to devote its energies to political science rather than to business, and to purely University or graduate rather than to undergraduate work. As a consequence there was initiated the School of Political Science, which on its pedagogical side became a training school for teachers of the social sciences and for governmental administrators.

In the meantime, the economic development of the United States as well as of Europe led to a constant broadening of the scale on which business enterprises were carried on, and the demand for really adequate commercial training became more and more insistent. Toward the end of the last century the interest thus awakened became so strong that the Chamber of Commerce of New York was ready to grant an annual subvention to Columbia if it should be decided to develop courses of the desired character. The situation was canvassed by a small committee; but it was finally decided not to accept the overtures made by the committee of the Chamber of Commerce for several reasons. In the first place, it was felt that the demand had not yet become sufficiently great to justify the expectation of a student body satisfactory in either quantity or quality. Secondly, we were convinced that a successful school of the character desired would have to be conducted along academic lines of a modified kind, and that the best results could be hoped for only by securing academic teachers with a business experience rather than business men without academic experience. It was, however, at the time impossible to find a sufficient number of qualified instructors. Moreover, the literature of the subject was as yet embryonic, and the proper curriculum of such a School had nowhere been thoroughly worked out. In the third place, it was realized that the most important consideration at the time in American educational development, and especially at Columbia, was to emphasize the purely scientific or graduate work in political science; and the Department of Economics feared lest there might be danger in diverting its energies from the scientific field to work of a technical or professional character, such as would be necessitated by a new School of the kind contemplated. Finally, the movement for the creation of commercial high schools had come to a head, and it was deemed wiser to ascertain how far the gap might be filled by the secondary schools before deciding as to what should be done by Columbia. For these reasons the project was postponed, and the entire energy of the Department of Economics was directed to the rounding out of the University courses in political science and to the improving and broadening of the tender of the undergraduate or college course in economics.

During the last fifteen years, however, an instructive development has occurred. In the first place, there was a growing recognition of the need for a broader and more adequate training for business. Chambers of Commerce and other commercial bodies both here and abroad began to grow more restless and more insistent in their demands. The old feeling of prejudice on the part of the successful business man toward the college graduate diminished, although he still maintained that the college curriculum might profitably be modified in some respects to give a better preparation for business. This demand, which emanated primarily from the commercial community, now found expression in the new commercial schools in England and even more in Germany, and a rich fund of knowledge was being accumulated from the experience of these foreign schools. In the United States, moreover, it was gradually recognized that the commercial high schools, however excellently managed, were not quite adequate to solve the problem.

In the course of time professional schools of the desired kind were initiated, although along widely varying lines, by several American universities, the most notable examples being those of New York University and of Harvard. In New York City the demand for the inception of courses of some kind at Columbia soon became so urgent that a modest beginning was made three or four years ago with a few evening courses. Owing to the high standards which were observed from the outset, these courses met with immediate success. They were conservatively increased from year to year, until during the past year the number of students and the character of the instructors became such as to justify the demand for their merger into a new and independent school, which should possess an identity of its own and which should become a regularly accredited part of the University.

There were several reasons which led the Department of Economics now to welcome the movement to which it had been lukewarm a decade or two before. In the first place, the number of men qualified to serve as instructors in the new schools had become so numerous as to make it reasonably certain that the faculty could be filled by men of the first rank. Secondly, the literature of the subject had become so abundant as to make it possible to put academic teaching in business on a par with that of the other occupations or professions. Thirdly, experience with various types of schools had become so rich as to permit of what seemed to be a sound conclusion. Finally, the University work under the Faculty of Political Science had become so thoroughly established that there was no danger to be anticipated in any diversion of energy to the new institution. It was felt, therefore, that we were now quite ready to develop the technical or professional, rather than the purely scientific, sides of instruction in Economics.

It was for these reasons that the Department of Economics as well as the entire Faculty of Political Science cordially welcomed the project for the new School and that the report of the special committee appointed to consider the subject met with the unanimous approval of the University Council and was speedily adopted by the Board of Trustees.

II

In determining upon the character of the School, the committee considered with some care the different types in existence. There are in the United States at present three chief types: (1) the Wharton School, which has a curriculum of four years parallel to that of the college and which is essentially an undergraduate school; (2) the Harvard School of Business Administration, which has a two- years’ curriculum of a frankly graduate character; and (3) the Amos Tuck School at Dartmouth, which admits students at the end of the junior year and carries them through a two-years course. No one of these types approved itself to the committee.

The Wharton School plan seemed to be open to criticism from several points of view. As a purely undergraduate school it necessarily becomes a rival to the college and to the extent that it succeeds, it is likely to weaken the college. In the second place, it begins professional or technical work at too early a period, whereas the whole tendency of recent development in the United States is to relegate the professional or technical education to a somewhat later stage. The change that has been going on during the last few years in the Engineering Schools and other Schools of Applied Science affords ample evidence of this tendency. What is needed in this country is a broad foundation for the technical or professional class, and the School of Business needs as broad a foundation as we are coming to demand for other professional schools. Thirdly, a purely undergraduate school of business excludes the possibility of any pronounced extension of the graduate or research courses, which are coming to be as important in applied economics as they are in pure economics. A four-years’ undergraduate curriculum in business courses virtually exhausts the subject and leaves practically nothing for the research student. It was largely for these reasons that the Wharton School type was discarded as a model.

On the other hand the Harvard type seemed to be open to criticism for opposite reasons. In the first place, the requirement of a college degree for entrance renders such a school impotent to serve the public which is clamoring for admission in large centers like New York. Comparatively few men who intend to go into business can afford, whether from the material or from any other point of view, to wait until they are twenty-four or twenty-five years of age before entering upon a practical business career. And it is questionable whether even a few captains of industry will be recruited from this class. A purely graduate school which can never expect more than a handful of students is thus abandoning its opportunity to serve the public in the largest measure. In the second place, not only must such a school from the very nature of the case be numerically insignificant, but it seems to be based upon an erroneous pedagogical principle. It is now rather widely recognized that the movement inaugurated by President Eliot a generation ago went too far for the best interests of American education. In attempting to convert the American college into a university, he ignored the fact that the principles of academic freedom—freedom of the student as well as freedom of the teacher—are applicable in full measure only to a real university doing advanced or research work. Moreover, although by pulling up, as he thought, the American college, to a higher or university level, he advanced the age of graduation to about twenty-two, he at the same time made the attainment of the college degree a prerequisite to professional or research work. The college thus came to occupy the contradictory position of a university and of something less than a university. The consequences soon disclosed themselves. As soon as the demands of the public for a better medical and legal preparation became imperious, the complications began; for the medical school course was gradually lengthened to five years, and the law school course to three years, with a possibility of soon becoming four years. To make, as was now done, entrance to the professional schools conditional upon a college degree therefore meant that the young lawyer could not begin his life’s work before the age of twenty-five or twenty-six and the young doctor before the age of twenty-seven or twenty-eight.

This is an intolerable situation, which exists nowhere else in the civilized world and which it is out of the question to think will permanently continue in the United States. The first step away from this difficulty was taken by Columbia some twenty years ago when it introduced the so-called combined course into the professional schools, permitting the saving of at least one year. This combined-course idea rapidly spread throughout the country and is now adopted by most of the leading universities, barring a few conservative institutions in the East. A slight modification of this system was later introduced at Columbia in the Schools of Engineering, Mining, and Chemistry, which were put upon a basis of advanced standing requiring three years of college work for entrance, thus making possible a combined course of six years from entrance into the college up to the acquirement of the professional degree. Even this, however, was gradually found to be inadequate; and before long not only the School of Medicine but the School of Architecture, and the School of Journalism opened professional courses to students who had completed two years of college work.

By many it was recognized that here is the proper dividing line between the ordinary cultural and preparatory courses on the one hand, and the technical or professional courses on the other. To those who hold to this opinion, it seems entirely probable that sooner or later the combined or Columbia plan, which has now spread throughout the country, will be replaced by the newer or still more distinctive Columbia plan, which is in harmony not only with the educational practice of the rest of the world, but with sound educational theory. The Harvard School of Business Administration, therefore, appeared to the committee to embody the same erroneous principle which had been applied to the law and medical schools. The country has broken away from the Harvard plan in legal and medical education. It seems unlikely that it will follow Harvard in the new form of business education. At all events, the system seemed to be quite inapplicable to conditions at Columbia.

The third type of business school is represented by the Amos Tuck School, which does, indeed, accept the principle of a dividing line below the close of the college curriculum. The Amos Tuck School, however, has turned out to be distinctly restricted in scope and attracts few students outside of Dartmouth itself. What it does is to provide an alternate year for Dartmouth seniors, with an opportunity of proceeding for an additional year. It does not succeed in drawing from other colleges students who have completed three years of college work. Moreover, it suffers from the same defect as the Harvard School in that it offers an inadequate curriculum of only two years in length.

Since therefore none of the existing types seemed to be either suitable to Columbia conditions or in harmony with sound pedagogical principles, it was decided to put the dividing line between college and professional work at the end of the second year, largely for the reasons mentioned above. Students will therefore be admitted to the Columbia School who have completed two years of college work or its equivalent, and the School of Business will be put on the same basis as the Medical School, the School of Architecture, and the School of Journalism. This arrangement makes possible the attainment of several results. In the first place, every student who enters the Business School as a candidate for a degree will be sure of having pursued those general cultural and disciplinary college courses which are considered obligatory upon every cultivated man in Europe as in America. In the second place, on this broad basis there will be erected a carefully devised professional or technical curriculum after the completion of which the graduate can enter upon his business career at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three,—about the ordinary age abroad. In the third place, the three-year course, which is midway between the exaggerated four-year Wharton course and the inadequate two-year Harvard and Amos Tuck courses, will permit a comprehensive and well-rounded sequence of studies. The type of school finally adopted thus seems to combine a maximum of advantages with a minimum of defects. It will moreover enable the School to serve much more varied classes of students than can be found in any other type.

Among these classes are, first, students who have spent two years in Columbia College or in some other college of equivalent rank and who are candidates for a degree. It is expected that not a few college students, both at Columbia and elsewhere, who have decided by the end of the second year to pursue a distinctively business career, will enter the new School and thus secure a better preparation for their life work than if they were to continue in a more or less desultory fashion through the remainder of their college career.

In the second place, the School will afford abundant opportunity in its upper reaches for graduate students who desire to prepare themselves for the teaching profession or who are inclined to devote time to purely research courses. Such students will be able to combine a more technical or professional course in the School of Business with graduate courses given in the School of Political Science, and there will therefore be offered for the first time in the United States a unique combination of pure and of applied science, or of theoretical and of practical economics, which will doubtless turn out to be fruitful of results.

In the third place, the School will afford an opportunity to graduates of high schools, who for some reason do not desire to go to college, to take courses in the Department of Extension Teaching at Columbia, in either day or evening courses, and to complete work equivalent to that offered by Columbia College in its first two years.

In the fourth place, there are in New York City many men and some women actively engaged in business who are eager to learn more about the real foundation of their business life. Students of this character, if over twenty-one years of age, who have shown their qualifications to undertake certain courses may be admitted as special students in particular subjects, but will, of course, not be candidates for a degree.

It is therefore believed that the type of school finally adopted is the one which will minister most successfully to the needs of the New York public, and which will, at the same time, provide on the broadest possible basis a curriculum which will attract students from all parts of the country.

III

Before we proceed to discuss the curriculum a word must be said about the name of the new institution. Most of the existing institutions are called Schools of Commerce or of Commercial Science. Such an appellation seemed, however, unsatisfactory. For in the first place what is taught in such a school is not primarily science at all, but art; or even if the purely scientific problems may be taken up in the later years of the School, the earlier years must naturally devote themselves primarily to the practical applications. But, more important than this, the term commerce seems to be ill-chosen. There are many problems of business management which have only a slight relation to commerce as such; and the Supreme Court of the United States has told us in a leading decision that insurance is not commerce at all. As in every School of this kind the problems connected with insurance must occupy a prominent place, it seems objectionable to apply a generic name in connection with a particular division to which the generic name is, as we are instructed, wholly inapplicable. On the other hand, some schools call themselves Schools of Business Administration. This title, however, is equally open to criticism. If we object to the term commercial science on the ground that a great part of the work is not science at all, we can equally object to the term business administration on the ground that a great part of the work far transcends purely administrative problems. What such a School has to deal with is the principles underlying business practice, as well as the best method of putting those principles into operation. It is partly science and partly administration; it is more than science and more than administration. Since, therefore, the real object of such a School is to deal with business problems in their varied and comprehensive aspects, it seemed wise to take the simple and obvious name of School of Business. In the Law School we study law; in the Medical School we study medicine; in the School of Architecture we study architecture; in the School of Engineering we study engineering; and consequently the obvious place in which to study business is the School of Business. The name is simple, inclusive, and comprehensive.

When we come to discuss the curriculum of the new School, several points are to be noted. In the first place, an attempt is made to steer between the rigid and fixed curriculum found in some of the American professional schools and the very elastic schemes that are found in the ordinary university courses here and abroad. It was attempted to strike a happy medium by requiring in the first year from all candidates for a degree a certain number of courses aggregating one-half or two-thirds of the whole. Every student who intends to go into business should know something about general economics, accounting, finance and business organization, and should also have a command of some of the foreign languages. When, however, the foundation has been laid in this way, students are allowed a free choice, subject to the condition, however, that their course be approved by the Director. The Director of the School is presumed to have a personal acquaintance with each of the students, and to be able in person or through delegation to give to each proper advice. Students who desire to have a general business course will find such a curriculum mapped out for them. Others who may prefer to specialize will find a sequence of courses in a variety of subjects: accounting, banking, finance, transportation, commerce and trade, business organization and management, manufactures, advertising and salesmanship, and the like. At the end of the second year, the degree of Bachelor of Science will be awarded so that those who do not care to defer their entrance into a practical business career may start in at the age of the ordinary college graduate. It is expected, however, that a large proportion of the students will continue for a third year, at the end of which the Master’s degree will be conferred.

This third year, it is hoped, will be the most valuable, as it will be the most unique, year in the School. It will correspond approximately to the clinical year which is now being added to our best medical schools. It goes without saying that in the City of New York, the centre of American wealth, the business problems are on a particularly gigantic scale and of a specially intricate character. It is proposed to make the courses in this third year not alone research courses in the more refined and difficult principles underlying business practice, but also practical courses where each student will have an opportunity of intimate personal contact with business life. Arrangements have already been made with the National City Bank whereby a certain number of students will be afforded an opportunity to prepare themselves for the service of the Bank in foreign fields. It is proposed to broaden and generalize these opportunities so that ultimately every student will be enabled and expected to do some field work in that particular department of business life in which he is especially interested. In almost every phase of “big business” in New York today the need is experienced for more expert and thorough training; and it is hoped in the advanced courses of the School to bring about a close cooperation between the corps of instructors on the one hand and the business community on the other. It is here that the School of Business will find an unexampled opportunity and perform an unexampled service. Just as the finest medical schools can exist only where there are the greatest hospitals, that is, in the large centres of population, so the most successful schools of business in the future may be expected to be found in the great centres of business life.

In order to accomplish these results and to realize the expectations which have been formed, it goes without saying that the new School of Business must be put on the highest possible standard of educational efficiency. So far as the students are concerned, this result has been guaranteed by the determination to make the scholastic standard as high as it is in the other departments of Columbia. We are fortunate in having in Dr. Egbert, as Director of the School, a man who is not only one of the great administrators in the country, but who has shown in both the Summer Session and the Extension work his adherence to these high standards. The continually growing reputation of those phases of the work to which Dr. Egbert has hitherto addressed himself are the surest guarantee of success in this new field.

High standards, however, depend not only upon the student body, but upon the corps of instructors. In order to avoid the difficulty which has unfortunately been experienced by so many American institutions, it is proposed that a professor must have one at least of two qualifications. If he is recruited from the academic ranks, he must possess the degree of Ph.D., to show that he has attained the highest academic honors, together with a reasonable business experience or an acquaintance with actual business problems. If, on the other hand, he is selected from the ranks of those who have devoted themselves primarily to business, he must not only have written a book which is an acknowledged authority in its field, but must give evidence of ability successfully to present the subject to the professional student. Although the corps of instructors is by no means entirely complete, it will be found that the selection has in every case been in accordance with the above considerations. The numerous additions to the teaching staff which are being planned for in the near future are confidently expected to conform to the same high principles.

Thus from every point of view, we feel that the problem has been carefully considered and solved with a reasonable hope of success. In the character of the student body, in the selection of the present and future teaching force, in the rounded sequence of courses, in the judicious union of practical and research work, in the rich possibilities of cooperation with the other departments of the University and the business life of the community, and last but not least, in the tried administrative experience of the Director, we have reason to believe that we possess a unique combination of factors which cannot fail to put the Columbia School of Business in the front rank of similar institutions here and abroad.

 

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Volume XVIII, June 1916, pp. 241-252.

Image Source: From  American Economic Review, 1943.

Categories
Bibliography Chicago Columbia Yale

Chicago. French/German/Italian Public Finance Bibliography. Bloch, ca. 1944

 

The backstory to the following list of French, German, and Italian works on public finance that was given to students at the University of Chicago sometime in the early to mid-1940s is illustrative of the forensic effort to prepare such posts. 

Henry Simon Bloch (1915-1988)  was born in Kehl (Germany) and emigrated to the U.S. in 1937 after having received his doctorate from the University of Nancy for a dissertation on Carl Menger.  I ran across two bibliographies he had put together in the files of Robert M. Haig at Columbia University. Both cover letters were written by Bloch on University of Chicago economics department stationary. The bibliography transcribed for this post came without a date, but the course number and senior faculty member,  Simon Leland, were easy to confirm. Still, Bloch only appears once or twice in the departmental list of faculty (at the rank of instructor), but never actually listed as an instructor for Economics 360 “Government Finance”.    

Bloch left Chicago in 1945 about the same time that Oskar Lange did. Because Bloch wrote in the cover letter to the bibliography below that it hardly seemed as though four years had passed since he had visited New York and his other bibliography had been mailed in January 1940, it seems reasonable to assume that the today’s list was sent in 1944.

Last speculation: in the New York Times obituary linked above it mentions that Bloch was honorary associate fellow of Berkeley College of Yale University. Robert Triffin  was master of that residential college at Yale from 1969 until 1977. This likely connection is perhaps related to Bloch’s honorary doctorate from the Universite Libre de Bruxelles?

__________________

 Partial timeline
of Henry Simon Bloch

1915. Born April 6 in Kehl, Germany.
1937.  Dr. en Droit (Econ) at the University of Nancy with the dissertation La théorie des besoins de Carl Menger.
1937. Emigration to the United States.

University of Chicago

1938. Research assistant.
1941-42. Lecturer, Institute for Military Studies.
1943. Instructor economics, Institute for Military Studies.
1943-45. Research supervisor, Civil Affairs Training School (CATS) for Army and Navy Officers.

1945. Consultant, Foreign Economics Administration.
1945-46. Economist, Treasury Department.
1946. Member Treasury delegate for tax treaty negotiations, Treasury Department, France, United Kingdom, Benelux.
1947-49. Section chief, United Nations.

[gap to be filled]

1955. Visiting professor economics Yale University.
1955-62. Director fiscal and financial branch, United Nations.
1958-1959. Acting director, Bureau Economics Affairs.
1959-1962. Director, Bureau Technology Assistance.
1961-1962. Deputy commissioner for technical assistance, Bureau Technology Assistance.
1962-1966. President, Zinder International Ltd.
1967-1970. Vice-president, director, Engineer of Mines Warburg & Company, Inc.
1970-1975. Senior vice president, Engineer of Mines Warburg, Pincus & Company, Inc.
1976-1981. Executive vice president, Engineer of Mines Warburg, Pincus & Company, Inc.
1982-1988. Managing director, Engineer of Mines Warburg, Pincus & Company, Inc.
1988. Died in Manhattan, February 28.

Columbia University

Lecturer, 1955-1963.
Adjunct Professor law and international relations, 1963-1985.
Professor emeritus, 1985-1988.
Member international advisory board School International and Public Affairs, 1986-1988.

Source:   From the Henry Simon Bloch page at the Prabook website of biographies of professionals.

__________________

Budget and Appointment Recommendations 1944-45
February 21, 1944
Economics Department
Item 16

It is recommended that the appointment of Henry S. Bloch as instructor [10/1/1943-9/30/44, $3,600] be renewed [10/1/44 to 9/30/45, $3,600]. Bloch at present is devoting his time exclusively to the CATS program, where his salary is charged. Should that training program be liquidated, Bloch’s services can be transferred immediately to Departmental teaching, research, and assistance in advising students. During the past year such needs have arisen, but because of the demands of the miitary program Bloch has not been able to assist the Department in its civilian program. Attention is called to the fact that Bloch’s salary is on a four-quarter basis.

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Records of the Hutchins Administration, Office of the President, Box 284, Folder “Economics , 1943-47”.

___________________

Course Description 1944-45

[Economics] 360. Government Finance. A survey course covering the main topics dealt with in standard treatises, but emphasizing analysis of the economic effects of various fiscal practices. Prereq: Two years’ work in the Division of the Social Sciences, or equiv. But: MWF 8; Leland.

Source:  Annual Register of the University of Chicago. Announcements: The College and the Divisions, Sessions of 1944-45. Volume XLIV, No. 8 (May 15, 1944), p. 279.

___________________

The University of Chicago
Department of Economics
Oct 1

Dear Professor Haig,

I thought this might be of interest to you. It is just a list for our students.

It seems as if I had seen you only yesterday and when I was out at Riverdale it seemed as if there had not been more than 4 years interval. It was so nice.

I assume that you met Oscar Lange in the meanwhile.

Regards,

Henri.

___________________

Economics 360
SELECTED LIST OF FRENCH, GERMAN AND ITALIAN WORKS ON PUBLIC FINANCE

by
S. E. Leland and H. S. Bloch

Authors of the French language group

Allix, E. Traité élémentaire de science des finances et de législation financière française, 4th ed., 1921. Paris, 1931.

Allix, E., and Lecerclé, M. L’impôt sur le revenu. Paris, 1927.

Colson, Clément. Les finances publiques et le budget de la France. Cours d’économie politique, vol. v (2d rev. ed.). Paris, 1931.

De Greeff, Guillaume. L’économie publique et la science des finances. Bruxelles, 1907.

Denis, M. H. L’Impôt sur le revenu. Brussels, 1881.

Garnier, Joseph. Traité de Finance, 3d ed. Paris, 1872.

Jèze, Gaston. Cours élémentaire de science des finances et de législation financière française. Paris, 1912.

__________. Cours de science des finances (Théorie de l’impôt). 1936/37.

__________. Cours de finances publiques. Théories générales sur les phénomènes financiers, les dépenses publiques, le crédit public, les taxes, l’impôt. Paris, 1931.

__________. Théorie générale du budget. Paris, 1922.

__________. Cours élémentaire de science des finances et de législation financière française. Paris, 1932.

__________. Cours de science de finances et de législation financière française. Technique du Crédit Public. Paris, 1923.

__________. «Le rôle du ministre des finances dans une démocratie, » Revue de Science et de Législation Financières, Vol. XXVII (1929), pp. 7-24.

__________. Le remboursement des emprunts publics d’état. Paris, 1927.

Jèze-Boucard, M. Éléments de la science des finances et de la législation financière française, 2 vols. 1902.

Leroy-Beaulieu, Paul. Traité de la science des finances. 2 vols. 1899.

Marion, Marcel. Histoire financière de la France, depuis 1715, 6 vols. Paris, 1914/1931.

Marquis de Mirabeau. Théorie de l’impôt. 1760.

Say, Jean Baptiste. Cours complet d’économie politique pratique. 1828-9.

Say, Léon. Les finances. Paris, 1892.

__________. Dictionnaire des finances, 2 vols. Paris : Nancy, 1891/1894.

__________. Les Solutions démocratiques de l’impôt. 1886.

Stourm, R. Cours des finances. 1906.

__________. Le budget. Tr. in English—The Budget. 1917.

Trotabas, L. Précis de science et législation financières. Paris, 1936.

Vauban. Dixme royale. 1707.

Walras, L. Théorie critique de l’impôt. Paris, 1861.

 

Authors of the German language group

Büsch, Johann Georg. Abhandlung vom dem Geldumlauf in anhaltender Rücksicht auf die Staatswirtschaft und Handlung. Hamburg, 1780. [2nd edition, 1800]

Cohn, Gustav. Finanzwissenschaft, 1889. The Science of Finance (tr. by T. B. Veblen). Chicago, 1895.

__________. System der Finanzwissenschaft. 1889.

Colm, G. Volkswirtschaftliche Theorie der Staatsausgaben. Tuebingen, 1927.

Eheberg, Karl. Finanzwissenschaft, 18th ed. Berlin, 1930.

Földes, B. Finanzwissenschaft. 1920.

Gerloff, W. Steuerwirtschaft und Sozialismus. Leipzig, 1922.

Gerloff, W., and Meisel, F. Handbuch der Finanzwissenschaft. Tübingen, 1926.

Goldscheid, Rudolf. Handbuch der Finanzwissenschaft. Tübingen, 1926.

Hock, Karl V. Öffentliche Abgaben und Schulden. 1862.

Jecht, Horst. Wesen und Formen der Finanzwissenschaft. Jena, 1928.

Jèze-Neumark, F. Allgemeine Theorie des Budgets. 1927.

Lindahl, E. R. Die Gerechtigkeit der Besteuerung. Lund, 1919.

Lotz, W. Finanzwissenschaft. 1917.

Mann, Fritz Karl. « Steuerpolitische ideale, » Finanzwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Jena, 1937.

__________. Deutsche Finanzwirtschaft. Jena, 1929.

Moll, Bruno. Lehrbuch der Finanzwissenschaft. Berlin, 1930.

Nebenius, Karl Friedrich. Der öffentliche Kredit. 1820.

Neumark, Fritz. Reichshaushaltplan. 1929.

Rau, Karl. Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie. 1826-37.

Ritschl, Hans. Theorie der Staatswirthschaft und Besteuerung. Bonn, 1925.

Sax, Emil. Grundlegung der theoretischen Staatswirtschaft. Vienna, 1887.

Schaeffle, Albert, E.F. Die Steuern. Leipzig, 1895.

Roscher, Wilhelm. System der Finanzwissenschaft. 1886.

Schanz, G. V. Der Einkommensbegriff und die Einkommensteuergesetze, Finanzarchiv. 1896.

Stein, L. V. Lehrbuch der Finanzwissenschaft, 4 vols. 5th ed. 1885/1886.

Sultan, H. Die Staatseinnahmen: Versuch einer soziologischen Finanztheorie als Teil einer Theorie der politischen Oekonomie. 1932.

Tehralle, Fritz. Finanzwissenschaft. Jena, 1930.

Teschemacher, Hans. Handbuch der Finanzwissenschaft. Tübingen, 1927.

Wagner, A. Finanzwissenschaft. 1889.

Wicksell, K. Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen. Jena, 1896.

 

Authors of Italian language group

Barone, Enrico. Principii di economia finanziaria. Rome, 1920.

Conigliani, Carlo. De diritto pubblico nei sistemi finanziari; Studi di teoria finanziaria; e’indrezzo teorico nella Scienza finanziaria. Turin, 1903.

__________. Le leggi scientiche della finanza. 1903.

Cossa, L. “Scienze delle finanze”—Translated excerpts, by H. White. Taxation: Its principles and methods. New York and London, 1893.

Del Vecchio, Gusatavo. Lezioni di scienze delle finanze, 2d ed. Padua, 1923.

De Viti de Marco. Il carattero teorico della economia finanziaria. 1890.

De Viti de Marco, Antonio. Principii di economia finanziaria. Turin, 1934. Translation: First Principles of Public Finance, by Edith Pavlo Marget. New York, 1936.

Einaudi, L. Corso di scienza della finanza, 3rd ed. Turin, 1914.

__________. Principii di scienza della finanza. Turin, 1932.

Fasolis, G. Scienza delle finanze e diritto finanziario. 1933.

Flora, F. Manuale della scienze delle finanze, 6th ed. 1921.

Graziani, A. Istituzioni di scienza delle finanze. Torino, 1897.

Griziotti, B. Considerazioni sui metodi; limiti e problemi della Scienze pure delle Finanze. 1912. Pp. 39.

__________. Principii di politica, diritto e scienza delle tinanze. 1929.

__________. Studi di diritto tributario. 1931.

Loria, Achille. The Economic Synthesis: A study of the laws of income. Tr. by Eden Paul. London, 1914.

Mazzola. Dati scientifica della finanza pubblica. 1890.

Murray, Roberto. Principi fondamentali di scienza pura delle finanze. 1914.

Nitti, F. S. Principi di scienze delle finanze, 5th ed. Rome, 1922.

Pantaleoni, Moffea. Teoria della pressione tributaria. 1887.

Pareto, Vilfredo. “I debiti pubblici dopo la guerra,” (Rivista di Scienze Bancaria—February-March, 1916), Fatti e Teorie, p. 57-62. Firenze, 1920.

Pugliese, Mario. L’imposizione delle imprese di carattere internazionale. 1930.

Ricca-Salerno, G. Scienza della finanze. 1888.

__________. Storia delle Dottrine Finanziane in Italia. Translated. Rome, 1881.

__________.History of Fiscal Doctrines in Italy. Translated. 1890.

Rignano, Eugenio. Social Significance of the Inheritance Tax. Translated by Wm. J. Shultz. New York, 1924.

Rignano, Eucenid. Una Riforma socialista del diritto successorio. Bologna. 1920.

Roncali, A. Corso elementari di scienza finanziaria. Parma, 1887.

Tangorra, V. Trattato di Scienza delle Finanza.

Vanoni, Ezio. Natura ed interpretazione delle leggi tributarie. 1932.

 

Source: Columbia University Archive. Robert M. Haig Papers. Box 16, Folder “Bibliography”.

Image Source: Social Science Research Building. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf2-07466, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Columbia Regulations Research Tip Salaries

Columbia. Excerpts from annual faculty meeting. GRE’s, Math, Salaries discussed, 1951

 

 

The Department of Economics at Columbia University was a constituent element of the Faculty of Political Science from its earliest days. The Columbia University Archives have a long series of bound, typed minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and some of its committee meetings [Research tip: these bound volumes run from 1897 to at least 1957, when I approached the end of my project’s historical window].  I have somewhat randomly selected today’s transcription. The meeting had four items directly relevant to the greater project of chronicling the education of economists (i.e., about four items above the mode) and a relatively descriptive account of presentation and debate. When the discussion turned to a motion to replace a foreign language with a math requirement, the secretary of the Faculty, Professor Barzun, threw in the towel as keeper of the minutes: “From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality.”

_____________________

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
April 27, 1951

The annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science was held on April 27, 1951, at 4:10 P.M. in the Trustees’ Room.

Roll Call
[p. 1035]

Present:

Vice President Kirk
Dean Krout
Professors Anderson, Angell, Barzun, Bergson, Bonbright, Burns (A.F.), Burns (A.R.), Clark, Dorfman, Davis, Evans, Florinsky, Fox, Goodrich (Carter), Goodrich (L.M.), Greenberg, Hunt, Lazarsfeld, Lerner, Mattingly, Mills, Miner, Merton, Macmahon, Nurkse, Orchard, Peffer, Scheffé, Shoup, Strong, Steward, Stigler, Vickrey, Wagley, Wallace, Wilbur, Wolfowitz, Wuorinen.

Absent:

Professors Abel, Aly, Barghoorn, Baron, Berle, Brebner, Brunner, Carman, Clough, Commager, Dowling, Einaudi, Gellhorn, Haig, Hart, Haas, Hazard, Ho, Holborn, Jessup, Kroeber, Lehmann, Lipset, Lissitzyn, Lynd, MacIver, McNeill, Malone, Millett, Moley, Morris, Mosely, Neumann, Niebuhr, Nevins, Odlozilik, Pearden, Pennock, Polanyi, Robinson, Rogers, Saulnier, Sayre, Schuyler, Shapiro, Szeftel, Tannenbaum, Thomson, Truman, Westermann, Wolman.

[…]

Re-admission of graduate students
[p. 1036]

Dean Krout proposed the resolution of the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction concerning the readmission of graduate students, as follows:

RESOLVED, That any former graduate student who seeks re-admission for work in residence at a date more than five years following his latest residence, must have his earlier academic work re-evaluated and his essay or dissertation subject reconsidered, either prior to readmission, or during the first semester of renewed residence. The credit which such students shall receive shall be determined by the Admissions Office on the recommendation of the Department concerned.

In the case of a former graduate student who makes application for the final examination in defense of his dissertation, at a date more than five years following his latest residence, the department concerned may require a similar re-evaluation.

It was passed unanimously without discussion.

[…]

Salary Report (of Committee of Six)
[p. 1038]

Speaking for the Committee of Six representing the three Graduate Faculties, Professor Stigler spoke briefly about the Report on University Salaries, copies of which had been previously sent to all members of the Faculty. He again stressed the fact that the role of the Committee was not to recommend a salary schedule, nor to cope with the difficulties of financing, but simply to report comparative findings. He pointed out the inadequacy of data for the period 1914-1930, but expressed confidence in the statistical results for the period 1930-1950. “We have now reached”, he said, “the lowest point of the entire stretch, and a remedial rise, to be significant, would have to be about 20% generally, and relatively higher for the lower ranks”.

Professor Carter Goodrich moved approval of the general thesis of the report, namely, that it is of the utmost importance to the academic standing of the University that our competitive position expressed through our salary scale be maintained.

The motion was unanimously approved.


Requirement of Graduate Record Examination for admission rescinded
[p. 1039]

Professor Carter Goodrich offered a resolution for the Committee on Instruction regarding the Graduate Record Examination. In discussion he gave a brief history of the requirement and referred to published survey showing that college grades offer a better means of predicting success in Graduate Studies than the examination. Moreover, the Examination costs the student $13.00 and three afternoons, which seems a lavish expenditure for an uncertain measure of prophecy. The Faculty unanimously voted to rescind the requirement.

 

Proposal of Dep’t. of Sociology to substitute Mathematics for one foreign language as a Ph.D. requirement
[pp. 1039-1040]

Professor Lazarsfeld offered a resolution to permit students in Sociology and Economics to substitute Mathematics for one of the two foreign languages normally required for the Ph.D. degree. In the discussion Professor Wuorinen asked to be enlightened on the tendency of the motion. The answer was that Mathematics is a language and one far more necessary to the statistical student of society than any of the languages that consist of words.

Professor Evans opposed the motion on two grounds: first, the principle that all Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University are rightly deemed able to use the literature of their fields in two foreign languages besides their own; second, the technicality that any change in the requirement must be approved by all three Faculties.

From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality. Professor Angell urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright uttered the suspicion that our language requirement was not really effective, and implied that a mathematics requirement would be. Dean Krout rose to reinforce Professor Evans’ point that we could not take separate action as a Faculty.

Professor Evans introduced an amendment of which the effect was to reduce the requirement to one language for all fields. The amendment was not accepted by the first mover and Professor ANGELL called for a test vote on the original motion. It was carried 25-10; but given the Faculty lack of power to act independently on this matter, Professor Angell moved the appointment of a committee to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree. This suggestion was powerless to stem the debate. Professor Stigler urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis wondered how much mathematics would equal one language. Dean Krout likewise wished to know what would be meant by “mathematics”. Professor Lazarsfeld replied that a committee exists and has expressed itself on the nature of the mathematical equipment required by social scientists. Professor Angell revealed that the Department of Economics has the specifications all worked out. Professors Macmahon and Shoup both agreed in considering mathematics a language and raised the spectre of a three-language requirement.

Finally the question was called for, and Professor Angell’s motion to appoint a committee was passed 26-9.

[…]

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M.

Respectfully submitted
[signed]
Jacques Barzun
Secretary

 

Source: Columbia University Archive, Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962. pp.1035-1042.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Yale

Yale. James Tobin on Freedom to Friedman in 1964

 

The last paragraph of this letter from James Tobin to Milton Friedman could have been written yesterday (by someone with a good memory for history). While it is fair to say that Friedman’s team has managed to control the ball longer on the clock over the past half-century, Tobin’s team is better at keeping points on the scoreboard. 

___________________

Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics
Box 2125, Yale Station

December 7, 1964

Professor Milton Friedman
Department of Economics
Columbia University
Fayerweather Hall
New York 27, New York

 

Dear Milton:

As you urged in your letter of November 11, I shall read Federal Bulldozer [Sample review of Martin Anderson’s book]. The only redevelopment I am at all familiar with is the one here in New Haven. I think it has, in some net balance, enlarged freedom. Eminent domain no doubt infringes on one dimension of freedom and is subject to abuse. But there are surely aspects of freedom other than freedom from government coercion.

The discussion would be advanced if you would recognize that some government actions might enlarge the scope for individual choice and action for some individuals by diminishing the environmental constraints upon them.

I think also it is useful to distinguish between expansion of the public sector as a purchaser and user of resources and increases in specific and direct governmental controls and regulations. I don’t think that “modern liberals” who favor the former favor the latter. Certainly I don’t. I would not have a minimum wage law, or a Davis-Bacon Act, or the agricultural mess. And, when I want more money for education, I don’t like to be accused of wanting an NRA [National Recovery Administration]. But this confusion is what happens by the indiscriminate use of the term “Big Government.”

It is on the question of freedom of expression that I find the most difficulty understanding you. My reading of history and of the contemporary scene would be that the main threats to freedom of dissent have almost nothing to do with the economic size of government in our kind of society. The main threats have come from the know-nothings, Mitchell Palmers, McCarthys  [cf. a review of the Anderson book on Joseph McCarthy by Alonzo L. Hamby], Klu Kluxers, and the like. It is not the big Federal government that intimidates librarians, textbook writers, broadcasters, civil rights advocates in the South, etc. I do not know of cases where a democracy has crept into totalitarianism by gradually increasing the size and scope of government activity. But I do know of cases, like the Weimar republic, where the failure of conservative governments to use their powers for social and economic ends has delivered the whole country to a totalitarian dictator.

Sincerely,

[signed: “Jim”]

James Tobin

JT:lah

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 34, Folder 13 “Tobin, James”.

Images Sources:   1962 photo of James Tobin ; 1968 file photo of Milton Friedman.