Categories
Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Harvard Michigan Popular Economics Yale

“Political Economy and the Civil War” by Laughlin that provoked an Economist-Bashing editorial, 1885

Before becoming the founding father of the department of political economy at the University of Chicago, the 35 year old Harvard assistant professor J. Laurence Laughlin (Harvard Ph.D. 1876) published an essay, transcribed below, arguing that liberal college education needed to be expanded beyond Greek, Latin, mathematics, and philosophy to include courses dealing with economic theory and its policy applications. He provides us a table of the limited course offerings in political economy at five major colleges/universities at the time. I stumbled upon an unsigned editorial written in response to Laughlin that I have also transcribed and which is placed at the end of this post. The editorial provides us with historical evidence that ill-tempered economics-bashing is hardly a creation of the Twitternet Age. No siree Bob! The editor was not amused by Laughlin’s presumption, calling him and his college professor colleagues who taught political economy to boys…”vealy milksops”. I dare any or all visitors to sneak that expression into a footnote.

________________________________

POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE CIVIL WAR.
By J. Laurence Laughlin.

Atlantic Monthly, v. 55 (April, 1885) no. 330, pp. 444-450.

In some parts of our country there is a current maxim among the old-fashioned gardeners to the effect that “a wind-shaken tree will bear much fruit.” There is some subtle force in it. In fact, it is an expression which may be regarded as finding its parallel in individual and social life. As individuals, we know that there is no real growth of character except by a conquest over opposing difficulties; the doing right when it is against our inclinations and prejudices. And in a social organism we seem to see a moral law of conservation of energy by which a sacrifice is the parent of some gain,— a thing which evidently underlies the movements attending many great convulsions in political life. We saw armies go out of our sight during the civil war, only to come back thinned, injured by disease, with half their number left dead on the field. Death meant bitter, indescribable sorrow in all our homes. The experiences of the war were felt to be pitiless, inexplicable, and hard. And yet, perhaps, a subtle suggestion may have come into our minds that it was not simply by dying, or in living, that the best law of our being was enforced; that there was, in truth, some Power behind it all; that some purpose was being worked out through each one of us, just as each leaf on the tree, for example, is necessary to the completed organism of the whole tree, and ceases to be when it is separated from the stem. Now, perhaps, even at this short distance from the struggle, we can begin to see some of the effects of that social and political upheaval, the greatest since the foundation of our government. It is worth while to examine whether the wind shaken tree has borne much fruit.

The process by which citizens from the secluded districts and remote towns were sent through new cities to opposite parts of the Union, exchanging ideas with men of different habits of thought, was a marked feature of the war period, and leavened the mental life of the American people in a way hither to little suspected. It was something like sending a country boy to college, only the effect was multiplied a million times. The rural population came into a knowledge of our cities, while the urban classes were carried out into new climates and into unvisited parts of our vast domain. New sights, new methods of cultivation, different habits of living, stimulated the dull and fired the active and enterprising men in the ranks. The life of the farm and the village was widened to an interest in the nation. About the same time, moreover, came a vast increase in easy means of communication by railways and a greater extension of the use of the newspaper and telegraph, by which provincial towns were brought into direct connection with the outside world. Even oddities of customs and dress began to disappear, in the process of comparison with the more attractive ways of the dwellers in the great cities and towns. In this fashion, the thinking horizon was extended. Dull intellects learned the presence of complicated problems, and brighter minds found new spurs to ambition in the questions of larger interest. On all sides men felt themselves coming daily into contact with new difficulties, under a dim consciousness of their bigness, but with a strong belief that the knowledge how to deal with them was inadequate. In short, the tremendous crisis through which we passed, apart from its effect on the preservation of the Union, has been subtly at work in moral and intellectual directions. The working of these new forces on a quick and susceptible race can easily be imagined. They have, in fact, under somewhat similar conditions, had a distinct influence on a more phlegmatic people than ours. Old students at Göttingen, who have returned to the university since the late wars in which Germany has been engaged, have been amazed to find the old-fashioned spot — where the customs, habits, and naive simplicity of one hundred years ago had prevailed until quite recently — now wholly changed. The commercial spirit has seized the formerly simple-minded peasants, and the quiet town now hears the heavy march of cosmopolitanism in its streets.

Like Germany, the United States had new problems to solve. While the conflict closed the long slavery struggle, it brought with it intricate questions, but of a character very different from those which had gone before. Without warning, and consequently without the ability to get due preparation or acquire proper training, our public men were confronted, as the war progressed, with matters of vital importance in international and constitutional law, in taxation, and in every form of administration and finance. The demand for men who had given themselves more particularly to the province of governmental science was an imperative one; but it was, generally speaking, met in a way which showed that there existed in the community a class from whom these necessary men could be recruited. That class was the legal profession of the country. The questions of reconstruction, the relation of the general government to the States, the civil rights of the negro, our relations with foreign powers during the blockade of Southern ports, were not abandoned to men who had never habituated themselves to discussions such as were involved in their settlement. There were differences of opinion, of course; but inasmuch as these differences of opinion were produced by different political theories, this proved that attention had been given to such subjects to the extent that a crystallized system of thought, formulated in dogmas, had been created by the various parties.

But, as has been suggested, new considerations arose. The magnitude of the military operations involved an enormous expenditure of money by the state, and made a demand upon our statesmen for financial skill of an almost unparalleled kind. To meet these extended questions of taxation, finance, and currency, what body of men could be called upon? To this, answer must be made that the war overtook us without a supply — or even a few — of trained economists and financiers. The economic part in the equipment of a public official had been wholly neglected. In fact, political economy and finance had never been seriously studied in the schools; but, if studied, they were classed in the old-fashioned required curriculum with Butler’s Analogy and the Evidences of Christianity. Although Adam Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations in 1776, political economy was an unknown science to the American people before 1860. It is an interesting study to examine the manner in which our people went under the burdens and tasks of our great civil conflict. There was the quick adaptability of Americans to start with; there was plenty of patriotism and good will, and no lack of those high qualities of self-sacrifice and heroism which are still fragrant to us; but lawyers, such as Chase and Fessenden, were practically our only financiers. Early in the war they were required to consider a scheme — for the right settlement of which a vast experience is necessary — of raising loans, and adjusting a plan of taxation corresponding to the extraordinary war expenses. Without considering alternatives, in a few years they created a debt as great as that incurred by old despotisms of Europe in centuries; without foresight, they drifted into a ruinous issue of irredeemable paper money; without intending it as the object of a definite policy, but through a desire simply to gain a war revenue, they established an extended system of “protection to home industries” by levying duties on imports, which has brought into existence business interests largely dependent on the continuance of these temporary war measures. When it is realized that principles of taxation are to-day probably less understood than any other branch of economics, it is not surprising to find that in 1864 Congress was occupied only five days in passing the most gigantic taxation measure of the war. The National Bank Act, which has given us the best system of banking ever enjoyed by the country, was, however, in reality passed as an act to facilitate the sale of our bonds and aid our tottering credit. We blundered egregiously, but we were capable of learning by experience. Yet it was from these very blunders, from this revelation of inexperience made evident by the demands of a great emergency period, that the community received an impetus toward the study of economic questions which was certain to result in good fruit.

In fact, it is now clear that a new interest in economics and finance has already arisen. The civil war was, so to speak, the creation of economic study in the United States. The war did for this country — in a different way, of course — even more than the corn-law agitation did for England. It actually gave birth to new motives for study. There never was a time in our history when there was so evident a desire to get light on the economic problems of the day as now. There is a new stir among the ranks of the young men at college; and the printing-press sends forth an increasing stream of new books upon subjects which are constantly discussed in the daily newspapers. There is unquestionably a new-born, slowly growing attention by the younger men of our land to the necessity (as well as the duty) of fitting themselves properly for the responsibilities of citizenship. If the war has given us this, — the absence of which used to be so often lamented a few years ago, — then may some of our sacrifices not have been in vain. The wind-shaking has resulted in abundant fruit.

In the present awakening in educational discussion, one phase of which has been called the “Greek Question,” it is worth while to notice the influence of the war period on the college curriculum. In most of our schools and universities, on the breaking out of the war (and even to the present day), the pecuniary resources and endowments had been tied down, under the force of old traditions, to supply instruction in the customary Greek, Latin, mathematics, and philosophy, which were then considered the only essentials of a liberal education. But when the rude shock of the war awakened us to our ignorance, and we looked around for the schools where the new studies could best be followed, it was discovered that the college curriculum made practically no provision for such instruction. In the old days when sailing vessels alone entered Boston harbor, only one channel was practicable, and all the fortifications were placed in a way to command it: but when steam took the place of sails, another channel was adopted, but it is now wholly undefended. The old ship channel must be defended, but so must the new one. So, in the collegiate studies, the old subjects are necessary, of course, but they are not the only necessary ones. The new demands, due to the progress of the age, must also be met. In fact, the response of the schools to these new demands is at once the evidence and result of the quickening and stimulating forces so briefly sketched in these pages. A comparison of the amount of instruction in political economy given by the principal institutions of the land in the years 1860, 1870, and 1884 will furnish us new proof that the wind-shaken tree is yielding full fruit.

Nothing could show more distinctly than the accompanying table how young any real systematic study of political economy is in this country, and it accounts for the lack of any number of trained economists among us. But the younger generation are happily recruiting their ranks, now that these better opportunities are open to them.

At no time, however, have public affairs demanded unpartisan study in economics more than to-day. In past centuries governments were supposed to labor, in an unsettled state of society, for the protection of life and property. Now that the general progress of civilization and Christianity has made life and liberty more secure, legislation in later years has concerned itself rather with property than life. In the Middle Ages trade was considered plebeian; to fight or to oppress was regarded as more noble. Now the chief solicitude of the modern state is the increase of wealth: the castles have become mills; retainers, productive laborers; and arms, the hammers and tools of the artisan.

1860.

1870.

1884.

Yale College. One third of Senior year One third of Senior Year 1.  Elementary Course. — Fawcett. — Discussions on currency, banking, and taxation. 3 hours a week for 13 weeks.
2.  Elementary Course. — Mill. — Currency, banking, and taxation. 2 hours a week for a year.
3.  Advanced Course. — Discussion of economic problems and fallacies, with selections from leading treatises. 2 hours a week for 20 weeks.
4.  Graduate Course. — Finance and the Art of Politics, as illustrated in the History of the United States. 2 hours a week for 2 years.
5.  Graduate Course (in alternate years.) — In 1883-4, Sociology. In 1884-5, Industrial History, History of Political Economy, Finance and Theory of Rights. 1 hour a week for each year.
6.  History, business methods, and social problems, of Railroads. 2 hours a week for a year.
[A course about equal to Courses 1 and 2 is given in the Sheffield Scientific School.]

Cornell University.

[Institution not founded]

One third of Junior Year

1. Elementary Course. — Lectures and Recitations. 2 hours a week 2/3 of a year.
2. Lectures on Political Economy.5 hours a week for 1/3 of a year.
3. Lectures on Finance.

University of Michigan.

Not in the Course of Study.

One Term of Senior Year.

1. Elementary Course. — Lectures. 3 hours a week ½ of a year.
2.  Advanced Course. — Competition, Free Trade and Protection, Commercial Depressions, Transportation, etc. 3 hours a week ½ of a year.
3.  Principles and Methods of Finance. — Banking, National Debts, etc. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
4.  History of Industrial Society [not given in 1883-4]. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
5.  Financial Seminary.— History of American Finance. 2 hours a week ½ of a year. [Not given 1883-4.]

Columbia College.

Elective in one part of Senior Year.

One Term of Senior Year.

1.  Principles of Political Economy.— Elementary Course. Rogers’ Manual. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
2. History of Politico-Economic Institutions. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
3.  Finance and Taxation. 2 hours a week ½ of a year.
4.  Statistical Science, Methods and Results. 2 hours a week ½ a year.
5.  Communistic and Socialistic Theories. 2 hours a week ½ a year.
6.   [Topics like railways, banks etc., are placed under Administrative Law.]

Harvard University.

One half of Senior Year.

1. Rogers’ Manual One half of Junior Year 1. Elementary Course.— Mill’s Political Economy. Lectures on Banking and the Financial Legislation of the United States. 3 hours a week for a year.
2. Elective Course for Seniors: Adam Smith, Mill, Bowen. 3 hours a week for a year. 2. Advanced Course.— History of Political Economy. Cairnes, Carey, George, and recent literature. 3 hours a week for a year.
3. Investigation of Practical Questions of the Day.— Banking, Money, Bimetallism, American Shipping, Note Issues, etc. 3 hours a week for a year.
4. Economic History since the Seven Years’ War.— 3 hours a week for a year.
5. Land Tenures in England, Ireland, France, and Germany.— 1 hour a week for a year.
6. History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.— 1 hour a week for a year.
7. Comparison of the Financial Systems of France, England, Germany, and the United States.— 1 hour a week for a year. [Omitted 1884-5.]
8. History of Financial Legislation in the United States. 1 hour a week for a year.

Consider the character of the questions at this time pressing upon Congress for immediate attention. If we omit the administrative and political legislation on the civil service, the succession to the presidency, and a national bankruptcy law, the remaining questions before Congress to-day are almost entirely economic. (1.) There is, in the first place, the false silver dollar, masquerading in sheep’s clothing, and waiting to catch the unwary business world napping, when it will suddenly assume its true depreciated character, and devour fifteen or eighteen per cent of all creditor’s dues estimated at present prices. What is Congress doing here? Just what it did in the last months of 1861, when it let the country drift on to the shoals of depreciated paper. Monometallists and bimetallists, business men and bankers, are assaulting the dangerous silver legislation, and yet Congress is a very Gibraltar in which the silver owners are intrenched. (2.) Next, there is the banking question. Nothing can be more delicate and sensitive than the machinery of credit and banking in a great commercial country such as this; and yet men, to satisfy the prejudices of constituents, handle this mechanism with about the same air of cheerful indifference as that of a child who drags a rag doll round by the heels. The present national bank notes give a stability to trade in separate parts of the Union, by means of a currency equally good in Maine and Texas, never reached in the days of the vicious and changing state banks; and yet the present system is gradually vanishing before our very eyes, as calls are made for government bonds. (3.) Again, Congress is struggling with the most difficult of all problems, – national taxation. It means a reëxamination of our whole scheme of taxation, the retention of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, the management of our surplus revenue, the whole sub-treasury system; while the situation inevitably requires a readjustment of our customs duties. Duties needed in order to procure a large revenue in time of war are no longer necessary when the war is ended, and the national debt is reduced one half. (4.) There are the barbarous and mediaeval navigation laws, to which we cling with a curious indifference to the influence of all progress and liberal ideas. The problem of our shipping and merchant marine needs the touchstone of some wider training than is furnished by selfish individual interests. (5.) Our public lands and the settlement of our vast Western domain are important matters of land tenures, and yet they are abandoned to accident, while the possibilities of good disappear under the cloud of accomplished facts, where nothing can be done. It will not be long before all the public lands will be gone, and yet no notice is taken of existing evils. (6.) Then, again, one has but to mention the word “railway,” and there arises to the mind a congeries of difficult questions dealing with Western “grangers,” the ability of the state to regulate freight and passenger charges, and in fact the whole vexed discussion of state interference. Here is a field by itself, to which a man may well give his whole life-work. (7.) It would be wearisome to more than mention the topics of Postal Telegraph, Chinese Labor, Strikes, Trades Unions, and Communism, which attract our instant attention. (8.) Then again the unfortunate legal-tender decision of Judge Gray has brought back to us all the troublesome and intricate discussions on the currency which we once thought had been forever settled. As matters now stand, power is given to Congress, if it chooses, to repeat all the errors of Continental currency policy, and we are put back a century in our paper money teaching. (9.) To pass from merely internal matters, so long as we were the only civilized people on the western continent, our relations with our neighbors gave us little thought. The growth of commerce, the expansion of populous areas north and south of us, the discovery of mineral wealth outside our own limits, which invites our capital, has forced on us the consideration of reciprocity with Canada and Mexico. We have refused reciprocity to Canada; but to-day we are considering the desirability of granting closer commercial relations with Mexico, while Cuba and Porto Rico have asked the same advantages by a new treaty.

Such, in brief, are some of the subjects which must be made matter of instruction in our schools and universities. It will be observed how overwhelming a proportion of public measures at present are economic, and what a heavy responsibility lies upon our institutions of learning, if they are to meet the new demands in a fitting manner. But there is a still stronger reason for strengthening our educational forces on the economic side. This is to be found in what may be called the “economic portents.” To the present time we have been properly called a “young country,” which to the economist means an abundance of unoccupied land, a scanty population, large returns to capital, and high wages. A full knowledge of our resources has not practically been reached as yet, and will not be, probably, for a considerable time to come. These resources and the lusty health of our young country have made it possible heretofore for legislators to blunder with impunity. Constantly receiving large returns, labor and capital would not naturally be over-critical and hostile to each other. The young-country theory has also led to the encouragement of unlimited immigration, with which to settle our prairies and build up our towns. These new-comers do not, in fact, all go upon the land; but, arriving on our seaboard, instead of being drawn off entirely, they remain in the cities, like dirty pools of water in the streets. Indeed, the importation of uneducated, un-American, un-republican workmen from foreign lands is a problem in itself, and makes a strong demand upon all who can possibly do so to educate these masses, both economically and politically. Lawless communism, it is said advisedly, feeds on bad workmen. A saving mechanic is never a communist. To-day these men mean little to us; but when, by an increasing population and a denser settlement of the country, land becomes more scarce and valuable, profits on capital lower, and wages less, then even honest men, finding themselves pinched by a barrier of their own creation, brought into operation by natural laws, unless economically trained, will not know what is happening, and may in entire ignorance fly in the face of the law, and do in the United States somewhat of the things they are now doing in Europe. The day is more or less distant when this may happen, but it is coming nearer in proportion as the methods of men accustomed to conditions in old and crowded countries are brought here by a never ending stream of immigration.

The war has plunged us into the consideration of gigantic questions of an economic character, and the growth of our country in numbers and wealth is making a true understanding of them more necessary than ever to the prosperity of the nation, and a rising tide of interest in such studies is unmistakably evident. But these new and increasing demands are met by meagre and inadequate means in the great schools. It is a surprising fact that in some of the most important institutions there is no separate provision for such studies, and not even one settled instructor. Above all, we must educate in an intelligent manner, by stimulating investigation into home problems, and by encouraging the preparations of monographs on some out of the multitude of our economic questions. The best of the men in the university cannot now find a career in economic teaching, because few positions exist in this country as an object for honorable and ambitious students. Men find a profession in teaching Greek and Latin, but not Political Economy. When the community wakes up to a realization of this gap in the instruction of the land, and the importance of filling it, we may hope to see a more correct relation between means and needs than now exists.

________________________________

COLLEGE PROFESSORS AS ECONOMISTS.

Mr. J. Laurence Laughlin, in the Atlantic Monthly for April, appends his name to one of those egotistical screeds which serve to make those who teach political economy to boys contemptible in the sight of those who have occasion to practice legislative economies as practical statesman. Its fundamental assumption is that for want of the wisdom with such boys as Laughlin and Sumner possess nearly all that Hamilton, Gallatin, Chase, and Fessenden have done in America and quite all that Colbert, Napoleon, Pitt, Turgot, and Bismarck have done in Europe in an economic and financial way has been sad botchwork. Why do magazines like the Atlantic Monthly publish such ridiculous rant?

Instead of Chase and Fessenden having been in need of going to school to such vealy milksops as J. Laurence Laughlin, this college tutor shows on every page that he writes how greatly he needs the practical information which he could have got by attending for two or three years on the sessions of the Ways and Means Committee at Washington. Indeed, it is not legislators that need to be educated in economics by college professors, but college professors who need some means of picking up a few grains of sense by being brought into contact with actual legislation.

It is a singular fact that no man who has ever accepted a chair in a college as a teacher of political economy to boys has ever yet rendered any demonstrable service either to the cause of economic science or of legislation. Laughlin has the impertinence to say that, though Adam Smith wrote his “Wealth of Nations” in 1776, political economy was an unknown science to the American people before 1860. Does Mr. Laughlin mean to assert that Franklin, the intimate personal friend of Adam Smith and suggestor of some of his views, or that Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Clay, or Webster, Chase, Fessenden, Garfield, or “Pig Iron” Kelly are any less familiar with Adam Smith’s crudities, blunders, wisdom, and garrulous mud than Laughlin himself is? Adam Smith fell so far below Alexander Hamilton, and in many respects below Madison and Chase, in economic insight that while every commentator on Smith points out errors of fact and of theory, stupidities of ignorance and obliquities of vision on every page of the old scotch dullard and mugwump, we challenge Laughlin to point out with equal ease the ignorances and blunders in Hamilton’s economic papers or financial reports.

Adam Smith had the merit, however, of only styling his work as an “Inquiry.” It is the men who come after him who arrogate for his utterly unscientific, undefined meandering, inconsequential and self-contradictory fog-banks the quality of a science. Still Smith is helpful matter to a sensible legislator, because the latter can generally see on the face of Smith’s statements wherein the good Scotch plodder was wool-gathering, and could rectify Smith’s errors out of his own more modern and ample reading. The notion however, that Cairnes, Mill, Jevons, McLeod, Say, Lavelaye, or any other boy teachers have ever been helpful in matters of practical legislation is not warranted by facts. Ricardo was listened to with great respect by practical legislators, but he was a practical businessman like Franklin, the Careys, and Greeley, who had never undertaken the egotism of a pedagogue. The only economists America has yet produced are those who have either never or hardly ever sat in a professor’s chair. There seems to be something in the air of a school room which, if the professor remains in it until it conquers him, unfits him absolutely to mingle as a man among men in the affairs of men. It causes a cranky adoption of the most impracticable and erratic notions on the most inadequate basis of observation and fact, and at the same time inflates with a lofty and unapproachable egotism which precludes its possessor from meeting the views of an opponent with anything but epithets, however superior his opponent may be to himself in learning, experience, or sagacity. A precipitancy that has no nerves left for investigation and patience at criticism marks his every act and word. Laughlin shows this demoralizing precipitancy, so fatal to level-headed usefulness, by speaking of the silver coin, whose equal dignity with gold coin in all legal respects is irrevocably fixed in the letter of the Constitution of the United States, “as the false silver dollar,” thereby implying, of course that from 1853 to 1870, when silver happened to be worth more than gold, we must have been under a “false gold dollar.”

Laughlin also calls those navigation laws which have never existed either among barbarous or medieval nations, but which began in England under Cromwell, “barbarous and medieval.” He might as well call steam or the art of printing “barbarous and medieval.” Sensible man weary of these impudent epithets flung at them by young and graceless upstarts who have still their spurs to win in everything that distinguishes useful men from snobs.

SourceThe Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) April 15, 1885, p. 4.

Image Source: Portrait (1885-88) of James Lawrence Laughlin. Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Transfer from the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts.

Categories
Columbia Economics Programs Regulations

Columbia. Language Requirements for PhD Report, 1951

In 1950 the economics department of the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University was able to amend the foreign language requirement for a Ph.D. in economics to allow mathematics to substitute for one of the two required non-English languages. In 1951 the sociology department wanted to follow suit but this led to a faculty meeting discussion “so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it” ending in a special committee being formed to consider the matter further. The eleven page report of that committee has been transcribed for this post. It follows the excerpt from the minutes of the faculty meeting that would lead to the appointment of the special committee.

The portions of the report that explicity address the issue of the substitution of mathematics literacy for additional foreign language literacy have been highlighted for convenience. Connoisseurs of the discourse of academic rule-making will find much to savour in the minutes and report below. I find it hilarious that a three person committee speaks of  “majority” and “minority” recommendations when the humble fact was that “two of the committee members” disagreed with “the other one”.

It is unfortunate that I happened to have stopped my collection of faculty minutes with the year 1951, so that at the present moment I don’t know the ultimate fate met by the report’s recommendations at a later general meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, presumably sometime in early 1952.

___________________

Excerpt from the Minutes of the annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, April 27, 1951.

…Professor Lazarsfeld [Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, Professor of Sociology] 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 [John H. Wuorinen, Professor of History] 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 [Austin Patterson Evans, Professor of History] 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 [James W. Angell, Professor of Economics] urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright [James Cummings Bonbright, Professor of Finance] 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 [George Joseph Stigler, Professor of Economics]urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis [Kingsley Davis, Asssociate Professor of Sociology] 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 [Arthur W. Macmahon, Eaton Professor of Public Administration] and Shoup [Carl Sumner Shoup, Professor of Economics] 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.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962, pp. 1039-40.

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
[Nov. 5, 1951]

Summary

Findings of Fact:

  1. The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements of faculties and departments.
  2. Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees retain residual powers which they may exercise when they wish.
  3. Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the requirements.
  4. The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirements, and they differed widely.
  5. In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took account of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages. The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-editing of the language requirement. Thus was established without specific discussion a Faculty rule requiring two languages.

Conclusions:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faculty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

A minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

 

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PH.D. DEGREE

By letter, dated October 1, 1951, Dean John A. Krout constituted the undersigned as a Special Committee of the Faculty of Political Science to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree.

The Special Committee was asked to treat the subject generally in its report and to give special attention to the following questions: (1) Is it wise for the Faculty to permit its Departments to modify the existing language requirement; and (2) If the Faculty determines that it is wise to permit Departmental modification, should the Faculty recommend to the University Council such a change in the language requirement rules without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

A third question emerges from a reading of the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on April 27, 1951. Some of the members expressed the question in terms of debate over the authority of the Faculty of Political Science under the currently existing “constitutional law” of the University to take action on the language requirement without reference to the University Council for approval.

In an effort to answer the three questions raised, the Special Committee has divided its study into its component parts, namely (1) Have the Departments and the Faculty of Political Science present authority under the Statutes of the University, the resolutions of the Trustees and of the University Council and accepted. practice to change the language requirements for the Ph.D. degree; (2) From a policy point of view, should a change be made; and (3) From a policy point of view, should such a change be made without concurrence of the Faculties of Pure Science and Philosophy?

The Findings of Fact

(a) Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees here residual powers which they may exercise as they wish.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Trustees of the University have supreme authority over the “educational policy” of the University. No proposal involving a change in this policy may take effect until after approval of the Trustees, or until after the termination of the second meeting following the introduction of the proposal, in the event that the Trustees remain silent on the subject.

This is so by virtue of the terms of Article 24 of the Statutes of the University, which reads as follows:

Chap. II. The University Council

Art. 24. LIMITATION OF POWERS. No exercise of the powers conferred upon the Council which involves a change in the educational policy of the University in respect to the requirements of admission or the conditions of graduation, shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting of the Trustees shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

The University Council has the right under the Statutes of the University to consider every proposal, submitted by the Faculties which involves a change in the educational policy of the University.

This is so by virtue of Articles 33 and 142 of the Statutes of the University, which read as follows:

Chap. III. Faculties and Administrative Boards

Art. 33. LIMITATION OF POWERS. Every proposed exercise of the power conferred on any of the Faculties, which involves a change in the educational policy of the university in respect to the requirements of admission, the program of studies or the condition of graduation shall be submitted to the University Council before being recommended to the Trustees, and such recommendation shall not be laid before the Trustees until the Council has acted thereon, or until another meeting of the Council has been held, subsequent to that at which the recommendation was submitted. No exercise of such power by any Faculty shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.

Chap. XIV. Faculty of Political Science

Art. 142. DEGREES. (b) Ph.D. Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall be qualified to receive that degree upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by the University Council by concurrent action with the Faculty of Political Science.

While the authority of the Trustees and the University Council is clearly superior to that of the Faculties in matters concerning the “educational policy” of the University (which would seem to include the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree), the record seems to indicate that this authority has been delegated to the Faculties. The second finding of fact, is therefore:

(b) The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements for faculties and departments.

The finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute book of the University Council contains the following resolution, dated April 18, 1916, which reads as follows in its pertinent provisions:

“A student admitted to the University under the jurisdiction of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy or Pure Science, who wishes to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which his research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

    1. The student must have satisfied the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the faculty prescribe.

Such an interpretation of, the meaning of the resolution of the University Council, dated April 18, 1916, is supported by the action of the Faculty of Political Science in years subsequent to the adoption of the University Council’s resolution. The record is sufficiently clear on this score to permit the Special Committee to make the third finding of fact:

(c) Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the language requirements.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

On various occasions the Faculty has altered the language requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as will be indicated later in this report, but after April 18, 1916, the Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and of the University Council are silent as to any reference of changes in the language requirement to the University Council. References to the University Council appear in the minutes before April 18, 1916.

Compare the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on February 25, 1916 (Minute Book, page 404), with the minutes of the meetings of the Faculty of Political Science, held on March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468) and on February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488).

While the Faculty has established a practice of acting on language requirements without reference to the University Council, a minority of the Special Committee feels it desirable to raise with the Faculty the question of whether it might not be courteous to inform the University Council of changes in the future, with an indication that the change has been made under the provisions of the delegation of authority under the resolution of April 18, 1916. There would then be no possibility of a misunderstanding. The majority of the Special Committee believe such informative procedure unnecessary.

The record of the action of the Faculty of Political Science on the language requirements is sufficiently clear to permit the special Committee to make the following fourth finding of fact.

(d) The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free up until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirement, and they differed widely.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Minute Book of the Faculty of Political Science records the following action of the Faculty on language requirements for the Ph.D. degree.

(1) December 12, 1913: (Minute Book, page 371)

“The Dean then presented to the Faculty for its consideration certain resolutions of the Joint Committee on Instruction of the several graduate faculties, as follows:

…After the completion of at least one year of residence…..students may present themselves for examination in any two of the subjects, of graduate instruction. The satisfaction of this examination together with a demonstration of ability to read French and German or such other languages as may be accepted will entitle them to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ……”

The matter was referred to the Committee on Instruction for consideration and report.

The Committee on Instruction reported at, the meeting of January 23, 1914, and the following was ordered entered upon the Minutes of the Faculty: (Minute Book page 375).

“…. (2) Each department shall prescribe, by regulations approved by the faculty and by the dean, the subjects and languages in which the student must show himself proficient and the manner in which his proficiency shall be determined.”

(2) February 25, 1916: (Minute Book, page 404)

“The Dean then recommended to the Faculty the adoption of the following revised regulations for the control of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:

Students who wish to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which their research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:

….2. The candidate must satisfy the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the Faculty prescribe.”

The recommendation was adopted by the Faculty and referred to the University Council. It was this resolution which evoked from the University Council the resolution quoted above in connection with the discussion of the powers of the Faculty.

(3) March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468)

“The following were moved as a substitute for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy approved by the faculty at its meeting of May 25, 1916.

    1. Admission to Candidacy.

“2. Languages. The applicant shall demonstrate his ability to read at least one modern European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally the requirements in the several fields are as indicated in the list of subjects below. The language requirement must be satisfied at least one academic year prior to the admission of the applicant to candidacy for the degree.”

(4) February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488)

A substitution in the requirements approved on March 28, 1919 was moved and accepted:

“4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for each subject as indicated in the following paragraphs:”

There were then listed a considerable number of subjects with varying language requirements for each. There were as much as four languages required of those obtaining their degree in Ancient History, and in American Government, always in addition to English.

(5) April 19, 1940 (Minute Book, page 865)

The Faculty voted to rephrase the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to read as follows, In the pertinent section:

“6. Matriculation as a Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After not less than one year of graduate residence, after satisfying the department that he is proficient in such languages as it prescribes for a candidate and after satisfying the department 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.”

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1940-1941 continued to carry without change the paragraph adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, and quoted under (4) above. See Announcement for 1940-1941 at pp. 12-13. An examination on the list of subjects with the language requirements for each indicates that there was no longer a single subject which required but one language other than English. All required two languages or more.

The crucial change in Faculty practice on the language requirement occurred in 1941. The Special Committee finds it possible to make the following fifth finding of fact.

(e) In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took count of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages.

The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-edited language requirement. In effect there was established in this manner a Faculty rule requiring two languages when no general Faculty rule requiring a specific number of language had existed previously.

This finding is supported by the following evidence:

The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1941-1942 changed one word in the paragraph which had been adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, namely the word “one”. This word was changed to “two”, making the statement on languages read as follows: “The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to read at least two languages other than English…” The list of subjects, which had been printed in the Announcement in previous years, continued to appear, there being varying requirements for each subject, but none less than two languages.

No Minute of Faculty action concern specifically the question of the language requirement.  Professor Austin P. Evans, who was Chairman of the Faculty’s Committee on Instruction at the time, has informed the Special Committee that he recalls making the change in editing the Announcement. He noted that all of the subjects listed required two languages, and to avoid any confusion on the part of students in reading a general rule requiring only one language and a list of subjects in which all required at least two languages; he made the change. The Announcement was then submitted, for adoption by the Faculty, so that the change in the general statement of the language requirement was adopted as a new Faculty rule.

In the Announcement for the following year, 1942-1943, the list of subjects with the specific foreign languages required of candidates for the Ph.D. degree in each field was dropped. The list has never reappeared, leaving the sole statement of the language requirement the paragraph which has been altered for the Announcement of 1941-1942.

No Faculty action has been found authorizing requirement by subject. It is possible that the deletion occurred as a part of the campaign of the Secretary of the University for shortened Announcements to save money. Whatever the reason, the change strengthened the rule, as amended in the previous year, and removed any indication that the rule had originally been a summarizing of the requirements as established by each department for the subjects under its control.

Conclusions

Having made the above five findings of fact, the Special Committee believes it possible to conclude at this point the following:

  1. The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
  2. The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement

Considerations Underlying Recommendations

In seeking to find the basis for appropriate recommendations to the Faculty, the Special Committee has examined the report of the special committee for the review of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, appointed by the President of the University in the autumn of 1937, under the Chairmanship of Professor Woodbridge. The “Woodbridge Committee” report is the most recent of the exhaustive studies of the subject of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Reference was made to the language requirement, and this reference seems pertinent to the matter under discussion in this report.

In a preliminary report, dated May 12, 1937 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 349) the Woodbridge Committee proposed that no one should be admitted to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until he had passed an examination. In stating the ground to be covered by such an examination, the Woodbridge Committee included “command of English usage, and ability to read such foreign languages as the department may require”. The Committee suggested further that “The examination including that in foreign languages shall be written, and the quality of the writing be used as a test of the student’s command of English.”

In its final report, dated April 21, 1939 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 361) the Woodbridge Committee reaffirmed the recommendation of its preliminary report that there be an examination of prospective candidates, but said that it had changed its mind as to the manner of administration and was now of the opinion that the type of examination to be given should be determined by the department concerned and not by any central authority.

Parts of the Woodbridge Committee report were adopted by the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science in March, 1939. The resolution of the Faculties, as set forth in the record of the University Council (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 373) reads, as follows, in its pertinent provisions:

“1. An applicant may be admitted as a regular graduate student only after he has satisfied, in addition to the general University requirements for admission, any further requirements which may be specified by the Department of his major interest, and which may relate especially to the content and the quality of his prior studies and to his ability in the use of foreign languages.”

The practice of other Universities also seems appropriate to consideration of recommendations. The Special Committee has been informed of the results of a surrey of 18 Universities conducted by the Department of Economics of the University Oregon communicated to Dean John A. Krout by letter dated July 26, 1951. It reads as follows:

“About half of the Universities allow no substitutions or restrict substitutions, such as by prohibiting use of two romance languages. Five Universities have provided for substitution of subjects for a language. These are Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, Minnesota and Stanford, the substitutions being allowed mainly on economics in the first three institutions. Mathematics and statistics are the usual substitutes, though the practices vary. Ohio State requires only one language of candidates with a high competence in one language. The faculty of the University of Oregon was not disposed to allow any modification of language requirements, although the Economics Department and some other departments were seeking modification.”

The Special Committee has considered whether it is desirable that the Faculty of Political Science prescribe minimum language requirements for all departments, and the majority has decided in favor of such a minimum. Such a provision minimizes the probability of subsequent intervention by the Faculty in the affairs of the departments. It is believed also that a large number of the members of the Faculty share the majority’s view that, in so far as it is feasible, there should common minimum standards for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy throughout the Faculty. Prior to 1941 when departments were autonomous in the matter of language requirement they had in fact arrived at a common minimum which became a matter of Faculty decision thereafter.

The establishment of a minimum requirement involves the level of the minimum. The minimum resulting from the decisions of the separate departments prior to 1941 and thereafter endorsed by the Faculty was two foreign languages. For the majority of the students in the Faculty this still seems to be the minimum number of languages required for competence in their fields, especially to give them access to the work of eminent scholars of the past and present. In some fields of study there is a growing body of ideas in mathematical form. It seems desirable therefore, to acknowledge the increasing importance of this means of communication by permitting students to present mathematics in place of one language. We do not suggest that this substitution be permitted by all students but that it be allowed by the departments only where it appears to be especially appropriate to the individual student’s program of study. In fields where statistical analysis is important or desirable this option will assist the student who desires to acquire the mathematical basis for graduate work in statistical methods. It will also facilitate the use of analysis in mathematical form.

There may remain students who appear to need neither mathematics nor foreign languages as suggested above. The Special Committee is somewhat doubtful whether there are such  students because in most fields there are works in the basic theory or philosophy in foreign languages or mathematics to which the student should have access. Furthermore, the Doctor of Philosophy degree should certify more than competence in a selected and possibly narrow field of study. It should indicate also a measure in a cultural maturity. Finally students trained by the Faculty are likely to participate in increasing numbers in international associations, private and public, and the University should do nothing, especially at the present time, to discourage the acquisition of a knowledge of languages, except where it is necessary to permit some students to participate competently in the use of mathematical forms for the communication of ideas. These considerations all suggest the maintenance of the present requirement of a minimum of two languages apart from the exception above mentioned in favor of mathematics.

A minority of the Special Committee, while accepting in full the majority’s argument as to the importance of language for any scholar, dissents on the method proposed for enforcing the requirement. The minority finds that language requirements were dictated successfully by the departments without Faculty intervention prior to 1941. The development of the Faculty rule in 1941 seems not to have been caused by any abuse of autonomy by the departments. On the contrary it followed departmental action, which in several cases went beyond it. Its origin as the result of re-editing of the Announcement seems to the minority to have presented no occasion for thoughtful consideration of the change in principle involved. The minority would prefer to return to the procedure existing prior to 1941 when the departments set their own requirements, subject always to the authority of the Faculty to veto the proposal of a department if it seems to have been made without adequate consideration of the issues.

Such a return to departmental autonomy, subject to a reserved right of faculty veto seems to conform to the spirit of the Woodbridge Report. It also seems to have merit in that it would render unnecessary the present attempt of some departments to reduce the language requirements for their students by attempting to fit some other requirement for scholarship in the discipline under the rubric of “language”. Although the minority appreciates that there is reason to argue that some of these substitutions may aid communication between scholars, the minority would prefer calling the subjects what they are, and leaving the departments free to adopt them, whether they be mathematics, statistics, political theory or historiography, without attempting to call them a “language.”

To the minority the mixing of mathematics with the language requirement seems only to becloud the issue, which can be kept clear if no rigid Faculty rule of two foreign languages is set. The departments in the past indicated that they could be trusted. The Faculty has ample power through the veto to restrain any department in the future which exceeds the bounds of the “reasonable”. In consequence the minority prefers the return to the pre-1941 situation, with reservation in the Faculty of the veto with which it can maintain the uniformity as seems to be required.

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing, the majority of the Special Committee makes the following recommendations:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
  2. That the minimum language requirements of the Faulty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
  3. That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.

The minority of the Special Committee recommends:

  1. That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
  2. That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.

Action by the Faculty Alone

One question asked of the Special Committee remains unanswered, namely, Should the Faculty recommend to the University Council a change in the language requirements without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?

Since the Faculty’s Special Committee is recommending no change in the existing the Special Committee, the question is academic, but if the Faculty should vote with the minority, the question would be pertinent.

Even if the Faculty should vote to change the rule, there appears to be necessity for parallel action by the three graduate faculties, in view of the delegation of power by University Council in 1916 to the faculties. As the requirements for competent training in the three faculties differ markedly, it is desirable to permit each to deal independently with this problem.

Respectfully submitted

Arthur R. Burns
John N. Hazard
Richard B. Morris

November 5, 1951

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

Image Source: From Roberto Ferrari, “August Rodin and The Thinker“, Columbia University Library Blog. June 8, 2014.

Categories
Cambridge Columbia Cornell Curriculum Economics Programs Germany Harvard Oxford Teaching

United Kingdom and other countries. Methods of Economic Training. Cunningham Committee Report, 1894

 

The Cunningham Committee report on methods of economic training in the United Kingdom and other European and North American countries from 1894 provides a wonderful overview of the (Western) state of economics education.

Previous posts with information for U.S. economics courses taught in the 1890s can be found in the previous posts:

Chicago, Columbia, Harvard 1893-94

United States. Economics Courses in 23 universities, 1898-99

____________________________

Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries.

Report of the Committee, consisting of Professor W. CUNNINGHAM (Chairman), Professor E. C. K. GONNER (Secretary), Professor F. Y. EDGEWORTH, Professor H. S. FOXWELL, Mr H. HIGGS, Mr. L. L. PRICE, and Professor J. SHIELD NICHOLSON.

APPENDIX

I.— On the Methods of Economic Training adopted in Foreign Countries, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 2 ff.

      1. Austria
      2. Hungary
      3. Germany
      4. Holland
      5. Belgium
      6. Italy
      7. Russia
      8. United States of America

II.— On Economic Studies in France, by H. Higgs, pp. 20 ff.

III.—On the Condition of Economic Studies in the United Kingdom, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 23 ff.

      1. England
      2. Scotland
      3. Ireland

IN furtherance of the above purpose three reports have been drawn up after due inquiry and laid before your Committee.

These reports, which are appended, bring out very clearly some features of difference between the position of such studies in this and in foreign countries, and, with other information before your Committee, seem to them to call for the following observations. Before proceeding to the consideration of certain particular points they would remark that the growth of economic studies, and in particular the development among them of the scientific study of the actual phenomena of life (both in the past and in the present), have important effects, so far as the organisation of the study and its suitability for professional curricula are concerned. It may be hoped, indeed, that when the empirical side is more adequately represented, the importance of the careful study of economics as a preparation for administrative life will be more fully recognised both by Government and the public.

(a) The Organisation of the Study of Economics. — While fully recognising the great energy with which individual teachers in this country have sought to develop the study of this subject, your Committee cannot but regard the condition of economic studies at the universities and colleges as unsatisfactory. As contrasted with Continental countries and also with the United States, the United Kingdom possesses no regular system. In one place economics is taught in one way, and in connection with some one subject, not infrequently by the teacher of that subject ; in another place in another way, and with another subject. Very often it is taught, or at any rate learnt, as little as possible. In most places this lack of organisation is due to the weariness of introducing elaborate schemes for the benefit of problematic students.. At Cambridge the pass examination which has recently been devised only attracts a few. With regard to the higher study of economics, Professor Marshall, among others, has written strongly of the comparatively small inducements offered by economics as compared with other subjects. He adds: “Those who do study it have generally a strong interest in it; from a pecuniary point of view they would generally find a better account in the study of something else.” Some considerations bearing on this point are offered below, but here it may be observed that the attempts to introduce more system into the teaching of economics, and to secure for it as a subject of study fuller public recognition, should, so far as possible, be made together.

In the opinion of your Committee economics should be introduced into the honour courses and examinations of the universities in such a manner as to allow students to engage in its thorough and systematic study without necessarily going outside the range of degree subjects.

(b) The Position of Economics with regard to Professional and other Curricula. — In most Continental countries economics occupies a place more or less prominent in the courses of training and in the examinations through which candidates for the legal profession or the civil service have to pass. In Austria, Hungary, and the three southern States of Germany this connection is very real, and the nature of the study involved very thorough. The same cannot be said with regard to the northern States of the latter empire, where the importance attached to this subject is so slight as to make its inclusion almost nominal. To some extent or in some form it is regarded as a subject obligatory on those preparing for those callings, or, to speak more accurately, for the legal calling and for certain branches of the civil service in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. In Holland and Belgium, while a certain general knowledge only is required for a few posts or branches of the civil service, a very thorough study is incumbent on those qualifying for the higher branch of the legal profession. In both France and Russia it is an integral and necessary portion of the legal curriculum.

The two studies are cognate, and according to the view of your Committee not only would the institution of an examination in economics at some stage of legal degrees and qualifications be advantageous professionally, but the work of those who had enjoyed a legal training would react favourably on the advance of the science. In addition, economics should receive a much more important place in the Civil Service Examinations.

_______________________

APPENDIX I.
On the Methods of Economic Training
adopted in Foreign Countries
.
By E. C. K. Gonner.

The comparative study of the continental and other foreign systems of Economic Education brings out in clear relief certain features of either difference or coincidence which relate respectively to the impulses or circumstances giving this particular study its importance, to the method of study, and, lastly, to its organisation and the degree of success attained in the various countries.

(1) Putting on one side the purely scientific impulse to learn for learning’s sake, which can, after all, affect comparatively few, the inducement to a large or considerable number of students to interest themselves in any particular study must consist in its recognition, either positive or tacit, as a necessary preliminary to some professions or to certain positions. This may, as has been suggested, be either direct and positive, or indirect and tacit; direct and positive, that is, in the case of economics when in either one or more branches they are made part of the examinations admitting to the legal profession and the higher civil service; indirect and tacit when public opinion demands economic knowledge as necessary in those holding prominent positions as citizens or anxious to direct and control their fellows, either by the pen as journalists, or by act or word as statesmen or politicians. The importance of both these motives is, of course, largely increased when they exist in close connection with the purely scientific impulse. By itself this is not sufficient. The exclusion of one study, as economics, from professional or technical curricula, unless counteracted by the existence of a very powerful popular sentiment in its favour, practically removes it from the reach of students who have to make themselves ready to earn their living. Of the two influences, described above, the former, or the actual and positive recognition is given, in some shape or other, in Austria and Hungary, the southern states of the German empire, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, and Holland. In America, and to some extent in Canada, popular sentiment and interest supply the needful impetus by making economics a tacit requisite for those exercising particular callings. In both Germany and Austria there are signs of the growth of economics in popular appreciation. In Austria, indeed, the circumstances are peculiarly fortunate. Economic instruction is recognised as a matter of serious importance, while, on the other hand, economic knowledge is one of the subjects of the State examinations for the legal and administrative service. In addition, its careful and scientific study is pursued by a fair number of advanced students. In this way Austria occupies a central position among the various nations which range themselves with America at one extreme, where there is no positive or direct obligation in favour of economic study, and at the other extreme, the Scandinavian and lesser Latin countries where all recognition that exists is positive, but where this positive recognition is largely nominal.

It has been urged that the ill-success of economic studies in these latter countries is largely an argument against their inclusion in obligatory curricula—a proposition which probably those who make it would hardly apply to the cases of other subjects. But from the evidence furnished by the countries before us this ill-success can be traced to other causes. It is due, firstly, to differences in the methods of study, and, secondly, to the differences in the thing made obligatory. In South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, economics is obligatory on certain classes of students, and the study of economics is making rapid and satisfactory progress, but then in South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the method of study is one which commends itself to advanced students and educational critics, and the knowledge required in the examinations is thorough. In the lesser Latin countries, as Spain and Italy, the knowledge which the candidate is expected to show is elementary in itself, largely confined to elementary theory, and a marked unreality is imparted to the whole study, an unreality recognised alike by examiners, teachers, and students. On the other hand, the advantages which economics may receive from its public and positive recognition are borne witness to by those best acquainted with the condition of the study in Germany, where the usages of the north and south differ. Broadly speaking they consist in the removal of economics from the category of unnecessary to the category of necessary acquirements. Many of those who begin the study from compulsion continue it from choice. In America, indeed, the strength of popular sentiment and the ever present interest of politics together with the action of the universities, where nearly all studies, and not economics alone, are put on a voluntary footing, give it an adequate position; but failing the combination of conditions such as these, its absence, both from all professional curricula and from the earlier stages of education, cannot but be regarded as disastrous and unjust.

(2) The method of economic studies is of a certain importance with regard to the subject last discussed. Though it would be unfair to estimate the work, or to judge of the scope of schools of economic teaching from their extreme tendencies, these afford not unsatisfactory means of distinction. Speaking broadly, they may be placed in two groups—those in which the dominant influence is empirical; those in which it is theoretical or abstract. Very few economists, whether teachers or writers, are wholly empirical or wholly theoretical. Some bias, however, they nearly all have, and it is by that they may be ranked for the present purpose. Nor must it be supposed that the distinctions drawn in one country, with regard to these opposing lines of study, at all correspond with those existing in another. In Germany, for instance, the attitude of Professor Wagner is attacked by the members of the historical school— one branch of the empirical—but judged by the standards of France and England he would rank in the main as an empiricist. The theorists of Germany and Austria do little more than assert that theoretical study has its due place and is a necessary part of the equipment of an economist.

When discussing the assertion that compulsory economics, however enforced, tended to issue in perfunctory attendances and poor results so far as interest was concerned, it was urged that these consequences depended largely on the method and nature of study. This is remarkably llustrated by the fact that the countries where such evils are regretted or anticipated are those where the study of economics is mainly theoretic, or where economics is distinctly and openly subordinated to other subjects. Lessons of this latter kind are never thrown away upon students. But with regard to the former, it is not from the southern states of the German empire, or from Austria, that we hear these complaints. There economic study is obligatory, and the economic study involved is two thirds of it empirical in character. In the Latin countries the state of things is very different. The basis of study is, if I may say so, text-book theory, and the position of economics, so far as progress is concerned, is unsatisfactory in the extreme. This has been particularly dealt with in the paragraphs relating to Italy.

In two of the great nations the mode of study practised is largely empirical. In Germany, despite the contrast between different leaders of thought, the importance of this method is well illustrated by the position which the study of Practical or Applied Economics invariably occupies. In America, the study of economic history and of modern economic fact grows into greater prominence year by year.

(3) Turning to the question of success, the question arises at once as to the tests whereby such may be measured. Of these, many, varying from popularity to eclecticism, have been suggested, but possibly the one most suitable is the ability of a system to produce a high general level amongst a good number of students. Something more is required of a system than that it should bring together large audiences for elementary courses, while as for the production of a few very good students, a few will always press to the front through all difficulties, despite systems good or bad, or in the absence of any system at all. But a system that is to be deemed good must place within the reach of all industrious and apt students the means of a good general economic training, while stimulating him to prosecute original and independent work. Further, it should provide these advantages regularly and not intermittently. The way in which these two needs are met in practice can be stated briefly. General training is provided by a systematic series of courses which should include at least Theory of Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance. The seminar, or classes organised like the seminar, offer opportunities for guiding a student into the ways of original work.

Seminar instruction is given regularly in Germany, Austria, Hungary, in the better equipped universities of America, Switzerland, and to some extent in both Sweden and Holland. In Russia the professors may and sometimes do organise seminars or discussion classes. In Belgium classes are held in connection with some of the courses.

With regard to the systems of providing for a good ground knowledge of the leading branches of Economics, classification is rendered difficult by the different methods adopted in the various countries. Some are more, some less thorough. Among the former we may put without hesitation the countries already singled out for notice—Germany, America, Austria, and Hungary.

From the accounts given in detail below it is clear that in these countries the study of economics is advancing. The training is systematic. A fair proportion of students pass from the more general into the more special or advanced courses. The production of work, not necessarily of the first order, for with that we are not dealing, but of the second, or third, or fourth order, is great and still increases.

AUSTRIA.

The position of Economics in Austria is largely determined by its relation to legal studies, by the place, that is, which its various branches hold in the examinations qualifying for the legal profession and for the juridical and higher administrative services. According to the system till recently in force, but now somewhat modified, candidates intending to enter these had to attend certain courses at the universities, and to pass certain examinations varying according to the positions sought. Those entering the legal profession had to pass the first State examination in addition to the three political rigorosa of the university, success in which latter conferred the degree of Doctor. Other candidates only needed to pass the three State examinations. These latter were as follows:— The first (Rechtshistorische Staatsprüfung) was held at the end of the second year of study, and comprised the following subjects: Roman Law, Canon Law, and German Law in its historical aspect. The second (Judizielle Staatsprüfung) was held towards the end of the eighth semester, in the following subjects: Austrian Law, civil, commercial, and penal; Austrian civil and criminal Procedure. At the end of the four years came the third and final examination (Staatswissenschaftliche Staatsprüfung), which alone is of importance so far as the legal recognition of Economics is concerned. The subjects examined in were Austrian Law, International Law, Economics (including Economics, the Science of Administration, Finance and Statistics). The political rigorosa, while they correspond in outline to the State examinations, have some few points of difference both with regard to method and subjects. They, too, are three in number, and may be described as the Austrian rigorosum, corresponding to the second State examination, the Romanist, corresponding to the first State, and the Staatswissenschaftlich, which closely resembles the third State examination, though not including Statistics or Administration. There is no regulation as to the order in which they are to be passed, but that indicated above is customary. Their greater severity may be judged from both the additional length of preparation prescribed and the manner in which they are conducted. The earliest date at which a candidate may pass his first rigorosum is at the end of the fourth in place of the second year. The second and third may follow at respective intervals of two months. The Staatsprüfung is an examination taken by groups of four students, each group being under examination for two hours; but in the rigorosa each candidate is under examination for two hours, spending half-an-hour with each examiner. Both State and university examina tions are oral, and the latter are said to impose a severe strain on both examiner and candidate. In the latter the examiners are the university professors, while in the State examinations these are variously composed of professors, functionaries of the State, and barristers of good standing.

By the law of April 28, 1893, which came into effect in October, the system sketched above underwent certain alterations. A complete separation will be effected between the university examinations or rigorosa, and those qualifying for the legal profession and State services, the former no longer serving as a possible substitute for the second and third of the latter. In addition, some slight change has been introduced into the curriculum and examinations imposed upon students designing to enter these. They will have to attend courses and to be examined in— (a) The Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), and with special reference to Austrian Law; (b) Economics, theoretical and practical; (c) Public Finance, and especially Austrian Finance. In addition they must attend lectures (without subsequent examination) on Comparative and Austrian Statistics. These alterations will leave the number of students in the more elementary subjects unaffected, and so far from operating in discouragement of economic and political studies, will, it is hoped, lead to their more thorough prosecution, by raising the degree to a more scholarly position.

The marked recognition of Economics by the State, and the large number of students whose prospects are involved in its successful study, naturally affect the teaching organisation provided by the universities and other bodies.

This is fairly uniform throughout Austria, as apart from Hungary, though the extent to which the subject is pursued, and the variety of its forms, depend mainly on the enthusiasm of particular teachers and the greater opportunities offered by particular universities or other institutions. At the universities the ground plan of work may be described as identical, Economics being taught in the faculty of law. There are certain courses which must be delivered, and at which attendance is obligatory for certain classes of students. These are on National Economy, Finance, Statistics, and the Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), which includes instruction in practical economics, public health, army, matters of policy, justice, &c. But in addition to these the teachers, whether professors or privat-docents may, and often do, deliver special courses dealing with more particular subjects. These are not necessarily or usually the same from year to year; and may be described as instruction of an unusually high order, inasmuch as each teacher is accustomed to select for treatment such branch of science in which his own activities and studies lie. The large2 voluntary attendance at such lectures is a testimony to the regard in which economic studies are held among a large body of students.

1Vienna—Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Graz, Innsbruck, Krakau (Polish), Lemburg (Polish).
2At Vienna the attendants at special courses varies from 50 to 100.

Seminar instruction is customary, as in Germany. At Vienna there are two seminars, one for Economics, one for Statistics and Political Science (Staatswissenschaft), while in addition there is an Institute of Political Science, attached to all of which are libraries and places for the members to carry on their work in close contact with their professor or his deputy. The members consist in part of young doctors of the university who have recently graduated, in part of those preparing for the examinations of the university, and include, as a rule, several foreigners who have come to Vienna to pursue their studies. The arrangements at the other universities are similar, though in some they lack the completeness displayed at Vienna.

Students who, having passed their examinations with credit, or other wise performed their work to the satisfaction of their teachers, wish to carry on their studies in other countries are eligible for Reisestipendia (travelling scholarships). These are rewarded to encourage study in foreign universities, or to enable their holders to carry out investigations which necessitate a journey. Unfortunately they are but few in number, and as they are open to students of all faculties, few economists can hope to obtain them. Among the more recent holders in Vienna are Professors Böhm-Bawerk, Robert Meyer, Von Phillipovich, and Dr. Stephen Bauer, the two latter of whom published reports on matters studied abroad.

In this way a method of economic instruction has been developed in the Austrian universities which not only provides a large number with a carefully systematised series of courses, but offers to those disposed to more thorough or more special study ample opportunity. The more eager and energetic pass through the courses compulsory for the law degree, in themselves a fitting preliminary to more detailed work, to attendance at the special courses and membership of the seminar; from these they may, if fortunate, advance into the position of travelling or research scholars of their university. Though most of the students at the Economic Lectures are jurists, the attendance frequently includes members qualifying in other faculties, or even more general ‘hearers.’ At Krakau, students of the philosophical faculty form some 20 to 25 per cent of the total. All these students are entirely free so far as their choice of Economic courses is concerned. It is not possible to give the exact numbers of the students to be described respectively as elementary and advanced. The particulars, however, furnished by the various universities permit a rough general estimate. Not fewer than one thousand students undergo the more general courses, thus attaining to a fair systematic acquaintance with the main branches of economic study, while out of that number more than two hundred take special courses and enter the various seminars. This account rather under than over estimates the extent to which economic studies extend. As to the character of the advanced work there is no doubt. As has been pointed out, it is of a high order. But some question has been raised as to the value of the knowledge likely to be attained by the more general student. The variety of subjects required in the examinations either of the university (political rigorosa) or of the State, and the number of courses obligatory on the students, do not allow of an early specialisation.1 But a glance at the nature of the examination, and at the syllabus of the various courses, forbids the inference that the instruction given is of a purely rudimentary nature.

1This, as Professor von Milewski contends, interferes with the scientific character of the various studies required for the degree. As each has to take up several subjects, and to pass examinations in these, he cannot give very special attention to Economics or any other branch of social science in which he may happen to be interested.

Much, it is true, depends upon the personal enthusiasm and force of the teacher, for, despite the obligation of attendance, a dull and unininteresting lecture will rarely obtain the audiences registered to him, many students preferring to buy copies of the course hectographed from the notes of their predecessors in the lecture room, and only troubling themselves to appear at the beginning and end of the semester.

In the University of Krakau, Economics are obligatory, both in study and examination, for the students of agriculture who attend special lectures, apart, that is, from the law students. Instruction in Economics (Political Economy, Finance, and Statistics) is given also at all the Technical High Schools (Technischen Hochschulen) in Austria,1 while attendance at the courses (though without examination) is obligatory at the schools of agriculture, where similar conditions prevail. At the Commercial Academies (Handelsakademien of Vienna and Prague) a course of lectures is given with particular reference to the Economic branches which throw most light on commercial facts and features, and on the relations existing between the various classes engaged in industry and trade. To obtain the diploma of these institutions the lectures are followed by an examination. Courses are provided for the consular service at the Oriental Akademie in Vienna, and for the service of the administration of the army.2 There is also a Fortbildungschule for officials of the railway, where political economy is taught and examined in. Members of these courses are considered specially fitted for the attainment of the higher posts in their service.

1Of these there are six:-Vienna, Brünn, Graz, Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Lemburg (Polish). After examination diplomas are granted, which are necessary for those becoming teachers in agricultural schools, and are, it is said, a strong recommendation in the eyes of landlords when engaging their officials, agents, &c.
2An Intendanz-Class for officers willing to serve as Intendanten for the provision of the army.

A knowledge of Economics, duly and doubly certified by registered lecture courses and by examination, is a necessary preliminary to certain careers. Attendance at the university lectures and the attainment of the juridical degree are the qualification for the higher branches of the legal profession (advocate, &c.), and like attendance and degree, or, in the place of the latter, the diploma of public service, are required for all branches of the legal profession and for the whole civil service. Entrance into the consular and diplomatic services may also be obtained through the courses of the Oriental Academy. Further, as has been pointed out above, a certain acquaintance, or supposed acquaintance, with economic studies is considered necessary in some other vocations.

At the present time very considerable importance is attached to economic studies in Austria. Their scientific character is a general matter of care, and an extension of the sphere in which they are obligatory, or at least advisable on the part of those who seek success in their particular calling or profession, is earnestly advocated by some. In the first direction the reforms in the juridical studies at the universities will operate. As Dr. Mataja writes:— ‘Economics will have greater and not less weight.’ On the other hand, and in the other direction, different suggestions have been made. Some advocate the extension of compulsory study to engineers who will become officials and directors in factories, to the employés of the fiscal service, to those attending the more elementary technical schools. Others would like to see schools of political and social science (including Economics) founded in the great industrial centres. Whether these suggestions be carried out or not, they serve to illustrate the feeling which exists, at least on the part of some, with regard to the value of Economics both as a special and as a branch of general study.

HUNGARY.

Economics holds a position somewhat similar to that in Austria. It is obligatory on all students in the faculty of law and political science at the two universities,1 and in the Rechtsakademien (legal faculties, as at Kassa), who must take courses in Economics and Finance before the end of their second year, when they have to pass an examination, among the subjects of which these are included. After the second year their studies bifurcate, according to the degree which they seek (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Cameralium). In order to obtain the former, they must pass an examination in financial law. But if they wish to take the latter degree (Dr. Cameralium), they must pass two rigorosa, among the subjects of which are Economics (theoretical and practical), Finance, Finance Law, and Statistics. The knowledge required in this case is exceedingly thorough, and the degree is of high value in the public service. There are also state examinations which serve as qualifications, though to a lesser extent, for the legal and administrative services. Though easier, they correspond closely with the above. In the universities the system of economic study in its general features resembles that in vogue in Austria, the chief courses being those on Economics and Finance; but both at Budapest and Klausenburg, as, for instance, at Strassburg to take a parallel, these studies belong not to a sole legal faculty, but to a legal and political faculty (Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät). In addition to successful examinations the candidates have to present a thesis. The possession of the degree of Dr. Cameralium implies a very sound economic training, and it was till lately the chief means of entering the higher civil service both of the kingdom and of the states. Considerable attention is paid to Economics, the seminars being well frequented, and the interest and activity of students great. This is particularly true of Budapest, where the lectures are varied and delivered by a numerous and able staff.

1Budapest, Klausenburg (Kalorsvar).

GERMANY.

The differences in the history and regulations of the various states composing the German empire have led, not unnaturally, to considerable differences in the positions which economic studies occupy. On the one hand, they are affected by the diversity of usage existing as to their connection with the course of study required for the legal profession and the civil service. On the other hand, the particular faculty in which they are included has been determined by reasons possessing little but historical validity.

  1. Prussia.—At the Prussian universities Economics belongs to the faculty of philosophy, and, speaking generally, to that section of this faculty known as the Sciences of the State. A student takes his degree in Economics entirely apart from law, the position of which as a separate faculty unfortunately precludes a student who presents a thesis in one of these two subjects from selecting the other as one of the two collateral subjects which he is bound by regulation to offer himself for examination in. Further, it must be noticed that the degree of doctor in this country, and, indeed, in Germany generally, is not a qualification, as was till recently the case in Austria and still is in certain of the Latin countries. Some assistance it may be in a judicial career, but even then the degree of Doctor Juris has naturally much more value than that of Doctor of Philosophy in the State Sciences.

Nor does Economics occupy an important place in the State examinations which qualify for the legal and administrative services. To enter these a candidate must pass examinations, the first of which is common to both services (referendar Examen). This consists of two parts, the first written and dealing with law, the second oral, which includes, among other matters, the elements of Economics. So subordinate is this subject that, in the opinion of many critics, it hardly counts in the decision as to the eligibility of candidates. The course of examination then bifurcates, some taking that for Justiz-Assessor, others for that of Regierungs Assessor, for neither of which is Economics required. At the latter of these (Reg. Assessor) some knowledge of Economics in its applied branches is said to be highly desirable, but inasmuch as the examination takes place some five years after the conclusion of the university course, the demands it makes are chiefly met by knowledge supplied from books. With regard to the constitution of the examining boards it should be noticed that, even at the referendar Examen, it is not in accordance with common practice to include professors of Economics.

  1. Saxony. —The system recently adopted in Saxony is, in so far as the subordination of Economics is concerned, nearly identical with that of Prussia. In one point it is more favourable to the interests of this subject, the professoriate being invariably represented on the board of examiners.
  2. Reichsland.—In the Reichsland Economics is of no more importance than it is in Prussia.
  3. Saxe Weimar.—In Saxe Weimar, too, it is of but nominal importance in the juridical examinations. There, too, the board of examiners is constituted irrespective of economic requirements, and, as has been caustically said, it is rare to find the examiners academically qualified in the subjects in which they are supposed to examine. The position, in the main, is very similar to that prevailing in Prussia.
  4. Bavaria.— In the chief southern and south-western states Economics holds a more important position in the legal and civil service curricula. Thus, in Bavaria, all students of law, administration, and forest (Landwirth) have to pass an examination in which it forms one of the subjects. The time of the examination is at the conclusion of the four years devoted to legal or other studies respectively, and the presence of the Professor of National Economy among the professorial examiners necessitates due attendance at lectures and thorough study. The second examination for the civil service is technical in character, and only requires economic knowledge in its connection with practical developments and issues.
  5. rtemburg.—In Würtemburg, though Economics forms no part of the strictly legal examinations, in the other State examinations for administrative students it is of very great importance. For these there are two examinations, the first of which, more general in character than the other, takes place at Tübingen, and involves a very considerable acquaintance with Economics.
  6. Baden.—Every legal student, as well as every candidate seeking entrance into the higher employments in the State departments of revenue and administration, must, in his time, attend lectures on, and pass examinations in, the economic and financial sciences.

The varying positions which Economics holds in the examinations qualifying for State and legal employment in the different German states affect a large number of university students who have to pass these examinations, but do not of necessity take a degree. To them the connection of Economics with one faculty or the other in the university cannot be a matter of much importance, but with others the case is different. Students reading for the degree are, as has been already said, restricted now on one side, now on another, as to their choice of collateral subjects for examination. Sometimes they can offer Economics in connection with law, sometimes they cannot. In addition, the influence which kindred studies taught in one faculty may bring to bear on the methods of instruction may, in some instances, prove of not inconsiderable importance even in the case of the students studying for the doctorate. Professor Brentano, however, whose personal experience extends from Leipzig to Strassburg, from Vienna to Breslau and Munich, contends that the varieties of combination matter less than might seem probable. The facultative position of Economics varies considerably. In Prussia and Saxony they find place among the many heterogeneous subjects grouped together in the faculty of philosophy, though in certain places, as at Berlin, they fall into a distinct subdivision. At Berlin they belong to the Staats- Cameral-und Gewerbewissenschaften. At Strassburg (Reichsland) they combine with law to form a Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät. At Tübingen (Würtemburg) a Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät exists independent of the law, a practice identical with that current at Munich (Bavaria). At some universities, as for instance at Jena, economic lectures are largely attended by the students of Landwirthschaft.

A comparison of the studies preliminary to the doctorate in Germany with those in Austria reveals two chief points of difference. At German universities there is little prescription of the course of study, or, indeed, of the methods to be adopted by the student, who within certain wide limits has a perfectly free choice of subjects. But this comparative freedom from restraint is closely connected with the great importance attached to the thesis, a custom which, its critics urge, leads to premature specialisation. In both countries candidates for the civil and legal services are much more closely restricted to definite courses.

In their practical working the systems of the different universities bear a close resemblance, at any rate in their earlier stages. There are three main courses, delivered annually, on pure Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance, all of which, even the first, involve a careful study of economic fact as distinct from hypothesised theory. The extent to which the method adopted in the first course is empirical depends, of course, on the position of the teacher as an adherent of one or other of the opposing schools of economic thought; but, speaking generally, even the least empirical among them would be deemed empirical by those accustomed to English methods. But, in addition to these three annual courses, lectures are delivered on special subjects. At Freiburg (in Baden), in the summer semester of 1891, these were:

    • History of National Economy and Socialism.
    • Agrarian and Industrial Policy, including the Labour Question.
    • History of Statistics.

The list of special lectures at Berlin, to take the most completely equipped of the universities, shows more clearly the wide range of subjects dealt with under the term Economics. In the summer term, 1892, besides the ordinary annual courses, there were courses of lectures on the following subjects:

    • Theory of Statistics.
    • History of Statistics.
    • Statistics of the German Empire.
    • The Economic and Social History of Germany from the end of the Middle Ages to the Peace of Westphalia.
    • History and Modes of Industrial Undertakings.
    • Money and Banking.
    • Early Commercial and Colonial Policy (till 1800).
    • Industrial and Commercial Policy.
    • The Social Question.
    • Forms of Public Credit.

In addition to lectures, necessarily more or less formal, opportunities are afforded for systematic instruction in classes and in the seminar. The latter institution varies considerably, according to the character of the students frequenting particular universities, for its efficiency, and accord ing to the position of the professor undertaking it, for the direction of its studies. Each teacher collects around himself a group of students who follow his method, adopt his attitude, and frequently devote themselves to those branches of economic research which have occupied his attention. Thus, at Strassburg, Professor Knapp’s seminar deals chiefly with agrarian questions; at Berlin, Professor Wagner’s influence is seen in the predominance of finance and financial topics among the subjects discussed. At Munich, to pass to the question of organisation and method, the two professors join in holding a seminar in which “there are about twenty-four young men taking part. Each of them has to undertake some work: the younger ones get a book to read, and have to report on it; the more advanced have to treat a subject after reading several books on the subject; the most advanced have to make a work themselves, the professors aiding them in furnishing material and giving assistance.’ At some universities there are two seminars, at others one. It is a matter for regret that, with all these opportunities, a comparatively small number of students are ranked as advanced. The explanations offered are many, but probably a very adverse effect on the study is produced by the paucity of the positions to which a thorough economic study can serve as an introduction. Teaching posts are few, and the requirements in the State examinations for the legal and administrative services are, if not as in many cases nominal, strictly limited to an elementary knowledge.

In some of the technical schools, and in all the schools of commerce, instruction in some branch of economics forms part of the regular course, and, in these latter, an examination is held. In the former, however, the subjects thus taught are distinctly subordinated to the technical sciences which occupy the chief attention of the students, while in the schools of commerce only those branches receive adequate treatment which bear or appear likely to bear upon commerce in its practical aspects.

HOLLAND.

The connection between the universities and the legal profession is close in Holland, none but doctors of jurisprudence being qualified to practise as advocates. This is a circumstance which has a material effect upon the study of economics, inasmuch as this, in its more elementary branches, forms one of the obligatory subjects of the first examination for the degree. Thus, so far as this one profession is concerned, a certain knowledge of economics is necessitated.

In the higher administrative service no such knowledge is obligatory, but it is considered that officials who possess the degree of doctor of political science have better chances of promotion. For this degree a thorough study of economics is required. In certain other government services demand is made for acquaintance with certain branches of the subject. In the examinations for the consular service the ‘general principles of economics’ and the ‘elements of statistics,’ chiefly with regard to trade and shipping, form subjects of examination. A similar knowledge is required for the diplomatic service. In none of these cases, it should be noted, is attendance at specified courses compulsory. The subject forms part of the examination.

The requirements indicated above explain to some extent the position which economics occupies in the four Dutch universities. It is a necessary subject for two degrees—the doctorate in laws and the doctorate in political science. But the nature of the knowledge required differs greatly. In the former it is elementary, not going beyond the first principles of the theory, while in the latter case the examination necessitates a really careful and detailed study. In addition to the general course of lectures taken by all, candidates for this latter distinction usually attend two other courses, one in capita selecta (taxation, finance, socialism, &c.), and another in statistics. These courses, unlike those at German universities, extend throughout the academic year, i.e. from September to July. For advanced students discussion classes are held, where the students, after a previous study of a chosen subject, meet to discuss it among themselves and with the professor. Before proceeding to the degree of doctor a candidate has to write, and afterwards to defend, a dissertation on some branch of the general science which he has taken up. Thus, in the case of political science, the thesis may be on some economic question. Outside the universities the chief study of economics takes place in the intermediate schools, where, during the fourth and fifth years of the five years’ curriculum, it is taught for two hours weekly by a doctor of political science, or by another teacher duly qualified by a special examination. At the Polytechnic at Delft there is a chair of economics, but neither is attendance at the course obligatory, nor does it form one of the subjects of examination.

BELGIUM.

By the law of 1890, which provides the regulation for higher instruction, political economy is made obligatory for the attainment of the degree of doctor of laws, a distinction proving a professional qualification, and for the grade of engineer, the course for the former involving some forty-five lectures, that for the latter some fifteen. In both cases the subject is taken in the earlier years of study. Students training for these professions would appear to form the great bulk of those attending economic lectures at the universities. In neither case can the course be said to furnish more than elementary instruction.

The universities have made provision outside these State requirements for more advanced students. The candidates for the degree of doctor of political science have to show a more thorough acquaintance with economic subjects. At the University of Ghent the course which is provided for them is considerably longer; still more stringent regulations prevail at the University of Louvain, for the degree of  ‘docteur en sciences politiques et sociales.’ The important regulations are as follows :—

ART. 5.

Pour être admis à l’épreuve du doctorat il faut:

    1. Avoir acquis depuis une année au moins le grade de docteur en droit.
    2. Avoir pris une inscription générale aux cours du doctorat en sciences politiques et sociales et avoir suivi les cours sur lesquels porte l’épreuve.
    3. Présenter, sous l’approbation du président de l’École, un travail imprimé sur un sujet rentrant dans le cadre du doctorat.

ART. 7.

L’épreuve comprend un examen oral d’une heure et demie. Cet examen porte:—

    1. Sur six branches portées comme principales au programme de l’École.
    2. Sur deux branches au moins choisies parmi celles qui sont portées comme branches libres au programme de l’École ou—avec l’autorisation du président de l’École—parmi celles qui sont portées au programme de l’université.
    3. Sur le travail présenté par le récipiendaire.

The list of lectures for the two years’ curriculum, 1892-3, 1893-4, is as follows :-

For the first year—Histoire parlementaire de la Belgique depuis 1830, la législation ouvrière comparée ; le droit public comparé; de la neutralité de la Belgique et de la Suisse; du régime légal des sociétés commerciales en droit comparé.

For the second year—Histoire diplomatique de l’Europe depuis le Congrès de Vienne; l’Evolution économique au XIXe siècle; les institutions de la France et de l’Allemagne; lé régime colonial et la législation du Congo; les associations en droit comparé.

Seminar or class instruction is given at the universities, though the particular form it takes varies with the other organisation provided, and the character of the students. At the University of Ghent a class supplementary to the lectures is formed, where discussion takes place; at Louvain Professor Brants directs a ‘cours pratique,’1 the members of which (some dozen in number) write treatises, discuss economic movements, and make excursions to centres presenting features of economic interest.

1Conférence d’Économie Sociale. Rapport sur ses travaux, 1891-92. Louvain.

ITALY.

Outside the universities there are in Italy but few institutions which give much instruction in economics. Though courses are delivered at the superior schools of commerce, as, for instance, at Genoa, Venice, and Bari, and the Polytechnic School of Milan, which compare in their nature with those existing at similar places in Austria and Germany, the main aim of such schools, and the limited extent to which they are frequented, prevent them from obtaining any control over the development of economic teaching in the country. It is, then, to the universities that we must look for information as to the methods chiefly employed. At them economics is studied as a subsidiary subject to law, being taken by students in their second year. There are three courses at which attendance, or, to speak more accurately, inscription is obligatory on legal students. In the case of the three obligatory courses the attendance is fairly regular, owing, it is said, to the combined effect of the latitude allowed in the teaching of the subject and the position of the professor as examiner. Without passing the economic examinations students cannot attain to legal degrees. The courses are those in Economic Theory and Administration, Finance, and Statistics. According to the condition of the university these are taught by the same or different teachers, in most cases by the professors who are appointed and paid by the State. In addition to these courses others are given at the option of the teachers, either professors or docents. The attendance at these is not good, though in many cases a large number of students enter themselves as a mark of courtesy towards the lecturer. It costs them nothing, as they pay a compound fee, and it benefits him considerably if a docent, as he receives from the State a payment proportionate to the number of students registered for his courses. In addition to the examination, a candidate for the legal degrees presents a thesis which may, and not infrequently does, deal with some economic subject.1 The study of economics is, moreover, obligatory on students seeking the higher official careers. Many complaints are made as to the position occupied by economic studies in Italy. Their connection with law creates no doubt a certain and a large audience in the lecture room; but, as one Italian professor points out, students do not remain there long enough to acquire anything like a sufficient knowledge of the subject. They come from the schools wholly unprepared, and they leave the university without having undergone a training thorough enough to counterbalance the loose economic notions gathered from their more diligent study of the newspapers. The study of economic facts does not seem to have had sufficient place in the universities of Italy. Attempts are now being made to remedy this defect by the formation of discussion societies among the students of economics, and the encouragement of research into statistical and similar questions.

1Professor Tullio Martello calculates that at the University of Bologna some 15 per cent of those graduating in law present a thesis dealing with economics.

At the minor technical schools lectures are delivered on elementary economics, finance, and statistics.

RUSSIA.

The conditions under which Economics is taught in Russia bear a superficial resemblance to those prevalent in the Latin countries, where it is annexed to the study of law, and pursued very much as a subject of secondary importance. Here, too, it forms part of the regular training through which a jurist must pass in his four years’ curriculum. There are three economic courses which he must attend, and in the subject-matter of which he must display sufficient knowledge in the May State examinations. These are on Economic Theory, Statistics, &c., and Finance. In addition to formal lectures, the professors in charge of the subject may, and sometimes do, organise classes, discussion societies, or seminars, though attendance at these is not obligatory.

The provision for further and more detailed study is considerable. A student who has finished his law studies with a diploma of the first degree can remain in the university, if he wishes, for more special research in one or other subject (Roman law, political economy, private law, financial law, &c.), under the supervision of the special professor or professors. Such a student is examined, and, if successful, obtains the title of magistrandus of the subject in question. Then he must present a dissertation and defend it, after which he obtains the degree of magister. After a second dissertation and disputation he attains the higher degree of doctor of his special subject.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The conditions under which the study of Economics is carried on in the United States of America are widely different from those which prevail in the countries of continental Europe. On the one hand, there is no inducement held out to students by its inclusion among the subjects of state or professional examinations. On the other, there is evidence in the importance which such subjects have assumed at the universities and colleges of a strong public sentiment in favour of their careful study far exceeding that in existence either in these countries or in the United Kingdom. In one respect the regulations of the colleges have had an important effect, independent of the action which they have taken in respect of the strong public demand. Owing to the freedom of the students in most of these institutions from prescribed and compulsory courses of study in most stages of their career, Economics has escaped being relegated, as, for instance, in England, to the position of a subject outside the usual curriculum, and optional only in some one or, perhaps, two stages. Where such prescription does exist it is not deemed a subject necessarily unfit to form part of a compulsory general course. Its inclusion, to some extent, would probably be demanded by the strong public opinion which has grown up during the past twenty years.

The causes of the popularity of Economics are stated with fair unanimity by various writers, though their respective importance is very differently estimated. In the first place, the very novelty of economic studies is itself in favour of their ardent prosecution. Till comparatively recently, it has been said till between 1870 and 1880, they were disregarded because unknown. Now they are seized, studied, and followed because they offer, or seem to offer, an explanation of the vast and complex economic condition which is in process of rapid evolution in this country at once so great and so new. So, too, in England some half century back or more the theories of the economists of that time were received by large numbers as an intellectual gospel. But in the next place the circumstances attending this ‘novelty’ of study have considerable consequences. That the study of Economics is a novel study is important, but it is of equal importance that it is novel at the present time and under present conditions. The American economists have not to shake off the half-uttered, half-silent opprobrium attached to their subject through the action of the more numerous though less conspicuous of their predecessors in their rigid adherence to incomplete or ill-founded theories. They are fortunate in entering upon their teaching at a time when the need of inductive inquiry and training is more fully recognised. This gives a more systematic aspect to the economic instruction demanded from them than was the case in England. In the third place, the campaign in favour of civil service and tariff reform has drawn a great deal of attention to those departments which deal with finance and the more prominent aspects of political life. Lastly, it is urged that the political eagerness which so largely affects the younger generation of Americans combines with the foregoing to crowd the economic lecture rooms with anxious and willing students. Economics is needed by politicians, and ‘we are all politicians,’ writes one professor; it is needed by journalists both because they are keen for political knowledge themselves and because they write for politicians.

The same causes which stimulate economic students have often led to its connection with political science, with history, and in some instances with general sociology.

Returns from several of the universities show the large number of students who attend economic lectures, and the comparatively large number who pass into advanced courses. The universities differ so much among themselves that no common standard of teaching exists. In some the elementary courses are very elementary, in others more thorough than might be concluded from the name. Thus at Harvard these include a study of Mill’s ‘Principles of Political Economy,’ lectures on general theory, or on what is termed descriptive economics, including a survey of financial legislation, while in addition a course is provided on the Economic History of England and America since the Seven Years’ War. In some cases a great part of the junior work consists in the use of text-books, and proceeds rather by class instruction and interrogation than by lecture. Turning to the consideration of the courses organised for the more advanced students, it is highly satisfactory to note the very considerable proportion which these form of the total number engaged in economic study. According to the information collected from various quarters, at Harvard they amount to some 38 per cent; at Columbia College to 41 per cent; at Cornell to 26 per cent. At some others they do not present so favourable an appearance, though at Michigan I am informed that the twenty returned as ‘advanced’ consists entirely of very advanced students, all the others being included under the heading of elementary. No doubt students described as advanced at one institution may not be so regarded at others, for, as has been already suggested, these vary very greatly as regards both their courses and the attainments of their students. With regard to the former, those provided at some of the better known and more highly developed and equipped universities afford a description of the nature of the training offered in the United States. At Harvard the advanced courses for the year 1892–93 are as follows:—

Full courses

    • Economy Theory—Examination of Selections from leading writers.
    • The Principles of Sociology—Development of the Modern State and its Social Functions.
    • The Social and Economic Condition of Working Men in the United States and in other Countries.
    • The Economic History of Europe and America, to 1763.

Half-courses

    • History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.
    • Railway Transportation.
    • The Theory and Methods of Taxation.
    • History of Economic Theory down to Adam Smith.
    • History of Financial Legislation in the United States.

At Columbia College the courses are as follows:—

    • Elements of Political Economy.
    • Historical and Practical Economics.
    • History of Economic Theories.
    • Science of Finance.
    • Science of Statistics.
    • Railway Problems.
    • Financial History of the United States.
    • Tariff and Industrial History of the United States.
    • Communism and Socialism.
    • Taxation and Distribution.
    • Sociology.

At Cornell the lectures which succeed the purely elementary ones are not quite so full, but consist of courses on—

    • Economic Reforms.
    • Finance.
    • Economic Legislation.
    • Statistics.
    • Economic History.
    • Financial History of the United States.

There are few universities which do not offer some courses beyond these on elementary theory and history. As a rule, finance and some other branch of applied economics are added. Where graduate schools have been established, as, for instance, at Harvard and at Michigan, the study proceeds very much on the lines indicated above, so far as the former is concerned. At Michigan, the advanced courses are distinguished into intermediate and graduate. Intermediate courses treat of the following:—The Transportation Problem. Principles of the Science of Finance. Theory of Statistics. History and Principles of Currency and Banking. History of the Tariff in the United States. History and Theory of Land Tenure and Agrarian Movements. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. History and Theory of Socialism and Communism. History of Political Economy. Graduate courses:–Critical Analysis of Economic Thought. Critical Examination of the Labour Problem and the Monopoly Problem.

Most universities have, in addition, established seminars, where study proceeds on the lines with which continental students are familiar. Individual members, in most instances graduates, and all advanced students, undertake particular subjects on which they prepare reports or treatises to be read and discussed at the weekly meeting. During their researches they are more or less under the direction of the professor or teacher who undertakes the courses in connection with the department of economics under which their subject falls. At Yale there are two seminaries and one discussion society; at Columbia College there is one for students who have studied only one year, two (in Economics and Finance) for those who are more advanced. The value of the work produced differs, of course, with the character of the university. At Harvard and the other more highly developed universities it is naturally very high.

In certain other countries the attention given to the subject of Economics demands for different reasons less detailed notice. In some instances the resemblance to countries already described renders further description superfluous; in others the geographical limitations of the country, or the comparative absence of opportunities for such special branches of the higher education, necessitate a much slighter notice than that given to the foregoing countries.

In Spain the connection between economic and legal studies is very similar to that existing in Italy. Students of the first and second year attend courses in Economics and Finance, Statistics being apparently nowhere insisted upon. At some of the universities an attempt is made to supplement these elementary courses by conferences and by visits, both to industrial undertakings, as factories, mines, &c., and to financial establishments, as banks; while the introduction of sociological institutes or seminars is looked for at others, as, for instance, at Oviedo.

In Sweden ‘there are two professors of political economy, one at the University of Upsala, one at the University of Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Law, and teaching in addition to Political Economy some purely juridical subjects. There are also two professors in Politics and Statistics, one at Upsala, one at Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Arts, and teaching at their discretion, Public Law, either Swedish or foreign, and Statistics.’ ‘The two professors of Political Economy in the Faculty of Law have to prepare and examine all the students who go in for the State examinations for entrance to the different branches of the civil service. But as Political Economy possesses very little importance in any of the three forms of these examinations, as compared with Jurisprudence, little stress is laid on its study in this faculty. Of the two other professors, one (at Upsala) lectures chiefly on Politics, the other on Statistics, both these studies being optional for the two arts degrees. The theory of Political Economy is not taught. Seminar instruction is arranged to supplement that given in the lecture courses.

In Norway, at the University of Christiania, the system is nearly identical with that of Sweden. There, too, it is found that, owing to the complete subordination of Economics to Law, the knowledge required is elementary in character.

The same impulses which direct the attention of young Americans to the study of Economics are felt in Canada. At the University of Toronto the importance attached to such studies is adequately shown by the large attendances present at the several courses. These courses are carefully arranged and graduated so as to furnish the student with a sound knowledge of the various branches of the subject, and to fit him to undertake, as he is expected to do in his latter years, research into some branch of economic fact.

In Switzerland, the position held by economic studies is, on the whole, at least as favourable as that in the southern countries of Germany. A knowledge of Economics is obligatory on those entering the legal profession, while, owing to the arrangements made, the duty of examining the candidates may, and in practice, I believe, does fall largely on the university professors. Moreover, in the university curricula, the place of economics, so far as Berne is concerned, is very fortunate. True, the subject is optional, as indeed are all subjects for the doctorate, but it may be taken for either the legal or the philosophical doctorate (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Phil.). At the Zürich Polytechnicon it is taught, being obligatory in some form or other for the diplomas of forestry and agriculture. In addition there is a fair voluntary attendance at these lectures. The system of instruction presents no features requiring particular notice. The chief courses are on National Economy and Finance, with the frequent addition of Practical Economics. These are supplemented by special courses at the option of the teacher, and by the seminar.

 

APPENDIX II.

On Economic Studies in France.
By Henry Higgs.

Economic teaching in France, so far as it consists of lectures regularly delivered at the same place by the same person, is to be looked for in—

(i.) The Collège de France, Paris;

(ii.) The Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, Paris;

(iii.) The Université de France, consisting of the aggregate of local ‘universities,’ or faculties officially recognised, in Paris and the provinces;

(iv.) The free or unofficial faculties and schools in Paris and the provinces, including all the Catholic ‘universities’ (which cannot come to terms with the State on the question of the faculty of theology), the École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, and others.

A certain amount of economic instruction is also imparted in the Écoles supérieures du Commerce, generally endowed by the municipalities of commercial towns. Elementary notions of Economics are officially prescribed as part of the programme of elementary schools.

(i.) It is at the Collège de France that one expects to find leading teachers of Economics in France. The traditions of its chair (which was founded in 1830), and the authority vested in its occupants, added to the attractions of a scientific post in Paris, have been a sufficient inducement for the most eminent economists to offer themselves for appointment here. The stimulus of contact with growing, vigorous, and inquiring minds is not, however, afforded to the professors, and they have to fight against a tendency to fall into prosy sermons and easy repetitions of old theory. No fees are charged to the students, nor is any record kept of their names unless they wish to obtain certificates. The lectures are delivered twice a week (two on Economics by M. Leroy-Beaulieu, and two on Statistics by M. Levasseur), in the afternoons. The auditors are for the most part a casual collection of shifting persons, of whom many are foreigners passing through Paris, who attend once or twice out of curiosity to see the lecturer. There is no discussion either during or after the lectures. The professors are paid a fixed stipend by the State. They appear to regard their lectures in the main as vehicles for the dissemination of generally received economic theory. So far, however, as they employ their leisure in prosecuting original research, their stipends may be regarded as an endowment for the advancement of Economics. Their personal examples are stimulating. It would be difficult to mention two more active economists in Europe. But in their lectures they are perhaps too dogmatic to supply students with the zest of grappling with ‘unsettled questions,’ or with the incentive to enlarge, however little, the bounds of knowledge by pointing out to their hearers the frontiers of ignorance which are often in sight.

(ii.) The oldest chair of Political Economy is in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, and was first filled, in 1819, by J. B. Say. The instruction now given here is of a more popular character, consisting of lectures addressed to the working classes at a late hour of the evening. M. Levasseur delivers a five-year cycle of about fifty lectures a year on Economics, and M. de Foville a four-year cycle on Industry and Statistics. There are on the average from 300 to 400 auditors. They pay no fees. The professors are appointed and paid by the Government.

(iii.) By a law passed in 1877 Economics was for the first time officially incorporated into the organisation of higher education in France, by being made an obligatory subject in the second year’s studies of the faculties of law. Economics in France has, it is said, laboured under the disadvantage of offering no opening for a career. On the other hand, the youth of the country flock to the schools of law, for to lawyers all careers are open— politics, journalism, literature, education, legal practice, and many official appointments. The professor of law is overworked, and the professor of Economics underworked. The faculty of law, therefore, generally expects of its professor of Economics that he shall be able to help in legal instruction and examinations; and there has been a tendency to select a lawyer rather than an economist for these chairs. This reproach, however, is rapidly being removed, and the new professors of Economics are in many cases vigorous and promising in their proper spheres. Economics has recently been transferred from the second to the first year’s programme. The law students are said to show a better intelligence of law now that they also study Economics. It can hardly yet be stated what effect this organisation will produce on Economics itself.

In addition to this obligatory study, Economics may be taken as one of the eight optional courses at a later period of preparation in the law faculties. For this purpose there is generally a special course of lectures on Finance, in which financial legislation is a prominent topic; but the option in favour of Economics is not much exercised.

The professors and lecturers in Economics and (in italics) in Finance in the official faculties of law are as follows:—

Paris. MM. Beauregard, Alglave and Ducrocq; Fernand Faure (Statistics); Planiol (Industrial Legislation); Maroussem (Monographs).
Aix: M. Perreau.
Bordeaux: MM. St. Marc, de Boech.
Caen: MM. Willey, Lebret.
Dijon: MM. Mongin, Lucas.
Grenoble: MM. Rambaud, Wahl.
Lille: MM. Deschamps, Artus.
Lyons: MM. Rougier, Berthélémy.
Montpellier: MM. Gide, Glaise.
Nancy: M. Garnier.
Poitiers: MM. Bussonnet, Petit.
Rennes: MM. Turgeon, Charveau.
Toulouse: M. Arnault.

There are also at Montpellier lectures on industrial legislation by M. Laborde.

(iv.) The position of the Catholic ‘universities’ has already been referred to. While following the lead of the State in associating economics with law, they have the advantage of recruiting among their students a large number of those who desire to enter the Church with a training in economic science as an aid to the study of social problems. The respective professors are MM. Jannet (Paris), Baugas (Angers), Béchaud (Lille), Rambaud (Lyons), and Peyron (Marseilles).

The École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, directed by M. Boutmy, is perhaps the most hopeful academic institution in France for the promotion of economic study. Lectures are given by MM. Cheysson (Economics); Stourm, Dubois de Lestang, Plaffin, Courtin (Finance); Levasseur (Statistics); Dunoyer (History of Economics since Adam Smith); Arnauné Foreign Trade and Customs Laws); Lévy (Banking); P. Leroy-Beaulieu (Colonial Systems); Paulet (Industrial Legislation); and Guieysse (Industrial Problems). In addition to these lectures, which are well attended by paying students, there are discussions and classes for original work on the seminar plan. Travelling scholarships are also given, and excellent work is done, to which the general scheme of instruction largely contributes. The primary function of the school is the thorough intellectual equipment of young officials for the State. Foreign languages, travel, and comparative study of laws and social institutions are encouraged, together with an intelligent interest in history and politics. The personal assistance rendered to individual students by the professors, the seminar, and the scholarships, the comprehensive breadth of view, and the rigid impar. tiality of this school are, as yet, unique in France.

Other economic lectures in Paris which require mention are those of M. Colson, at the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (where the Government non-military engineers and road surveyors are trained), of M. Cheysson at the École Nationale des Mines (also under Government), of M. F. Passy at the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (endowed by the municipality), of M. Émile Chevallier, &c. Lectures (by M. Guérin) are organised by the Société dEconomie Sociale, founded by Le Play. M. Demolins, the leader of a secession from this school, also delivers a course of lectures. There is, on the whole, too much diffusion of separate economic lectures in Paris.

An impressive plea has lately been published by M. Chailley-Bert for the recognition of distinct economic faculties, and for such endowments as will spare professors from the need of spending their time and brains upon accessory sources of income.

APPENDIX III.

On the Condition of Economic Studies
in the United Kingdom.
By E.C.K. Gonner.

Though the full extent of the disadvantages under which economic study in this country suffers can only be realised from a fairly detailed account of its position in the various universities and with relation to certain professions, it will not be out of place to preface this report with a few words as to their nature.

(a) In the first place it is a matter of serious concern that economics is not regarded as a necessary part of any professional curriculum. This particular hardship, however, might be faced with comparative equanimity were there existent in this country, as for instance in the United States of America, a strong body of popular feeling in support of its study and its efficient teaching. But, despite frequent assertions to the contrary, I believe, and in this I shall have the concurrence of many colleagues engaged in teaching, that there is no such body of feeling. Its absence has been variously accounted for. To a great extent it is no doubt part of the legacy of distrust and misunderstanding due to the false view of Economics placed before a former generation, and it will probably be a long time before the popular conception of an economist as a compound of text-book theory and ignorance of fact can be entirely dispelled.

(b) Owing largely to the early prominence of the abstract school of economic thought in England the position which the subject holds in the University curricula is far from satisfactory. It is treated as a subject narrow in scope and subordinate—necessarily and naturally subordinate— to other subjects. But this is by no means the position which it should hold, and now that the importance of the studies of economic fact and administration is more clearly seen, the impossibility of effective teaching within the prescribed lines has become glaringly apparent. At present indeed English economic teaching is without a regular system. It is usually supposed that prescribed University courses should offer a means of systematic training in the various subjects, the pass courses of ordinary training, the honours courses of advanced and thorough training. So far as Economics is concerned, this is precisely what the Universities do not provide. With one possible exception they offer at the present time little more than isolated opportunities of showing economic knowledge in examinations primarily devoted to other subjects.

In the United Kingdom the encouragement of the study of Economics rests entirely with educational bodies. So far as professional examinations and curricula are concerned it meets with almost universal neglect. This is wholly so with regard to the examinations qualifying for the practice of law, either as barrister or solicitor, and partly so in the case of the Civil Service Examinations. For these latter Economics may be taken up, as may almost any other subject included in the Sciences and Arts. It is not recognised, that is to say, as more cognate to the administrative callings for which these examinations qualify, than is Chemistry, for instance; indeed, in comparison with many of these other subjects it is at a discount owing to the smaller maximum of marks assigned to it. In other words, it is excluded from the legal curriculum; in the Civil Service Examinations it is an optional but not an important subject. Elementary Political Economy is one of the optional subjects in the examination for chartered accountants, and is obligatory on candidates for the voluntary examination recently instituted by the Institute of Bankers.

At the Universities it receives an insufficient recognition in the degree courses, but as its position varies a great deal a brief summary of the usages of the various Universities with regard to it may be given. Degrees are granted in England by the five Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London, and Victoria; in Scotland by the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrews; in Ireland by Trinity College and the Royal University of Ireland.

ENGLAND.

At Oxford it is an optional subject which may be taken up as one of the three selected subjects for the pass B.A. degree. As studied for this examination it is mainly elementary and largely theoretical, many of the questions relating to certain prescribed portions of the works of Adam Smith and Walker. To pass this examination, for which the yearly number of candidates presents an average of two hundred, demands common sense and a fair general acquaintance with leading Economic topics. A paper on Economics is included among those set in the Honour School of Modern History.

At Cambridge the position occupied by Economics in the University curricula is far more satisfactory. In some shape or other it forms part of three degree examinations. All candidates for the ordinary pass B.A., after passing the general examination, have to take up a special subject for their concluding study. Of these, sixteen in all, there are seven arts special subjects, one of which is Economics. The special examination in Economics (Political Economy) consists of two parts, which may be taken at separate times:—

Part I.—Three papers.

    • Two in General Economic Theory.
    • One in Economic History.

Part II.—Three papers.

    • Two in Taxation and Economic Functions of Government, with History of Trade and Finance, 1760–1860.
    • One in General Theory of Law and Government.

In the Moral Science Tripos (Honour B.A.) there are six obligatory papers, two being assigned to Political Economy (i.e. Theory), while in addition advanced Political Economy ranks as one of the optional subjects, two of which must be passed in by a candidate desirous of being classed. Lastly, in the Historical Tripos (Honour B.A.), one paper is in Economic History, the paper on general History of England also being supposed to require some Economic knowledge. Further, candidates who desire it may take Political Economy and theory of Government with International Law as an alternative to the study of a second special subject. Of these three examinations the one which seems most satisfactory, so far as Economics is concerned, is the special for the pass B.A., which embraces at once the four important branches of administrative, theoretical, historical, and financial Economics, and it is to be regretted that it has not yet been possible to organise an Honour examination on corresponding lines, but wider and more advanced. Were such in existence it would furnish English students with similar encouragement to systematic study and similar opportunities to those provided in the better developed Continental schools.

In the University of Durham, in addition to the obligatory subjects, two optional subjects have to be chosen by candidates for the degree. These are selected out of a number of subjects, of which Economics is one. The knowledge required is not of an advanced nature.

In the University of London Economics holds no position but the somewhat unfortunate one of an optional subject for candidates proceeding from the B.A. to the M.A. degree in Moral Science, a position which at once restricts the number of students likely to study it, and prevents its study from extending beyond the knowledge of general theory. It is not a subject, either optional or obligatory, at any other examination.

In the Victoria University Economics, comprising Political Economy and Economic History, forms one of the twelve optional subjects, of which two have to be selected for the final year of study by candidates for the pass B.A. degree, the two other subjects being more or less restricted. Economic Theory or History may also be taken in conjunction with Modern History as one subject by candidates who wish, for instance, to take Modern History but not Ancient History. As, however, nearly all the other subjects are, with some difference of standard or period, subjects at the Intermediate or Second-year Examination, in some instances compulsory, and again in certain cases subjects at the final examination, the study of Economics, involving as it does the entry of the student upon a wholly new subject during his final year, is naturally discouraged. Further, Economic Theory (Political Economy), like any other arts or science subject, may, by permission, be substituted for one of the two selected general subjects, Ethics or Modern History, at the intermediate stage of the Law degree (LL.B.). A course of lectures in Political Economy has to be attended by candidates for the Honours degree in History. It is not a subject in the examination.

SCOTLAND.

By the regulations of the Commission applicable to all Scotch Universities Economics holds a two-fold position.

(a) With regard to the ordinary M.A. examination, it is one of the three optional subjects which have to be selected out of the usual arts and science subjects. In all, seven subjects must be taken, but of these four are more or less prescribed. The course which must be attended consists of at least 100 lectures.

(b) It is further a compulsory subject for the first examination for the Agricultural B.Sc. In this case the knowledge required is much slighter, and naturally much more closely related to rural economy.

IRELAND.

At Trinity College Economics is part of one of the seven groups in which the Honour degree may be taken, the other subjects in this group being History and Law. All candidates for the law degree must be graduates in Arts, but not necessarily graduates in honours, or if in honours, in this particular group. It is also included among the options for the pass degree.

In the Royal University of Ireland Economics (Political Economy) is an alternative with Ethics in one of the three groups, one of which must be passed by candidates for the ordinary pass B.A. In the examinations for the Honour degree (B.A.) it, with Civil and Constitutional History and General Jurisprudence, constitutes one of the six groups open to the student. It holds a very similar position in the examination for the M.A. degree.

—————————

The foregoing account shows clearly how little opportunity is given for the systematic study of Economics as a preliminary to degree examination, and especially in the case of honours. It is certainly very unfortunate that an able student anxious to graduate in honours is almost precluded from devoting a large amount of attention to the study of Economics.

In face of this tacit discouragement, so far as examinations are concerned, the provision for teaching made in many places by colleges and universities is almost a matter for surprise. At both Cambridge and Oxford it is satisfactory in all but one respect. It is varied, copious and comprehensive, but—and this is a matter of regret—it is not systematic. At each of these universities there is a professor engaged in active teaching, while other lecture courses are provided by college lecturers. At the universities and colleges in the rest of England the provision for teaching is of necessity less complete. At those best equipped, instruction in Economics depends on the energy and vigour of a single teacher, supplemented, perhaps, by an occasional course of lectures by some other Economist, while at the rest, if taught at all, it is attached to the duties of a teacher principally engaged in, and probably principally interested in, teaching some other subject, for, as a general rule, the teaching of Economics in conjunction with some other subject has meant little more than that the teacher of some other subject has had to give a course of lectures on General Economics. At two of the three colleges of the Victoria University Economics has separate teachers, at Liverpool one holding the rank of professor, at Manchester one holding that of a lecturer. At Leeds, on the other hand, there is no teacher of Economics. At the other university colleges in England the two London colleges possess each a professor, though the professor at King’s College delivers Economic lectures only during the six winter months. At the University College, Nottingham, Economic lectures are delivered by a professor at the same time engaged in teaching history and literature. The other colleges (Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield, and Newcastle) at present make no provision for teaching a subject which they find so discounted as a subject for examination.

In Wales two of the University Colleges (Aberystwith and Cardiff) have made some sort of provision for Economic teaching by the appoint. ment of lecturers in History and Political Economy, while at Bangor Economics is tacked on to the duties of the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Scotland there is a fully instituted chair of Political Economy at the University of Edinburgh, and measures are in progress for the endowment of a Professorship at Glasgow, where the Economic work has recently been performed by a lecturer acting as assistant to the Professor of Moral Philosophy. At St. Andrews a yearly course of lectures is delivered by the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Ireland, at Trinity College, Dublin, there is a Professorship of Economics. At the Queen’s Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway this teaching is combined with that of Jurisprudence, and limited to a very short portion of the year. Owing to the great differences existing between the courses delivered at the various institutions, and the entirely diverse character of the respective audiences, it is impossible to give any satisfactory statistics of attendance. From most quarters come complaints. Indeed, with the two possible exceptions of Oxford and Cambridge, it is difficult to imagine a more complete indifference to the scientific study of Economics than that displayed at the present time.

In addition to lectures, more informal instruction is often imparted to more advanced students, but the formation of a seminar in Economics has been undertaken but seldom, if at all. That this is due not to lack of will on the part of the teachers in those colleges where Economic teaching is entrusted to a separate teacher, but mainly to the singular deficiency in advanced or even moderately advanced students, is shown by the readiness with which individual instruction, often involving much sacrifice of time, is given to such students when they do present themselves. Such an institution can be successfully introduced only when Economic studies are so recognised as to be able to attract the abler students in a university or college.

Attempts to develop popular Economic instruction by means of evening classes, and separate courses of lectures, have been made by the University Colleges and other institutions, and by the Societies for the Extension of University Teaching; and at some of the former particular attention has been paid to the Economic teaching, noticeably at Owens College, Manchester, and University College, Liverpool. The class of students attracted to these lectures may be spoken of very favourably. From the reports and information supplied by the Societies, it would seem that though the attendance at Economic courses, when given, is good, the demand for them is not very great. The interest shown in the subject in some one or other of its branches is said to be reviving—certainly to be greater than it was some few years ago. There has been a decided increase in the demand for lectures on Economics, and subjects partially economic, during the last two years.

Economic studies in England require at the present time organisation and encouragement. As to the ability of English Economists and the quality of their contributions there can be no doubt; but, when compared with continental countries, England is sadly lacking in the number of Economic students. Where they have many, she has few. As has been said, this is largely due to the unfortunate positions to which Economics has been relegated in many Universities, and its neglect so far as professional callings are concerned. On the other hand, the revival of interest in Economic matters, so abundantly manifested, makes it more than ever desirable to provide means and opportunities for sound scientific training.

Source: Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries. Report of the Cunningham Committee, Report of the Sixty-Fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Oxford in August 1894, pp. 365-391.

Also: at the Biodiversity Heritage Library Website; and at Harvard College Library, Gift of the Overseers Committee to visit the Department of Economics.

Image Source: William Cunningham page at the Trinity College Chapel website.

 

Categories
Columbia Suggested Reading

Columbia. Topics and readings to prepare for oral exam in economic theory, 1961

 

The only surprises in the following list of relevant readings for the Columbia University oral examinees in economic theory are (i) the number of introductory or intermediate level items and (ii) the overwhelming identification of economic theory with microeconomics, indeed, only 1/5 of the topics have to do with income theory (i.e. macroeconomics). Monetary economics is found under distribution theory.

________________________________

[Handwritten note at top of page:] 1961

Preparation for the Oral Examination in Economic Theory:
A Communication from the Faculty to the Candidates

The following list of topics and relevant readings are recommended to the attention of students preparing for the oral examination in economic theory. The readings are in no sense “required” since, in most cases, they are merely a small sampling of a voluminous literature that contains many other works of comparable or superior merit. The readings listed below, however, are a good place to begin; and when the student has no previous acquaintance with the literature relevant to a topic, he is advised to begin with a book or article marked [.

TOPICS AND RELEVANT READINGS

Preface: Methodology in Economics

Boulding, The Skills of the Economist (1958)

Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics (1953)

[Knight, “The Limitations of Scientific Method in Economics,” in The Ethics of Competition (1935)

Papandreou, Economics as a Science (1958)

[Robbins, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science (2d ed., 1946)

Schoeffler, The Failures of Economics (1955)

Part I: The Theory of Demand

  1. Consumer Behavior

Hicks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946) Part I

[Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics (2d ed., 1957)

Robertson, Utility and All That (1952)

Vickery, “Measuring Marginal Utility by Reactions to Risk,” in 13 Econometrica 3/9 (1945)

  1. The Industry Demand Curve

Bailey, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” in 62 J. Pol. Econ. 255 (1954)

[Friedman, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” in 57 J. Pol. Econ. 463 (1949)

Schultz, Henry, Statistical Studies in the Theory of Demand (1938)

Working, “What Do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show,” in 41 Q. J. Econ. 212 (1927); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Yeager, “Methodenstreit over Demand Curves,” in 68 J. Pol. Econ. (1960)

  1. The Firm Demand Curve

Stigler, “The Kinked Demand Curve and Rigid Prices,” in 55 J. Pol. Econ. 432 (1947)

Sweezy, Paul, “Demand Under Conditions of Oligopoly,” in 47 J. Pol. Econ. 568 (1939); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Part II: The Theory of Production

  1. Industry Cost Curves

Ellis and Fellner, “External Economies and Diseconomies,” 33 Am. Econ. Rev. 493 (1943); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in PriceTheory

[Knight, ”Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Social Cost,” in The Ethics of Competition (1935); also in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Scitovsky, “Two Concepts of External Economies,” 62 J. Pol. Econ. 143 (1954)

Schwartzman, “The Methodology of the Theory of Returns to Scale,” 10 Oxford Economic Papers 98 (1958)

  1. Cost Curves in the Firm

Clark, J.M., Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs (1923)

Dean, Joel, Statistical Determination of Costs (1936)

Eiteman and Guthrie, “The Shape of the Average Cost Curve,” 42 Am. Econ. Rev. 832 (1952)

Staehle, “The Measurement of Statistical Cost Functions,” 32 Am. Econ. Rev. 321 (1942); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

[Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” 3 Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 23 (1932); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

  1. Capitalization

Fisher, Irving, The Nature of Capita1 and Income (1927)

[Samuelson, Economics (3d ed. 1955) Appendix to Ch. 29

  1. Activity Analysis

[Baumol, W. J., “Activity Analysis in One Lesson,” 68 Am. Econ. Rev. 837 (1958)

Dorfman, Samuelson and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (1958)

Makower, Activity Analysis (1957)

Spivey, Linear Programming (1960)

  1. Input-Output Analysis

Cameron, “The Construction of the Leontief System,” 19 Rev. Econ. Stud. 19 (1951)

Dorfman, Samuelson, and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (1958)

[Leontief, The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1939 (2d ed. 1951)

Input-Output Analysis (National Bureau, 1955)

Part III: The Theory of Markets

  1. Competition, Pure, Perfect and Workable

Clark, J. M., “Toward a Concept of Workable Competition, Am. Econ. Rev. (1940; reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Social Control

Fetter, “The Economic Law of Market Areas,” 38 Q. J. Econ. 520 (1924); reprinted in The Masquerade of Monopoly

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1922)

[Stigler, “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” 65 J. Pol.Econ. l (1957)

  1. Monopoly

Greenhut and Pfouts, “The Pricing Policies of a Spatial Monopolist,” 9 Metroeconomics 153

[Patinkin, “Multiple-Plant Firms Cartels, and Imperfect Competition,” 61 Q. J. Econ. 173 (1947)

Robinson, Joan, Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933). Books IV, V and VI

  1. Oligopoly

Baumol, Business Behavior, Value and Growth (1959), Part I

Fellner, Competition Among the Few (1949)

Hotelling, “Stability in Competition,” 39 Econ. J. 41 (1929); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Lerner and Singer, “Some Notes on Duopoly and Spatial Competition,” 45 J. Pol. Econ. 145 (1937)

[Modigliani, “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 215 (1958)

Stigler, “A Theory of Delivered Price Systems,” 39 Am. Econ. Rev. 1143 (1949)

  1. Game Theory

[Luce and Raiffa, Games and Decisions (1957)

Shubik, Strategy and Market Structure (l959)

[Stone, J. R. N., ”The Theory of Games,” 58 Econ. J. 184 (1948)

  1. Monopolistic and/or Imperfect Competition

Chamberlin, E., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (7th ed. 1955)

Dewey, ”Imperfect Competition No Bar to Efficient Production,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 24 (1958)

[Robinson, Joan, The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933)

Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (2d ed. 1947) Chapters 7 and 8

Smithies, “Equilibrium in Monopolistic Competition,” Q. J. Econ. (November, 1940)

 

Part IV: The Theory of Distribution

  1. Capital and Interest: Without Money

Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, (1888)

Fisher, Irving, The Nature of Capital and Income (1927)

[Knight, “Diminishing Returns from Investment,” 52 J. Pol. Econ. 26 (1944)

Knight, “’Capital, Time, and the Interest Rate,” Economica 257 (1934)

  1. Capital and Interest: With Money

[Hart, Money, Debt and Economic Activity (2d ed. 1953)

Htcks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946) Parts III and IV

Metzler, “Wealth, Saving, and the Rate of Interest,” 59 J. Pol. Econ. 93 (1951)

Patinkin, Money, Interest, and Prices (1956)

Wicksell, Interest and Prices (English ed. 1936)

  1. Land as Capital

Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933) Ch. 8

Worcester, ”A Reconsideration of Rent Theory,” 36 Am. Econ. Rev. 258 (1946)

  1. Distribution According to Marginal Productivity

[Samuelson, Principles of Economics (3d ed. 1955) Appendix to Chapter 27

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (1946) Ch. 12

[Stonier and Hague, A Textbook of Economic Theory (1953) Ch. 16

  1. Labor and Wages

Conrad and Meyer, “The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 95 (1958)

Douglas, Paul, The Theory of Wages (1934)

[Dunlop, John, Wage Determination Under Trade Unions (1944)

Lampman, “Recent Changes in Income Inequality Reconsidered,” 64 Am. Econ. Rev. 251 (1954)

Lester, R.A., “Marginalism and Labor Markets,” 37 Am. Econ. Rev. 135 (1947); with rejoinders by Machlup and Stigler

Mincer, J. “Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income Distribution,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 281 (1958)

  1. Profit and Uncertainty

Davis, R. M., “The Current State of Profit Theory,” 62 Am. Econ. Rev. 245 (1952)

Hart, A.G., Anticipations Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning (1940)

[Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1922)

Shackle, Expectation in Economics (1949)

Weston, “The Profit Concept and Theory: A Restatement,” 62 J. Pol. Econ. 152 (1954)

  1. The Problem of Optimum Efficiency

Beckwith, B.P., Economic Theory of a Socialist Economy (1949)

Lerner, The Economics of Control (1944)

Pigou, Economics of Welfare (4th ed. 1932)

[Reder, The Theory of Welfare Economics (1947)

Vickery, “Some Objections to Marginal Cost Pricing,” 56 J. Pol. Econ. 218 (1948)

Vickery, “Utility, Strategy and Social Decision Rules,” 74 Q. J. Econ. 507 (1960)

  1. General Equilibrium

Hicks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946)

[Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (1946) Ch. 9

[Stigler, Theory of Price (1952) Ch. 16

Walras, Elements of Political Economy ( 1874)

 

Part V: The Theory of National Income

  1. Income Theory Before Keynes

Bellamy, Edward, “Parable of the Water Tanks,” in Equality (1897)

Foster, W. T. and Catchings, The Road to Plenty (1928)

[Haberler, Prosperity and Depression (2d ed. 1939)

Hobson, J. A., The Problem of the Unemployed (1896)

Mitchell, W. C., Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting (1927)

Robinson, Joan, An Essav on Marxian Economics (1947)

  1. The General Theory and its Reception

[Keynes, The General Theory of Interest, Employment and Money (1935)

[Klein, The Keynesian Revolution (1947)

Pigou, Keynes’ General Theory (1950)

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes (1953)

Harris, ed., The New Economics (1949)

Terborgh, The Bogey of Economic Maturity (1945)

  1. Recent Developments in Income Theory

Christ, C., “Aggregative Econometric Models” 46 Am. Econ. Rev. 385 (1956)

[Friedman and Becker, “A Statistical Illusion in Judging Keynesian Models,” 65 J. Pol. Econ. 64 (1957)

Klein and Goldberger, An Econometric Model of the United States,

1929-1952 (1955)

Weintraub, A General Theory of the Price Level, Output, Income Distribution and Economic Growth (1959)

  1. Some Problems of Economic Growth

Brems, Output, Employment, Capita1, and Economic Growth (1959)

[Domar, Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (1957)

Harrod, Toward a Dynamic Economics (1948)

Smithies, “Economic Fluctuations and Growth,” 25 Econometrica 1 (1957)

 

USEFUL TEXTBOOKS AND GENERAL COMMENTARIES ON ECONOMIC THEORY

Allen, R.G.D., Mathematical Economics

Bain, Pricing, Distribution, and Employment

Baumol, Economic Dynamics

Boulding, Economic Analysis

Chamberlain, A General Theory of Economic Process

Fellner, Modern Economic Analysis

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes

Henderson and Quandt, Microeconomic Theory

Leftwich, The Price System and Resource Allocation

Machlup, Models of Sellers’ Competition

Makower, Activity Analysis

Klein, The Keynesian Revolution

McKenna, Aggregate Economic Analysis

McKenna, Intermediate Economic Theory

Robinson, Introduction to the Theory of Employment

Samuelson, Principles of Economics

Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition

Stigler, The Theory of Price

Stonier and Hague, A Textbook of Economic Theory

Robertson, D.H., Lectures on Economic Principles

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 1, Folder “Eco. Dept.—Qualifying Examination Committee”.

Image Source: August Rodin’s Le Penseur at Columbia University. InSapphoWeTrust from Los Angeles, California, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economist Market Economists

Columbia. Early Industrial Organization. Career of Arthur Robert Burns, husband of Eveline M. Burns

In the previous post we encountered social security pioneer Eveline Mabel Burns née Richardson at the point in her career when the Columbia University economics department signaled a definitive end to any hopes for promotion from the rank of lecturer to a tenure track assistant professorship in economics for her with them. In this post we follow the parallel case of her economist husband, Arthur Robert Burns (and no, not the Arthur F. Burns of Burns-Mitchell fame!), who cleared the promotion to assistant professor hurdle at Columbia relatively easily, but was stuck at that rank for nine years, in spite of repeated proposals by the department to promote him sooner.

The heart of this post can be found in the exchange between the  Arthur Robert Burns and then economics department head R. M. Haig in November 1941. Biographical and career backstories for Arthur R. Burns through 1945 can be found in excerpts posted below from budgetary proposals submitted by the economics department over the years. Burns was seen as a pillar of Columbia University’s Industrial Organization field at that time and remained at Columbia through his retirement (ca. 1965) while his wife took up a professorship in Social Work.

____________________________

From: Seligman’s 1929-30 budget recommendation to President Butler (December 1, 1928)

“During [Clara Eliot’s] absence [from Barnard College)  Mr. A. R. Burns has been acting as substitute. In our judgment he has been a valuable addition to the staff, and we recommend that he be reappointed as instructor. In Miss Eliot’s absence the course in statistics has been reduced from two semesters to one. There is a distinct demand for an additional course, though it would be on a different basis from formerly, and our proposal is that Miss Eliot be appointed solely to give two three-point courses in statistics, conducting a statistical laboratory as part of this work. This would relieve Mr. Burns from the course in statistics, and enable him to offer a new course of a somewhat more theoretical character than any now given at Barnard, on “the price-system and the organization of society”, a course which would distinctly help to round out the present offerings in Economics”.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Biographical and professional background through 1930-31
of Arthur R. Burns

…Arthur R. Burns was born in London, in 1895. He served in the army from September, 1914, to April, 1917, when he was discharged as no longer fit because of wounds. He entered the London School of Economics at once, took his B.Sc. degree with honors in 1920, taught economics in King’s College for women (University of London) for four years, and took his doctor’s degree in 1926. The award of Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowships brought Dr. Burns and his wife to this country, where they traveled somewhat widely for two years, studied competitive conditions in industries characterized by large business units, and where they were induced to stay by Columbia.

Dr. Burns has now been a lecturer in economics at Barnard College for three years. Members of our department have thus had an opportunity to become well acquainted with his quality. We think that he is by native ability, temperament and training an investigator, and that, given such opportunities as the graduate department affords, he will make significant contributions to economic science. His publications include several technical papers and two books: Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, 1926, (a learned treatise on the origin and early history of coinage and monetary practices), and The Economic World, 1927 (written in collaboration with Mrs. Burns).

Source: Letter outlining plans for the future development of the economics department by Wesley C. Mitchell to President Butler. January 16, 1931. In Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 667, Folder 34 “Mitchell, Wesley Clair, 10/1930 – 6/1931”. Carbon copy also in Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Department recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
already in 1937-38
[Note: actual promotion only occurred Apr. 3, 1944]

[…] I would make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1937-1938]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1937-1938”.

____________________________

Department again recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
[Note: Burns was given the salary increase this time]

[…] I would respectfully make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1938-1939]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1938-1939”.

____________________________

Department then begins unsuccessfully to push for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 28, 1938]

[…] I respectfully recommend budgetary changes for the coming academic year 1939-1940, involving increase of compensation to the following members of the staff:

[…]

3. Arthur R. Burns from $4,000 to $4,500;

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has established himself as an authority in his chosen field, and it is the desire of his colleagues that he be advanced to a full professorship as rapidly as university resources will allow. His tenure has already been long, and his advancement slow. It is our thought that he be given current recognition and enccouragement, with hope of promotion to rank commesurate with his repute among economists.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, “Economics Budget 1938-1939”. [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Requesting unpaid leave for a Twentieth Century Fund project

March 1, 1939

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.
President of Columbia University

Dear President Butler:

Professor Arthur R. Burns has been invited to take the directorship of a study of the public utility industry, under the auspices of the Twentieth Century Fund. We of the Department think it wise that he do this and recommend that he be granted leave of absence without pay for the academic year 1939-40. I shall be prepared before long to make recommendation of some outstanding person to serve as a partial substitute for Professor Burns during the coming academic year with a stipend which will absorb approximately three-fifths of Professor Burns’ current compensation.

Very sincerely yours,

Executive Officer
Department of Economics

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940”.

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 18, 1939]

[…] I respectfully make the following recommendations affecting the budget of 1940-41:

[…]

6. That Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be granted added compensation of $500 [i.e. from $4,000 to $4,500].

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has served a long apprenticeship with subordinate rank in the Department. At the moment, either from the standpoint of scholarly attainment or from that of efficiency in graduate instruction he suffers not at all by comparison with the best endowed and most effective of his colleagues. Because of his merits and of the importance of the field he covers, he should be advanced rapidly to full professorial status.

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940” [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary reducing  promotion to Associate Professorship
[October 27, 1941]

MEMORANDUM
Department of Economics
October 27, 1941

[…]

Arthur R. Burns. Proposed: Advancement–assistant professor to associate professor.
Present salary $4,500
Proposed salary. $5,000

[…]

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

Arthur R. Burns demands promotion to the rank of professor

3206, Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

November 1st 1941.

Dear Professor Haig,

As I shall not be in New York this year to talk about the departmental plans for next year I must write. It seems to me that the question of my status in the department now calls for definitive action. Doubtless the unsettled times will be advanced as a reason for postponing promotion. At the outset, therefore, I wish to emphasise that I should regard any such attitude as entirely unfair. If the University is to go through hard times (as well it may) its misfortunes should be shared equitably among all the members of the faculty. To be frank, I feel that I have already been asked to bear an altogether unreasonable share of such financial stringencies as the University may have suffered. There have been many occasions in the past thirteen years on which I have been told that my promotion has been recommended (and more in which I have been told that it would have been recommended) but that no action has been taken for general financial reasons. I fully expect to bear my share of the burden of contemporary events but I feel that the time has come for my position to be given special consideration irrespective of those events, no matter how serious.

Various reasons have been given to me during my thirteen years of service to the University for its failure to promote me. But I think I am justified in believing that there has been less than the usual amount of criticism of my scholarship or my teaching capacity. The number of my students who have progressed in the outside world (sometimes already beyond my own rank and salary) indicates that I have been reasonably effective. Furthermore, I think that you will find that in recent years there has been an increasing number of graduate students coming to Columbia to work with me.

I now ask you, therefore, to have my academic status reviewed, whether or not the University wishes on principle again to avoid promotions. And after this long delay promotion only to an associate professorship will not, in my opinion, be compatible with my professional reputation and status. For six or seven years now my recognition outside the University has been widely at variance with my academic rank. My salary as Director of Research for the Twentieth Century Fund was $10,000 per annum. I have recently been invited to join the Anti Trust Division of the Department of Justice at a salary of $8,000 per annum. I am now the Supervisor of Civilian Allocation in the Office of Production Management. I suggest that this evidence justifies promotion to a full professorship. If economies are necessary, I am ready, as I have said, to accept them on the same basis as my colleagues.

I have written to you with complete frankness because I have been keenly disappointed with the disposal of suggestions for my promotion and I am anxious that you shall be clearly informed as to my feelings. I gather that for a number of years now there has been no serious objection but also no vigorous effort in my behalf. I now feel that if after all these long delays Columbia is unwilling to take special action to recognize my professional status I had better know before I am much older. I am now forty six years of age and if I must seek academic recognition elsewhere I must obviously begin to take the necessary steps without delay. I would of course prefer to stay with Columbia. I think you will agree that these long years of patient waiting are evidence of my loyalty but I think you will also agree that I cannot continue much longer to accept the present wide discrepancy between my status inside and outside the University.

Very sincerely yours,

[signed]

Arthur R. Burns

Professor Robert Murray Haig,
Chairman,
Department of Economics,
Fayerweather Hall,
Columbia University,
NEW YORK CITY

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department responds to Burns’ demands:
Associate professorship when your rejoin the faculty

November 22, 1941

Professor Arthur R. Burns
3206 Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Professor Burns:

Last night our group met at dinner to consider the budget. This afforded an opportunity to comply with your request that your academic status be reviewed. I wish you could have listened to the discussion that took place. It was highly friendly and appreciative in tone, but at the same time it was pervaded by a deep sense of responsibility for the ultimate objectives for which we are striving. I am sure that it would have impressed you, as it did me, with the essential soundness of the policy of placing heavy dependence upon the deliberate, critical judgment of one’s colleagues in considering questions of promotion.

Your letter of November 1st, which I read to the brethren in full, arrived at a time peculiarly unfavorable for the consideration of finalities and ultimatums. Moreover, I regret to have to report some of the statements and implications of that letter were not altogether fortunate in the reactions they inspired. Let me elaborate on this last statement first.

(1) You state that you gather that in the past there has been “no vigorous effort” in your behalf. I can speak with full knowledge only regarding last year. If the implication is that your failure to secure more adequate recognition is ascribable to lack of vigor on the part of your colleagues as a group, or of the chairman of the Department in particular, I wish to state that I know it to be untrue with respect to last year and have reason to believe it to be untrue of several previous years. As a matter of fact, last year as the program moved forward from the Faculty Committee on Instruction, the recommendation for your promotion was placed at the very top above all others in the Faculty of Political Science. Until the very end, when the Trustees at their March meeting ruthlessly scuttled the program, I had high hopes that the effort would be successful. The only budgetary changes last year in this entire Department of 32 members were a) a $300 increase for which the College authorities had obligated themselves to secure for Barger and b) the temporary allocation of $600 to Wald for one year only from a sabbatical “windfall”.

(2) The citation of the salaries and fees you have been able to command in the government service and in the service of private research organizations as evidence that “justifies promotion to a full professorship” does not greatly impress your colleagues. We rejoice in the recognition and rewards that have come to you in return for your efforts while on leave of absence from your post at Columbia. Certainly the work of the Department has been carried on under a distinct handicap when your courses haven manned by part-time substitutes and we should like to believe that the sacrifices involved had borne rich fruits in professional and material rewards to you personally as well as to the general cause of science. However, you will readily agree, I take it, that our promotion and salary policy cannot be based on the principle you seem to suggest, viz., that the University must be prepared to match, dollar for dollar, the potential earning power of the staff on outside jobs. The rate of compensation for such outside work is, to my certain knowledge, likely to run over four or five times the rate of University compensation. Indeed, I can think of many of our colleagues who, on the basis of such a principle, could cite evidence even more convincing than your own.

(3) In the next place your letter seems to imply an understanding of the nature of the University connection that is not in complete harmony with our own. While it may be the policy elsewhere that mere length of service by a person who joins the staff at an early age, even though that service be reasonably effective and untouched by unfavorable criticism, carries assurance of promotion to the highest rank, this is definitely not the policy at Columbia University. Theoretically, at least, the University retains complete freedom of action to withhold advancement subject to a continuing critical appraisal of the individual’s value to the institution, against the background of changing circumstances, among which the University’s ability to supply funds must be listed near the top. Everyone is continually on trial to the very end of his career. This is evidenced in the practice regarding early retirement, the working of which I have recently had an opportunity to observe. Assurance regarding stability of tenure at a given level is a different point and mere humanitarian considerations are given generous weight. However, fundamentally the University connection is to be regarded as an opportunity (an opportunity, incidentally, of which you, in the opinion of your colleagues have, on the whole, made very good use) and promotion and early retirement are certainly affected and, in many cases at least, determined by the manner in which a member of the staff rises to that opportunity. Moreover, when such heavy dependence is placed upon the continuing critical appraisal by one’s colleagues, each man must have regard for his responsibility for the long-run interests of the department and of science. If, as the years roll along, the department is to contain a reasonably large percentage of intellects of the highest order, the critical appraisal must be a continuing process and sufficient freedom of action must be retained in promotion and salary policy to enable the group to make reasonably effective its collective judgment as to what is best for the department in the light of the individual’s developing record and the fluctuations of the resources available for supplying opportunities. I hope that you will forgive me for laboring this point but it is important that you understand what I am certain is the sentiment of the group of which you are a valued member, viz., that no matter on what basis of rank you may return to us, say, for example, as an associate professor, further recognition in rank or salary will be dependent upon decisions reached in harmony with the general policies outlined above.

I now revert to my earlier statement that your letter arrived at a peculiarly unfavorable time.

(1) On November 13th a letter was received from the President of the University indicating that Draconian economies were indicated for this year’s budget. Our own enrolment in the graduate department of economics has shrunk this year about 25 per cent and this shrinkage is on top of last year’s substantial shrinkage. Even in advance of the preparation of the formal budget letters, the department chairmen were summoned before a special committee at the behest of the trustees and urged by the elimination of courses and other means to contract the normal budget to smaller proportions. Consequently only in emergency cases where the interests of the University are considered to be vitally affected, will serious consideration be given to recommendations involving an increased expenditure.

(2) With the retirement of McCrea, the question of the future of the School of Business has been thrown open for discussion. Under the new Dean a radical revision of policy is being formulated, including as one item the transfer of the School to a strictly graduate level. The intimate interrelationships of staff and curriculum between our department and the school are being reexamined. Plans are still in a state of flux but your particular field of interest is involved. So highly dynamic is the situation that the budget letters of both the Department and the School are to be considered tentative documents, subject to modification as decisions of policy are taken during the weeks that lie ahead.

(3) The situation is further complicated by the fact that within our Department itself we have reached the stage, which arises every decade or so, when long-time plans require consideration. Not only are we faced with an important retirement problem, but we are also asked to have regard for the situation that will result if the present trend toward lower enrolments continues. To deal with this situation, a special committee has been set up in the department, headed by Professor Mitchell, to formulate plans for the future. A series of meetings is being held at which the present and probable future importance of the various subjects falling within the scope of the departments are being discussed and questions of staff and curriculum are being intensively studied. Here also important decisions are in the making but definite conclusions have not yet been reached.

I am writing at such length in order that you may understand clearly and fully the background against which we were called upon to consider your letter and the reasons underlying the action that was taken in your case.

The recommendation that I am instructed by our colleagues to include in the budget letter is that I renew the recommendation made last year that you be promoted to the rank of associate professor at a salary of $5,000. I realize that this will be a disappointment to you. You have stated that you consider this degree of recognition, if we are successful in securing it for you, would not be compatible with your professional reputation and status. I infer from your letter that you consider it so inadequate that you are not prepared to accept it. However, you do not make yourself unequivocally clear on this point. If your mind is definitely made up, it will simplify the procedure if you will inform me of the fact at once. On the other hand, there is no disposition to press you for an early answer in case you are not as far along toward a decision as your letter would seem to imply.

In considering the problem of your probable future with us, as compared with the various flattering alternatives open to you, I feel that I should make the following statements:

(1) I have no assurance that the recommendation will be adopted. It will carry the vigorous support of the department and of the Chairman. I have already raised the question informally before the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty and am happy to be able to report that this committee is warmly friendly to your cause. Frankly, however, I am not as optimistic as I was last year at this time regarding the outlook for a favorable outcome when the trustees finally take action.

(2) I should report that, in view of all the circumstances, including the state of ferment that exists at the moment regarding future plans for the department, your colleagues would not be willing to urge your appointment to a full professorship immediately, even if they were convinced that such a recommendation would stand a chance of acceptance by the trustees. You are highly regarded and much appreciated. Your colleagues regret the harsh circumstances that have made it impossible to give you more recognition than you have already received. They consider you an excellent gamble for the long future. They consider the fields of your special interest important. However, it is hoped and believed that you have not yet reached a full development of your potentialities. When faced with the question as to whether they are convinced that, on the record to date, you are reasonably certain to be generally regarded, during the next twenty years, as one of the dozen or so most distinguished economists in active service, there is a general disposition to reply “not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Although they have no illusions about the difficulty of carrying out this policy with success, they have decided to take the position that they will henceforth recommend for a full professorship no one who does not meet such a test. They prefer to have you return with the clear understanding all around that the final issue, the question of the full professorship, shall not be decided in your case until more evidence is in. They take this position with the best of will and with a considerable degree of confidence that the final decision will be favorable. In connection with this, they feel that the important work upon which you are now engaged should contribute substantially to your “capital account” and should have a highly favorable effect upon your future record as a scholar and teacher.

You paid me the compliment of writing me a candid and forthright letter. In return I have attempted to lay before you with complete frankness all the considerations I know of that bear upon the question you have to consider.

Finally, I should like to say, speaking both in a personal capacity and as the chairman of the department, that I hope you will find it possible to send me word that you desire to continue as a member of our group under these conditions. We have an interesting and important task before us. I believe that you have a rôle to play in its accomplishment. If, unhappily for us, your decision takes you away from us, we shall sincerely regret the termination of our close association with you. To a remarkable degree you have earned for yourself not only the respect but the affection of your colleagues at Columbia.

Faithfully yours,

R.M. HAIG

P.S. At your early convenience will you be good enough to send me a note of any items that should be added to your academic record for use in my budget letter.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

From: Economics Department’s Proposed Budget for 1946-1947
November 30, 1945
[Burns recommended for professorship]

[…]

We recommend that Arthur Robert Burns, now an associate professor at a salary of $5,000, be promoted to a professorship at $7,500. Professor Burns, who has been connected with the University since 1928, was appointed an assistant professor in 1935, an associate professor in 1944. He has returned this year to his academic work, after a six-year leave of absence devoted to research and to important governmental service. His war-time activities have included service as Chief Economic Adviser and deputy Director of the Office of Civilian Supply, Deputy Administrator of the Foreign Economic Administration, and a mission to Europe in 1945 as a member of the American Group of the Allied Control Commission, advising on economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.
Professor Burns is carrying one of the fundamental graduate courses on Industrial Organization. He has agreed to offer one of the courses that will be central in the curriculum of the School of International Affairs–a course on “Types of Economic Organization”. His close acquaintance with the organization of the economies of the United States, Britain, and Germany, and his scholarly background in the field are of great value in this development of systematic academic work on comparative economic systems. Burn’s scholarly reputation is high. His study of The Decline of Competition, which is accepted as a standard in the field, is one of the major products of the Columbia Council on Research in the Social Sciences. He has served the country in recent years in administrative and advisory posts of high responsibility. We believe that he should have the rank of full professor.

[…]

Annex C

ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS

Academic Record

1918. Gladstone Memorial Prize, London School of Economics, London.
1920. B.Sc. (Economics) degree with First Class Honors, University of London.
1926. Ph.D. degree, University of London.
1926-28. Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowship.

Teaching

1922-26. University of London.
1928-31. Lecturer in Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University.
1931-35. Lecturer in Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1935-44. Assistant Professor of Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1939. Special Lecturer, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Leaves of absence without salary for 1940-41 through 1944-45.
1944-45. Promoted to Associate Professor of Economics
Returned to Columbia University for 1945-46.

Published Work

“Indian Currency Reform.” Economica, about 1925.
“The Effect of Funding the Floating Debt,” Economica, about 1933.
Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times.” London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1927. About 650 pp.
The Economic World.” London, University of London Press, 1928. [sic: co-authorship of wife Eveline M. Burns was not included in the citation].
“The Quantitative Study of Recent Economic Changes in the United States.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 31: 491-546, April, 1930.
“Population Pressure in Great Britain.” Eugenics, 3: 211-20, June, 1930.
“The First Phase of the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933”. Political Science Quarterly,  49:161, June, 1934.
“The Consumer under the National Industrial Recovery Act.” Management Review, 23:195, July 1934.
The Decline of Competition. New York, McGraw Hill, 1936. 619 pp.
[not listed: “The Process of Industrial Concentration” 47 Q.J.E. 277 (1933)]
“The Anti-Trust Laws and the Regulation of Price Competition.” Law and Contemporary Problems, June, 1937.
“The Organization of Industry and the Theory of Prices.” Journal of Political Economy, XLV: 662-80, October, 1937.
“Concentration of Production,” Harvard Business Review, Spring Issue, 1943.
“Surplus Government Property and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, April, 1945.

Unpublished Studies

1935-38. Investigation of the pricing of cement with special reference to the basing point system (in collaboration with Professor J. M. Clark).
1939. Report on the pricing of sulphur.
1938-39. Study of distribution costs and retail prices.
1939-41. Director of Research, Twentieth Century Fund study of “Relations between Government and Electric Light and Power Industry.” Has been completed and is now in hands of the Twentieth Century Fund.

Other Work

1935. Alternate member. President’s Committee to report on the experience of the National Recovery Administration.
1938-39. Chairman, Sub-Committee of Price Conference on Distribution Costs and REtail Prices.
1939-41. Member of Board of Editors, American Economic Review.
1941. Supervisor of Civilian Supply and Requirements, Office of Production Management.
1942. Chief Economic Adviser, Office of Civilian Supply, War Production Board.
1942 (July-August). Member of mission to London to study British methods of concentration of industry.
1943. Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Supply.
1943. Director of Planning and Research, Office of Civilian Requirement
1943, December to March, 1945. Special assistant to Administrator, Deputy Administrator to the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945-continuing. Consultant to Enemy Branch of the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945, Summer. In Europe with the American Group of the Allied Control Commission to advise on the economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budget ’46-47 and related matters”.

___________________________

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economists Gender

Columbia. Eveline M. Burns parts ways with the economics department. 1941-1942

This post is the first of two-parts dealing with a married economics couple who taught at the Columbia economics department during the second quarter of the twentieth century, Eveline Mabel Burns and Arthur Robert Burns. [Warning: not Arthur F. Burns!] Both of the Burns felt themselves relatively undervalued by their Columbia colleagues, but the case for Eveline Burns is particularly clear. She was the weaker spouse but in hindsight the stronger economist of the two. This post presents the end-game correspondence for Eveline Burns with respect to the Columbia economics department. She was quite remarkable, someone who  can be credited as being the midwife for the birth of the U.S. Social Security System (to use a gendered metaphor for a gendered case). The post closes with a list of her publications and her c.v. that is conclusive (ex post) documentation of just how wrong the Columbia economics department got it in the early 1940s. Brava, Eveline Burns!

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Meet your glass ceiling

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

December 9, 1940

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

As you may have heard, Professor McCrea is retiring at the end of the current academic year and the chairmanship of our Department has been passed along to me. After extensive conferences to ascertain the sentiment of our colleagues, I have prepared my first budget letter. In fairness to you as well as to the Department, I feel that I should report to you in very definite terms the attitude of your colleagues toward your future as a member of the staff.

I understand that you are well aware that in previous years opposition has developed to the proposal to advance you from your present position as Lecturer to that of Assistant Professor, an advancement which would carry with it, of course, some intimation of an intention to promote you later to still higher rank and to a permanent career in the Department. I regret to say that in the course of the budget discussions this year it has become apparent that this opposition has not diminished. It is indeed now so substantial that clearly it will be necessary for you to plan your future on the assumption that there is no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science.

Since I share the admiration that your colleagues in the Department feel for your many admirable qualities and your many impressive achievements, it is not an easy thing to send this message, which, in spite of previous notice, will doubtless cause you pain and disappointment. The plain fact is, however, that even your most enthusiastic friends agree that viewing the situation in all its aspects, you should not be encouraged to believe that your connection can be made more permanent, or that your rank can be advanced. This conclusion has been reached after extended consideration and will not, I feel certain, be modified by further discussion or debate.

In the budget letter you are being recommended for an appointment for the academic year 1941-42 as Lecturer at a stipend of $3,000.

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT M. HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns was not amused

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

January 21, 1941

Professor Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

My dear Professor Haig:

I have now had an opportunity of reading with more care your letter of December 9th which you handed to me yesterday and I find it is of a nature which obviously calls for a formal acknowledgment from me. Will you therefore please accept this letter as such? Since no reasons are given for the decision you have conveyed to me there is clearly no comment that I can make, ever were any comment appropriate.

I understood you to say that it would be unnecessary for me formally to give you in writing my reasons for being unwilling to accept a full time appointment as lecturer at a stipend of $3,000, and that you would explore the possibilities of a part time arrangement.

There is, however, one phrase in your letter to which I must take exception for the purposes of the record. In the last paragraph but one of your letter you use the words “in spite of previous notice.” I should like to state formally that to the best of my knowledge no such clear statement of the intentions of the faculty has ever been given to me. On the contrary, on each occasion when I have sought a clarification of the situation from the Dean or, at his suggestion, from other members of the faculty, I have always been given to understand that the individual approached was personally sympathetic to my cause and anxious to see my position regularized but that it would take time for this result to be achieved because of certain admitted difficulties which it was hoped would ultimately be removed.

At varying times I have been informed that there were difficulties because of: (a) my sex, (b) the fact that my husband was also on the staff, (c) the personal objections of an individual faculty member; or that it was undesirable to make a formal recommendation at the time because: (a) a recommendation was being made in favor of my husband and it would be unwise to make recommendations for both husband and wife simultaneously, or (b) that there were staff members, junior to myself, whose economic situations were more pressing than mine, or (c) that it would be advisable to wait until my book on British Unemployment Relief was published, or (d) that there was a general shortage of funds in the university.

In these circumstances I feel that it was not unreasonable for me to draw the conclusion, especially in view of the evident validity of the last consideration cited, that the problem was one of “when”, rather than “whether”, my position would be regularized.

The only occasion on which I was given any indication that this might not be the correct interpretation was in December 1938 when Professor McCrea informed me that while the Department was anxious to expand the work in Social Security, there was some disposition on the part of certain members with whom he had talked to feel that they would like to bring in some outside person to head up the work. I immediately offered my resignation to the Dean, on the ground that for me to continue at Columbia University under such circumstances would not be consistent with my standing in my field and the fact that I had for so long been teaching this subject. Moreover, I pointed out that such a decision implied the negation of any hopes of promotion that I might have formed.

At the request of the Dean, I withdrew my resignation until he could call a meeting of the faculty to discuss the question of my future in the University and at his request I furnished him with a list of my professional activities and publications and the names of outstanding experts in my field from whom he could obtain an opinion as to my standing. That meeting was held in January or February of 1939 and I subsequently received a letter from the Dean (which I do not have with me in Washington) informing me that the decision had been “favorable to my cause” or words to that effect. In those circumstances I felt, wrongly as it now appears, that I was justified in not proceeding with my resignation.

I wish to make it very clear that I am calling attention to these facts solely for the purposes of the record. Even had your letter not emphasized the finality of the judgment, I feel that if my colleagues were prepared to reach such a decision after my thirteen years of service without giving me any reasons therefor, it is unrealistic to expect that their attitude would be changed by any reminder of the facts that I have reported. Nor have I any desire to claim, on the grounds of obligation, expressed or implied, a recognition which the faculty is unwilling for other reasons to give me.

May I say how very sincerely I appreciate your frankness and friendliness yesterday in performing a task which I know could not have been a pleasant one for you. I cannot but feel that had my other colleagues displayed an equal candor and courage during the last seven or eight years, the problem of planning my professional and personal life would have been greatly simplified.

Yours very sincerely,

Eveline M. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Terms of ex-dearment

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

February 15, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Eve Burns:

This is to report to you that on behalf of the Department I have today sent to the Provost of the University a recommendation that you be appointed Lecturer for the academic year 1941-1942, on a part-time basis, at a stipend of $2,500. This, I understand, conforms to your wishes. This appointment contemplates that you will offer one course and will be available for dissertation, essay, and general Departmental work within the area of your special field. It is understood that the arrangement is for a single year, with no commitment by either of us for the period beyond June, 1942.

I have placed your letter of January 21st in the University file.

I had thought of the New York School of Social Work, but I am told that, for the present at least, there is no opening there that would be attractive to you. There is, however, an opening at Hunter College (which may involve the chairmanship of the Department at $6,000 or more) and I have suggested you name to them.

Faithfully yours,

[unsigned, presumably Robert M. Haig]

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns to Department
Roger that.

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

February 27, 1941

Dr. Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Haig:

I wish to thank you for your letter of February 15th stating that you have sent forward a recommendation for my appointment as Lecturer for the academic year 1941-42 on a part-time basis at a stipend of $2,500. I have also noted your statement that the arrangement is for a single year with no commitment for the period beyond June 1942.

Sincerely yours,

Eveline M. Burns

Director of Research, Committee on
Long Range Work and Relief Policies

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (appreares to have been dictated) no signature, no printed letterhead):

November 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Que [sic] Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Doctor Burns:

Last January, after you had expressed your unwillingness to accept reappointment as full-time lecturer at $3,000, the part-time arrangement presently in force was made with the understanding that it involved no commitment beyond June, 1942.

In accordance with a decision reached at a conference of members of the department last night, I have included in the budget letter a recommendation that no provision be made for the continuance of your connection with the department beyond the end of the current academic year.

As I send you this communication I am certain that I speak for all of the members of the department in expressing regret for the circumstances which have prevented the realization of some of our hopes and in expressing appreciation of the contribution you have made to our joint product during the period of your association with Columbia.

With renewed assurances of my personal esteem, I am

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Repeat: you quit, you were not fired

December 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 10th.

My understanding of the course of events in your case, based on the written record and upon my recollection of our conversation on January 20th, 1941, is this:

            1) You demanded promotion and expressed an unwillingness to return to us as a full time lecturer at $3,000;

            2) You were then told, both orally and in writing, that there was no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science;

            3) Thereupon you suggested a special arrangement for 1941-2, stated, both orally and in writing, to be temporary in character, and to involve no commitment on either side beyond June 30, 1942.

            It would seem to be correct to describe what happened as a voluntary withdrawal by you from your position as lecturer because of your dissatisfaction with that status and your unwillingness to continue in it in the face of the University’s inability to promise advancement. It would seem to be incorrect to describe it as a “dismissal”. We decline to regard it as such in our discussions with you and certainly shall not describe it as such in any communications with outsiders who may have an interest in you.

Since, according to my understanding, you were not dismissed, but withdrew, I cannot supply you with the reason for your “dismissal”. You insisted upon promotion. Your colleagues regretfully decided that it was not possible to encourage you to expect promotion to professorial rank and a permanent career in the department.

With respect to the confidential character of the statements at the decisive meeting, I should like to make it clear that, while we agreed not to report each others’ remarks at the meeting, there was no agreement that would preclude any individual who felt so inclined from giving you his own opinion of your qualities in such detail as he might desire.

Yours truly,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
We said: you weren’t fired, you quit

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

January 6, 1942

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 30th, 1941. [Not found in my files]

I am sorry that my recollection of what occurred at our oral interview on January 20th, 1941 does not substantiate in all particulars the statements you make in this letter. My recollection of what occurred is set forth in my letter of December 22d, 1941.

Yours truly,

ROBERT M. HAIG.

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Salary Structure of Economics Staff at Columbia and Barnard
1941-42

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
The Budget as Adopted for 1941-42

Office or Item

Incumbent

1941-1942
ActualAppropriations

McVickar Professor Political Economy Robert M. Haig $9,000.
Professor of Political Economy Leo Wolman $9,000.
Professor of Economic History V. G. Simkhovitch $9,000.
Professor Wesley C. Mitchell $9,000.
Professor John Maurice Clark $9,000.
Professor James Waterhouse Angell $7,500
Professor Carter Goodrich $7,500
Professor Harold Hotelling $7,500
Professor Horace Taylor $6,500
Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns $4,500.
Assistant Professor Robert L. Carey $3,600.
Assistant Professor Boris M. Stanfield $3,600.
Assistant Professor Joseph Dorfman $3,600.
Honorary Associate Richard T. Ely ($1,000.)
Instructor Hubert F. Havlik $3,000.
Instructor C. Lowell Harriss $2,400.
($300.)
Instructor Walt W. Rostow $2,400.
Instructor Courtney C. Brown $2,700.
Instructor Harold Barger $3,000.
Instructor Donald W. O’Connell ($2,400.)
Lecturer Carl T. Schmidt $3,000.
Lecturer (Winter Session) Robert Valeur ($1,500.)
Lecturer Eveline M. Burns $2,500.
Lecturer Louis M. Hacker $3,000.
Lecturer Michael T. Florinsky $2,700.
Lecturer Abraham Wald $2,400.
($600.)
Visiting Lecturer Arthur F. Burns ($2,000.)**
Departmental appropriation $800.
Assistance $1,200.
$118,400.

** Chargeable to salary of Prof. Mitchell, absent on leave.

BARNARD COLLEGE:
Economics Budget for 1941-42

Associate Professor Elizabeth F. Baker $5,000.
Assistant Professor Raymond J. Saulnier $3,600.
Instructor Donald B. Marsh $2,400.
Instructor Mirra Komarovsky $2,700.
Lecturer Clara Eliot $2,700.
Assistant in Economics and Social Science Mary M. van Brunt $1,000
$17,400.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folders “Economics Budget, 1940-1941” and “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

But don’t cry for Eveline M. Burns
She did very well for herself.

A Festschrift was published in honour of Professor Burns in 1969 under the title: Social Security in International Perspective: Essays in Honor of Eveline M. Burns, Ed. Shirley Jenkins, New York and London, Columbia University Press.

____________________________

Eveline M. Burns’ Publications:

“The French Minimum Wage Act of 1915” in Economica, III, 1923;

“The Economics of Family Endowment” in Economica, V, 1925;

Wages and the State: A Comparative Study of the Problems of State Wage Regulations, London, P. S. King and Son, 1926;

The Economic World: A Survey (with A. R. Burns), London, Oxford University Press, 1927;

“Achievements of the British Pension System” in Old-Age Security: Proceedings of the Second National Conference, New York, American Association of Old-Age Security, 1929;

“Planning and Unemployment” in Socialist Planning and a Socialist Program, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, Falcon Press, 1932;

“Misconceptions of European Unemployment Insurance” in Social Security in the United States: 1933, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1933;

“Lessons from British and German Experience” in Social Security in the United States: 1934, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1934;

“Can Social Insurance Provide Social Security?” in Social Security in the United States: 1935, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1935;

“The Lessons of German Experience with Unemployment Relief” in Lectures on Current Economic Problems, Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Graduate School, 1936;

“Basic Principles in Old-Age Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1936, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1936;

Memorandum on “Wall Street Journal” Articles, Washington, Bureau of Research and Statistics (Memorandum No. 3), 1936

Towards Social Security: An Explanation of the Social Security Act and a Survey of the Larger Issues, London, Whittlesey House, and New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936;

“Social Realities versus Technical Obfuscations” in Social Security in the United States: 1937, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1937;

The Arguments for and against the Old-Age Reserve, Washington, Social Security Board, 1938;

“Some Fundamental Consideration in Social Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1940, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1940;

British Unemployment Programs 1920-38 (Report prepared for the Committee on Social Security), Washington, Social Science Research Council, 1941;

Security, Work and Relief Policies (Report of the Committee on Long-Range Work and Relief Policies to the National Resources Planning Board: Eveline M. Burns, Director of Research), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942;

“Building for Economic Security—Six Foundation Stones” in The Third Freedom: Freedom from Want, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, League for Industrial Democracy, 1943;

“Equal Access to Health” and “Equal Access to Economic Security” in National Resources Development Report for 1943 (Part I), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943;

Discussion and Study Outline on Social Security, Washington, National Planning Association (Planning Pamphlets No. 33), 1944;

“Social Security” in Economic Reconstruction, Ed. S. E. Harris, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1945;

“Economic Factors in Family Life” in The Family in the Democratic Society, New York, Columbia University Press, 1949;

“How Much Social Welfare Can America Afford?” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1949, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1950;

“Social Insurance in Evolution” in Readings in Labor Economics, Ed. F. S. Doody, Cambridge (Mass.), Addison Wesley Press, 1950;

The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edition, 1951;

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1950: An Appendix to The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1951;

“An Expanded Role for Social Work” in Social Work Education in the United States, Ed. E. V. Hollis and A. L. Taylor, New York, Columbia University Press, 1951;

“Fifteen Years under the Social Security Act: An Evaluation” in Current Issues in Social Security, Ed. L. MacDonald, New York University, Institute of Labor Relations and Social Security, 1951;

“The Doctoral Program: Progress and Problems” in Social Work Education in the Post-Master’s Program. No. 1: Guiding Principles, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1953;

Comments on the Chamber of Commerce Social Security Proposals, Chicago, American Public Welfare Association, 1953;

Private and Social Insurance and the Problem of Social Security, Ottawa, Canadian Welfare Council, 1953;

“Significant Contemporary Issues in the Expansion and Consolidation of Government Social Security Programs” in Economic Security for Americans: An Appraisal of the Progress made from 1900 to 1953, New York, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 1954;

“The Role of Government in Social Welfare” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1954, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1954;

“The Financing of Social Welfare” in New Directions in Social Work, New York, Harper, 1954;

America’s Role in International Social Welfare (Editor), New York, Columbia University Press, 1955;

Social Security and Public Policy, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956;

“Welfare Assistance” in A Report to the Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City of New York, by the New York City Fiscal Relations Committee, New York, The Committee, 1956;

Papers and Proceedings of the Conference on Social Policy and Social Work Education, Arden House, April 1957 (Editor), New York, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University, 1957;

“Social Policy and the Social Work Curriculum” in Objectives of the Social Work Curriculum of the Future, by W. W. Boehm, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1959;

“The Government’s Role in Child and Family Welfare” in The Nation’s Children, Vol. III: Problems and Prospects, Ed. Eli Ginsberg, New York, Columbia University Press, 1960;

“A Salute to Twenty-Five Years of Social Security” in Social Security: Programs, Problems and Policies, Ed. W. Haber and W. J. Cohen, Homewood (Illinois), R. D. Irwin, 1960;

“Issues in Social Security Financing” in Social Security in the United States: Lectures Presented by the Chancellor’s Committee on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Social Security Act, Berkeley, University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1961;

A Research Program for the Social Security Administration, Washington, U.S. Government Printer, 1961;

“Introduction” in Federal Grants and Public Assistance: A Comparative Study of Policies and Programmes in U.S.A and India, by Saiyid Zafar Hasan, Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1963;

“The Functions of Private and of Social Insurance” in Studi sulle assicurazione raccolti in occasione del cinquanterario dell’Istituto Nazionale della Assicurazioni, Ed. A. Giuffre, Milan, 1963;

“The Determinants of Policy” in In Aid of the Unemployed, Ed. J. M. Becker, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965;

“Social Security in America: The Two Systems—Public and Private” in Labor in a Changing America, Ed. W. Haber, New York, Basic Books, 1966;

“Income Maintenance Policies and Early Retirement” in Technology, Manpower, and Retirement Policy, Ed. J. M. Kreps, Cleveland, World Publishing Co., 1966;

“The Challenge and the Potential of the Future” in Comprehensive Health Services for New York City (Report of the Mayor’s Commission on the Delivery of Personal Health Services), New York, The Commission, 1967;

“Foreword” in Poor Law to Poverty Program, by Samuel Mencher, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967;

“The Future Course of Public Welfare” in Position Papers and Major Related Data for the Governor’s Conference, Albany (New York), New York State Board of Social Welfare, 1967;

Social Policy and the Health Services: The Choices Ahead, New York, American Public Health Association, 1967;

“Productivity and the Theory of Wages” in London Essays in Economics, Ed. T. E. Gregory and H. Dalton, London, G. Routledge, 1927; republished, Freeport (New York), Books for Libraries Press, 1967;

Children’s Allowances and the Economic Welfare of Children (Editor and Contributor), New York, Citizen’s Committee for Children, 1968;

“Needed Changes in Welfare Programs” in Urban Planning and Social Policy, New York, Basic Books, 1968;

“Social Security in Evolution—Towards What?” in Unions, Management and the Public, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 3rdedition, 1968;

“A Commentary on Gunnar Myrdal’s Essay on the Social Sciences and their Impact on Society” in Social Theory and Social Invention, Ed. H. D. Stein, Cleveland, Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1968;

“Welfare Reform and Income Security Policies” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1970, Proceedings of the National Conference on Social Welfare, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970;

“Health Care System” in Encyclopedia of Social Work, New York, National Association of Social Workers, 1971

____________________________

Eveline Mabel Burns
C.V.

Vital information:

Born: Eveline Mabel Richardson on March 16, 1900 in Norwood, London.

Married: Arthur Robert Burns (b. December 2, 1895; d. January 20 1981) of London, 1922.

U.S. Citizenship: 1937.

Died: September 2, 1985 in Newton, Pennsylvania.

Education:

B.Sc. (Econ.), Ph.D. (London), Honorary D.H.L. (Western College; Adelphi; Columbia), Honorary LL.D. (Western Reserve University). Professor Emeritus, Columbia University, since 1967; and Consultant Economist, Community Service Society, New York, since 1971.

Streatham Secondary School, 1913-16; London School of Economics and Political Science, 1916-20; London County Council Tuition Scholarship; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1st Class Honors in Economics, 1920; Ph.D., 1926; Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926.

Positions Held

(1)  Normal Full-time Positions

Title of Position. Name of Institution/Organization. Years of Tenure. Compensation

Junior Administrative Officer. Ministry of Labor, London, England. 1917-21. £ 250

Assistant Lecturer, London School of Economics, University of London. 1921-28 (On Leave 1926-8). £ 350

Lecturer, Graduate Department of Economics, Columbia University. 1928-42 (on leave 1940-2). $ 3000-3500

Chief, Economic Security and Health Section, National Resources Planning Board, Washington, D. C. 1940-3. $ 7500

Professor of Social Work and Chairman and Administrative Officer, Doctoral Committee, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University. 1946 to [retired 1967] $ 9500

(2)  Special Assignments

London School of Economics. Asst, Editor, Economica, 1922-6.

University of London Social Security Committee. Senior Staff Officer, 1937-9. $6500

Social Science Research Council

National Planning Association, Washington, D. C. Consultant on Social Security, 1943-4. $7000

(3)  Visiting Professorships

Anna Howard Shaw Lecturer, Bryn Mawr College, 1944
Visiting Professor, Bryn Mawr College, 1945-6
Visiting Professor, Princeton University, 1951

I have also given short courses or individual lectures at the following institutions:

Department of Economics, University of Chicago
Smith College School for Social Work
Littauer Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard Univ.
School of Applied Social Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
School of Applied Sciences, Western Reserve University

For several years I have conducted the Advanced Seminar arranged by the Social Security Administration for its senior staff, and have given brief seminars for foreign social security experts brought to this country by the Mutual Security Agency

(4)  Consultantships

Consultant, Committee on Economic Security, Washington, 1934-5
Principal Consulting Economist, Social Security Board, 1936-40
Consultant, Social Security Administration, 1948 to date

I have also served as consultant on specific issues to the:

United States Treasury
The Federal Reserve Board
The Works Progress Administration
The New York State Department of Labor

OTHER DISTINCTIONS

Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Fellowship, 1926-8
Guggenheim Fellowship, 1954-5
Florina Lasker Award (“for outstanding contributions in the field of Social Security”), 1960
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Western College, 1962
Honorary LLD, Western Reserve University, 1963
Honorary Fellow, London School of Economics, 1963
Bronfman Lecturer, American Public Health Assn., 1966
Ittelson Medal (“for contributions to Social planning”), 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Adelphi University, 1968
Woman of Achievement Award, American Assn. of University Women, 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Columbia University, 1969

POSITIONS OF CIVIC OR NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, MEMBERSHIP OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, ETC.

Member American Economic Association (Member of Executive Ctte, 1951-3  and Vice-President, 1953-4)
National Conference on Social Welfare (Secretary, 1955, First-Vice President, 1956 and President, 1957-58)
American Public Health Association (Vice-President, 1969-70)
Vice-President and President, Consumers’ League of New York, 1935-8
Member and Chairman of various committees, Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security, 1952-70
Member, Legislative Policy Committee, American Public Welfare Assn., 1956-68
Member, Steering Committee, White House Conference on Children, 1959-60
Member, Federal Advisory Committee on Area Redevelopment, Subsequently the National Committee on Regional Economic Development, 1961-69
Member, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Hobby’s Advisory Committee on Coverage Extension of the Social Security Act, 1953-4
American Delegate to International Conference on Social Welfare, 1958, and member of Steering Ctte and Vice-Chairman of Commission I
Chairman, Social Security Administration Advisory Committee on Long Range Research, 1961-5
Member, President Johnson’s Task Force on Income Security Policy, 1964
Member of Sub-Committee on Social Policy for Health Care and member of its Executive Committee, N. Y. Academy of Medicine 1964 to date
Member, Mayor Lindsay’s Commission on Delivery of Health Service in New York City, 1967-8
Member, National Council, American Assn. of University Professors 1961-4

Original Source: Eveline Burns Papers. Box 1. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Social Welfare History Archives. Minneapolis, MN.

Transcribed and posted on line: Davidann, J. & Klassen, D. (2002). Eveline Mabel Richardson Burns (1900-1985) — Social economist, author, educator and contributor to the development of the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Welfare History Project.

Image: Eveline Mabel Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Harry Johnson opposes major appointment to be offered to Gary Becker, 1964

From the perspective of today it is rather difficult to imagine that the idea of bringing favorite son Gary Becker back to the University of Chicago from Columbia could have faced any, much less, serious resistance from within the economics department. But as the following letters from Zvi Griliches’ papers in the Harvard archives show, Harry Johnson’s displeasure with this prospect was a force taken most seriously by several of his colleagues, at least in the Spring of 1964. Perhaps more was at play than Johnson’s principle objection to a Becker hire:

“…his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him.”

Johnson offered another interesting claim with regard to 1964 Chicago faculty expectations for a Ph.D. thesis:

I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (‘the quality and length of a good journal article’)…

Perhaps the birth of the concept of a job-market-paper?

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

May 20, 1964

To: Al Harberger, Zvi Griliches

From: Al Rees

Re: Gary Becker

The question of an appointment for Gary will be discussed at a Department Meeting on June 4. I enclose a copy of a confidential memo from Harry in which he opposes the appointment. Harry will be in Italy on June 4 and cannot present his views in person. I would very much like to have your reaction before the meeting.

You should also know that appointments are being offered this week to Jimmy Savage and to Hans Theil, both at high salaries and both joint with the School of Business. There seems to be a very high probability that both will be accepted.

I am somewhat concerned about the number of tenure posts the Administration will let us have; in particular, I do not want to do anything that might “freeze out” Larry Sjaastad, for whom I have very high hopes.

Another consideration is the effect on Harry of making a senior appointment that he opposes. He seems to feel somehow outnumbered and is still actively considering a move to London.

Gregg has already put to you the case for Gary; in any case you know his stengths too well to need to be reminded of them.

[signed] Al

_____________________

 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date May 19, 1964

CONFIDENTIAL

To: A. Rees
From: H.G. Johnson
In re: [Economics] Department Meeting, June 4th

As I will not be at the departmental meeting on June 4th, I am taking the unusual course of putting on paper my views about certain matters due for discussion, on which I would have spoken.

I. A. (1) The thesis prospectus seminar on Choudhri was dissatisfied with the prospectus; it considered making him prepare a new prospectus, but decided instead to make him get agreement from the three members of his Committee on a new draft. Earl Hamilton was in favor of another prospectus seminar, but was overruled. I have had second thoughts, and believe that the matter should be reconsidered, for the following reasons:

(a) next year’s money workshop will be in different hands than this year’s; I am worried that, in the rush to get students past their prospectus seminar, we will land next year’s workshop with a batch of poorly thought out prospectuses that will have to be patched up with great labor.

(b) Choudhri has an excellent record; he should be able to do much better, and we should make him do better–if we let him get by with low-quality work, we are doing his future career a disservice.

(c) I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (“the quality and length of a good journal article’), bad for student morale, and inimical to good teaching. An example in this case would be salutary, and it would do Choudhri himsèlf little harm and probably some good.

I. A. (1) I would like to recommend strongly that we go after R. A. Mundell for the Ford Fellowship for 1965-66. Mundell is one of the most original and elegant moentary theorists going: he has contributed to the theory of economic policy under fixed and floating exchange rates, and started off the analysis of optimum currency areas, and he has made a number of contributions to the price theory of money and of inflation. He is also a first-class international trade and general value theorist, and a man who is always ready for an intelligent argument. Apart from our mathematical economists, we have no-one here with Mundell’s interest in pure monetary and value theory; and we have no-one with his practical experience at the IMF. I should add that I have suggested Mundell partly because I have talked with him, and he would like to spend 1965-66 in this area.

I. B. (2) Just as strongly, I feel that the department should not pursue the proposal to offer a tenure appointment to Gary Becker. I have a high respect for Becker’s theoretical abilities; but as his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him. 

In addition, I would point out that Becker is probably the most distinguished graduate this department had had in recent years, and that going after him would be a repetition of the cannibalization-of-the-young policy that in my judgment has seriously weakened this department in the past decade or so. Unless we get our good graduates established in good departments in other Universities, we are going to have to live with the present image of the Chicago School in the profession at large, and we are not going to have representatives in other good universities steering good students towards us. If we persistently try to bring our own best back, we will defeat ourselves in the long run in two ways: we will not get the students; and we will not get the top-quality men we should get either, because we are bound to miss out on some of our own, and the fact that a new non-Chicagoan will necessarily be one of a minority outgroup will make the place unattractive to such men.

I am also fairly sure that Becker would not come, because he is intelligent enough to know that he should not come and begause he is well entrenched at Columbia, where a number of senior men are due to be replaced and will be replaced by men of his own

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

June 15, 1964

Professor Zvi Griliches

The Maurice Falk Institute for
Economic Research in Israel
17, Keren Hayesod Street
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Zvi:

I have your letter of June 7.

At the Department Meeting a week ago last Friday, we took no action on Richard Moorsteen other than agreeing to invite him to come to Chicago for a visit next fall. We agreed to invite Bob Mundell to join our faculty for the year 1965-66 on the Ford Foundation Professorship.

The Department took no action on my proposal to offer a major appointment to Gary Becker. It is likely that the question will come up again next fall and you will be here then to state your own point of view.

It is quite clear now that Theil is not going to give us his decision until after his return to the Netherlands. At the moment I am fairly optimistic that when he makes his decision, it will be favorable. Theil has been offered a quite good package, I think, and I judge from conversations with him that he feels he also has a good package.

Furthermore, Judy got the impression that Laura Theil would be favorable to coming here.

You ask in the postscript to your letter whether I got a raise. I presume that what was in your mind was the question: Will I get a raise if the chairmanship is offered to me and I accept it?

I can’t answer your  question for sure since the chairmanship has not been offered to me. Indeed, I have taken steps at this end to try to insure that it won’t be offered to me. If it is offered to me, it is very unlikely I will accept it. Indeed, I can’t imagine that the terms on which it would be offered would be sufficiently attractive to induce me to accept.

Sincerely,

[signed] Gregg

H.G. Lewis

HGL/agm

Source: Harvard University Archives, Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder „Correspondence, 1960-1969“.

Image Sources: Harry Johnson (Archives of two giants of economics donated to the U Chicago Library. U Chicago News, October 25, 2018); Gary Becker (University of Chicago Booth School Nobel Laureate Page for Gary Becker).

Categories
Columbia

Columbia. Personal Narrative of the Columbia Crisis. A.G. Hart, May 1968

 

This contemporary eye-witness report of the events of April/May 1968 by Columbia University economics Professor Albert G. Hart can be found in the economics department records in the Columbia University archives. Added to this transcription of a rather faint mimeographed copy is a link to a convenient overview of those events assembled by the Columbia University Libraries.

Hart was clearly writing for his colleagues but also for us historians (he closes with the German text from Buxtehude’s “Du Frieden-Fürst, Herr Jesu Christ”, and not just a phrase but three full stanzas without translation. Learned showboat?). He also didn’t want his report to leak to academic adversaries, but I think with over a half-century between us and this document, we can now legitimately “declassify” Hart’s 26-page typed “Annotated Narrative of the Columbia University Crisis”.

______________________________

Who’s Who and What’s When
Columbia University, Apr/May 1968

Columbia University Libraries. Web exhibit: 1968 — Columbia in Crisis.

______________________________

ANNOTATED NARRATIVE OF THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CRISIS
CONFIDENTIAL

From: A.G. HART
4 May 1968

To:

J.W. [James W.] ANGELL
H. [Harold] BARGER
A.R. BURNS [sic, A.R.B. was 73 at the time, A.F.B. was 64]
C. [Carter] GOODRICH
C.S. [Carl S.] SHOUP
W.S. [William S.] VICKREY

You will all obviously find yourselves in a position where you must explain to outsiders what has been happening to us at the University; and I hope you will feel impelled to offer us some counsel. Hence, you ought to be getting some word from us as to how things feel, with enough detail on the happenings to show where we get these feelings. It’s quite plain I won’t get around to writing all the indicated personal letters; hence this circular. Please don’t take it as a complete briefing (even in my intention, let alone in fact): I was well-placed to observe and saw a lot; but I was watching at any time only one segment of one ring of the 12-ring circus and was rarely calm.

The format of this paper is an annotated narrative rather than an analysis. Diagnosis[,] prognosis and prescription have to go on while we’re sick and I am much involved. But it would be pretentious to claim full understanding; and a sketch of a chronology is necessary in any case. Hence I use a chronological skeleton. While I think one can produce a much more coherent report by addressing it to somebody in particular I want to be in a position to show this to a moderate number of people outside its address list. Largely for this reason, I avoid name-dropping except where I am clear that the act or utterance in question was designedly public and that to put a name to it is illuminating about the general process at work.

Before I dive in, let me say that so far as my observation an intake of reliable gossip reach, none of the economists (senior faculty, junior faculty and students) seem to have done or said things that will prevent us from working together in harmony and mutual respect. Things that may yet take a serious turn for the worse; but I think the Department of Economics is coming through in good shape.

Opening episodes

Tuesday, 23 April. While most of us knew there was ferment among the students (and my wife was hearing almost daily from Negro co-workers in West Side Relocation that the Morningside Park gym was going to be a focus for riots), it was a surprise to most of [us] that the troubles erupted so suddenly and strongly. I arrived on the 5th floor of Kent for a 12-o’clock class just as the announced protest and counter-protest got under way in front of Low Library. Having put together my normal prefabricated notes I was moderately coherent about regional problems within Latin American countries. When I told a student who insisted on gawking out the window that I’d “lower the guillotine” to reduce the noise; he walked out; wasn’t ours after all; but just a fellow with a camera? We heard some cries of “Let’s go” and a lot of rushing about. (The surge was first toward Low then towards Hamilton. Eyewitnesses tell me, what I could have seen from our window but missed that when the demonstrators crossed flower beds, they managed to avoid trampling the tulips, which were best-ever).

By early afternoon, we all knew that Hamilton was occupied. But while it was a curious sensation to walk past Hamilton — especially after rumors spread that Harlem had been invited in — the rest of the campus was more or less normal. The monetary seminar met in Haskell with only moderate signs of distraction; office hours were normal. Tuesday evening I read dissertations.

Wednesday, 24 April. Wednesday also had an air of quasi-normality; though one learned that the blacks in Hamilton had evicted the other occupants who in turn had “liberated” much of Low Library.* From the faculty standpoint, it was refreshing that the College Faculty met and passed some resolutions.1 Above all it called for cessation of work at the site of the Morningside Park gym project and for an announcement that work would not be resumed unless building there was accepted on behalf of the community by some group of community leaders.2

____________

*Spectator, which seems suddenly to have jumped from adolescent to adult approaches, reported this most interestingly—though with some confusion between hours AM and PM. The rumor that blacks imported by the “Afro-American students” from Harlem[?] as “representatives” of various organizations were taking charge with guns, was apparently traceable to what the ineffable Mr. [Mark] Rudd told his constituents inside Hamilton.

1 The Faculty of Political Science had met on Friday the 19th, with the weakest attendance I have ever witnessed—about 20, which I am told was a shade higher than the 1967 meeting when I was in Frankfurt. Robert Merton remarked near the end of this meeting that we had managed to sit an hour and a half without discussing anything that wasn’t merely procedural, and told us we’d simply have to find ways to revivify faculty meetings by having an agenda with real substantive content that would command participation.

2 I find I am unclear as to what stand was taken on “University participation in IDA [Institute for Defense Analyses]”: of course, I have no seat in the College Faculty, and I find I haven’t either brought the relevant papers to Connecticut for this breather Nor stored my mind with any clear memory of what I may have been told by the brethren who were at the meeting.
The IDA issue is of course typical on the interplay between the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] agitation and Kirk’s reactions. They chose to ignore (though never quite denying) the fact that the Trustees had voted withdrawal, and to concentrate on the fact that Kirk and one trustee remained as directors.
As one of the economics graduate students closest to the strike leadership said at the department gathering last night (May 3), the strike couldn’t lose while it had Kirk to oppose it! Why didn’t he have the wit to withdraw as director so as to make the University’s withdrawal unambiguous?

____________

Closing of Fayerweather

Thursday, 25 April. On Thursday morning I arrived at Fayerweather to find that there was a picket line circulating in front of the south door, and a solid mass of cheerful-looking youngsters sitting on the steps inside.Various classes (including Wellisz’s Development) had been held normally at 9 o’clock, but Wellisz, having left, was locked out.

____________

3 Yes, the grey-haired and unidentified professor the back of whose head (stuck into Fayerweather door at an interrogative angle) got into the Daily News, Times, and other spots was AGH. I was looking to see whether anybody on the steps looked to me like a student I’d ever seen before; none did. Paul Lazarsfeld, who came up with me (wanting to go to his office) also looked and recognized nobody; though other sociologists told me some of their students were on those steps.

____________

            While Lazersfeld and I were at the door, people inside closed and locked it. Then there was thinning out of students inside. Presently there was a lot of talking and moving around, and inside the door appeared Eileen Christianson (at top of the steps also Eva Kiessling); Eileen was fumbling with a key in the lock. My impression was that she wanted out and was being kept in; so when in the confusion the door opened, I stuck my foot in it. None of us from outside tried to push in. It turned out that what was up was a protest-within-the-protest. Eileen objected to having her work (on behalf of students) interfered with; and if the lads said “strike”, she’d have them know that she’d worked six years for a trade union, knew what a proper strike was, and saw this “strike” was out of order! Things were getting hotter; messenger from Hamilton wanted to know if Fayerweather wanted some of them to come over: TV men on the steps were trying to tape the excitement, and I was afraid (though I didn’t actually touch anybody) that there might be pictures that looked as if faculty were hitting students. So I urged Eileen to adjourn upstairs; she and Eva later left by a 300-floor window (room 302 if that’s the seminar-room under the examination room) that later became the portal for an enormous traffic.

I met my 12:00 class in Kent, and we talked largely about affinities between this trouble and those in Latin American universities. One of the Argentinos had remarked to me outside Fayerweather that while they had strikes, LA students couldn’t have tolerated a strike that hadn’t been voted by a proper student-body meeting. I asked the students in Kent (about 2/3 of normal attendance) whether they’d had any notice of a meeting at which they could consider a strike, and not one had had such notice or heard of a meeting he could go to.

So far as I can remember it, Thursday afternoon was when arm-bands began to blossom, and there began to be people at the gates (only those at the ends of College Walk were left open) calling for a look at University identification.

Thursday afternoon and evening I still felt able to get ahead a bit with my current research project and with dissertations. It didn’t seem unplausible that one would wake up Friday and find everything had blown over. There was still blasting to be heard from the gym site, but one expected to hear that the University was backing off.

Faculty mobilization

Friday morning, 26 April. So far as I was concerned, my last more-or-less-normal act before plunging into the crisis as full-time occupation was to pick up some computer printout early Friday morning. By this time, one was getting reports of very awkward “confrontations” involving faculty. There had been some sort of hassle in front of Fayerweather and another around Low. I had the impulse (which evidently was rather common among the brethren) that we should be trying to get the faculties convoked. My notion was to get the 20 signatures on a paper addressed to Sigmund Diamond as chairman of the Committee on Instruction which (according to a conversation between Low and Fayerweather with Diamond and Dean Frankel on Thursday sometime) would be necessary to convoke Political Science according to the members’-demand procedure. My first thought was to circulate on campus with a clip-board; but my wife persuaded me that might help stir things up. Wellisz and I concocted a paper calling for a meeting with primary emphasis on trying to define in advance a distinction between modes of police action we must reject and modes we might accept in case of a decision to clear the by-now-five occupied buildings. Wellisz (though late for a meeting in Harlem) let me into the International Affairs building, which was the likeliest place to find any number of members of our Faculty that could be spoken to quietly. I came out a couple of hours later with several signatures (nearer 10 than 20) and with advice not to push a call till we’d heard from the Advisory Committee of the Faculties. (In the end the Advisory Committee never met, or at least did nothing I’ve heard of).

Friday early afternoon, 26 April. During Friday afternoon, the word was passed that an informal meeting was to be held late in the afternoon at the Faculty Club, consisting of available members of the three Committees on Instruction of the Graduate Faculties, augmented by such ex-department-chairmen types as me. Meanwhile, I dropped into Philosophy Hall, which bore a sign (one of the few conspicuous touches of humor in this dead-pan affair) “liberated by the faculty”, and where somebody-or-other at the door insisted on seeing faculty identification. I had been warned that a group of light-weights had been holding a marathon meeting in 301 Philosophy, urging all sorts of foolishness, and needed to be squelched by some senior faculty. So pending the beginning of the Faculty Club meeting, I thought I’d better visit 301 Philosophy just long enough to find a chink in their discussion into which I could insert a dignified protest. Where did these characters get the idea they could claim to speak for the faculty at large, or even could assert they were sensible enough to deserve a hearing? I sat about two minutes before I noticed that maybe I didn’t want to protest; within an hour I found that I very much respected the way they were working and might want to wear the white arm-band, which turned out to denote ad-hoc-faculty-group-as-peace-force.4

____________

4 As to becoming a member, I found I had already become one by showing faculty identification to enter Philosophy Hall and then entering room 301; if I chose, I could become a non-member by walking out at any moment without fuss, and could become a member again by walking in again. Once in a while I heard it said that to be a real member you had to put your name to a paper that committed you not to meet classes till certain “student” demands were met. But nobody either presented me with such a paper, claimed that non-signers were non-voters, or called upon me to take or authorize any action that conflicted with my quite-different principles.
By the time I came in, it was plain that the role of the ad hoc group was above all mediation. They had quite a team of mediators (among them Peter Kenen), who were rarely visible except in rapid passage — and who had to take horrible abuse from the SDS people and carry messages which they knew were not being properly transmitted to rank-and-file in the buildings.
It turned out that the group of faculty had also intervened to block an attempt of the “majority coalition” (jacket-and-tie types students, with a considerable admixture of athletes) to enter Fayerweather and dislodge the occupants, of whom (though I didn’t believe it when first told so by faculty who had been in and out the window, there were some 400. Furthermore, the group had resisted an attempt to move into Low a number of plain-clothes policemen. I think both of these were Thursday-night events, though my timing could be off here.
The white-arm-banded faculty by the time I came in were (1) manning the gates and checking University credentials for entrance; (2) circulating on campus to “cool” disturbances; and (I think so soon) manning the “ledge” around the foot of Low Library, to prevent entry through windows of people aiming to join the SDS occupants. (Exit—sorry, “egress” — was ok, with rainchecks for ingress to designated couriers escorted by mediators or members of the ad hoc group’s steering committee. Result: rapid accretion of improvised law, leading into the “Hedge-Ledge Treaty”.)

____________

Friday late afternoon, 26 April. The Friday afternoon meeting of the augmented Committees on Instruction was a heartening expression of sweet reason—but a little hard to remember in detail. For once, nobody said anything silly or inflammatory; but we did rather wonder whether we were saying anything applicable. The main outcome was a decision that the Committees should convene a joint session of the three graduate faculties.

Friday evening, so far as I can remember, went into a plenary session of the ad hoc group. Every now and then ther’d be an interruption because more people were needed at the gate, or there was need of white armbands to tone down some incipient mob scene. Early (that is, 1 AM) to bed for me.

Saturday, 27 April. Saturday was a day of prolonged meetings of the ad hoc group, with walks to talk to students. My memory is rather vague on details. Late in the day, Alan Westin (admirable chairman of the group) put it that the resources of mediation were about played out and we should move toward having a settlement-proposal. I went to dinner at the Clifford’s (Jimmy didn’t make it, being absorbed in the meeting); conversations with Kenneth Boulding, who stressed among other things seasonal aspects of disturbances.

Beginnings of formalization

Sunday morning, 28 April. Sunday opened with an 8 AM meeting of the ad hoc group, which voted some very good resolutions cooked up by the steering committee. The gymnasium-clause, especially, was a masterpiece—holding open the idea of building in the park only if agreed to by civic and community leaders picked by Mayor Lindsay. The Group held out against a commitment to amnesty for those occupying the buildings, and called for activation of a proposed tri-partite body (faculty 5, students 5, administration 2) with a named roster of members that had been negotiated (I gather largely by Peter Kenen, whose name is on it) with the strikers and Low Library.5

____________

5 Before I came in, a three-man committee with Lionel Trilling as draftsman had been proposed by the ad hoc group and empowered to draft a scheme for such a body by the administration — the first step toward a process of negotiation via agreement on a slate of people to take something in hand.

____________

            The proposal to convoke the three Graduate Faculties had expanded during Saturday into one to call the “General Faculty”—an amalgam of all faculties within the Corporation (no Barnard, and no TC [Teachers’ College]) on the Heights (no medical, no Social Work). Western Union for once got some business: invitations by telegram. This met in Law School A-B. Trilling read the almost-final report on the judicial tripartite body; Westin got to explain the ad hocgroup’s resolutions, which he did not call on the General Faculty to adopt. We voted I can’t quite remember what (including some corrective to the Trustees’ goof in characterizing the Friday suspension of blasting at the gym site as a matter of “courtesy” toward the Mayor, nothing more), and avoiding any commitment to general amnesty.

Sunday afternoon, 28 April. The afternoon so far as I can remember it, was spent outdoors. The “majority coalition” decided to move in around the occupied side of Low Library (west) and set up a food-and-ingress blockade by occupying en masse the ground between the faculty’s ledge and the surrounding hedge. (Walks outside remained as a no-man’s land). SDS tried various run-the gauntlet tricks, and we had a thick white-arm-band line on the ledge, with confused mimeographed instructions (hedge-ledge treaty) which set up something like a game of capture-the flag. Incredibly picturesque colored children swarmed, with handfuls of our tulips.

Sunday night, 28 April. In the evening, there were the usual meetings. A bad night was forecast. At midnight we diverted a small fraction of the meeting to guard duty. Having donned a white armband for the first time in the afternoon, I had a spell of gate duty and then about two went on the ledge. Very quiet. There was a pleasant encampment of “coalition” people inside the hedge, and the College Walk a camp of SDS people, with candles, guitars, etc.—very serene and rather a beautiful sight. About four a bagpiper started to skirl between the two; but somebody whispered to him and he collapsed. Fuss over flag-raising at dawn, with the “coalition” very firm on singing Star Spangled Banner. The 4AM relief of faculty didn’t turn up, which made the night rather wearing as our numbers thinned out to an extent which we were told had proved dangerous the previous night; but no adverse consequences. About 7, new white armbands began to build up, and the night-guard went off to sleep.

Monday morning, 29 April. Monday the ad hoc group convened about 10AM, and Westin announced the day would be devoted to trying to get a real rallying of sentiment to our terms of settlement. Kirk had put out a statement (printed by the Times in a box with the ad hoc group statement[)] that represented substantial concessions. We voted for a terms of-settlement package with a useful sequence: If Kirk would make recommendation to the Trustees to meet the gymnasium proposition and activate the judicial body, we would then demand that the building-occupiers come out and submit to academic due process (no amnesty, but indications of “uniform punishment”). If the strikers refused this, we would cease to “interpose” and let the Administration have a free hand to clear the buildings. Kirk came through rather promptly with a response which many of us saw as “yes but”—with a readily-negotiable but. The SDS strikers, on their side, sent us at 6 PM a complete refusal to accept these terms.

Monday evening, 29 April. When the ad hoc group reconvened in the evening, it was plain that the steering committee was rattled. Westin was able to read a long list of telegrams (Javits, the AAUP, etc.) commending our terms. But there was a whole series of disastrously bad proposals. Before Westin and the Steering Committee were on deck, there was a proposal to evacuate our ledge because of physical danger to our people there. We took a recess, looked, and came back convinced this was nonsense—though a few eggs had hit our brethren, and one large-size fruit-juice can had scored a near miss. Next the Steering Committee moved a statement that treated as substantially identical the Administration’s yes-but answer and the SDS’s resounding no. (Westin’s slogan had been “bitter pills for everybody”; as I see it, the bitter bill [sic] for us in the ad hoc group was that we had to take yes-but as yes, or else negotiate the but). This not meeting acceptance, they moved t[o] invoke arbitration to be set up by Governor Rockefeller. But it proved that they’d no evidence that arbitration would be accepted, any more than mediation, by SDS.

Monday midnight, 29 April. Adjournment rather after midnight, with no program formulated, put a lot of our people on the ledge. For my part, I had shifted myself to the 4 AM list, reckoning that with so many of our people ready to drop from exhaustion, actual arrivals of 4 AM relief men were essential so that we’d at least have a presence as observers (lacking any basis for real effectiveness) in case the “blowup” came at the most probable hour of the night.

First steps toward unwinding

Tuesday morning, 30 April. My alarm didn’t sound at 4 AM: I hadn’t pulled out the can-ring peg. (Is this what happened to the 4 AM reliefs the previous nights?) But my wife, who never wakes at such hours, had set her internal timer and poked me when the alarm-clock said 4:05. (It was 10 minutes slow). So I got to the Amsterdam gate about 4:25. The police, who had been around in force almost all the time since Thursday mid-day6, were thinned out and more in motion; nobody checking credentials at the gate. The noisy Harlem demonstration that had been at the corner at 1 AM had vanished.

____________

6The Amsterdam-Morningside block of 116th was throughout a mass of parked police cars (including horse-vans, paddy-wagons sometimes, and on the last days ordinary city buses that had brought in large batches of police). There were always a good many police on foot on the block, who would talk pretty freely. Even the mounted police weren’t totally frozen: I regretted lacking a camera when I saw a small colored boy in a red sweater petting a very placid horse with a rider up.
The police apparently held all the “100-level” tunnel network from Thursday onward, but eventually entered almost all occupied buildings by campus-level doors. When I began to circulate on the 100-level of Low, I found a small reserve on the benches near the “Security entrance”. While on the gate, I passed lots of plain-clothes police that flashed badges. One of the objectionable features of the “blowup” was that plain-clothes men took a hand without putting on visible badges.

____________

            Yes, the “blowup” had happened while I slept. The word was that mounted police had swept away the outdoor demonstrators. The Administration had given 30 minutes notice that the buildings would be cleared on bull-horns. At Hamilton (which had been the point we were afraid might lead to major trouble), there was token resistance; police went in without clubs, and occupiers came out in some order. In front of Fayerweather, a number of white-armband-types linked arms and got clubbed; police at the 54th St. station told a companion of mine that “if they link arms you have to use clubs”.There was a considerable fracas at each of the buildings with fairly solid masses of “radical” occupants (Low, Mathematics) and also at Fayerweather (into which most of the “moderates” had been displaced).

____________

7The TPF (“tactical police force”) had been around all week, and felt frustrated. A partly-rational explanation could be that they were aware that they were being kept away from other danger-points in the city and were losing sleep—hence were losing effectiveness in alternative uses. It occurs to me, too, that it may have been painful to be kept away from their taxi-driving and other “moonlighting” jobs, even though getting overtime pay.
The police group that took Hamilton must have been specially selected and indoctrinated. Most of the faculty feel that if an acceptable mode of police action was feasible there, it would have been so in the other buildings. There is no doubt, however, that the other groups were less disciplined than Hamilton. (Damage in Hamilton was limited to furniture used to barricade the doors. This may also have been true in Fayerweather before the police started smashing glass panes in doors to see who was inside. But in Mathematics and above all in the presidential suite in Low, there was damage on a large scale of strictly malicious character). The police also did not and perhaps could not have a huge superiority of numbers at points of contact: Fayerweather contained at the blowup some 300+/- 50 strikers, mostly on the 200 and 300 floors. I still regret that I wasn’t able to persuade faculty groups to consider in advance the difference between weaponless police action which would pull-and-carry and armed action which would club-and-push. We have no reports of guns being used; handcuffs were used as brass knuckles—an angle I hadn’t thought of at all.

____________

            At the corner of 116 and Amsterdam, I found a few white arm-band people who like me were just turning out, and a couple who had been on campus. The word was that we’d go to somebody’s apartment on 116th and see what we could find out by phone. I dashed home to use my own phone, alerted my wife, and called up her brother (Bethuel Webster), who coached me a bit as to how arrestees could be advised. (Only family and attorneys have a recognized right to see them; family can designate attorneys.) As I turned the corner back onto 116th, I met a young-faculty type I didn’t know, in shock with a broken head, and with a middle-aged woman; they said they wanted a phone, and I referred them to my wife, who tells me she took them in. The previous knot of faculty being invisible and not in the designated apartment, I went through an unguarded gate to Philosophy for instructions, and found 301 was a dressing-station, with no ad hoc leadership in evidence. So I took it upon myself to visit police stations. Some students at 114th and Amsterdam, who had a car, ferried me around. We found at West 100 St. that all arrestees were blacks from Hamilton, and that somebody had taken our role. At West 54th Street we found also only Hamiltonians, and the police gave us a list. At West 68th Street things were more confused: they had about 25 arrestees in stock, and refused a list. I asked if any were faculty, and the produced “one somewhat older”, who turned out to be Dankwart Rustow. The police refused to give me a list, and refused to let me hand a clip-board around; but they conveniently failed to notice when Rustow opened the door of the room they were using and handed me a slip the arrestees had all signed. This was at 6:30; Rustow said not to call his wife till 8 o’clock, as she expected to hear nothing from him sooner. Following advice from a student reporter from WKCR (which throughout has done a first-rate job of reporting) I got WKCR to come and fetch the list from 7th-floor Philosophy.

Tuesday mid-day, 30 April. It developed that the General Faculties had been called for 4 PM, and the ad hoc group had called itself for 10, 10:30 maybe? This ad hoc group gathering shifted to Earl Hall because 301 Philosophy was disrupted, then to MacMillan because Earl Hall was too small. It was finally called to order at noon. Westin proceeded to lay out a resolution the Steering Committee had framed, in a state of shock, before 10 o’clock; it opened with a resounding vote of lack of confidence in Kirk and Truman and ended with a call to “respect” the new student strike that was already visibly shaping up. A “medical report” was called for, and proved to be such an incendiary utterance that Westin had to insist the doctor give us a few facts and sit down.8 The tone of most utterances was rather frantic; a move to adopt the revolution “by acclamation”, rejected by Westin, proved hard to head off. After about an hour, Westin (after whispered consultations) announced that the Steering Committee was amending its resolution to say that so far as the strike was concerned, the ad hoc group would reconsider its position after 48 hours. From my standpoint, this was crucial: I’d still have had to vote “no”, but if the amended resolution had carried, I would not have felt I had to drop out of an organization which, taking a wrong stand, guaranteed to reconsider. After a further hour, Westin announced that in the light of the discussion the Steering Committee was convinced that it could quickly frame a much better resolution; he withdrew the resolution and called for a recess. A motion to recess proved to draw shouts pro and con. Westin was about to call a vote when somebody (I can’t remember who) objected that what with the attendance being double that of any previous meeting and with the lack of screening of identification as we shifted from Earl Hall, we could be sure that many present were not faculty and that many were so unfamiliar with our operations that they couldn’t fully gauge the situation. He suggested that those who had attended no previous meeting of the ad hoc group should abstain from voting on the recess. Angry shouts opposed him. So Westin said that with or without a recess, he withdrew the resolution and called on the Steering Committee to move with him to a place where they could work. The moment he left, one of the more responsible survivors proclaimed that the meeting had adjourned, and the great bulk of those present left.

____________

8One clearcut scandal was that although the Administration saw violence happening and knew a “blowup” was imminent, it took no steps to set up emergency medical facilities on campus. The natural consequence was that there was a volunteer group linked to the strikers. One of the Communist stereotypes of the 1930’s (cf. various works of Howard Fast) was the noble doctor who worked inside rebel lines till the damned reactionaries played on his nobility to get him in their hands. Was it really necessary for the Administration to let this hackneyed scenario be reused on our campus?

____________

            As I was leaving too, the preceptor on my left urged me to stay a minute. One of the more obstreperous members of the ad hoc group was saying very proper things—that “those who remained in the room”, as a non-meeting, might want to hear a statement on the new student strike by the Executive Vice-President of the Student Council. This lad then popped up, and with great propriety made a strictly explanatory statement (laced with hopes of faculty support), making it clear that this was a new strike to express revulsion against violence, not a continuation of the old strike, with a strike committee for the present composed of elected leaders from student organizations that had not participated in nor approved occupation of buildings, and with its statement of objectives yet to be formulated. Then the Student Council lad introduced a young African (seems to straddle faculty and student status, like many of the juniors), who had made a disturbance in the previous meeting. He started by an apology for the disturbance, went on to other remarks which I disliked but which in substance seemed admirable in spirit—and then rashly pronounced the word “motion”. Then he swallowed his tongue, evidently sensing that one can’t put motions to a non-meeting. But at least twenty voices cried “Yes: motion”. He started to unreel a form of words about “the faculty members present at this meeting”, and almost instantaneously a large proportion of us were on foot headed for the exit. (I had the sensation of leading a walkout from my well-chosen heckler’s position, second row on the aisle; but if I was leading it, come to think of it, why were there a hundred people ahead of me on the way to the exit?) According to one of the few New York Times stories that seems to check in detail—another evidence that the room contained unqualified people—about 125 people remained, claimed that the meeting had not adjourned and they were the ad hoc group, and passed “unanimously” the original Westin resolution. Since the story said also that there had been 600 present when Westin took the Steering Committee, [but] my feeling is that it isn’t necessary to repudiate this rump, but the figures will speak.

Second meeting of the General Faculty

The General Faculty meeting was transferred to the Chapel. It convened almost on schedule, with an almost full house. I missed the opening because I was in the porch taking a hand in leading to vacant places in the balcony 20 junior faculty who had somehow sifted themselves out to act as observers on behalf of the juniors in the ad hocgroup.9 The moment Ralph Halford came out to tell us the meeting had accepted the 20 observers, I helped pilot them to the north balcony.

____________

9Kirk had transformed a suggestion from the junior group that they participated in the first General Faculty meeting into a proposal in invite twenty by telegrams like those sent to senior faculty. But an accident (call to people framing the list of 20 to help “cool” a fracas outside Low) prevented completing the list, and the telegrams never went.
Kirk opened the first meeting with a request for unanimous consent to admit one junior representative as observer, which was done. It seemed to me that if tokenism was the order of the day, one wasn’t the optimum permanent level for it; so I got the question taken to Truman and he suggested 20, to be picked by some procedure the juniors were to find themselves.____________

 

Tuesday afternoon, 30 April. After a brief statement of his own and somewhat more from Truman, chiefly about the police action, Kirk introduced Hofstatter [sic, Richard Hofstadter], who presented a list of resolutions (half a dozen well-worded points, on one sheet of paper that had been handed to everybody) concocted by a stable of most estimable middle-of-the-road types including Hofstatter[sic], himself, Daniel Bell, and I think Trilling. The main content was a move toward constitutional reform (constitutional convention for the University; preparatory commission to organize the convention; demands upon the Trustees that they take a constructive part in reorganization). The first line of the resolutions referred to the “necessity” of the policy action and the last point to continued leadership by Kirk and Truman, so that this motion was vote-of-confidence sandwich, with lots of rather appetizing stuffings.

A number of prestigious professors were primed (as at the first General Faculty meeting) to support these resolutions, stressing the “no-recriminations” aspect of the first point, and the go-ahead character of the rest. But presently up rose Marvin Harris and moved as an additional resolution the original Westin proposal to the morning session, pointing out that its author would probably oppose it. This resolution too had a lot of sound where-do-we-go-from-here stuff in the middle; but since it opened by repudiating Kirk and Truman and ended by endorsing a strike, it was a vote-of-no-confidence sandwich. Kirk ruled from the chair that there was no use treating this as an additional resolution, but it had to be seen as a substitute. Since its main content seemed to be lack of confidence in him, he felt he should not continue to preside, and called upon Dean Warren to take over as presiding officer. By some miracle, previously non-existent chairs appeared just below the steps, and he and Truman stepped down into them.

Westin did get up to say that he opposed the motion of his drafting as an utterance from the General Faculty. From that point, discussion ran downhill as to content and got more and more shrill. Every speaker was being oh-so-parliamentary and trying to speak to the substitute proposal without reference to the original. Some sort of confused vote was taken on something which required a show of hands and a very slow count, and indicated that on any more substantive vote we were likely to split with at least a third dissenting. At this point up stepped Maurice Rosenberg and introduced a most valuable element of confusion by putting up a third set of resolutions as an amendment to displace the second (substitute). This was much less a statement of principle and more an action; its key clause was to set up the executive committee of the Faculty, to be composed of professors “such as” a specified list of ten (partly ad hoc group types like Westin and Bell, partly strong figures not identified with the group), to coopt two junior faculty; and another clause called upon the Trustees to cooperate with our Executive Committee in restructuring the University.

While Rosenberg’s proposal was received with a sense of relief, discussion again ran downhill. At this point, I somehow got it through my head how Rosenberg had laid the threads out so that one could give a tug at the right place and they would unsnarl. I came downstairs and planted myself by a pillar just behind the properly-seated people, whence it wasn’t too hard to watch Warren’s eye; he recognized me as a long shot, not knowing at all who it was. (Kirk, who must regard me as a bungler, winced when he saw me appear—as if it wasn’t bad enough to hear all the previous nonsense). I began by introducing myself as an economist, and pointed out that economists felt that in logic you could talk sense about a substitute only in explicit comparison with what it was supposed to be a substitute for. Hence it would not be out of order to deal not with one of the proposals before us, but with all three. To start with the second, its chief effect would clearly be to paralyze us; whether or not we fully approved of the leadership we had, we would be in a disastrous situation if the first order of business for the Trustees was to replace it. This was “proposal to use all available steam to blow the whistle”. The third proposal had the supreme merit that it would actually put well-chosen people to work on reconstruction. The very substantial merits of the first set of resolutions10 could best be realized by putting an Executive Committee to work.

____________

10 I hope I referred also to the constructive middle parts of the second resolution, but can’t remember how I said it if I did.

____________

            At this point (though I hadn’t intended it when I rose), I realized that for the moment people were breathing more calmly, and that I should try to wind up the debate. So I said that in a moment I was going to move the question, but first wanted to say a word about our attitude toward the strike, I referred to the “very commendable weasel-word ‘respect’” used in the resolution. No doubt this word could be used in a technical sense; but we should take it in a much deeper sense. Whatever else the strike was, we must see it as an outburst of grief over what had happened to the University. Even though we might regard the form of outburst as uncouth, if we couldn’t show “respect” for the grief it expressed, who were we? Once we started putting more meaning into “respect”, must we not also say that we respected the view of some of our colleagues that if there was a students’ strike of this type, they must take some steps of participation? Reciprocally, must we not respect the view of some of our colleagues who hold that in the academic world there must always be some better vehicle for a protest, and that even in these conditions, they must refuse anything that might seem like participation? Mustn’t we also respect the need of many students to complete their work this semester, and to get completion properly attested on a University transcript? In sum, mustn’t we as a University find a way to move ahead in a climate of mutual respect? With that, I moved the question.

Dean Warren, in view of the previous fuss, called for a show of hands. “Voice!” called a number of people. All right, no harm in trying a voice vote first. In favor of the motion to call the question and terminate debate? Lots of aye. Opposed? Silence! Before he could call for the substantive vote, up rose some youngish man I didn’t know, with a question to the proposer of the motion. Would Professor Rosenberg agree that the motion would be clearer if he expunged the words “such as” in front of the roster of names for the Executive Committee. And yes, he would. (The fox! It looks as if he put those words in just to have something to concede. The effect was that instead of voting a rather ambiguous request to somebody—Kirk?—to name us a committee of a certain type, suddenly we were engaged in electing a committee on our own initiative, with no middlemen!) On the substantive question of Rosenberg’s amendment, Warren again called for hands. Again shouts of “voice”; again he tried it. Lots of aye; distinct but faint, a definite minority of no. No challenge when Warren said the ayes had it.

Then came a motion to adjourn. A count of hands did prove necessary this time. (I sprinted upstairs, to be able to certify that our junior-staff observers didn’t vote.) The count was 250[?] to adjourn versus 250 not to. Just what the vote meant, Lord knows. Some hoped still to roll up a substantial vote against Kirk and Truman on some motion or other. The Architecture folks had some proposition that never reached the floor. Maybe a good many were worried because of something I quite failed to register: that Warren had goofed; and after getting proposition three voted to displace proposition two as a substitute for proposition one, had failed to get a vote on proposition three against proposition one. A technically-fatal-but-practically-trifling error in procedure. Everybody knew that in fact we’d elected a new executive; and as people went out, a few of the Executive Committee were sorting the rest out of the crowd for an instant beginning on the new phase of activity.

Over the hump—perhaps

Tuesday evening, 30 April. Once again, prompt steps were taken to legitimatize what might have been challenged. The Trustees held a dinner meeting and afterwards sat till 2 AM with the Executive Committee. The statement from the Trustees that resulted was to my taste most satisfactory. As a position, it serves only ad interim; but it shows that the Trustees have engaged themselves in a process that if well guided can put us a sound footing. To begin with, the Trustees recognized the Executive Committee as a responsible body acting on behalf of the faculty. They recognized the tripartite judicial body, which under Rosenberg’s resolution was at last put to work. They appointed their own committee to look into reform of the “basic structure” of the University, and instructed that committee both to consult with our Executive Committee and more broadly to consult with faculty and students. On the gym, they proposed to “consult and negotiate” with a body of community leaders. Maybe they thought this was only a token concession; but of course they’ll find that to “negotiate” you have to be on terms with an opposite number that isn’t just your stooge; doubtless the Mayor will find himself on the spot with a need to select the “community” people.

A useful point of the Rosenberg resolution was to call for a “day of reflection” on the Wednesday. So far as I was concerned, the most urgent business was a dissertation-defense, for a candidate who is very ill and had been patched together by the doctors for this week only, between two spells of hospitalization. We had taken the precaution of arranging for him to come by taxi to my flat at 54 Morningside. One of the scheduled examiners was Terence Hopkins of Sociology, who was visibly so exhausted that it was doubtful he knew the day of the week; so I had hedged by inviting a historian ([Bailey W.] Diffie) who lives at 54 Morningside. We opened the defense (following the precedent set by Peter Kenen when we held an examination in subjects at my flat on—I think—Friday the 26th) by asking the candidate to waive objections to irregularities of procedure. Fortunately we were able to pass the dissertation in the first column—as was true also of the Kim dissertation on Thursday the 2nd and Sobestyen dissertation on Friday the 3rd.11

____________

11 We held three defenses and two examinations in subjects—Aspra and Deestlov[?]—at the flat between 25thApril and 3rd May. Newsprint-pad-and-wax-pencil proves in many ways much better than a blackboard! Several other flats in the neighbourhood have been in use, and on the whole examinations for the doctorate have gone as scheduled—though I hear rumors of one case where a colleague refused to examine because of the strike.

____________

Wednesday afternoon, 1 May. After lunch, the thing to do was join the conversation-bees on the campus. Most of us were looking for students we knew; once we started talking to them, others latched on.12 I found myself telling them that if they thought about the “Kirk must go” slogan, then so nearly the sole focus of the strike agitation, they would find that what their position really called for was “Kirk must go—but not yet!” My basic argument was that we couldn’t afford to let the Trustees get bogged down in the problem of a replacement, and that within a few months we’d have a much better Board to make selections.13

____________

12 But I didn’t succeed in spotting the SDS type who on Sunday had told me intensely that “to block food going into Low is murder, of course!” To choose the right moment to laugh has been tricky. One is reminded of what a Canadian colleague said about “Social Credit”: “You have to remember, it’s only a stop from the sublime to the ridiculous, and sometimes the line gets shifted a little.”

13 Advice by telephone from my sagacious son: a further argument for delay, still stronger, is that any immediate replacement must be made by the Trustees; while very likely the University-reform program should include selection of a President by the faculty, subject to Trustee ratification. This will obviously take time to organize.
SDS seems to be trying to avoid getting Kirk’s resignation on the list of the strike objectives. One can easily think up possible motives that don’t include getting sound leadership by sound procedures.

____________

Several students thought this idea (together with some comments on “respect” along the lines I’d presented before) should get circulation; and an undergraduate I’ve known for some 15 years showed me the way to the WKCR studios. They gave me a 5-minute interview, and later read off a page of typescript I left with them; besides, I got a chance to tell a couple of their staff how much my acquaintances were praising their handling of the crisis.

Wednesday evening, 1 May. In the evening, we held the usual musical open house (with Dean Morse [Columbia economics PhD 1965] as pianist) at my flat. Much of our time was spent on a Buxtehude motet. Bitte um Frieden. It’s musically first-rate, happens to fit the odd combination of people who came, and certainly has a most suitable subject.14

____________

14 While it’s most genuinely religious music, it’s an odd twist that the text tells the second person of the Trinity his business (“Remember your office!….Expedite the business.”) for all the world in the tone the Faculty tends to use in the new turn of events toward the Trustees.

____________

Thursday, 2 May. The situation on Thursday was much like that on Wednesday, except that there was a certain devolution of authority. The University Council, which on the whole has stayed tactfully out of sight, had to be consulted on the obvious necessity of doing something about the University Calendar and could think of nothing better than to toss it to departments and schools. A gathering of department chairmen (to which Peter Kenen sent Donald Dewey as his deputy) could offer no guidance either on the calendar or on how to handle classes in face of the amorphous strike movement.

Thursday evening (or was it afternoon), 2 May. Peter Kenen called a meeting of economics faculty and graduate students on Thursday, which was very heavily attended. I can’t remember that we did much but clear the air; but a number of suggestions were canvassed that crystallized next day.

Friday evening, 3 May. A more decisive meeting of the same composition was held on Friday evening. The students (apparent ringleaders Reischauer and Roosevelt) proposed a resolution in favor of getting on with our education, and then came up with a suggestion that if the strike was on, we should set up classes (“all classes” was amended by deleting “all”) in places off campus. Several of the faculty indicated it might be a matter of principle for them to appear, at stated hours and stated rooms, if the University was officially open. I drew attention to the fact that faculty as well as students had taken the line that we objected to having our education interrupted. For my part, I’d suffered rather heavily in some dimensions by the interruption; but in other dimensions, my education had been greatly accelerated. In particular, I’d come to agree with one of the young faculty who told me, “On the ledge, we learn to bend.” I felt we’d do well to bend by taking a stand that wouldn’t create avoidable points of conflict—without putting in the wrong any colleagues who felt bound to hold “regular” classes. We must remember that any signals we might send out by stating high principles were quite likely to be incompatible with the receiving apparatus of the people we thought we were signalling to. For my part, I proposed to hold classes at 54 Morningside drive if campus space was picketed—hoping that any classes held on campus would not meet with disturbances. If disturbances did happen, I’d be strongly inclined to move back to campus classrooms rather than leave colleagues isolated. Alexander Erlich said he felt bound provisionally to hold no classes—but must refuse to endorse beyond (say) Monday morning a strike that was so amorphous, and would have to reevaluate it as it developed.15

____________

15 If we were so hard up for information about the strike, it was partly because our graduate students largely stood outside it. Reischauer had been conspicuous among the green-armband-wearers, who registered disapproval both of forcible seizure of buildings and of violence to clear them; and one gathers this was rather typical of our students. The strike committee had invited any student organization with more than seventy students willing to sign a strike paper to send in one representative per 70 students signing; but our students did not include enough strikers to be represented. I learned however on the Monday (past the closing date of this narrative) that signatures by economics students had mounted enough to send a member.

____________

            There appeared to be an almost-universal sense that we needed a student-faculty committee on departmental problems. Peter Kenen suggested that he would name a faculty group of 5, and urged the students to elect 5. For those who straddled faculty and student status, he suggested that they sit with the students or faculty in the committee-selection process as they thought they could be most useful. The committee roster turned out as follows:

 

Faculty

Students
D. [Donald J.] Dewey

A. Gandolfi

A. [Alexander] Erlich C. Gersti [Gerstl?]
A. [Albert G.] Hart (to preside) D. [David] Gold
C. Jordan R. Reischauer
P. [Peter B.] Kennen (ex officio)

A. [Anwar] Shaikh

R. [Robert B.] Zevin

The spread of opinions, ages, and backgrounds is very interesting.

This committee must face a number of sticky questions. I don’t want to particularize till things have shaken down somewhat. Problems will be accentuated by the fact that one platoon of senior staff ([Donald J.] Dewey, [Kevin J.] Lancaster, [Stanislaw] Wellisz) will be going on leave just as another ([Harold] Barger, [Arthur F. (more likely) or Arthur R.] Burns, [Carl S.] Shoup, [William S.] Vickrey) comes back from leave. But we will get benefits of continuity from the work on junior-staff selection that brought us as the assistant professors giving main-stream[?] graduate courses the team of [Roger E.] Alcaly, [Roger C.] Lawrence, [Raymond] Lubitz and [Robert B.] Zevin. We seem to have about the sanest set of graduate students in the University, and by good luck those with political flair also seem to have a more-than-superficial view of what’s happening. We are still very much at the mercy of events; but I remain optimistic.

______________________________

Text (from Jacob Ebert’s hymn, Du Friede-Fürst) of Buxtehude’s cantata Bitte um Frieden:

[Correct text from the Internationale Dieterich Buxtehude Gesellschaft website:]

  1. Du Frieden-Fürst, Herr Jesu Christ,
    wahr Mensch und wahrer Gott,
    Ein starker Nothelffer du bist,
    Im Leben und im Tod,
    Drum wir allein im Namen dein
    Zu deinem Vater schreien.
  2. Recht große Noth uns stößet an
    Von Krieg und Ungemach,
    Daraus uns niemand helfen kan,
    Denn du, drum führ die Sach,
    Dein Vater bit, daß er ja nicht
    Im Zorn mit uns wol fahren.
  3. Gedenk, Herr, jetzt und an dein Ampt
    Daß du ein Fried-Fürst bist,
    Und hilff uns gnädig allesamt
    Jetzt und zu dieser Frist,
    Laß uns hin-fort, Laß uns hin-fort,
    Dein göttlich Wort
    Im Fried, im Fried, im Fried
    Noch Länger schallen. Amen.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection. Box 10, Carl Shoup Materials. Folder,” Columbia University—General”.

Image Source:  Columbia University Record, vol. 23, no. 5 (Oct. 3, 1997).

Categories
Columbia Economists Germany Yale

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. alumnus Henry Crosby Emery, 1896

 

Time to meet another economics Ph.D. alumnus.  Henry Crosby Emery was awarded his doctorate from Columbia University in 1896. His dissertation was on the economics of speculation. Professor at Yale, chairman of the U.S. Tariff Board, professor at Wesleyan among other stations, including being a witness to the Russian Revolution. He died relatively young in 1924 at age 51.

________________________

EMERY, Henry Crosby (view from 1900)

Harvard A.M 1893 — Columbia, Ph.D. 1896.

Born in Ellsworth, Me., 1872; graduated Bowdoin, 1892; Harvard A.M., 1893; Columbia, Ph.D., 1896; Instructor in Political Economy, Bowdoin, 1894-96, and Professor, 1897-1900; succeeded Pres. Hadley in Chair of Political Economy at Yale, August 1, 1900.

Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D., Political Economist, was born in Ellsworth, Maine, December 21, 1872. His father, the Hon. L. A. Emery, is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of that state. Henry C. Emery was graduated at Bowdoin College in 1892, took a post-graduate course at Harvard in the following year, where he received the degree of Master of Arts in 1893, and pursued his studies further at Columbia, being made a Doctor of Philosophy by that University in 1896. From 1894 to 1896 Mr. Emery taught at Bowdoin as Instructor in Political Economy and was advanced to a Professorship there in 1897, upon his return from Germany, where he had gone to complete his studies in that branch at the University of Berlin. Professor Emery has attained and holds a place among the political economists of this country of unusual distinction for one of his years. His contributions to economic literature, published in periodicals devoted to that science, have attracted wide attention, especially those dealing with modern methods of speculative business. His studies have been largely directed to this specialty, his Doctor’s thesis covering in detail the subject of stock and produce speculation on the exchanges in this country, and at the Convention of the American Economic Association at Ithaca in 1899 the subject of his address was The Place of the Speculator in Distribution. The election of Professor Arthur T. Hadley to be President of Yale making a vacancy in the Professorship of Political Economy in that University, Professor Emery was appointed to that Chair to assume its duties August 1, 1900.

Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and portraits of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Joshua L. Chamberlain, ed. Vol. 5 (Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1900), pp. 47-48.

________________________

Henry Crosby Emery, an obituary

DR. EMERY DIES OF PNEUMONIA AT SEA

Had Held Chairs At Yale and Wesleyan Before Taking China Post

Dr. Henry Crosby Emery whose body was buried at sea following death aboard ship while en route to America, according to wireless dispatches from Peking, was well known In Connecticut, having held the chair of political economy at Yale, and at one time was professor of economics and social science at Wesleyan. He also served as acting mayor of Middletown for two years. Pneumonia was the cause of his death which occurred while he was traveling from Kobe to Tientsin. His wife was with him when he died. Dr. Emery was formerly a member of the Peking Branch of the Asia Banking Corporation of New York and once served as chairman of the United States tariff board.

Professor at Yale.

New Haven, Feb. 7. — Death of Dr. Henry Crosby Emery, while on the way to San Francisco from Shanghai, China, caused regret at Yale where he was well known, having been for nine years professor of political economy at the university. Prof. Emery came to Yale from Bowdoin College in 1899, having held the chair of political economy at that institution from which he graduated in 1882. In 1909 he left Yale to accept the chairmanship of the United States tariff board, to which position he was appointed by President Taft.

Taught at Wesleyan.

In 1913 Dr. Emery was appointed professor of economics and social science at Wesleyan University to succeed Willard C. Fisher, who resigned after holding the post for many years and was serving mayor of Middletown for two terms. Prof. Emery was a son of former Chief Justice L. A. Emery of the state of Maine. After leaving Wesleyan Prof. Emery sailed for Russia in 1916 to make a study of the commercial, industrial and financial conditions there for the Guaranty Trust Company in New York. While in Russia he married Miss Susanne Carey Allinson of Providence, R. I., who traveled to Russia alone for the wedding.

Imprisoned by Germans.

On his departure from Russia in 1918 Prof. Emery was taken prisoner by the Germans in the Aland Islands, a part of Finland. He was held in a barbed wire stockade for a time and later given his freedom in a small Pomeranian town. He was released and left Germany for America the fall of 1918.

Source: Hartford Courant, 8 February 1924, p. 22.

________________________

Links to Publications of Henry Crosby Emery

Legislation against Futures, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1895), pp. 62-86.

Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States. Published in Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Columbia University, Vol. VII, No. 2 (1896).

The Results of the German Exchange Act of 1896, Political Science Quarterly (Vol. XIII, No. 2, 1898), pp. 286-319.

The Place of the Speculator in the Theory of Distribution, Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, Papers and Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting, Ithaca, N. Y., December 27-29, 1899 (Feb., 1900), pp. 103-122.

Futures in the Grain Market, The Economic Journal, Vol. 9, No. 33 (Mar., 1899), pp. 45-67.

The Tariff Board and its Work, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1910.

Speculation” in Every-Day Ethics, Addresses delivered in the Page Lecture Series, 1909, before the Senior Class of the Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University. New Haven: Yale University Press (1910), pp. 107-139.

Politician, Party and People, Addresses delivered in the Page Lecture Series, 1912, before the Senior Class of the Sheffield Scientific School, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1913.

Some Economic Aspects of War, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1914

________________________

Archival Papers of Henry Crosby Emery

Henry Crosby Emery Papers, Special Collections & Archives, Bowdoin College Library.

Biographical/Historical Note

Henry Crosby Emery (Bowdoin 1892) was born December 21, 1872, in Ellsworth, Me., the son of Lucilius Alonzo and Annie Stetson (Crosby) Emery. His father was chief justice of Maine, a member of the state senate, professor of medical jurisprudence at Medical School of Maine, and lecturer on Roman law at the University of Maine. An 1892 graduate of Bowdoin, the younger Emery also received his masters from Harvard (1893) and a doctorate from Columbia (1896).

An economist and professor at Bowdoin (1897-1900) and at Yale (1900-15), Emery was married in St. Petersburg, Russia (1917) to Suzanne C. Allinson, daughter of Francis G. Allinson of Providence, RI. The Emerys toured Russia (1917-18) to make a study of the industrial and financial conditions of that country, and while there, observed the outbreak of the Russian Revolution and fled the country, only to be taken prisoner by the Germans on their way to Sweden. The women of the party were allowed to go on, but the men were detained in Danzig and later in Berlin. With the collapse of the German monarchy Emery was released.

The Emerys also resided in China (1920-24), where he was manager of the Peking branch of the Asia Banking Corporation of New York. He died of pneumonia aboard the steamship “President Lincoln” between Shanghai and Japan (1924), on his way back to the United States from China, and was buried at sea.

Emery’s study of Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States(1896), his Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia, was the authoritative analysis of the economics of exchanges.

Scope and Content

Letters (1917-1924), diaries (1917-1918), articles and speeches (1908-1924) written by Henry C. Emery and his wife, Suzanne, during their travels in China and Russia. Also included are photographs and clippings (1905-1985). Material from the collection was used in Ernest C. Helmreich’s article (Lewiston sun-journal, March 30, 1985) entitled, “A Maine couple’s account of the November, 1917 Russian Revolution.”

Henry Crosby Emery Papers at Yale

The papers center on two aspects of Emery’s activities: his teaching career at Yale and his service as chairman of the U.S. Tariff Board (1909-1913). Papers relating to the Board include correspondence, reports, statistics, and cloth samples collected in connection with the board’s investigation of the carpet, wool, and cotton manufacturing industries, ca.1911-1912. Principal correspondents are members of the board, among them Alvin H. Sanders, James B. Reynolds, L. M. Spier, N. I. Stone, R. B. Horrow, and Charles A. Veditz.

Image Source: Portrait of Henry Crosby Emery in The World’s Work, Vol. XIX, Number 1. November 1909, p. 12183.

Categories
AEA Amherst Columbia Economists Germany Johns Hopkins Smith

Columbia. Short biographical note on John Bates Clark at age 52

 

Today’s post adds to the virtual clipping file of relatively obscure biographical items for John Bates Clark. The turn of the century volumes edited by Joshua L. Chamberlain, Universities and Their Sons, serve as a who’s who with an academic twist and the source of this early-through-mid-career biography for the great John Bates Clark.

Pro-tip: At the bottom of this post you can click on the keyword “ClarkJB” to summon all the John Bates Clark related posts here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

_________________________

Other Biographical postings for John Bates Clark

From the Smith College yearbook (1894)

Columbia University Memorial Minute (1938)

_________________________

CLARK, John Bates, 1847-

Born in Providence, R. I., 1857; studied at Brown for two years; Amherst for two years, graduating in 1872; studied abroad at Heidelberg University for one and a half years and at Zurich University one-half year; Professor of Political Economy and History, Carleton (Minnesota) College, 1877-81; Professor of History and Political Science at Smith College, 1882-93; Professor of Political Economy at Amherst, 1892-95; Lecturer on Political Economy, Johns Hopkins. 1892-94; Professor of Political Economy at Columbia since 1895.

JOHN BATES CLARK, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Economy at Columbia, was born in Providence, Rhode Island, January 26, 1847. His parents were John Hezekiah Clark, a well-known manufacturer of Providence, and Charlotte Stoddard Huntington, a granddaughter of General Jedediah Huntington of New London, Connecticut. He received his early education in the public schools of his native place. In 1865 he entered Brown, spending two years in study there, and later entered Amherst. During an interval of absence from this College he engaged in the manufacture of ploughs, and was one of the founders of the Monitor Plow Company, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. He retired from active business in 1871, and returned to Amherst, graduating in 1872. He then went abroad and studied for a year and a half at the University of Heidelberg, for a term at the University of Zurich, and for a short period in Paris. He returned to America in 1875 and, two years later, became Professor of Political Economy at Carleton College. He retained this position for four years, and then came to Massachusetts to take the Professorship of History and Political Science at Smith College. He was with Smith in this capacity for eleven years, until, in 1893, he was made Professor of Political Economy at Amherst College. From 1892 to 1894 he was also Lecturer on Political Economy at Johns Hopkins. He left Amherst in 1895 to take a Chair of Political Economy at Columbia, and has since been in charge of the department of Economic Theory of the University. In 1893 and also in 1894 he was elected President of the American Economic Association. Professor Clark has written a number of monographs and articles on economic subjects, and a book — The Philosophy of Wealth — which presents new theories. He also published in collaboration with Professor F. H. Giddings, The Modern Distributive Process, and is now about to publish a second work on Distribution [The Distribution of Wealth; A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits (1899)]. He is a member of the Century and Barnard Clubs. Professor Clark married, September 28, 1875, Myra Almeda Smith of Minneapolis. They have four children, three girls and a boy.

Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and portraits of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Joshua L. Chamberlain, ed., Vol. II (Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1899), p. 423.

Image Source: Same.