This is a transcription of a draft of a paper that was later presented at the New York meeting of the American Economic Association (December 28, 1977) by Martin Bronfenbrenner (Chicago Ph.D., 1939). A revised version was published in Atlantic Economic Journal, vol. 6 (1978), pp. 22-25. The revision sandwiched the text below between an introductory and concluding sections. The conclusion consists of his responses to “strenuous opposition” the paper received from radical economists and faculty from small, “self-consciously ‘proletarian’ institutions.” To document the year of the draft, I have appended the comments (with date) from the Duke department of economics chair, Allen Kelley.
What struck me first upon seeing this draft was the reflection of a sexist empirical reality expressed in the subtitle of the paper. Bronfenbrenner title refers to “the person majoring in economics” as opposed to meaning major as “a particular course of study”: the published version begins with the sentence: “I view the undergraduate economics major not as a potential economist but as a potential lawyer or businessman, politician or journalist, and likewise as a potential voter.”) But the brief note is more interesting as an artifact, an older scholar’s reflections (in the late 1970’s) of what an undergraduate education in economics should be all about.
From the perspective of today, Bronfenbrenner’s inclusion of doctrinal history, 3 semesters of historical and/or current policy applications, 2 semesters of “alternative economic ideas and institutions” sounds like an early call (about forty years early to be precise) for the CORE Project.
__________________________
THE ECONOMICS MAJOR—WHAT IS HE?
Martin Bronfenbrenner, 1977 draft
We have on undergraduate campuses “Junior Ph.D.,” “Fraternity Row,” and “Split Level” major programs in Economics. As an elitist (meritocrat, intellectual snob) I want Economics to become a “Junior Ph.D.” major, along with, e.g., Mathematics and most of the natural sciences. There are plenty of alternatives open, including individual Economics courses, to playboys doing nothing and to intellectual anarchists “doing their own things.”
And so I should like undergraduate economics concentrations to include at least:
(1) Two semesters (or equivalent) of intermediate-level macro- and micro-theory of the standard sort. Doctrinal history might also fit into this group.
(2) Three semesters of quantitative techniques (mathematics at full-blown university level, statistics, econometrics, computer science, accounting). Formal requirements, such as the calculus, should also apply to the intermediate theory courses under (1) to avoid postponement to the student’s final term (which makes them meaningless).
(3) Three semesters of courses applying (1-2) to a historical record and-or to significant current problems of the U.S. and international economies.
(4) Two semesters’ exposure to “alternative” economic ideas and institutions. Radical and institutional economics naturally belong here, along with comparative systems, economic anthropology, specific studies of non-capitalist countries, etc.
(5) (For honors candidates) A “small-group learning experience” of a semester seminar which includes an honors essay. The essay should not only overcome passivity and indicate competence in some facet of undergraduate economics, but demonstrate ability at expository writing.
I have minimized reference to specific courses, since Section 1 of Public Finance, say, under Professor Jones, may be all theory and belong in Group 1, while Section 2 (Professor Brown) may be all policy problems (Group 3) and Section 3 (Professor Johnson) may fit equally well in either category. Harassed Chairmen, Executive Officers, and Directors of Undergraduate Studies will have unavoidable problems with the “nuts and bolts” of such a major, if they take their duties seriously. These problems will be lessened, of course, insofar as superior students are allowed to do whatever they like regardless of formal rules.
But before writing this proposal off as “impossible” or “Utopian” (as well as “elitist,”) please consider a few “matters in mitigation.”
(a) Economics won’t, and shouldn’t, do it all. Credit toward all the above requirements should be allowed for work in other departments. Mathematics, Computer Science and Economic History (as viewed by historians) are obvious examples. Labor Law in the Law School, History of Politics of Africa or Latin America with strong “Economic Development” or “International Economics” loadings, the History of Socialism, inter-disciplinary studies of the U.S.S.R. or Modern China, are only a little less obvious.
(b) The prospective Economics major should be encouraged to read Principles on his own, and go directly into Intermediate Theory. Alternatively, he should be shunted into a one-semester version of Principles. (Need I add that some version at least of the Principles course should be open to Freshmen?) More controversially perhaps, I also believe that the Principles course should be aimed primarily at non-majors, and modeled more frequently on the legendary “Physics for Poets” than on cram courses for Ph.D. qualifying examinations.
(c) The seminar (5) would presumably always count simultaneously toward satisfaction of some other requirement (1-4).
(d) And finally, I think the universities yielded too much on course requirements to the student activism of 1967-71. Reduction of the standard 5-course load to 4 courses, I recall, was proposed to promote student creativity and student participation in the real-world off-campus community. Well, it didn’t work that way. (And thank God, say I, whenever I read a student newspaper!) The 5-course normal load, I accordingly suggest, should be restored at least for the Sophomore and Junior years. Freshmen in process of culture shock, and Seniors in process of job-hunting, might well be left alone with the 4-course load.
MARTIN BRONFENBRENNER
Duke University
__________________________
Comment on draft by Allen Kelley, Chairman of the Duke Department of Economics
Department of Economics
Duke University
Chairman [Allen Kelley]
August 31, 1977
Dear Martin,
Dave Davies passed along your draft of the comment for the Christmas meetings.
A couple of observations.
Why would you consider doctrinal history as a substitute for theory? I’d almost put it in your category 4.
Why so much quantitative training? Statistics I can see as a major requirement. But accounting, computer programming? The latter can be learned at a mini-pragmatic level in the stat course, where the student runs some regressions with standard packages (e.g., SPSS). Many excellent students will want to do more analytical work, and spending three of their courses on quantitative skills seems a bit excessive.
I like everything else, and especially your addition of 4. Of course, I believe in 5, and most of the students already do 3 in most majors.
A final point, one that can’t be resisted by a zealous chairman. Does the University of Colorado have to get such heavy credit—looks like a joint appointment. We Dukies want to internalize all of your great prestige!
I’ve not sent this to Japan, since it would take too long to forward back to Durham.
Welcome home.
[signed “Allen”]
Durham, North Caorlina 27706
(919) 684-2723
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Project. Papers of Martin Bronfenbrenner, Box 26, Folder “Misc”.
