Category: Economics Programs

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Northwestern

Northwestern. Robert J. Gordon selling Graduate Economics Program, 1977

 

The following soft-smile-hard-sell advertisement directed to potential applicants for the graduate economics program at Northwestern University was found in the economics department records of M.I.T. These notes were written by M.I.T. Ph.D. (1967) Robert J. Gordon who was then serving as the director of graduate admissions in economics for Northwestern in 1977-78. Gordon had been appointed professor of economics at Northwestern in 1973. This document provides a fascinating comparative glimpse of economics programs and locations as seen at that time.

Pro-tip:  Robert J. Gordon has shared his personal archive of “Photos of Economists”  on-line.

___________________

INFORMAL NOTES ON GRADUATE ECONOMICS AT NORTHWESTERN

Robert J. Gordon
Director of Graduate Admissions in Economics, 1977-78

To supplement the rather formal compilation of admissions and degree requirements contained in the pamphlet “Graduate Program in Economics, 1977-78”, I have put together a more informal set of observations on economics and graduate student life at Northwestern. Just as television commercials are no longer inhibited in naming competitors, I have included a few comparisons between Northwestern and some of the other departments to which you may be planning to apply. My comments on other departments are entirely personal based on my years as a student or faculty member at Harvard, M.I.T., and Chicago, and on the academic “grapevine” as regards other schools. In no sense do these subjective comparisons represent an “official view” of anyone in the administration of the Department of Economics or Northwestern University, nor would my colleagues necessarily agree with them.

I. WHO SHOULD APPLY TO NORTHWESTERN?

Universities in the United States are currently awarding roughly 2,000 M.A.’s and about 850 Ph.D.’s in Economics every year. Taking account of voluntary and involuntary dropouts, this suggests that about 2,500-3,000 candidates enter graduate school in Economics every year, and that the number of applicants is even larger. Both the applicants and the graduate schools are diverse in quality, and the admissions process can be described as an exercise in “matching” wherein the best schools attempt to select the best candidates, the next-best schools attempt to find the next-best candidates, and so on down the line. As long as a fee is charged for an admission application (currently $25 at Northwestern), potential applicants must carry out what economists call a “cost-benefit” analysis when deciding how many and which schools should be applied to. Too many applications may waste fees, but too few applications may lead to unanimous rejections. The best strategy is to realize that admissions committees are imperfect judges of your own “true quality”, and in some cases you also may over- or underrate yourself. To protect yourself against mistakes, it is best to apply not only to schools at your own perceived quality level, but also somewhat above and below. (In a recent survey 57 percent of the respondents rated themselves in the top ten percent of their class!)

Rating Department “Quality”

While a number of different characteristics are relevant to the final choice, faculty quality is the most important single criterion by which alternative graduate programs should be judged. Among the advantages provided by faculty members who are widely regarded in the profession as among the best in their field are not only correct and current courses, but also guidance in Ph.D. dissertations and knowledge of the most promising areas for student research, the ability to win research grants which in most cases provide funds for student research assistantships, and finally, widespread professional contacts to aid students in the job market.1

_______________

1By the way, there is currently no problem in finding jobs after graduate school in Economics. This contrasts with other disciplines, particularly the humanities, history, and sociology, where jobs are scarce and some Ph.D.’s are unemployed. The healthier job market in Economics is explained by the large demand for Ph.D. economists in business and government which supplements the demand by colleges for teaching posts.

_______________

The already high quality of the Northwestern faculty has been supplemented in the last few years by the arrival of three new full professors who are both relatively young and are regarded as among the top economists in their respective fields—Marc Nerlove (winner in 1969 of the American Economic Association’s John Bates Clark award for the best American economist under the age of 40), Frederick Scherer, and myself. Since the most recent official survey to determine the ranking of Northwestern relative to other economics departments is more than five years out of date, there is no accurate information available which is both objective and current.

As a substitute I can provide the results of my own subjective but detailed evaluation, which is current as of Fall 1976 (e.g., it takes account of the movements of J. Stiglitz from Stanford to Oxford and Michael Rothschild from Princeton to Wisconsin). In consultation with several highly regarded economists, all permanent faculty members in the top 18 U.S. departments have been rated with a “quality score” ranging from one (low) to 10 (superman), and the total scores in each department of the faculty members rating “5” or above have been added up.2 An attempt has been made to include members of business schools known to play a major role in graduate economics education. For most departments official faculty lists have been obtained to insure completeness.

_______________

2Note that this technique gives a premium to large departments, partially explaining the “victory” of Harvard over M.I.T.

_______________

Department

Rating Points

Citations3

1.

 Chicago 152 (1574)
2. Harvard 147

(1472)

3.

 M.I.T. 139 (1241)
4. Yale 122

(598)

5.

 Northwestern 97 (401)
6. Princeton 96

(362)

7.

 Pennsylvania 93 (509)
8. Wisconsin 85

(587)

9.

 Berkeley 75 (420)
9. Stanford 75

(402)

11.

 Minnesota 72 (209)
12. U.C.L.A. 70

(344)

13.

 Rochester 43
14. Columbia 41

(454)

14.

 Maryland 41 (276)
16. Michigan 40

17.

 Carnegie-Mellon 38
18. Brown 23

_______________

3Numbers in parentheses are faculty citations in the 1973-74 Social Sciences Citation Index.

_______________

It would appear that there are four departments in the top category, and then a group of “next best” from ranks 5 through 12 which are very close together in total points. If you think rather highly of yourself, it is probably worthwhile to apply to at least one department in the “top four,” but keep in mind that the total number of first-year students in these departments is only about 135 out of the 2,500-3,000 students who enter graduate school in economics each year. Most students will want to apply to one or more of the “next best,” whether they are top students who want a safety valve, or whether they evaluate themselves at “next best,” or whether they think of themselves as “third best” but are willing to take a chance that an admissions committee in the second tier might overrate them.

Comparisons Among Departments

Selection of a choice among the “top four” depends on your abilities and tastes. M.I.T. is almost universally praised for the quality of its faculty, its devotion to the teaching of graduate students, and for its physical facilities, but it can accept only about 35 out of roughly 350 applications, and students without excellent mathematical training will feel left behind. Harvard has a senior faculty which is tops in fame and reputation but which is frequently criticized as aloof and inaccessible not only to students but even to junior faculty members; classrooms and faculty offices are in several buildings with no natural physical focal point for students; but on the other hand the attractions and convenience of Cambridge have appeal. At Chicago the faculty is better at teaching than at Harvard, is much more accessible, and in many fields of economics is more innovative than at M.I.T.; compared to M.I.T. Chicago’s disadvantages are huge first-year classes (55-80 is typical) and the neighborhood (crime is a problem, and also there is much less to do in Hyde Park as compared with Cambridge, so one is dependent on downtown Chicago, which is very difficult to reach by public transportation from Hyde Park at night). I lack personal experience at Yale—the problems which recur in “grapevine” conversations is the physical and social separation between the faculty in the Cowles foundation and in the rest of the departments, the aloofness of many faculty members, and the disadvantages of living in New Haven. On the other hand, some ex-graduate students claim that the Department/Cowles split does not affect them, even if it has disadvantages for faculty members.

How does Northwestern compare with its competitors in the “next best” group? Stanford, Berkeley, and U.C.L.A. are obviously superior in climate but suffer from other disadvantages. Because the Stanford campus is so vast, there is no university shopping district within easy walking distance, and the attractions of Palo Alto are uninterestingly suburban, with the delights of San Francisco 35 miles away and accessible only by car. Berkeley is a much better place to live, both more interesting by itself and closer to San Francisco, but the department itself is large and impersonal, with long corridors of closed office doors, and the mathematical economists are off across the campus in a separate building. Princeton is located in a posh expensive small town 45 miles from New York, which is therefore less accessible than Boston from Cambridge, San Francisco from Berkeley, or Chicago from Evanston. Pennsylvania is located in a relatively unattractive section of Philadelphia and faculty houses are widely dispersed (as is true at Harvard and M.I.T.), which inhibits the faculty from lingering after seminars and from giving post-seminar cocktail parties. I lack close familiarity with U.C.L.A., Penn, and Minnesota and won’t cast further aspersions, other than to note that they are all relatively large and impersonal universities.

Northwestern combines a number of advantages—a high-quality faculty which is extremely accessible to students both individually and in group seminars, together with a location which combines the best features of small-town and large-city living. Another significant strength is the relatively prosperous budgetary situation at Northwestern, which is currently allowing the Economics Department to embark on a major program of hiring new tenure and nontenure faulty members. It is likely that by the time current applicants arrive here, the relative ranking of Northwestern’s Economics Department will have risen even higher relative to the many universities which are currently suffering from tight budgets.

 

 II. ASPECTS OF GRADUATE LIFE AT NORTHWESTERN

Courses and Seminars

The Ph.D. program typically takes four years, divided into an initial two-year period devoted mainly to courses, followed by two additional years devoted to attending seminars, finding a thesis topic, and writing the dissertation. There is a single written general examination (“prelim”) in economic theory (three hours for macro and three hours for micro), which most students take after their first year of courses. The process of learning at Northwestern does not consist of rote learning or indoctrination, but rather a process by which the student is first trained in the tools of theoretical, mathematical, and statistical analysis, and then is exposed to the frontiers of economic science and urged to use his tools to help resolve controversies and contribute to the advance of knowledge.

The process by which a student arrives at a dissertation topic generally begins in the second year of class work. Unlike many graduate schools, where the general exam process continues to the end of the second year and sometimes beyond, at Northwestern most students enter the second year of classes with their general exam behind them and can concentrate on finding a special field of interest. Second year classes are usually small enough to allow students to participate actively in discussion and to encourage the faculty both to assign term papers and to read them carefully. Second-year term papers are a “proving ground” where students can experiment with possible thesis topics. Under a new system, students are required to give a paper in a field “workshop” after they are finished taking the courses their primary field sequence.

A formal requirement for admission to Ph.D. candidacy, in addition to the written general examination on economic theory, is an oral qualifying examination on the dissertation, which is usually taken during the third year. The purpose of the exam is to ascertain whether the dissertation topic chosen by the student is feasible. Usually the exam consists of a discussion of a brief written thesis proposal which a candidate submits to the faculty committee of examiners.

At many graduate schools there is no formal program for third and fourth year students, who simply “disappear” in the library or their homes and are unavailable for conversation and consultation with each other. At Northwestern, on the other hand, there is an active workshop program to provide forums where graduate students are exposed to new ideas and have a chance to see each other regularly. A centerpiece is the Tuesday night student- faculty seminar, where students present both early and finish versions of their dissertation research, with a substantial cross-section of the faculty attending regularly to provide advice and criticism. Research seminars in macroeconomics and labor, in applied micro economics, industrial organization and in mathematical economics (in collaboration with faculty members at the Graduate School of Management) meet regularly for presentation and discussion of papers by faculty, students, and visitors. These seminars are not only a major channel of communication between faculty and students, but are also an important method of intellectual interchange among faculty members. In addition, there is a regular visiting speakers program, in which well-known faculty members from other universities are invited to Northwestern to present talks on their research Evanston’s location also facilitates additional informal seminars by visitors who are traveling through the Chicago area.

Particular Strengths

Although the Economics Department teaches graduate courses in all of the major fields of economics, it has particular areas of strength in which faculty members are currently making a major research contribution:

Microeconomic Theory
Mathematical Economics
Econometrics
Theoretical and Applied Macroeconomics
Labor Economics
Public Finance
Managerial Economics and Industrial Organization
Transportation and Urban Economics
Economic History
Medical Economics
Economics of Population and the Family

Faculty and Student Accessibility

Faculty-student contact is unusually good at Northwestern for a number of reasons. Although the classes in economics theory in the first quarter are fairly large, since some management school students are required to attend, for the remaining two quarters of the first year the theory classes typically contain only 25. Second-year class enrollments are often in the range of 5 to 10, allowing a workshop atmosphere and considerable faculty attention to the individual student term papers and research projects. Most of the faculty live close to the Evanston campus and typically hold open cocktail parties in their homes after seminars by visiting speakers. After the Tuesday night faculty-student seminar, both students and faculty regularly adjourn to a local pub (this never happens at M.I.T., Harvard, or at other departments where faculty residences are located in distant suburbs). Many third-and fourth-year students have offices adjoining faculty offices and see their faculty neighbors regularly during coffee breaks. Another advantage promoting easy interaction is the relative youth of many of the tenured faculty, in contrast to the older “stars” at some other departments who spend more time consulting in Washington than talking to their students.

Easy contact among students is even more important than faculty-student contact in the first year, when students need to get to know each other and form into small study groups. This is facilitated at Northwestern by a graduate student lounge in the basement of 1922 Sheridan Rd. (the main economics building), where coffee is available and students are encouraged to study or talk between classes. Another convenience is the Library, completed in 1970 and about a 3-minute walk from the main department building. A special feature of the uniquely designed library is the divisional arrangement of books and journals in three research towers, one for the social sciences. On each of the circular levels of the research towers, ranges of books in specialized journals are placed in a radial pattern. At the periphery of each circle surrounding the collections is a repeating series of carrels, typing rooms, graduate and faculty studies, and seminar rooms in close proximity to the main body of printed materials needed by the various disciplines. (The computer center is also a great advantage, as it is relatively well-run and provides fast 15-20 minute “turnaround time” except in peak weeks at the end of the quarter).

Faculty and Courses in the Graduate School of Management

Although other universities also have business schools, of course, Northwestern’s provides a particular asset because of its unusual orientation toward economics and because of the unusually close contact between members of the Economics Department and the Management School. Economics topics covered in Management School courses include optimization theory and techniques, decision-making under uncertainty, models of production and technology, models of financial decision-making, and others. Management School courses are open to economics students, and dissertation committees often include Management School members.

Research Centers

Several “centers” headed by Department faculty members support and encourage research in their areas, provide offices and secretarial help, and arrange seminars by resident faculty, students, and visitors. Research Centers have been established in mathematical economics, transportation economics, and urban affairs.

 

III. ADMISSIONS AND FELLOWSHIPS

The formal admissions procedure is described in the “Graduate Program” pamphlet. Prospective applicants should note that they are required to submit scores from the Graduate Record Examination only for the verbal and quantitative aptitude tests and not for the advanced test in economics. This is consistent with our desire to encourage applications from those who have not chosen to major in economics as undergraduates. Our interest is in finding motivated, intelligent students with enough quantitative aptitude to understand economics theory and enough curiosity about the world around them to do creative economic research.

All available criteria are used by the Admissions Committee (myself and a few colleagues) to evaluate each applicant — undergraduate grade record, letters of recommendation, the applicant’s score on the Graduate Record Examination, and special factors. No arbitrary boundaries are established for grades or GRE scores. Applicant should encourage those writing letters of recommendation to be as specific as possible, a process which can be facilitated if applicants confer with the letter writers regarding their strengths and weaknesses. Applicants who have any unique qualifications or wish to explain “soft spots” in their grade record are encouraged to file supplementary statements with their applications.

Since first-year calculus is essential and second-year calculus is extremely useful for the study of economics, prospective applicants who have not yet taken these courses for credit are urged to do so at some time between now and their arrival at graduate school (wherever they choose to attend). The summer before arrival is an excellent time to take an extra course, and second-year calculus should receive top priority.

The selection of fellowship winners—for both university and department fellowships—is made by the Admissions Committee shortly after the admissions decision. A number of fellowships are also available under a Rockefeller-sponsored Northwestern Program in the Economics of Population and Household Behavior. To maximize their chances of receiving support, applicants are urged to apply for several of the fellowships awarded by outside foundations, businesses, and government agencies. Do not despair if you do not receive the fellowship, for there are several other alternatives. Most obvious is the student loan program, through which students can borrow money to cover most or all of their tuition (for details, see the Northwestern Graduate School Catalog). A substantial portion of the loan funds is available at three percent interest, which in these days of inflation represents a negative “real” rate of interest. Remember also that inflation reduces the real value of the principal to be repaid. Other sources are part-time academic year jobs, research assistantships for faculty members (usually reserved for students in the third and fourth year), and support from parents and/or spouse (now that women have been liberated, the Ph.T. Degree—“putting hubby through”—has been supplemented by the Pw.T,—“putting wife through”). We do not at present normally award teaching assistantships to first-year students.

 

IV. LIVING IN EVANSTON AND CHICAGO

Evanston

Evanston is the first suburb north of Chicago along Lake Michigan, and the Evanston-Chicago boundary is located 9.5 miles north of the Chicago “Loop.” Despite its proximity to Chicago, Evanston’s aesthetic attractions are immediately apparent when one crosses north over the city line. All of it streets are lined with unusually grand old shade trees; street lights are old-fashioned; the downtown shopping area is free of overhanging neon signs and decorated by city-maintained flowerbeds; and the lakefront is lined with the bicycle path, parks, and beaches where swimming is safe in unpolluted water.

With a population of about 80,000, Evanston is about the same size as Berkeley and Cambridge and shares their advantage of combining the convenience and call of a relatively small self-contained city with the entertainment and cultural attractions of a large urban center. Its residents include not only students and professors, but also sizable numbers of lawyers, architects, and other professionals who help to support groups and organizations in music, politics, and other areas. Student housing is available both in private and university-owned buildings (see the Graduate School Catalog for details), and most students are able to live within a short walk or bicycle ride from Northwestern’s lakefront campus.

Evanston’s downtown shopping area begins immediately south of the campus, with a group of books stores located across the street from the main university administration building. Shopping opportunities are unusually diverse for a city of Evanston’s size, with several branches of downtown department and specialty stores, large supermarkets and small “gourmet” food shops, and a variety of shops selling both standard and esoteric clothes, furnishings, and other items.

Transportation within Evanston is easy whether or not students own cars. Parking is available on side streets and in public parking garages downtown. Since most side streets are relatively free of traffic, many students prefer to rely entirely on bicycles for travel within Evanston. The public transit fare is subsidized by the City Council at 25¢ for travel within Evanston on four bus lines and on the rapid transit stations which shuttle at five-minute intervals along a north-south axis which skirts the western boundary of the campus and continue south to the Chicago border and on to downtown Chicago  (see below).

Many Evanston residents formerly lived in the Hyde Park and South Shore districts of Chicago—adjacent to the University of Chicago—but moved north to escape the South Side crime problem. Evanston is fortunate in its low crime rate, less than half the rates recorded in Berkeley and Cambridge in the 1970-73 period, and is a place where both students and faculty feel perfectly free to walk out at night. The only noticeable disadvantage of life in Evanston is the climate between November 15 and March 15, when the average daily high-temperature is about 35 degrees (i.e., five degrees colder than New York). Average annual snowfall is a bit more than in New York and a bit less than in Boston. The weather during the rest of the year similar to that in the northeastern quadrant of the U.S. Over all the weather is obviously no match for Berkeley, about the same as Boston and decidedly better than Madison or Minneapolis.

Chicago

From the Northwestern campus the center of Chicago is 25 minutes by car via Lakeshore Drive, and is almost easily accessible via rapid transit trains which stop twice at the western edge of the campus and reach the “Loop” in 30 minutes during rush hours, and about 40 minutes at other times. These times overstate the duration of travel to many restaurants, theaters, and clubs, the majority of which are located on the North Side of the city, i.e., between the “Loop” in the Evanston border. Trains run all night, and at most hours their frequency is every five to ten minutes.

Until six years ago I had never been to Chicago and had an irrational fear of the unknown Midwest, which may be shared by some prospective applicants from the East and West Coasts. My years of sampling Chicago’s attractions have converted me, and perhaps you will be interested in some personal opinions and comparisons:

    • The main aesthetic attractions are (1) the Loop and Near North Side, containing some of the best urban architecture in the world, in (2) the 20-mile bicycle path along the lake front, which is a continuous band of parks, beaches, and yacht harbors.
    • The major museums are all very large and among the top two or three in the country, including the Art Institute, the Field Museum of Natural History, the Planetarium, the Aquarium, and the Museum of Science and Industry, the latter having special appeal for any economist interested in the history of technical change and in “how things work.” There are smaller art galleries as well, and a local “school” of modern art, which I saw exhibited in Mexico City as “La Nueva Escuela de Chicago.”
    • In New York visiting concerts of Georg Solti with the Chicago Symphony have become, according to the New York Times, the “most eagerly anticipated musical events since Toscanini.” The Symphony plays three concerts a week during the academic year at Orchestra Hall in the “Loop” and frequent concerts during the summer at the Ravinia Festival in a suburb a few miles north of Evanston. The Lyric Opera presents a three-month season in the fall and shares with San Francisco the top rank among US opera companies outside of New York. There are several local chamber music groups and a long list of touring concert artists, including the major New York ballet companies, which perform throughout the year. There are also three full-time FM classical music stations.
    • The “club scene,” both night clubs and coffee houses, is unsurpassed among cities outside of New York, and the blues and folk music offerings surpass New York. Each Friday a free newspaper, the Reader, lists about 150 blues, folk, rock, and jazz acts appearing in local clubs.
    • Speaking of newspapers, the Chicago Tribune has dropped its conservativism of the Col. McCormick days and was recently named one of the country’s 10 best by Time. Its local news and features are excellent, although it still can’t compare for national and international news with the New York Times (the latter is flown in daily for purchase at Evanston newsstands or for home delivery).
    • In the restaurant category Chicago ranks after New York, San Francisco, and perhaps New Orleans. Its best are not as good as in those three cities, but that doesn’t matter much for students who can’t very often afford $50 French dinners. More important and interesting is Chicago’s strength, the hundreds of inexpensive “storefront ethnic” restaurants, many of which are in the north part of Chicago close to Evanston. Take your choice among German, French Provincial, East European Italian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean, Thai, Japanese, Indian, Mexican, Cuban, and Peruvian.
    • Cheap entertainment is available at the student-run film societies at Northwestern, other colleges, and the Art Institute, and at a number of commercial theaters on the north side of Chicago which only charge $.75 or $1.00 for a double bill of second- or third-run features.
    • While the quantity of live drama is no match for New York, there is a surprisingly broad offering by two accomplished professional repertory groups, a number of “off-Broadway” and experimental groups, and both pre- and post-Broadway touring shows. In recent years a number of shows have “graduated” to New York after starting here.

****

Obviously the preceding notes will only begin to answer your questions. Write me for any additional information you need. I’ll respond without delay if I know the answer or else I’ll find a colleague who can advise you. I can also arrange for a current graduate student to provide more information on student reactions.

 

Source: M.I.T. Archives. Records of the Department of Economics. Box 3, Folder “Quality Rating.”

Image Source: Robert J. Gordon at First Bank of Japan Monetary Conference, June 1983. Detail from picture with James Tobin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Economics Programs Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. Graduate Studies and Exams of Yukimasa Hattori, Ph.D. 1903

 

This post begins with a chronicle of the course work and seminar presentations of the Japanese graduate student of economics, Yukimasa Hattori, at the Johns Hopkins University for the academic years 1900-01 and 1901-02. I find it really remarkable that one is able to put together such a detailed timeline for an arbitrary single graduate student well over a century ago from online sources.  A transcription of the doctoral examination questions given to Hattori found in the Johns Hopkins archive and a link to Hattori’s published dissertation complete the post.

Perhaps a Japanese visitor to this blog could find and share additional biographical information about Hattori from Japanese language sources?

____________________________

Date of death of Yukimasa Hattori

In Graduates and Fellows of the Johns Hopkins University, 1876-1913. Yukimasa Hattori was listed as having died April 6, 1913.

Source: The Johns Hopkins University Circular, (April 1914). Graduates and Fellows of the Johns Hopkins University 1876-1913, p. 23.

____________________________

Coursework of Yukimasa Hattori

First Half-Year, 1900-1901

Daily except Wednesday, 11 a.m. Class B. Elementary German and German Reader. Dr. Kurrelmeyer

Minor Course, Class B. Four hours weekly. Otis, Elementary German (First Part); Brandt, German Reader (50pp.); Heyse, L’Arrabbiata; Goethe, Egmont; E. S. Buchheim, Elementary German Prose Composition; Whitney, German Grammar.

Monday and Tuesday, 9 a.m. Labor Problems. Mr. W. F. Willoughby

Labor Problems. Mr. W. F. Willoughby, of the United States Bureau of Labor, lectured on Labor Problems to ten graduate students, two hours weekly, during the first half-year.
This course was devoted primarily to a study of the group of movements having for their purpose the increase in the economic security of the laboring classes. Each of the contingencies was considered in which workingmen are unable to earn wages, as disability, sickness, accident, premature invalidity old age, and inability to obtain work, and the effort now being made in Europe and the United States for providing for them through insurance or otherwise A few lectures were also given on the organization and practical work of statistical bureaus in various countries.

Monday and Tuesday, 12 M. United States Constitutional Law. Dr. Willoughby

Advanced United States Constitutional Law. Eleven graduate students, two hours weekly, throughout the year. These lectures presupposed a general knowledge of our political history and of the elements of our public law, and were therefore devoted to the discussion of the more perplexing and as yet unsettled points in our constitutional law, the illustrations being largely drawn from the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during the last few years. Especial attention was given to the examinations of the legal problems involved in the annexation and government of foreign territories. Carefully prepared written analyses of the leading cases considered were required of the students.

Wednesday, 9 a.m. Economic Development. Associate Professor Sherwood.

The Law of Economic Development. Eight graduate students, one hour weekly, through the year. This course was an examination of the law of evolution as applied to economic life. The basis of this application is found in the fact that social activity and organization begin in the want and will of individuals, and that these are governed by an economic or utilitarian principle which leads men to act so as to secure the greatest satisfaction with the least sacrifice. The operation of this principle was shown in military, political, and religious life, as well as in industrial activity. Individual variation, which begins change, in itself an illustration of this law and the new social organization which results, is evolved from these utilitarian choices and efforts of the individuals. Division of labor, the varying forms of industrial organization and the growth of capital are all to be explained in the same way.

Wednesday and Thursday, 12 m. History of Political Philosophy. Dr. Willoughby.

History of Political Theories, 1300 to 1750 A.D. Twelve graduate students, two hours weekly, throughout the year. The political ideals and principles of this period were analyzed and criticized. An especial effort was made to show the extent to which these theories were the outcome of the political conditions and general characteristics of the times in which they were formulated.

Alternate Thursdays, 4-6 p.m. Economic Seminary, Associate Professor Sherwood

Economic Seminary met two hours fortnightly, with eight graduate students. The special study of Commerce and Commercial Policy of the United States has been continued, in part by the preparation of papers and in part by the critical study of List’s National System of Political Economy. Papers upon other topics were also read and reviews were given of current economic literature.

Thursday and Friday, 9 a.m. Banking. Associate Professor Sherwood

Modern Banking. Two hours weekly, first half-year, with ten graduate students. A comparative study of the banking systems of England, France, Germany, and the United States was made. Attention was directed to the internal organization of the central banks and their relation to the other banking institutions of their respective countries, to the present status of the business done by the banks, and to the relation of these banks to the government. Conclusions were drawn from these studies as to the tendencies in modern banking, and certain needed reforms in the American system were pointed out.

Alternate Fridays, 8 p.m. Historical Seminary. Professor Adams.

Historical Seminar [also called “Historical and Political Science Association”] met regularly on alternate Friday evening and was attended by eighteen students and five instructors. The more important original work of the department was presented in these fortnightly meetings, and the current literature of history, economics, and political science was subjected to review and criticism. The proceedings from October 5 to March 15 are published in the University Circulars in January, March,[ and May-June] 1901.

Sources:  Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XX. No. 148 (November, 1900), pp. 5-6; Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the President of Johns Hopkins University, 1901, pp. 72, 84-87.

 

Second Half-Year, 1900-1901

Daily except Wednesday, 11 a.m. Class B. Elementary German Grammar and Prose. Dr. Kurrelmeyer

Monday, 9-11 a.m. American Finance. Dr. E. D. Durand.

American Financial History. Dr. E. Dana Durand, Secretary of the United States Industrial Commission, on leave of absence from Stanford University, lectured…to a class of six graduate students, two hours weekly, during the second half-year. The course covered the history of the public finances of the United States Government, from the beginning of the Revolution to 1890. The development of the customs duties and of other methods of taxation was traced and the policy of debt management was discussed. The history of the currency and banking system was also considered in so far as it bears on the general subject of the administration of the public treasury. The students did collateral reading from a number of original documents and of secondary treatises, and each of them presented a paper on some phase of financial history.

Monday and Tuesday, 12 M. United States Constitutional Law. Dr. Willoughby

See First Half-year 1900-1901, above

Wednesday, 9 a.m. Economic Development. Associate Professor Sherwood.

The Law of Economic Development [Associate Professor Sherwood], with eight graduate students, one hour weekly, through the year. This course was an examination of the law of evolution as applied to economic life. The basis of this application is found in the fact that social activity and organization begin in the want and will of individuals, and that these are governed by an economic or utilitarian principle which leads men to act so as to secure the greatest satisfaction with the least sacrifice. The operation of this principle was shown in military, political, and religious life, as well as in industrial activity. Individual variation, which begins change, in itself an illustration of this law and the new social organization which results, is evolved from these utilitarian choices and efforts of the individuals. Division of labor, the varying forms of industrial organization and the growth of capital are all to be explained in the same way.

Wednesday and Thursday, 12 m. History of Political Philosophy. Dr. Willoughby.

See First Half-year 1900-1901, above

Alternate Thursdays, 4-6 p.m. Economic Seminary, Associate Professor Sherwood

See First Half-year 1900-1901, above

Thursday and Friday, 9 a.m. Theory of Credit. Associate Professor Sherwood

Theory of Credit with six graduate students, two hours weekly, second half-year. Analysis of credit was made so as to indicate the operation of credit in its economic rather than in its legal aspect. The part played by credit in productive organization and processes was then traced. The adequacy of present credit institutions to meet the requirements of the various classes of industry was also discussed, as well as the relation of credit to prices. The course was closed with a brief review of the historical development of the theory of credit.

Alternate Fridays, 8 p.m. Historical Seminary. Professor Adams

See First Half-year 1900-1901, above

Sources: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XX, No. 150 (March, 1901), pp. 40-41.; Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the President of Johns Hopkins University, 1901, pp. 72, 84-87.

 

First Half-Year, 1901-1902

Monday 9 a.m. Current Economic Literature, Associate Professor Hollander and Dr. Barnett

During the first half-year, Associate Professor Hollander also directed a journal club, in weekly meetings, for the review and discussion of current economic literature, and for exercise in the use of original sources of economic and financial information.

Monday and Tuesday 10 a.m. Germanic Civilization. Associate Professor Vincent.

No further information available.

Tuesday and Wednesday, 9 a.m. Theory and Practice of Finance. Associate Professor Hollander

Finance, [was taught by Associate Professor Hollander] two hours weekly through the year. The past financial experience and the present fiscal practice of the United States — federal, state, and local — were taken as the basis for critical and comparative study. The emergence of contemporary problems in our public economics was traced, and the concrete issues thus presented served to introduce an exposition of the fundamental theories of the science of finance. Emphasis was put upon the place of financial technique in public economics, and attention was directed to the immediate financial problems presented by our new insular possessions. A reasonable amount of collateral reading from selected texts was done in connection with the course.

Wednesday, 11 a.m. Oral Examinations in General History. Dr. Ballagh.

Oral Examinations in General History, [Dr. J. C. Ballagh, Associate in History has conducted] one hour weekly, through the year. This work is particularly designed for candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, though advanced graduates are sometimes admitted to attendance. Important fields of general history were consecutively and systematically reviewed, but especial emphasis was laid upon those in which greater concentration was needed by the individual members of the class. The special course on the political history of Greece and Rome given last year was replaced by a similar specialized course on the constitutional history of England and the political history of the United States. The sources and best exponents of the history of the periods covered were discussed and used by the class.

Wednesday and Thursday, 10 a.m. Mediaeval France. Associate Professor Vincent.

Mediaeval France [taught by Associate Professor J. M. Vincent]. Two hours weekly, first half-year. These two courses together provided a systematic treatment of the history of Europe during the early Middle Ages. Each student was required to present a syllabus of the whole subject with references to sources and authorities.

Wednesday and Thursday 12 m. Legal Aspects of Economic and Industrial Problems. Associate Professor Willoughby.

The Legal Aspects of Economic and Industrial Problems [taught by Associate Professor Willoughby] two hours weekly, throughout the year. The points of law involved in such matters as the control of interstate commerce, taxation, factory legislation and other exercises of the so-called police power, the fixing of wages and prices, the management of strikes, lockouts, boycotts, the control of industrial combinations, of labor unions, etc., were examined. The development of the present law was traced both in the common law and in statutory enactments, and proposals for its amendment outlined and discussed.

Thursday and Friday, 9 a.m. Development of Economic Theories since Adam Smith. Associate Professor Hollander

Development of Economic Theories since Adam Smith, [was taught by Associate Professor Hollander] two hours weekly through the year. A detailed historical survey was made of the development of the fundamental concepts of economic science from Adam Smith to current thought. The body of English thought was followed in the main, but other writers and schools were examined wherever direct influence or analogy was discerned. The method of treatment was topical, resulting in a series of cross-sectional views of the history of economic thought. In connection with the course, members of the class read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Thomas Robert Malthus’s Essay on Population, and John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy.

Alternate Tuesdays, 8 p.m. Economic Seminary, Associate Professor Hollander and Dr. Barnett

Economic Seminary, [was led by Associate Professor Hollander] fortnightly, in two-hour sessions, through the year, with membership limited to the most advanced students, and designed to develop the use of sound methods of economic research. The general subjects of study were the commercial policies and the industrial institutions of Europe and the United States in the nineteenth century. Dr. George E. Barnett, Instructor in Political Economy, assisted in the conduct of the work. Each member of the Seminary prepared and submitted, for detailed criticism as to method and content, one or more studies within [their] field of inquiry.

Alternate Fridays, 8 p.m. Historical and Political Science Association.

 

Sources: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XXI, No. 154 (December, 1901), p. 15; Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the President of The Johns Hopkins University, 1902, pp. 58-60, 62-64.

 

Second Half-Year, 1901-1902

Monday, 9 a.m. Elements of Statistics. Dr. Barnett.

Dr. George E. Barnett, Instructor in Political Economy, gave a course of twenty lectures on the Elements of Statisticsduring the second half- year. Attention was directed chiefly to the history of statistics and to methods of statistical investigation. As illustrative material, some of the chief problems of vital statistics were discussed.

Monday and Tuesday, 10 a.m. German Reformation. Associate Professor Vincent

The German Reformation [taught by Associate Professor J. M. Vincent]. Two hours weekly, second half-year. Beginning with the causes of the Lutheran movement these lectures extended through the Swiss Reformation until the Protestant churches were firmly established. Emphasis was laid particularly upon the social and political conditions which influenced this revolution.

Alternate Tuesdays, 8 p.m. Economic Seminary, Associate Professor Hollander and Dr. Barnett

See First Half-year 1901-1902, above

Tuesday and Wednesday, 9 a.m. Theory and Practice of Finance. Associate Professor Hollander

See First Half-year 1901-1902, above

Wednesday and Thursday, 10 a.m. English Reformation. Associate Professor Vincent

England in the Sixteenth Century [taught by Associate Professor J. M. Vincent]. Two hours weekly, second half-year. This course covered the period of the Reformation in England and included the significant parts of the reign of Elizabeth.

Wednesday, 11 a.m. Oral Examinations in General History. Dr. Ballagh.

See First Half-year 1901-1902, above

Wednesday and Thursday 12 m. Legal Aspects of Economic and Industrial Problems. Associate Professor Willoughby.

See First Half-year 1901-1902, above

Thursday and Friday, 9 a.m. Development of Economic Theories since Adam Smith. Associate Professor Hollander

See First Half-year 1901-1902, above

 

Sources: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XXI., No. 157 (April, 1902), pp. 73-74; Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the President of The Johns Hopkins University, 1902, pp. 58-60, 62-64.

____________________________

Fellowship Announced June 10, 1902

Yukimasa Hattori, of Sagaken, Japan, Tokyo College of Science, 1898. Economics.

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XXI., No. 159 (July, 1902), p. 111.

 

____________________________

Presentations by Yukimasa Hattori

Historical and Political Science Assocation

May 10, 1901. International Private Law in Japan.

Source: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XX., No. 152 (May-June, 1901), p. 89.

February, 1902. Patten’s Theory of Prosperity.

Source: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XXI., No. 157 (April, 1902), p. 66.

Economic Seminary

December 10, 1901. Commercial Relations of Japan since 1868.

April 22, 1902. Japan’s Foreign Trade since the Restoration, (1868-1900).

Source: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XXI., No. 158 (June, 1902), p. 77.

____________________________

Ph.D. Examinations

Mr. Y. Hattori.

General Examination in Political Economy, May 27, 1903
(General)

  1. Discuss the commercial development of Japan with reference to the theory of international value.
  2. What theoretical influences contributed to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations?
  3. Trace the development of economic thought with respect to the measure of value.
  4. Describe and criticize the wage-fund theory.
  5. Discuss modern industrial combinations in the light of an assignable limit to the growth in the size of the modern industrial unit.
  6. Describe the history of the general property tax, and discuss its shifting and incidence.
  7. What successive financial measures should be taken by Japan upon the declaration of war with a foreign power?
  8. Discuss the theoretical difficulties and the practical advantages in the use of index numbers.
  9. Upon what principle should railroad rates be fixed? Discuss fully.
  10. Discuss the validity of collective bargaining with reference to industrial conditions in Japan.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Mr. Y. Hattori.

SPECIAL EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
MAY 30, 1903.
(Money and Banking.)

  1. Discuss the relation of prices to the money supply.
  2. Define credit and describe its functions.
  3. Describe the chief stages in the history of the Bank of England.
  4. Discuss the theory of bimetallism.
  5. Describe the chief classes of banks in the United States.
  6. Compare the Bank of Japan with the German Reichsbank.
  7. Discuss the relation of deposits to reserve.
  8. Describe the history of the Japanese Currency since 1868.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, MAY 29, 1903.
Graduate Courses, 1902-1903.

  1. Discuss credit and its service in modern economic life.
  2. What changes are desirable in the American currency system?
  3. Discuss the movement of the precious metals as a feature of international trade.
  4. Speculation and its relation to modern industrial organization.
  5. Describe the inter-relations of mercantilistic theory and practice.
  6. The forerunners of Adam Smith and their contributions to the “Wealth of Nations”.
  7. What is the genesis of the differential law of rent?
  8. Contrast the places of Adam Smith and David Ricardo in the history of economic thought.

Source:  Johns Hopkins University. Milton S. Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy. Series 6. Box 3/1. Folder “Graduate Exams, 1903-1932”.

____________________________

Ph.D. Dissertation

Hattori, Yukimasa. The Foreign Commerce of Japan Since the Restoration, 1869-1900. In the series Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series XXII, No. 9-10. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, September-October, 1904. (text: 71 pages)

 

JAPAN’S FOREIGN TRADE SINCE THE RESTORATION (1868-1900).
By YUKIMASA HATTORI.

[Abstract of a paper read before the Economic Seminary, April 22, 1902.]

The total amount of Japan’s exports and imports was 26 million yen in 1868; 65 million yen in 1880; 138 million yen in 1890, and from that year on, the aggregate increased by leaps and bounds—most notably after the China-Japanese War (1894-5)—until it reached the enormous sum of 491 million yen in 1900. Stated in terms of the yen, this increase is, however, more apparent than real. Since 1873 the value of silver not only relative to gold but also relative to all commodities has gradually gone down, or in other words general prices in Japan have gone up about seventy-five per cent, so that the figures above stated must be reduced according to the index number of prices in each, particular year in order to show the actual quantity of commodities.

In character, it is only since 1890 that Japan’s export trade has undergone important change. Such commodities as cotton yarn, habutaye (white silk fabric,) silk handkerchiefs, matches, straw braids, floor matting, and European umbrellas, which now form the most important exports, first appeared in the foreign trade of Japan almost simultaneously in 1890. For example, in the case of cotton yarn and habutaye,—in 1890 the export of the former was only 2,000 yen and of the latter 818,000 yen; in 1900 the corresponding figures were 20,589,000 yen and 18,314,000 yen, respectively. In other words, up to 1890, the principal articles of export were the natural products most suited to the soil of Japan such as tea, raw silk, rice, copper, coal, camphor and marine products. Since 1890, the export of manufactured goods has gradually risen to a far larger percentage than that of raw materials.

The logical consequence of this change in the character of Japan’s foreign trade has been a change in its geographical distribution. The tide of Japanese trade is moving more and more towards the eastern shores of continental Asia, namely, Russian Asia, Corea, China, Hongkong, British India and the Straits Settlement. Both exports to and imports from European countries are decreasing, relatively; while the imports from the United States show a remarkable increase.

Source: Johns Hopkins University Circulars Vol. XXI., No. 158 (June, 1902), p. 81.

Ph.D. Awarded, 1902-03:

Yukimasa Hattori, of Sagaken, Japan, Tokyo College of Science, 1898.
Subjects: Political Economy, Political Science, and History. Dissertation: The Foreign Commerce of Japan since the Restoration. Referees on Dissertation: Professor Hollander and Dr. Barnett.

Source: Johns Hopkins University, University Publications No 2, 1903-04. The Twenty-Eight Annual Report of the President with Accompanying Reports, 1903 (Baltimore, January 1904), p. 71.

Image Source: Frontpiece of the Johns Hopkins University yearbook, The Hullabaloo 1903.

Categories
Economics Programs Faculty Regulations M.I.T.

M.I.T. “Industrial Economics” Ph.D. name changed to “Economics”, Economics S.M. recognized as exit ramp, 1965

 

Somewhat surprising is the late date (1965!) of the name-change for the economics Ph.D. at M.I.T. from “Industrial Economics” to “Economics”. Also interesting in the transcribed memorandum below is the request to lower the math and science prerequisites for the economics S.M. to that of the Ph.D. in order to facilitate the graceful, early exit of graduate students unlikely to complete the Ph.D. 

____________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

MEMORANDUM

February 5, 1965

To: Committee on Graduate School Policy
From: Robert L. Bishop, Head, Department of Economics and Social Science

For some time now, there has been a strong sentiment in our Department that our graduate degree programs should be changed and supplemented. The changes that we should now like to propose officially will require action by the Faculty and the Corporation, because they involve changes in degree titles, in one instance a change in prerequisites and content of the degree, and in another instance the addition of a new degree. On the other hand, the changes are not really of a radical nature and will not involve any additional staff or any augmenting of the numbers of our graduate students.

At present we have programs for a Ph.D. in Industrial Economics, a Ph.D. in Political Science, and an S.M. in Economics and Engineering or in Economics and Science. Our proposals are: (1) to change the title of the Ph.D. in Industrial Economics to a Ph.D. in Economics; (2) to substitute for the present S.M. degrees a single S.M. in Economics, with admission requirements the same as for the Ph.D. in Economics; and (3) to add an S.M. in Political Science, having an analogous relationship to the existing Ph.D. in Political Science.

Dropping the adjective “Industrial” from the title of our Economics Ph.D. is merely a belated recognition of the considerable broadening of that program that has taken place since it was first established in the years just prior to World War II. At that time, the designation of Industrial Economics appropriately reflected the limited kind of study that was then visualized. Since then, however, our program has expanded in its scope and diversity so that the original designation has become a decided anachronism for the majority of our Ph.D. recipients.

Even in the beginning, as now, the admission requirements for our Economics Ph.D. have differed from those in most Departments, in that they did not include the amount of mathematics and science taken by M.I.T. undergraduates. Instead, only one full year of college mathematics and one full year of college work in science have been required. These requirements reflect, of course, a desire to make our program accessible to most Economics majors in liberal arts colleges. The requirements for our present S.M. degrees, by contrast, constitute essentially the subjects taken by an undergraduate in the Economics option of Course XIV. It is those admission requirements that we propose to change, so that a candidate for the Ph.D. might alternatively be a candidate for an S.M.

Professional training for a career in Economics is such that the Ph.D. has really become the essential degree for anyone who aspires to the fullest professional status. Nor is it our intention to admit candidates solely for the S.M., except in very special circumstances. Over the years, however, we have felt the desirability of being free to award and S.M. in Economics to some students. These include some foreign students, often connected with research programs at the Center for International Studies, who can profit significantly from graduate study at M.I.T. but who are unable to stay long enough for the full Ph.D. program. In all frankness, too, it must be confessed that we have sometimes wished that we were free to divert a Ph.D. candidate toward the lesser degree because of inadequacies of performance after enrollment at the institute. Naturally, the student whose performance is acutely disappointing should not be given any favorable consideration. In many cases, however, performance is not up to the high standard that I think we have maintained for the Ph.D., but still high enough to merit continuance for an S.M.

The reasons supporting a new S.M. degree in Political Science are exactly the same. The only difference here is that there is no S.M. of any kind available in Political Science.

These changes involving S.M. degrees are also in line with some changes that we are simultaneously proposing to the Committee on Curricula with respect to our undergraduate degrees in Course XIV. It is being proposed that these degrees be redesignated more simply as in Economics (Course XIV-A) or in Political Science (Course XIV-B). A copy of these proposals is attached.

Provided that both the undergraduate and graduate program changes are approved, we shall then adopt the same distinction between Course XIV-A and Course XIV-B at the graduate level as at the undergraduate. This will achieve the important administrative reform of distinguishing, as is not now the case, the Economics and Political Science graduate students.

As to the details of the revised graduate degrees, I enclose alternative catalogue copy that would replace the descriptions on pages 142-144 in the present catalogue.

To the extent that the Committee on Graduate School Policy may wish some further discussion of these changes, my colleagues and I will be very pleased to provide it.

RLB:e

 

Source: MIT Institute Archives. Department of Economics records. Box 1, Folder “Comm. On Grad. School Policy”.

Categories
Economics Programs Economist Market Gender M.I.T. Placement UCLA

M.I.T. Stats on women economics Ph.D.s, 1960-72

 

Besides documenting the figure of 5.8% of the MIT economics Ph.D.s granted during the period 1960-1972 going to women, the correspondence between the heads of the UCLA and MIT departments transcribed for this post indicates that there could be up to 14 other departmental responses to the UCLA request in 1972 regarding the gender breakdown of economics Ph.D.s. Can somebody check the UCLA archives for us?

_________________

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024

19 September 1972

Chairman
Department of Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Dear Sir:

The Administration of the University has requested that I obtain from the fifteen best Departments of Economics (as judged by the Roose-Anderson Report) data concerning women Ph.D.s. First, how many women Ph.D.s did you produce from 1960-65, 1965-70, and 1970-72? Second, our Administration wishes specific information on those women with Ph.D.s, or those nearing completion, whom you would recommend for academic appointments.

While it might appear that this Department is about to initiate a policy of discrimination in favor of women, I want to emphasize that we shall continue to select our faculty solely on the basis of merit. Therefore, this year, as in past years, we should very much appreciate information concerning all of your Ph.D.s available for employment in 1973-74.

Sincerely,

[signed]
J.C. La Force
Chairman

JCL:aa

 

[Note: Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen, A Rating of Graduate Programs, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. 1970.]

_________________

 

Carbon copy of E. Cary Brown’s response

September 28, 1972

Professor J. C. La Force
University of California, Los Angeles
Department of Economics
Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Professor La Force:

The data you requested are as follows:

Ph.D. Awarded
Women

Men
July 1, 1960—June 30, 1965

5

76
July 1, 1965—June 30, 1970

7

95
July 1, 1965—June 30, 1972

1

40
[Total]

13

211

We have not yet compiled a list of the potential supply of Ph.D.’s for next year. I will ask Professor Evsey Domar to call to your attention such women candidates as he would recommend to you. If the list is a sgood as last year’s, they could all be enthusiastically supported.

Very truly yours,

E. Cary Brown, Head

ECB/jfc

Source:  M.I.T. Institute Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder Ph.D. Program Statistics

Categories
Curriculum Economics Programs Fields Harvard Statistics

Harvard. Report on statistics and national income courses. Crum and Frickey, 1945

Crum Frickey

 

William Leonard Crum and Edward Frickey taught Harvard’s economic statistics courses in the 1930s and 1940s.  Paul Samuelson recounted his second semester (Spring 1936) as a graduate student following his previous semester’s worth of Crum: “…I was able to learn genuine modern statistics from E. B. Wilson, bypassing Edwin Frickey (who with Leonard Crum taught at Harvard courses against modern statistics!)” [On this, Roger E. Backhouse’s Vol I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948, p.101].

Reading the following intradepartmental report on economic statistics courses and how to integrate national income and product accounting into the graduate curriculum that was written by a committee of two (Crum and Frickey), one discovers that even a decade after Samuelson’s experience, the proper preparation of “ink charts” was a subject that warranted faculty discussion.  Harvard Ph.D. Robert Solow later went to Columbia to play catch-up ball with respect to statistical analysis before starting his M.I.T. contract.  Harvard economics was a full generation behind the times with respect to statistical method at mid-20th century.

A 1947 Crum/Frickey  joint memo regarding preparation for taking the comprehensive field exam in statistics has been posted earlier.

______________________

6 March 1945

Report on the course offerings in Statistics, and in National Income

At the Department meeting of 13 February, 1945, the undersigned were named a committee to study course offerings and proposed offerings in Statistics and in National Income, discuss their findings with the Chairman, and report to the Department. Attached are the two reports: I, on Statistics; II, (page 10) on National Income.

W.L. Crum
Edwin Frickey

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

I. The Offering in Statistics

At the meeting of the Harvard Economics Department on 13 February, 1945. W. L. C. and E. F. sought opinions from colleagues as to additional instruction needed in statistics and as to changes needed in existing instruction. The following is in part a report of the informal discussion, in part an indication of what W. L. C. and E. F. think can advisedly be done. The present statement is preliminary; a more definitive report will be prepared, after consultation with H. H. B., for submission to the Department at a later meeting.

  1. Opinion was expressed that many of our graduate students show conspicuous lack of ability to present statistical material in the form of chart or table, for example, in theses. Instruction in statistics here has for several years relied upon capacity of students to learn by emulation—they have abundant opportunity to acquaint themselves with good statistical presentation, both tabular and graphic, in our courses in statistics and in the source materials of other courses. In course 21a, some instruction is incidentally given in orderly tabulation of limited sorts, but we make no attempt to teach students to prepare ink charts. Apparently, something more is needed; and three suggestions, perhaps all to be followed together, are made:
    1. By compressing some other parts of the work, we can include a small amount of instruction on presentation in course 21a. This should help put those graduate students who are required to take that course here on the right track.
    2. For students not required to take 21a, because they have had the “equivalent” elsewhere, one possibly helpful device is to require in course 121b a written report involving presentation in tabular and graphic form. Such report could be graded if sufficient funds are available to cover the grading, and the instructors could make a moderate effort to advise particular students about defects in their reports. The reports would presumably be required of all students in 121b, whether or not they had had 21a.
    3. The Department’s specialists in statistics could advise any graduate student, whose thesis involved matters of statistical presentation, concerning such matters. When the Department acquires a general research laboratory, with a regular supervisor, the supervisor could give such advice. In the meantime, the instructors in statistics could stand ready to give such advice in appropriate cases. The undersigned emphasize that this advice should be understood to concern presentation of statistical materials: they do not feel but they should be called upon ordinarily to advise such as student about sources of statistics for his thesis, or about the methods of analyzing the statistics, or about their interpretation. They have often given advice on such matters in certain cases, and will continue to do so, but take the stand that they should not be regarded as under the obligation to give such advice to all comers. The point is that; if the candidate proposes to write a statistical thesis in any field of economics, a vital part of his job is to obtain, analyze, and interpret his data. We see no reason why faculty specialists in statistics should make an extraordinary contribution to a thesis which happens to have quantitative aspects.
  2. Little emphasis appeared, in any opinions expressed, on the need for laboratory instruction in statistics in our graduate offering. Some suggestion was advanced that the “homework” type of problem task could helpfully be employed. W. L. C. and E. F. have a little faith that much could be accomplished in this way – the great advantage of the supervised laboratory is that the supervisor can get students actively started on the task and can catch and clear away difficulties as they arise. (We assume, of course, any problem work of this sort, in graduate courses, should be on an advanced – not elementary – level.) To meet this suggestion, we propose only that point A2 above be put into effect, and that the following change in present operations be considered. At present, course 121a includes two home-work problems, which stretch over several weeks, but are not graded and are not used as bases for specific advice to individual students. The proposed change is that these problems be handed in, and treated like the problem described in A2. (In these cases, as in that case, grading of the reports would be feasible if funds are available for the purpose.)

An emphatic suggestion was made that graduate students have the use of laboratory equipment, and be made welcome in the laboratory. We do not believe this can be managed with the laboratory facilities of course 21a. We note, however, that a moderate chance now exists that the University will presently provide the Department with a research laboratory in statistics, adequately equipped, and under competent supervision. If and when this is done, no difficulty will arise in making ample place for work by graduate students on any statistical tasks in which they may properly be interested. We remark that the arguments in favor of a general research laboratory in statistics are much more likely to bring conviction in responsible quarters that the argument, however strongly put, in favor of facilities merely for the occasional use of graduate students.

  1. Supposing we are to give an additional half graduate course in statistics, opinions pointed toward three alternatives:
    1. A course in theory, intermediate between course 121a and Prof. Wilson’s course 122b. This does not appear a good use of our manpower, for the election in such a course would inevitably be small, especially as the mathematics prerequisites would necessarily be much more severe than those – almost nil – on which we now limp through 121a.
    2. A further course was suggested – beyond 121b and perhaps alternating with it – in topics in the application of statistics to economic fields. Economics 121b now includes a selected list of such topics, which varies moderately from year to year; but it is by no means a comprehensive coverage of all even of the major possibilities. We could readily prepare an additional half course to be called 121c of further topics in the applied fields, and many students would probably like such a course. Such a course can be described as follows:

Economics 121c will be a half-course which might be entitled Topics in Applied Economic Statistics. Economics 21a or its equivalent will be a prerequisite. Properly qualified undergraduates may, with the consent of the instructor, be admitted to economics 121c.

Economics 121c will deal with statistical problems arising in connection with the use of basic statistical data in a selected list of economic topics. (As compared with 121b this course will lay more emphasis on the basic material and less emphasis on statistical theory.)

On each topic each student will be expected to familiarize himself with the immediate and the basic sources of the main materials, through actual examination of such materials, and to present a critical appraisal of these fundamental statistics. The instructor will give a succinct historical background – an outline of the principal work which is already been done on the topic. The instructor and the class will work out together conclusions as to what are the leading issues involved, and will consider what it is that statisticians are trying to measure and what they should be trying to measure.

Such topics as the following will be included:

Consumption
Commodity prices
Cost-of-living
Employment and unemployment
Wages
Money and Banking
Production and Trade (certain phases)
Balance of international payments
Public Finance

        1. The subordinate suggestion that, in this case, basic preparation for the oral exam and also the write-off field might consist of 121a and either 121b or 121c, was advanced. A strong objection to this appears in the fact that 121b, although made up largely of topics in applied statistics, now includes – and should continue to do so – certain topics which need to be covered by every general economist (we do not here have in mind the statistical specialist) who is to have “literacy” in the field of economic statistics today. Several of the “applied” topics now in 121b include in fact fundamental matters of statistical theory needed by all economists, and not elsewhere covered in our instruction. These include, for example: the theory of index numbers, statistical deflation, secular trends in business cycles, the basic theory of measuring production and income, and at least demand and cost curves not to mention more sophisticated matters of econometrics. These essentially theoretical topics in statistics should remain part of the basic graduate year course in statistics. (This goes also for our present topic of national income: even if the Department offer a course in that subject, the course will not be taken by all students, and all should have at least the brief survey now in 121b). For the foregoing reason, we emphatically urge that 121a and 121b stand as the basic year course in the field, and that the new course 121c be regarded as an additional – but not an alternative–half course.
        2. The subordinate suggestion at 121b and 121c be given in alternate years appears to fall for the same reason given in C2a.

 

    1. Instead of the course described under C2 suggestion was made that we introduce a course in administrative (we use this word provisionally, for want of a better) statistics – mainly, but not exclusively, governmental statistics. We have not outlined such a course in full, but can suggest its nature by indicating that it would emphasize the problems encountered in actually doing statistical work in government or private agencies. Such topics as the preparation and use of index numbers of prices and production; the compilation and use of data on employment and the labor force; statistics of farm production and operation; the gathering of and analysis of facts concerning trade, both foreign and domestic; financial data such as are developed by the treasury, the S. E. C, the F. R. B., and private agencies; statistics used in the analysis of particular enterprises; the rapidly developing field of quality control in industry, suggest themselves for inclusion. The nature of the course can also be indicated by somewhat loose contrast with the course described under C2 above: in that course, the point of view is of the user (economist, or other analyst) of statistics, and attention is given to the origin of the statistics only in so far as it is needed to guide and inform the user. In this course, the point of view is of the maker of statistics, and attention is given to the use of the statistics only in so far as it is needed to guide the maker in his work. This course would go far toward meeting the contention that our students, while well founded in statistical theory, are not ready to handle the kind of statistical tasks which they encounter in government or other research agencies.

At the moment we are not ready to choose between the courses described under C2 and C3, the former (and obviously the latter) being understood as in addition to, and not alternative to, 121b.

 

  1. No opinion was expressed concerning course 122b, and we think it should continue to be given in alternate years.

No opinion was offered concerning the content of course 121a. We have in mind some compression of one of the topics know given. This, plus the longer term under the peace-time schedule, will enable us to give more satisfactory attention to the topic of small samples.

We were commissioned to report also on national income. This is covered in a separate memorandum.

 

  1. We layout now, in tentative form and subject to revision by the Department, our recommendation as to the entire offering in statistics in the early post-war years.

21a. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in A1.

121a. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in B and the change noted in D.

121b. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in A2.

(Courses 121a and 121b to be regarded as the core of the preparation in the field of statistics, and to be recommended to the candidates for the general oral in statistics as the most helpful unit in their preparation.)

121c. A new half course, either that described under C2 or that under C3. To be open to graduate students who have had 21a or by consent of the instructor to those who have had the equivalent of 21a, and by consent of the instructor to properly qualified undergraduates who have had 21a.

122b. Substantially as at present, and to be given in alternate years as at present.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

II. Offering in National Income

The suggestion is made that a half course, at the graduate level, in National Income be offered. The main purpose of such a course would be to give our students an extensive factual basis for their use of national income concepts and data in a wide range of our theoretical and applied fields. The course by itself could provide only a beginning for specialization the subject of national income for its own sake, and we do not understand that the Department contemplates recognizing the field in that subject.

While the course should be concerned primarily with the facts of national income, we understand that some attention could properly be given to the interpretation of those facts into their economic and social implications. Moreover, even to handle properly the factual side, the course would need give much attention to matters of definition and concept, matters which actually stand at the root of most of the “problems” of measuring national income and its chief constituents.

The core of the course would consist of the presentation, discussion, and criticism of the existing statistical facts on the national income and its constituents. These materials would presumably be limited to the United States; although some of the critical portions of the course, dealing with concepts and the like, would necessarily make large drafts on studies in certain other countries. Emphasis would be on the problems of measurement, the effectiveness and validity of the methods used, and the appropriateness of the results obtained as answers to questions posed by the economist.

In addition to the over-all aggregate of national income, viewed in real and money terms and in its variations over time, the course would examine the chief constituents of national income. These would include:

  1. Contributions to national income by various types of economic activity.
  2. Contributions from various geographical regions (much less is known on this.)
  3. Allocation, so far as it is known, to the several factors of production.
  4. Distribution according to size of income (money income) received by individuals.
  5. Distribution of income according to use: consumption expenditures of individuals (perishable, semi-durable), consumption through government, savings (by individuals, by enterprises, by government).
  6. Capital formation, and its relation to savings.
  7. Relation of taxes and public expenditures to the flow of income.

Your committee makes no recommendation as to the personnel to be assigned the task of conducting such a course. It does recommend: that the course be limited to graduate students, and to those advanced concentrators who receive permission from the instructor(s); that all students who take the course be required to have completed one half year course at the graduate level in economic theory and in statistics; that the course be given each year, rather than in alternate years; that the course be considered as a pro-seminar in statistics for the purpose of excuse – under our existing rules for reducing the oral examination to three fields – from the oral examination in statistics.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers, 1902-1950. Box 23. Folder “Course Announcement 1945-46”.

Image Source: Crum and Frickey in the Harvard Class Album, 1942 and 1950.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Completion rates for economics graduate students, 1947-57

 

 

Here is an interesting summary of the spectrum of completion from drop-out through award of the Ph.D. in economics for Harvard University 1947-1957.  Note the labels  “desperate, doubtful, better, safe” for the forecasted prospects of students who had left the gravitational pull of residency.

____________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57

Comment:

The attached survey shows the history of graduate students in the Department of Economics from 1947-57. The details by years are available in Littauer M-8, but we are not duplicating that part of the report.

You will note that of 525 students (378 Arts and Sciences, 50 Radcliffe and 97 Graduate School of Public Administrations) in these ten years, there were a total of 113 withdrawals, about 55% because of poor grades and 45% despite good grades. Of the remaining 412 students, 40 have had but one year’s residence and have not yet taken the General Examination, while 372 have taken and passed the General Examination for an advanced degree. Of these, 69, or about 16%, were awarded a terminal A.M. largely because they passed for the A.M. only. This leaves 303 who have passed the General Examination for the Ph.D., but so far only 152, or roughly 50% have received their Ph.D. There are 50 students still in residence working on their thesis. Of 101 students no longer in residence, 69 have thesis overdue and 39 have not yet written their thesis but are still within the five year limit.

Further details may be had by glancing at the attached sheet.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
1947-57
SUMMARY

1.

 Enrollment 1947-57:
(Arts and Sciences 378, Radcliffe 50, Graduate School of Public Administration 97)

525

2.

 Withdrawn

a)

 with poor grades, in discontent or upon request:

after one term

20

after two terms

36

after four terms

_6_

62

b)

 despite good grades:

after two terms

48

after four terms

3

after more than four terms

_0_

51
Total Withdrawals

113

3.

 Now in residence before General Examination

40
Forecast:

Prospects for withdrawal

6

Prospects for terminal A.M.

14

Prospects for Ph.D.

20

4.

 Passed General Examination for advanced degree

372

5.

 A.M. Awarded as terminal degree 69

6.

 A.M. expected as terminal degree

5

7.

 A.M. awarded in course toward Ph.D. degree

188

8.

 Candidates for the Ph.D. degree

343

9.

 Ph.D. degree awarded

152

10.

 Students still in residence working on thesis
(29 of these, 3 yrs residence; 2, less than 3 yrs)

50
Forecasts:

Prospects for completion safe

40

Prospects for completion doubtful

10

11.

 No longer in residence, thesis overdue

62
Forecasts:

Prospects for completion desperate
(Poor record: thesis overdue 2-5 yrs.)

26

Prospects for completion doubtful
(Fair record; thesis overdue 1-4 yrs.)

13

Prospects for completion better
(Good record; thesis overdue 1-4 yrs.)

23

12.

 No longer in residence, thesis within 5 yr. limit

39
Forecasts:

Prospects for completion doubtful

5

Prospects for completion safe

34

___

525

Summary:

Ph.D. prospects safe

117

Ph.D. awarded

152

Ph.D. awarded or safely expected

269

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics. Correspondence and Papers, 1930-1961. General-Exams-Haberler.(UAV.349.11), Box 13.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1946.

 

 

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Cornell Duke Economics Programs Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Minnesota Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Stanford UCLA Vanderbilt Wisconsin Yale

Economics Departments and University Rankings by Chairmen. Hughes (1925) and Keniston (1957)

 

The rankings of universities and departments of economics for 1920 and 1957 that are found below were based on the pooling of contemporary expert opinions. Because the ultimate question for both the Hughes and Keniston studies was the relative aggregate university standing with respect to graduate education, “The list did not include technical schools, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, nor state colleges, like Iowa State, Michigan State or Penn State, since the purpose was to compare institutions which offered the doctorate in a wide variety of fields.” Hence, historians of economics will be frustrated by the conspicuous absence of M.I.T. and Carnegie Tech in the 1957 column except for the understated footnote “According to some of the chairmen there are strong departments at Carnegie Tech. and M.I.T.; also at Vanderbilt”.

The average perceived rank of a particular economics department relative to that of its university might be of use in assessing the negotiating position of department chairs with their respective university administrations. The observed movement within the perception league tables over the course of roughly a human generation might suggest other questions worth pursuing. 

Anyhow without further apology…

______________________

About the Image: There is no face associated with rankings so I have chosen the legendary comedians Bud Abbott and Lou Costello for their “Who’s on First?” sketch.  YouTube TV version; Radio version: Who’s on First? starts at 22:15

______________________

From Keniston’s Appendix (1959)

Standing of
American Graduate Departments
in the Arts and Sciences

The present study was undertaken as part of a survey of the Graduate School of the University of Pennsylvania in an effort to discover the present reputation of the various departments which offer programs leading to the doctorate.

A letter was addressed to the chairmen of departments in each of twenty-five leading universities of the country. The list was compiled on the basis of (1) membership in the Association of American Universities, (2) number of Ph.D.’s awarded in recent years, (3) geographical distribution. The list did not include technical schools, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, nor state colleges, like Iowa State, Michigan State or Penn State, since the purpose was to compare institutions which offered the doctorate in a wide variety of fields.

Each chairman was asked to rate, on an accompanying sheet, the strongest departments in his field, arranged roughly as the first five, the second five and, if possible, the third five, on the basis of the quality of their Ph.D. work and the quality of the faculty as scholars. About 80% of the chairmen returned a rating. Since many of them reported the composite judgment of their staff, the total number of ratings is well over 500.

On each rating sheet, the individual institutions were given a score. If they were rated in order of rank, they were assigned numbers from 15 (Rank 1) to 1 (Rank 15). If they were rated in groups of five, each group alphabetically arranged, those in the top five were given a score of 13, in the second five a score of 8, and in the third five a score of 3. When all the ratings sheets were returned, the scores of each institution were tabulated and compiled and the institutions arranged in order, in accordance with the total score for each department.

To determine areas of strength or weakness, the departmental scores were combined to determine [four] divisional scores. [Divisions (Departments): Biological Sciences (2), Humanities (11), Physical Sciences (6), Social Sciences (5)]….

… Finally, the scores of each institution given in the divisional rankings were combined to provide an over-all rating of the graduate standing of the major universities.

From a similar poll of opinion, made by R. M. Hughes, A Study of the Graduate Schools of America, and published in 1925, [See the excerpt posted here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror] it was possible to compile the scores for each of eighteen departments as they were ranked at that time and also to secure divisional and over-all rankings. These are presented here for the purpose of showing what changes have taken place in the course of a generation.

The limitations of such a study are obvious; the ranks reported do not reveal the actual merit of the individual departments. They depend on highly subjective impressions; they reflect old and new loyalties; they are subject to lag, and the halo of past prestige. But they do report the judgment of the men whose opinion is most likely to have weight. For chairmen, by virtue of their office, are the men who must know what is going on at other institutions. They are called upon to recommend schools where students in their field may profitably study; they must seek new appointments from the staff and graduates of other schools; their own graduates tum to them for advice in choosing between alternative possibilities for appointment. The sum of their opinions is, therefore, a fairly close approximation to what informed people think about the standing of the departments in each of the fields.

 

OVER-ALL STANDING
(Total Scores)

1925

1957

1.

 Chicago

1543

1.

 Harvard

5403

2.

 Harvard

1535

2.

 California

4750

3.

 Columbia 1316 3. Columbia 4183
4. Wisconsin 886 4. Yale

4094

5.

 Yale 885 5. Michigan 3603
6. Princeton 805 5. Chicago

3495

7.

 Johns Hopkins 746 7. Princeton 2770
8. Michigan 720 8. Wisconsin

2453

9.

 California 712 9. Cornell 2239
10. Cornell 694 10. Illinois

1934

11.

 Illinois 561 11. Pennsylvania 1784
12. Pennsylvania 459 12. Minnesota

1442

13.

 Minnesota 430 13. Stanford 1439
14. Stanford 365 14. U.C.L.A.

1366

15.

 Ohio State 294 15. Indiana 1329
16. Iowa 215 16. Johns Hopkins

1249

17.

 Northwestern 143 17. Northwestern 934
18. North Carolina 57 18. Ohio State

874

19.

 Indiana 45 19. N.Y.U. 801
20. Washington

759

 

ECONOMICS

1925

1957
1. Harvard 92 1. Harvard

298

2.

 Columbia 75 2. Chicago 262
3. Chicago 65 3. Yale

241

4.

 Wisconsin 63 4. Columbia 210
5. Yale 42 5. California

196

6.

 Johns Hopkins 39 5. Stanford 196
7. Michigan 31 7. Princeton

184

8.

 Pennsylvania 29 8. Johns Hopkins 178
9. Illinois 27 9. Michigan

174

10.

 Cornell 25 10. Minnesota 96
11. Princeton 23 11. Northwestern

70

12.

 California 22 12. Duke 69
13. Minnesota 20 13. Wisconsin

66

14.

 Northwestern 18 14. Pennsylvania 45
15. Stanford 17 15. Cornell

32

16.

 Ohio State 15 16. U.C.L.A.

31

According to some of the chairmen there are strong departments at Carnegie Tech. and M.I.T.; also at Vanderbilt.

 

Source:  Hayward Keniston. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (January 1959), pp. 115-119,129.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market

Chicago. Draft memo of a program to rebuild the department of economics by T.W. Schultz, 1956

 

The following draft memo by T. W. Schultz outlines the serious faculty replacement needs of the University of Chicago department of economics in the mid-1950s. Particularly noteworthy, aside from the impressive list of lost faculty, is the appended table listing the sponsored research/3rd party funders of the economics department at that time. One also sees that the department had been authorized to make offers to Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow and Arthur F. Burns. So much for the best-laid plans of mice and men. A better historian of economics than I might spin a counterfactual tale of a post-Cowles Chicago with Arrow and Solow on the faculty.

Regarding the ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center, Schultz wrote “The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine ‘laboratory’ in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development– a major new field in economics.” This reminds me of the old Cold-War Eastern European joke about whether Marx and Engels were scientists (“No, real scientists would have tried their experiments on rats first”). What a “fine ‘laboratory'” for testing oneself!

_________________________

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics
(first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Your Department of Economics has been passing through a crisis. Whether it would survive as a first rate department has been seriously in doubt, with one adversity following another as was the case up until last year. It is now clear, however, that we have achieved a turning point in that we can rebuild and attain the objective which is worth striving for – an outstanding faculty in economics.

The crisis came upon us as a consequence of a combination of things: (1) the department, along with others in the University, had been denied access to undergraduate students of the University who might want to become economists; (2) Viner left for Princeton, Lange for Poland, Yntema for Ford and Douglas for the Senate; (3) the Industrial Relations Center drained off some of our talent and when it jammed, Harbison left for Princeton; (4) Mr. Cowles’ arbitrary decision to shift “his” Commission to Yale was a major blow; (5) Nef been transferring his talents to the Committee on Social Thought, and (6) add to all these the retirement of Knight.

Meanwhile, there were several external developments which did not reduce our difficulties: (1) a number of strong (new) economic centers were being established – at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Vanderbilt, M.I.T. and with public funds at Michigan and Minnesota; (2) our salaries were falling behind seriously relative to some of the other places, and (3) recruiting of established, highly competent economists became all but impossible given the crisis that was upon us and the (then) low repute of the University neighborhood.

The ever present danger of the past few years has been that we would be in the judgment of competent colleagues elsewhere, in the beliefs of oncoming graduate students and in the eyes of the major foundations – not recover our high standing but instead sing to a second or even a third-rate department and in the process lose the (internal) capacity to recruit and rebuild.

We now have achieved a turning point distinctly in our favor.

The major efforts which have contributed most have been as follows:

  1. We have taken full advantage of our unique organization in combining real research with graduate instruction. Our research and instruction workshops are the result. The Rockefeller Foundation gave us three grants along the way – agricultural economics, money and public finance – to test this approach and advanced graduate work. The Ford Foundation has now financed our workshops with $200,000 (eight 5-year grant) (our proposal of January 1956 to The Ford Foundation states the theory and argues the case for this approach on the basis of the experiences we have already accumulated).
  2. We set out aggressively to recruit outstanding younger economists. The workshops were a big aid to us in doing this; so was the financial support of the University. We had the ability to “spot them”. We now have the best group of talented young economists, age 30 and less, to be found anywhere. This achievement is rapidly becoming known to others in keen “competition” is already upon us as a consequence.
  3. We need urgently to run up a lightning rod, a (rotating) professorship with a salary second to none, to attract talent and make it clear we were in business and would pay for the best. The Ford Foundation took favorably to the idea. (Thought so well of it that they will do the same for 3 other privately supported Universities – Columbia, Harvard and Yale!)
    The $500,000 endowment grant from them for a rotating research professorship is our reward.
  4. The foundations have given us a strong vote of confidence: grants and funds received by the Department of Economics during 1955-56 now total $1,220,000. (A statement listing these is attached).
  5. The marked turn for the better in the number and the quality of students applying for scholarships and fellowships is, also, an affirmative indication.
  6. The Economics Research Center is filling a large gap in providing computing, publishing and related research facilities which was formally a function of the Cowles Commission.
  7. The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine “laboratory” in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development – a major new field in economics.

There remains, however, much to be done. We must, above all, not lose the upward momentum which is now working in our favor.

Faculty and University Financial Support

To have and to hold a first rate faculty in economics now requires between $225,000 and $250,000 of University funds a year.

To have a major faculty means offering instruction and doing research in 8 to 10 fields. Up until two years ago we came close to satisfying the standard in our graduate instruction. We then had 11 (and just prior to that, 12) professors on indefinite tenure.

Then, Koopmans and Marschak were off to Yale, Harbison to Princeton and Knight did reach 70. And, then there were 7. On top of these “woes” came the serious illness of Metzler which greatly curtailed his role; and, Nef having virtually left economics. Thus, only 5 were really active in economics with Wallis carrying many other professional burdens. Meanwhile we added only one – Harberger was given tenured this year.

Accordingly at the indefinite tenure level we are down to about one-half of what is required to have a major faculty. Fortunately, several younger men have entered and have been doing work of very high quality.

It should be said that the Deans and the Chancellor have stood by, prepared to help us rebuild.

Major appointments were authorized – Arrow, Stigler, Solow and others. We still are hoping that Arthur F. Burns will come.

The resignations and the retirement, however, did necessarily reduce sharply the amount of financial support from the University.

In rebuilding, at least five additional tenure positions will be required:

  1. Labor economics (from within)
  2. Trade cycle (we hope it will be Arthur F. Burns, already authorized).
  3. Money
  4. Econometrics and mathematical economics.
  5. Business organization
  6. Consumption economics (when Miss Reid retires; next 3 years we shall have the extra strength of Dr. D. Brady with finances from The Rockefeller Foundation)
  7. International trade (pending Metzler’s recovery)
  8. Economic development.

The faculty and the University financial support recommended is as follows:

Tenured positions (for individuals fully committed to economics).

    1. Now in the harness

6: Friedman, Johnson, Harberger, Hamilton (Metzler), Wallis (Nef), Schultz

    1. To be added

5: Burns pending, (labor), (money), and two other fields, most likely econometrics and business organization

 

Budget:

11 [tenured positions]

  

$165,000
Metzler and Nef $15,000
$180,000
III. Supplementary non-tenure faculty $45,000
Altogether $225,000

 

Outside Financial Support for the Department of Economics

Grants

 Amount of grant Available 1956-57

A. Received during 1955-56.
1.     Sears Roebuck Fellowships

$4,000

$4,000
2.     National Science Foundation (2 years)

$13,000

$6,500
3.     Conservation Foundation (2 years)

$33,000

$16,500
4.     Rockefeller Foundation: consumption economics (3 years)

$45,000

$15,000
5.     American Enterprise (2 years)

$17,250

$8,625
6.     Ford Foundation: research and instructional workshops (5 years)

$200,000

$30,000
7.     Earhart Fellowships.

$6,000

$6,000
8.     S.S.R.C. Student Grants

$5,000

$5,000
9.     Ford Foundation: 3 pre-doctoral grants

$10,200

$10,200
10.  Ford Foundation: faculty research grant (Hamilton)

$12,500

$8,000
11.  ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center Fellowships, research support (3 yrs)

$375,000

$125,000
12.  Ford Foundation: endowment for rotating research professor

$500,000

$25,000
13.  Rockefeller Foundation: Latin America (Ballesteros)

$5,000

$5,000

Sub-totals

$1,225,950

$264,825

B. Received prior to 1955-56 where funds are available for 1956-57.
1.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in money (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
2.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in public finance (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
3.     Resources for the Future (3 years with one year to go)

$67,000

$27,000
4.     Russian Agriculture (2 years with one to go)

$47,000

$22,000

B sub-totals

 $214,000 $89,000

A and B totals

$1,439,950

$353,825

 

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 42, Folder 8.

Image Source: 1944 photo of T.W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07479, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Cf. Wikimedia Commons, same portrait (dated 1944) from Library of Congress.

Categories
Duke Economics Programs Economists

Duke. Career information about the first quarter century of economics Ph.D.’s, 1957

 

Early lists of economics Ph.D. degrees awarded by Harvard (1875-1926) and the University of Chicago (1894-1926) have been posted earlier. Duke University awarded its first Ph.D. in economics in 1932. The department published a survey of its 45 Ph.D. alumni in its October 1957 departmental newsletter that is transcribed below. Year the Ph.D. was awarded, employment in 1957, some employment history,  and sample publications are included.

_________________

Duke Economics Graduates Newsletter
Number 3. October 1957

Duke University
Durham
North Carolina

Department of Economics
and Business Administration

COMMENCEMENT in 1957 marked the end of a quarter century since the University awarded its first Ph.D. in economics. The degrees conferred last June brought the total to 45, distributed as follows.

1932

 2 1947 1
1934 2 1948

3

1935

 1 1949 1
1937 3 1950

4

1938

 1 1951 2
1939 1 1952

1

1940

 1 1953 3
1941 5 1954

2

1942

 1 1955

2

1943

 2 1956 1
1944 2 1957

4

The first few pages of this NEWSLETTER are devoted to the activities of these 45 Doctors of Philosophy in economics. The response to the questionnaire distributed last summer was so abundant that it has proved impossible to report all the data submitted. In particular, the editor has had to pare publications lists in order to keep the NEWSLETTER   within reasonable bounds. It is his hope that its contents nevertheless fairly represent the varied research interests and the wide experiences of our graduates in university, business, and government employment. By the way of preface to the Ph.D. and M.A. rolls [Note: M.A. rolls not included in this post] Professor Hoover has the following greeting for former graduate students in economics:

To all who have been graduate students in Economics at Duke:

            This occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Duke University’s granting of the first Ph.D. in Economics coincides with the beginning of my thirty-third year at Duke University and with the relinquishment of the Chairmanship of the Department after twenty years’ service. My association with our graduate students has been the closer since for ten years I also served as Dean of the Graduate School. This was in like manner true of my predecessor, Dean W. H. Glasson, who laid the foundations of graduate work in our Department and in the University. We are fortunate in having as the new Chairman of the Department, Dr. Frank de Vyver who has for so long helped so efficiently in carrying on the administrative duties of the Department. Dr. R. S. Smith is currently acting as Director of Graduate Studies in place of Dr. Joseph Spengler, who continues to contribute so much to our program of graduate training and research. Dr. Spengler has a Ford Fellowship for the present academic year.

            We are gratified with the recognition which the research work and graduate teaching of our faculty has received during the past years. It is upon your accomplishments and attainments since leaving Duke, however, that we depend in large degree for our standing in the academic world. We are grateful to you and our best wishes are always with you.

Sincerely
Calvin B. Hoover

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Doctors of Philosophy

DR. CLARK LEE ALLEN ‘42
Head, Department of Economics, North Carolina State College

Regional Economist, OPA, 1942-43; Army Finance Dept., 1943-45; Duke, 1945-46, 1947-49; Northwestern, 1946-47; Head of Department, Florida State, 1949-54; Head of Department, Texas A.&M., 1954-56.

American Economic Association, Graduate Record Examination Comm., 1951, 1953, and Economic Education Comm., 1957-60; Editor, Southern Economic Journal, 1956-.

“Rayon Staple Fiber: Its Past and Its Prospects,” Southern Economic Journal, Oct. 1946.
“Modern Welfare Economics and Public Policy,” Southern Economic Journal, July 1952.
(Co-author) Prices, Income, and Public Policy. 1954.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. WILLIAM R. ALLEN ‘53
Assistant professor, University of California, Los Angeles

Washington University, 1951-52; Northwestern, 1952.

Social Science Research Council Fellow, 1950-51; Conferee, Ford Foundation Seminar on Sociology of Knowledge, 1953; Conferee, Merrill Center for Economics, 1955; Conferee, SSRC Seminar on Diplomatic History, 1956.

“The Effects on Trade of Shifting Reciprocal Demand Schedule,” American Economic Review, Mar. 1952.
“The International Trade Philosophy of Cordell Hull, 1907-1933,” American Economic Review, Mar. 1953.
“Stable and Unstable Equilibria in the Foreign Exchanges,” Kyklos, VII, Fasc. 4, 1954.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. KARL E. ASHBURN ‘34
Director, Division of Business Administration, Alabama College

Southern Methodist; Texas Christian; University of Florida, Texas Technological; Chief of Placement, Tenth U.S. Civil Service Region; Dean, Division of Commerce, McNeese State College, 1952-57.

Editor, Southwest Social Quarterly, 1937-38; Labor Consultant, Executive Dept., State of Texas, 1938; Migratory Labor Comm., State of Louisiana, 1940-41; Louisiana Survey on Higher Education, 1954-56; State of Louisiana Comm. on Industrial Development, 1957; Advisory Board, Port of Lake Charles, 1957.

“Slavery and Cotton Production in Texas”, Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Dec. 1933.
“The Texas Cotton Control Acreage Law,” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, July 1957.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. ELBERT V. BOWDEN ‘57
Associate professor, College of William and Mary in Norfolk

Duke University, 1952-54 and 1955-56; Bureau of Business Research, U. of Kentucky, 1954-55.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. R. BUFORD BRANDIS ‘43
Chief Economist and Director, Economic Research Division, American Cotton Manufacturers Institute

Littauer Fellow, Harvard, 1940-41; Research Dept., Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1941-45; Supply Officer, U.S. Naval Reserve, 1945-46; Emory University, 1946-52; Research Economist, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1952-54.

“British Overseas Trade and Foreign Exchange,” Political Science Quarterly, June, 1943.
“British Prices and Wage Rates, 1939-41,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1943.
(Co-author) The American Competitive Enterprise Economy, 1953.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. ROYALL BRANDIS ‘52
Associate professor, University of Illinois

War Regulations Analyst, E.I. du Pont, 1941-43; Foreign Trade Economist, National Cotton Council, 1947-49; Duke, 1949-52.

“Cotton Competition: U.S. and Brazil, 1929-1948,” Journal of Farm Economics, Feb. 1952.
“Cotton and the World Economy,” Southern Economic Journal, July, 1956.
“Notes on the Theory of Games and the Social Sciences,” Erhversokonomisk Tidsskrift, 20, Sept. 1956.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. EVERETT J. BURTT, JR. ‘50
Chairman, Department of Economics, Boston University

University of Maine, 1939-41; Denver University, 1941-42; War Manpower Commission, 1942-43; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1946-47.

“Labor Utilization during National Emergencies,” Monthly Labor Review, Oct. 1951.
“Full Employment in the Postwar Period,” Social Science, Jan. 1943.
“After the Shutdown in Howland, Maine,” Southern Economic Journal, July 1941.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. JAMES J. CARNEY, JR. ‘38
Chairman, Department of Finance, University of Miami

Duke, 1934-37; University of Illinois, 1937-40; Regional Labor Economist, War Manpower Commission, 1942-43; Regional Labor Economist, Fourth Service Command, 1944.

“Some Aspects of Spanish Colonial Policy,” Hispanic American Historical Review, May 1939.
Institutional Change and the Level of Employment: A Study of British Unemployment,1918-1929. 1956.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. WALTER H. DELAPLANE ‘34
Dean of Arts and Sciences, Texas A.&M. College

Duke, 1934-43; Economist and Chief, Iberian Section, Blockade Division, 1943-45; National Univ. of Paraguay, 1945-46; Colegio Libre, Buenos Aires, 1946; Head of Dept., St. Lawrence Univ., 1946-48.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. WILLIAM P. DILLINGHAM ‘50
Professor, Florida State University.

Univ. of Georgia, 1947-49; Senior Consultant, President’s Comm. on Veterans Pensions, 1955-56; Research Staff, Florida Citizens Tax Council.

Federal Aid to Veterans, 1917-1941, 1952.
The Historical Development of Veterans’ Benefits in the United States. 1956
Taxation of Intangible Personal Property in Florida. 1956

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. EDWIN WOODROW ECKARD ‘37
Project Evaluator, Glenn L. Martin Company

University of Arkansas, 1946-52; Division Economist, Office of Price Stabilization, 1952-53.

Economics of W. S. Jevons. 1940

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. RALPH T. GREEN
Director, Texas Commission on Higher Education

Financial Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 1949-55; Chairman, Department of Economics, Baylor University, 1955-56.

Southern Regional Education Board, 1957-; Official Texas Delegate, Southern Regional Conference on Education Beyond the High School, 1957; Delegate, Fourth Meeting of Technicians of Central Banks of the American Continents, 1954.

“Evaluating Adequacy of Bank Capital: An Analysis of the Problem,” Journal of Finance, Sept. 1954.
“The Challenge of Inflation,” Texas Industry, Feb. 1951.
“Meeting the Challenge of Public Higher Education in Texas,” Texas School Board Journal, June 1956.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. PERCY L. GUYTON ‘52
Head of Economics Section, Department of Social Sciences, Memphis State University.

Mississippi State, 1928-36; Research Fellow, Brookings Institution, 1938-39; Simpson College, 1939-43; Associate Price Executive, OPA, 1945; Northwestern, 1945-46; Head, Department of Economics and Business, King College, 1946-54.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. RECTOR R. HARDIN ‘35
Professor of Business Administration and Acting Chairman, Dept. of Management, College of William and Mary in Norfolk

Head, Dept. of Economics, Berea College, 1935-46; University of Arkansas, 1946-47; Head, Dept. of Economics, Howard College, 1947-57.

American Institute of Management Fellow, 1954-57; President, Kentucky Academy of Social Sciences, 1940-41; Alpha Kappa Psi Deputy Councillor, 1949-57.

“Conservation of Manpower in Alabama,” Alabama Academy of Science Journal.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. H. WALTER HARGREAVES ‘42
Professor, College of Commerce, University of Kentucky

Texas College of Mines and Metallurgy, 1940-42; Economic Analyst, New York Life Insurance Co., 1946-48.

“The Guaranteed Security in Federal Finance,” Journal of Political Economy, 1942.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. DAVID M. HARRISON ‘41
Associate Professor, Ohio State University

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. DOUGLAS G. HARTLE ‘57
Lecturer, Department of Political Economy, University of Toronto

Chief, Employment Labor Market Section, Economics and Research Branch, Dept. of Labor, Ottawa, 1955-57. Governor, Carleton University, 1957-60.

*  *  *  *  *  *

Dr. R. MURRAY HAVENS ‘41
Head, Department of Economics, University of Alabama

Baldwin Wallace College, 1941-43; Regional Analyst, OPA, 1943; Economist, Economic Cooperation Administration in Paris, 1948-1949; Economist, Mutual Security Administration, 1951-52

“Laissez-Faire Theory in the Presidential Messages,” Journal of Economic History, Jan. 1942 (Supplement).
“Federal Government Reactions to the Depression of 1837-1843,” Southern Economic Journal, Oct. 1941
“The Significance for American Policy of British Reserve Losses, 1951-1952,” Southern Economic Journal, July 1951

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. HERMAN BROOKS JAMES ‘49
Head, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Carolina State College

Teacher of Vocational Agriculture and Country Agent, 1933-40; Farm Management Specialist, N.C. Agricultural Extension Service, 1940-42, Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1943-44.

Chairman, Committee on Agricultural Economics, Social Science Research Council, 1953-56; Vice-chairman, National Committee on Agricultural Policy, Farm Foundation, 1956-; President, American Farm Economics Association, 1956-57.

“Limitations of Static Economic Theory in Farm management Analysis,” Journal of Farm Economics, Nov. 1950.
(Co-author) Farm Mechanization, (N. C. Experiment Station Bulletin 348).
(Co-author) Cotton Mechanization in North Carolina. (N. C. State College Technical Bulletin 104)

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. KEITH W. JOHNSON ‘44
Economist, Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Deane College, 1938-40; Franklin & Marshall College, 1940-42; Economist, War Production Board, 1942-45; Economist, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1945-47; University of New Mexico, 1947-48; Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 1948-52; Statistician, Regional Office, General Services Administration, 1952-54

“Residential Vacancies in Wartime U.S.,” Survey of Current Business, Dec. 1942
“Construction and Housing,” Historical Statistics of the U.S., 1789-1945. (Chapter H).
“The Interstate and Foreign Commerce of Texas,” Monthly Business Review(Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas), Oct. 1948

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. JAMES MAYNARD KEECH ‘37
Chairman, Department of Management, University of Miami

Recruiting Specialist, U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1942-44; Auxiliary Departments Analyst, 1948-49.

Workmen’s Compensation in North Carolina, 1929-40, 1942

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. CLIFTON H. KREPS, JR., ‘48
Wachovia Associate Professor of Banking, School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina

Mt. Union College, 1945-46; Pomona College, 1946-47; Denison University, 1947-49; Economist; Chief, Public Information Division; Chief, Financial Statistics Division, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1949-55

“Federal Reserve Policy Formation,” American Economic Review, Sept. 1950
(Editor) Federal Taxes, 1952
“The Commercial Paper Market” and “Bankers Acceptances,” in Money Market Essays. 1951

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. JUANITA MORRIS KREPS ‘48
Assistant Professor, Duke University

Denison University, 1945-49; Hofstra College, 1952-54; Queens College (N.Y.), 1955.

(Co-editor) Aid, Trade and Tariffs, 1953
Our National Resources, 1955

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. EDWARD T. MC CORMICK ‘41
President, American Stock Exchange

Security Analyst; Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission, 1934-51; OPA and WPB (on loan from SEC)

Understanding the Securities Act and the S.E.C. 1948

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. PHILLIP D. MC COURY ‘57
Professor, Division of Social Science, Humboldt State College

Central College (Missouri), 1950-52; University of Tennessee, 1955-57

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. EDWIN MANSFIELD ‘55
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Institute of Technology

Fulbright Scholar to the United Kingdom, 1954-55; Diploma, Royal Statistical Society, 1955; University of Maryland Overseas, 1954; Research Associate, Duke, 1953-54

“The Measurement of Wage Differentials,” Journal of Political Economy, Aug. 1954.
“Community Size, Region, Labor Force and Income,1950,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov. 1955.
“City Size and Income, 1949,” Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 21, 1957.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. WILLIAM L. MILLER ’50
Professor, Alabama Polytechnic Institute

DePaul University, 1946; Duke, 1946-47; Bowling Green State University, 1947-49

“Some Short-Run Relationships between Changes in the Quantity of Money, the National Income, and Income Velocity,” Southern Economic Journal, 1950
“The Multiplier Time Period and the Income Velocity of Active Money,” Southern Economic Journal, 1956.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. JAMES J. O’LEARY ’41
Director of Investment Research and Economist, Life Insurance Association of America

Wesleyan University, 1939-45; Duke University

“Should Federal Deposit Insurance be Extended?”, Southern Economic Journal, July 1943

The Future of Long-Term Interest Rates. 1945

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. HENRY M. OLIVER, JR. ’39
Professor, Indiana University

Univ. of Mississippi, 1937; Duke, 1937-39; Yale, 1939-41; Associate Economist, National Resources Planning Board, 1941; Economic Analyst, U. S. Treasury Department, 1941-45; Univ. of North Carolina, 1946-47; Northwestern, 1947-49.

Vice-president, Indiana Academy of Social Sciences, 1951; Fulbright Lecturer, University of Ceylon, 1955-56.

A Critique of Socioeconomic Goals. 1954
“Wage Reductions and Employment,” Southern Economic Journal, January 1939
“Average Cost and Long-Run Elasticity of Demand,” Journal of Political Economy, June 1947.
Economic Opinion and Policy in Ceylon. 1957

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. OLIN S. PUGH ’57
Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina

General Education Board Fellow, 1951-52; Southern Fellowship Fund Fellow, 1955-56.

The Export-Import Bank of Washington; Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of South Carolina, 1957.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. CHARLES BRYCE RATCHFORD ‘51
Assistant Director, N. C. Agricultural Extension Service

In charge, Extension Farm Management and Marketing, N. C. Agricultural Extension Service, 1950-54; Assistant Farm Management Specialist, 1942, Farm Management Specialist, 1946-47; In charge, Extension Farm Management, 1947-50; Advisory Committee, Bureau of the Census; National Extension Marketing, Committee; Cotton and Cottonseed Research and Marketing Advisory Committee; Educational Advisory Committee, National Cotton Council; Agricultural Advisor, N. C. Bankers Association.

A Mountain Community Moves Forward: Circular 300, N. C. Agricultural Extension Service, 1947
“Economic Implications of Farm and Home Planning Work,” Journal of Farm Economics, No. 5, 1955.
A Price Support Program for Farm Commodities in the U. S. Department of Agricultural Economics, N. C. State College.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. B. U. RATCHFORD ‘32
Professor, Duke University

District Price Officer, OPA, 1942-43; Economic Advisor, Military Government in Berlin, 1945-46; Deputy Chief, Office of Program Review, E. C. A. (Paris), 1948; Deputy Chief of Mission and Chief Economist, I. B. R. D. Mission to Turkey, 1950; Director of Research, N. P. A. Committee of the South, 1952-55.

Vice-President, American Finance Association, 1946-47; President, Southern Economic Association, 1952-53; Editor, Southern Economic Journal, 1941-45; Editor, American Economic Review, 1946-49; Medal of Freedom, War Department, 1946; Litt. D., Davidson College, 1957.

American State Debts. 1941;
(Co-author) Berlin Reparations Assignment. 1947
(Co-author) Economic Resources and Policies of the South, 1951.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. CHARLES EDWARD RATLIFF, JR. ’55
Chairman, Department of Economics, Davidson College

Aviation Supply Officer, U. S. N., 1945-46

“The Centralization of Government Expenditures for Education and Highways in N. C.,” National Tax Journal, Sept. 1956
“Comment on School Efficiency,” American School Board Journal, July 1956.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. WILLIAM D. ROSS ’51
Dean of the College of Commerce, Louisiana State University

Economist, Military Government in Berlin, 1945-46; Duke, 1946-49

(Co-author) Berlin Reparations Assignment, 1947
Louisiana’s Industrial Tax Exemption Program, 1953
“Highway Development and Financing,” Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, May 1956.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. HOWARD G. SCHALLER ’53
Chairman, Department of Economics, Tulane University

Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1948-49; University of Tennessee, 1952-53.

“Veterans Transfer Payments and State Per Capita Incomes, 1929, 1939, and 1949,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov. 1953
“Social Security Transfer Payments and Differences in State Per Capita Incomes, 1929, 1939, and 1949,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Feb. 1955
“Federal Grants-in-Aid and Differences in State Per Capita Incomes,” National Tax Journal, Sept. 1955

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. LEONARD S. SILK ’47
Economics Editor, Business Week Magazine

University of Maine, 1947-48; Simmons College, 1948-51; Economist, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, 1951-52; Assistant Economic Commissioner, U. S. Mission to NATO and OEEC (Paris), 1952-54

F. Lincoln Cromwell Fellow, American-Scandinavian Foundation, 1946; Fulbright Scholar to Norway, 1952.

Sweden Plans for Better Housing. 1948
Forecasting Business Trends. 1956
“The Housing Circumstances of the Aged in the U.S.,”Journal of Gerontology, Jan. 1952

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. WILLIAM J. J. SMITH ’48
Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1945-53; LL. D., UCLA, 1957.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. ROBERT S. SMITH ’32
Professor, Duke University

Visiting professor: N. C. College, 1940; University of Costa Rica, 1945; Northwestern, 1947; University of San Carlos, 1949; University of North Carolina, 1955-56; University of Buenos Aries, 1956.

Guggenheim Memorial Fellow, 1942; Honorary Professor, University of Costa Rica and University of San Carlos; U.S. Specialist, State Department, 1955, 1956, 1957; Honorary Console, Republic of Guatemala, 1955-

The Spanish Guild Merchant. 1940
“Mill on the Dan: Riverside Cotton Mills, 1882-1901,” Journal of Southern History, February 1955
“The Wealth of Nations in Spain and Hispanic America,” Journal of Political Economy, April 1957.

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. THOMAS M. STANBACK, JR. ‘54
Assistant Professor, School of Commerce, New York University

University of North Carolina, 1947-55; Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1955-56

“Comments,” Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, 1957

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. CHARLES T. TAYLOR ’40
Assistant Vice-president, Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Georgia State College for Women, 1938-42

“Population Increase, Municipal Outlays, and Debts,”Southern Economic Journal, April 1943
“Financing of Fishing Vessels by Commercial Banks,” Proceedings, Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 1953
“Recession and Economic Growth,” Monthly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, January 1955

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. ROBERT H. VAN VOORHIS ‘44
Head, Department of Accounting, College of Commerce, Louisiana State University

Duke University, 1941-44; Senior Accountant, Ashlin & Hutchings, 1944-45; Timberlands Accountant, West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 1945-49; University of Alabama, 1949-57.

Chairman, American Accounting Association Committee on Internal Auditing Education, 1953-54; National Research Committee of the Institute of Internal Auditors, 1953-54; Chairman, American Accounting Association Committee on Standards of Accounting Instruction, 1955-56

(Co-author) “Cost Control in the U S Air Force,” N.A.C.A. Bulletin, November 1951
“Internal Auditing Courses in American Colleges,” Accounting Review, October 1952 “Operating Reports and Controls,” Accountants’ Handbook(section 4), 1956
How the Smaller Business Utilizes Internal Auditing Functions. 1957

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. E. S. WALLACE ’37
Professor, Millsaps College

Hendrix College, 1937-39; District Price Executive, Regional Price Economist, and Associate Regional Price Executive, OPA, 1942-46.

Fellow, Case Institute of Economics-in-Action Program, 1950; Fellow, Yale School of Alcohol Studies, 1952; President, Mississippi Association of Collegiate Registrars, 1948-49; President, Mississippi State Council, AAUP, 1957-58

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. WILLIAM H. WESSON, JR. ’50
Associate Professor, College of Commerce, Louisiana State University

Assistant Supervisor, Merit Examination, State Of North Carolina, 1941-42, 1946; Duke, 1946-48; Head, Department of Economics, University of Chattanooga, 1948-56.

Fellow, Case Institute of Economics-in-Action Program, 1956; President, Adult Education Council of Chattanooga, 1955-56

Negro Employment in the Chattanooga Area, 1954

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. W. TATE WHITMAN ’43
Professor, Emory University

Accountant (Durham), 1934-36; The Citadel, 1936-47; Duke, 1939-40

(Co. author) Investment Timing: The Formula Plan Approach, 1953
(Co-author) “Formula Plan and the Institutional Investor,” Harvard Business Review, July 1950
“Liquidation of Partnerships by Installments,” Accounting Review, October 1953

*  *  *  *  *  *

DR. E. R. WICKER ’56
Assistant Professor, Indiana University

“The Colonial Development Corporation,” The Review of Economic Studies, June 1956
“A Note on Jethro Tull: Innovator or Crank,” Agricultural History, January 1957.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Lionel W. McKenzie, Box 32, Folder “Personal Correspondence, 1952-1998”

Image Source:  Duke University, 1938. Photographed by Frances Benjamin Johnston. From the Carnegie Survey of the Architecture of the South, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

 

Categories
Curriculum Economics Programs Michigan

Michigan. Major Expansion of Economics Department, 1892

 

About a dozen years after the University of Michigan established its own department of political economy, a major expansion took place under the leadership of professor Henry Carter Adams in 1892. Below you will find the course offerings for the academic years 1891-92 and 1892-93 along with two U. of M. Daily reports about the department’s economics program.

Other links of interest regarding economics at the University of Michigan:

History of the University of Michigan economics department through 1940.

List of University of Michigan economics faculty up through 1980.

Memorial to Henry Carter Adams  (1851-1921) in the Journal of Political Economy, 1922.

Pictures of Henry Carter Adams’ home (interior and exterior photographs)

_________________________

POLITICAL ECONOMY.
A Letter From Dr. Adams.
(January, 1891)

Eds. U. of M. Daily,

Gentlemen: It gives me pleasure to comply with your request, and state the nature of the work which will be Undertaken in Political Economy during the Second Semester. The usual courses will be offered, but with some slight modification. They are as follows:

First: “Unsettled questions in Political Economy.” This course will comprise three lectures a week. It will embrace a study of the money question, statistics in relation to Political economy, development of economic thought, commercial crises, the railroad problem and the problem of emigration [sic].

Students who elect this course will have the privilege of listening to the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, who will give six lectures upon Statistics in their relations to the economic and social problems. Mr. Wright was for years at the head of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, of Massachusetts and is now at the head of the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington. His first lecture will be given on March 9th.

Dr. E. R. A. Seligman, Professor of Political Economy, in Columbia college, New York City, will some time in the month of May deliver, as part of the same course, lectures [sic] on the History of Political Economy. Dr. Seligman is well known as one of foremost economists in this country and his lectures on this subject may be looked forward to with great interest.

Arrangements had been made with Dr. Edmund James, of the University of Pennsylvania, to deliver a few lectures in this general course, but a letter has just been received saying that his physician will not permit him to undertake any extra labor. The other topics in this course will be treated by myself.

Second: “Social and Industrial Reform.” This course of lectures will embrace the development of industrial classes, poor law legislation, labor problem and socialism will be given under my immediate direction.

Third: “Foreign Commercial Relations of the United States.” This course of lectures, which will be two hours a week, will be given by Dr. Frederick C. Hicks. Dr. Hicks has given a great deal of attention to this subject. He will treat in this course of the theories of foreign and domestic trade, of the industrial resources of the United States on which trade must rest, and of the possibilities of developing a foreign commerce for the United States. He will, also, speak of the principles of free trade and protection in connection with foreign trade. This course of lectures will be most interesting and instructive. The students who are prepared to elect it are earnestly recommended to do so.

Fourth: “Seminary in the Science of Finance.” This course will be limited to students who are prepared to take advanced work in the science of finance. The study undertaken will be either the Financial History of the United States or Taxing System in the United States. It will be conducted by myself, with some assistance from Mr. Hicks

I am, of course, very solicitous that the work in economics should not suffer on account of my partial absence during the year. I am sure it has not suffered at all under the proficient direction of Professor Taylor, and I think that the students will see from the above program that it is not likely to suffer during the second Semester.

Very respectfully,
HENRY C. ADAMS.

Source:  The U. of M. Daily, Vol. I, No. 75 (January 20, 1891), pp. 1.

_________________________

Courses of Instruction
1891-92

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

FIRST SEMESTER.

  1. Elements of Political Economy (short course). Text-book: Walker. M, W, F, Sec. I, 2-3; Sec. II, 3-4. Dr. HICKS.
    Course I is designed for those who desire to obtain a general knowledge of Political Economy. It embraces, in addition to a statement of fundamental principles, brief studies on practical economic problems.

 

  1. History of the Development of Industrial Society. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, Tu,Th, 11½—12½. Quiz, M, Sec. I, 11½—12½; W, Sec. II, 11½—12½. Professor ADAMS.
    Course 3 is designed to be introductory to all Courses in Political Economy except Course 1. It is desirable that it should be preceded by Course 1 in History. Students who intend to take all the work offered in economics should elect Course 3 the first semester of their second year of residence.

 

  1. Principles of the Science of Finance. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, M, W, F, 2-3. Quiz, Tu, Sec. I, 2-3; Th, Sec. II, 2-3. Professor ADAMS.
    Course 5 must be preceded by Course 4.

 

  1. Socialism and Communism. Recitations, with assigned readings. Text-books: Ely’s French and German Socialism; Adams’s Relation of the State to Industrial Action. Tu,Th, 11½—12½. Dr. HICKS.
    Course 7 must be preceded by Course 2.

 

  1. Theory of Statistics. Lectures, with practical work. Tu, Th, 4-5.
    HICKS.

 

  1. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. Lectures. Tu, Th, 3-4. Dr. HICKS.
    Course 11 must be preceded by Courses 2 and 4.

 

  1. Seminary in Economics. M, 4-6. Two-fifths Course. Professor ADAMS.
    Course 13 must be preceded by Courses 2 and 4.

 

  1. Current Economic Literature and Legislation. Once in two weeks, M, 7-9. One-fifth Course. Professor ADAMS and Dr. HICKS.
    Course 15 is designed for candidates for advanced degrees, or for students especially proficient in Political Economy.

 

SECOND SEMESTER.

  1. Elements of Political Economy. Text-book: Walker. M, W, F, Sec. I, 10½—11½; Sec. II, 11½—12½; Sec. III, 2-3. Dr. HICKS.

 

  1. Unsettled Problems in Political Economy. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, M, W, F, 2-3. Quiz, Tu, Sec. I, 2-3; Th, Sec. II, 2-3; F, Sec. III, 2-3. Professor ADAMS.
    Course 4 comprises lectures on commercial crises, immigration, free trade and protection, the labor question, and the monopoly question. It must be preceded by Course 2.

 

  1. The Railroad Problem. Lectures. Tu, Th, 11½—12½. Professor ADAMS.
    Course 6 must be preceded by Course 2.

 

  1. History of the Tariff in the United States. Lectures and text-book. Tu, Th, 3-4. Dr. HICKS.
    Course 8 must be preceded by Course 2; Course 11 is also desirable.

 

  1. History of Financial Legislation in the United States. Lectures and readings. Tu, Th, 4-5. Dr. HICKS.
    Course 10 must be preceded by Course 5.

 

  1. Critical Analysis of Economic Theories. Lectures and readings. W, 3-4. Professor ADAMS.
    Course 12 is intended for advanced students, who are making a special study of Political Economy.

 

  1. Seminary in Finance. M, 3-5. Two-fifths Course. Professor ADAMS.
    Course 14 must be preceded by Course 5.

 

  1. Current Economic Literature and Legislation. Once in two weeks, W, 7-9. One-fifth Course. Professor ADAMS and Dr. HICKS.
    Course 16 is designed for candidates for advanced degrees, or for students especially proficient in Political Economy.

 

Source: University of Michigan. General Register for 1891-92, pp. 62-64.

_________________________

WORK IN ECONOMICS.
(October 1892)

A Great Change Introduced into This Department.
A Daily Man Has a Talk With Prof. Adams. — Nine Men are After Advanced Degrees with Political Economy for a Major. — A Word About the New Instructors. — Both are Graduates of the University of Michigan.

A complete change has been brought about in the department of Political Economy. Its scope has been greatly enlarged, new courses have been added and many of the old ones have been revised. An assistant professorship has been created and two new instructors have been engaged. The course now offered is as complete as can be found in any American college. Prof. Henry C. Adams, when interviewed on the subject, said:

“Yes, the work in Political Economy has been entirely rearranged. Our primary object has been to adapt the courses as far as possible to the needs of all the various classes of students. We place in the first class those who desire to obtain a brief, general view of the subject, such as may be had in one semester’s work. The text-book course in Walker is designed to this end. In the next class come those students who wish to enter more fully into the work but still confine themselves to a general knowledge of the subject. For them the four lecture courses, known as the undergraduate work, are intended, viz: Industrial History Elements of Political Economy, Unsettled Problems and the Science of Finance. The third class consists of those undergraduates who wish to advance so far as to take those special studies known as the intermediate courses. The fourth class comprises the graduate students.”

“The changes in this department look toward the organization of a graduate school. It is my belief that when students have completed their third year in the University they are well prepared to enter upon a higher plane of work. That which is most valuable in an education can not be obtained in lecture and recitation courses. Above these, which are designed to give the mind breadth of grasp and general preparation, come the seminary courses in which specialization is sought. Text books are discarded and for them are substituted the general literature of Political Science, and statistics, the raw material of economics. From a wide range of reading the student is forced to construct for himself a clear and consistent idea of the subject in hand. The advantages of this system are two-fold. In the first place, the knowledge that the student gains is thorough, and he makes it his own as he could never do in a lecture or text-book course. Secondly, and what is of far greater importance, he gains an insight into methods of original research and becomes accustomed to the handling of unworked material.

“It will readily be seen that such results are not obtainable in large classes. Personal contact between the instructors and students are indispensable to the work. With this in view are given Courses 21 and 22 in which the graduate students and the four instructors meet one evening in two weeks for the discussion of current economic literature and legislation. To bridge over the chasm between professor and student it was determined to appoint two instructors on half time, who, as they are candidates for advanced degrees, belong in part to the student body, rather than appoint one full instructor. The changes in the course have proven eminently successful. There are already nine candidates for advanced degrees with Pol. Ec. for their major study. Five of them are for the degree of Ph. D. and the others for Master’s degrees.

“Every student should specialize before leaving college. Whether his subject be Political Economy or History or Literature or Philosophy or Languages, matters not. Let but his investigating powers be given exercise in the proper field and the benefit derived will be enormous.”

Assistant Professor Taylor is so well known to students of the U. of M. as scarcely to need an introduction. He is a graduate of Northwestern University, has studied at Johns Hopkins, and took the degree of Ph.D. at Michigan. Two years ago he took the place of Prof. Adams for one semester. Since then he has held the chair of History and Political Science at Albion College. His doctor’s thesis is a finished work and has received the highest commendation from the most eminent critics.

Mr. Cooley, a son of Judge Thomas Cooley, graduated from the U. of M. first as M.E., then as A.B. He has since studied in Germany and Italy. In the recent census he had charge of the statistics of street railways and published an exceedingly interesting monograph on the subject. He is a candidate for the degree of Ph.D.

Mr. Dixon is so recent a graduate of the U. of M. as to be well known to all readers of the Daily. He too is a candidate for the Ph.D. degree.

Source:  The U. of M. Daily, Vol. III, No. 6 (October 7, 1892), pp. 1, 3.

_________________________

Courses of Instruction
1892-93

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

The Courses in Political Economy are classified as undergraduate, intermediate, and graduate Courses. The undergraduate Courses, viz: Courses 1, 2, 3, and 5, may be taken by any student, but are not accepted as counting for an advanced degree. The intermediate Courses, viz: Courses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, may also be taken by any student; in the case, however, of students who are pursuing their work on the University system, and of graduate students, special instruction of one hour a week is given in connection with each Course. This extra hour is devoted to a more careful analysis and a more extended discussion than is possible in the lectures. The graduate Courses, viz: Courses 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22, are not open to undergraduate students who pursue their work on the credit system, but may be taken by those who are working on the University system.

FIRST SEMESTER.

  1. Elements of Political Economy (short course). Text-book: Walker. M, W, F, Sec. I, at 2; Sec. II, at 3. Mr. C. H. COOLEY.
    Course 1 is designed for those who desire to obtain a general knowledge of political economy. It embraces, in addition to a statement of fundamental principles, brief studies on practical economic problems. It is not accepted as a substitute for Course 2 unless supplemented by Course 3.

 

  1. History of the Development of Industrial Society. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, Tu,Th, at 11½. Quiz, M, Sec. I, at 10½; Sec. II, at 11½; Tu, Sec. III, at 11½; W, Sec. IV, at 10½; Sec. V, at 11½. Professor ADAMS and Mr. DIXON.
    Course 3 is designed to be introductory to all Courses in Political Economy except Course I. It is not, however, required for admission to such Courses. It embraces a history of English industrial society from the twelfth century to the present time, and is designed to show how modern industrial customs and rights came into existence. It is desirable that it be preceded by Course I in History. Students who intend to take all the work offered in economics should elect Course 3 the first semester of their second year of residence.

 

  1. Problems in Political Economy. Lectures and quiz. Lectures, M, W, F, at 2. Quiz, Tu, Sec I, at 2; Th, Sec. II, at 2; F, III, at 3. Professor ADAMS and Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.
    Course 5 treats in a cursory manner current problems in political economy. The problems studied are the following: The Railway Problem; Industrial Crises; Free Trade and Protection; Industrial Reforms; Labor Legislation; Taxation. It is designed as the supplement of Course 2, by which it must be preceded; and as introductory to Courses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, although it is not required for those Courses.

 

  1. History and Theory of Land Tenure and Agrarian Movements. M, W, at 4. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

 

  1. History and Principles of Currency and Banking. Tu, Th, at 4. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

 

  1. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. Tu, Th, at 11½. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

 

  1. Theory of Statistics. Th, at 5. Mr. C. H. COOLEY.
    Courses 7, 9, 11, and 13 must be preceded by Course 2.

 

  1. Critical Analysis of Economic Thought. M, at 8¼. Professor ADAMS.

 

  1. Seminary in Finance. M, 9½—11½. Professor ADAMS.

 

  1. Current Economic Legislation and Literature. Once in two weeks. W, 7-9, P.M. Professor ADAMS, Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR, Mr. C. H. COOLEY, and Mr. DIXON.

 

SECOND SEMESTER.

 

  1. Elements of Political Economy. Lectures, M, W,F, at 3. Quiz; Tu, Sec. I, at 11½; Sec. II, at 3; Th, Sec. III, at 11½; Sec. IV, at 3. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

 

  1. Principles of the Science of Finance. Lectures, M, W,F, at 2. Quiz, M, Sec. I, at 3; W, Sec. II, at 3; F, Sec. III, at 3. Professor ADAMS and Mr. DIXON.

 

  1. The Transportation Problem. Tu, Th, at 11½. Professor ADAMS.

 

  1. History and Theory of Socialism and Communism. Tu, Th, at 4. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

 

  1. History of the Tariff in the United States. Text-book: Taussig. Tu, Th, at 10½. Mr. DIXON.

 

  1. History of Political Economy. Text-book: Ingram. M,W, at 10. Mr. C. H. COOLEY.
    Course 12, if taken by students who have passed Course 1, will be accepted as an equivalent for Course 2.
    Courses 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 must be preceded by Course 2.

 

  1. Critical Examination of the Labor Problem and of the Monopoly Problem. M, at 8¼. Professor ADAMS.

 

  1. Seminary in Economics. M, 9½ to 11½. Professor ADAMS.

 

  1. Social Philosophy, with especial reference to economic relations. Th, at 8¼. Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR.

 

  1. Current Economic Legislation and Literature. Once in two weeks. W, 7-9, P. M. Professor ADAMS, Assistant Professor F. M. TAYLOR, Mr. C. H. COOLEY, and Mr. DIXON.

 

Source: University of Michigan. General Register for 1892-93, pp. 69-71.

Image Source:   1891 photograph of the Michigan Wolverines football team. By J. Jefferson Gibson, Ann Arbor, Michigan – Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan, Public Domain,