Categories
Economist Market Economists

Harvard. Renewal of Faculty Instructorship. Case of Paul Sweezy, 1940

 

The following records come from the President’s Office at Harvard University involving the terms of the reappointment of Paul Sweezy at the rank of Faculty Instructor in the Harvard economics department. Sweezy joined the army in the fall of 1942, so the debate about a two or five year reappointment turned out to be moot on account of the Second World War. What I found particularly interesting in these records is the last one posted below where we witness a member of the department’s visiting committee trying to scuttle Sweezy’s appointment because of his Keynesian fiscal proclivities.

“Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism…”

In Sweezy’s defense the two members of the department present at the meeting with the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science felt it necessary to remind the others present that the department itself had nominated John Maynard Keynes to receive an honorary doctorate at the Tercentenary celebrations in 1936 (…but that honor somehow escaped Keynes…).

__________________________

Departmental Recommendation
to Appoint for
a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 23, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

The Department of Economics has considered the reappointment of Paul Marlor Sweezy whose term as a Faculty Instructor expires in the current year. The Executive Committee voted unanimously that he be reappointed without specification of the term of such reappointment. It then voted to appoint him a Faculty Instructor for a period of five years. As indicated on the detailed record of this ballot, there were two dissenting votes. Letters from Professors Burbank and Slichter will explain in detail their reasons for not approving of the five-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy’s instruction is in the fields of Industrial Organization and Socialism, and is primarily undergraduate. He is an experienced tutor, and at present is one of the two Examiners in Economics. He would at any time be considered a strong candidate for a Faculty Instructorship, and is especially valuable to the Department now in view of the recent departure of so many of our younger staff.

                  Biographical and bibliographical data are enclosed on separate sheets.

Yours very truly,
(S) E. H. Chamberlin
E. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Copied by: MEH

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Departmental Vote
to Appoint for
a Five-year Term

Paul Marlor Sweezy

                  At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics on February 13, 1940, upon motion of Dean Williams, it was voted unanimously that we favor the reappointment of Paul Sweezy, without specification of term.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank Yes
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter Yes
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

Dean Williams then moved that we recommend the appoint of Paul Sweezy as Faculty Instructor for a five-year term. The motion was carried with two dissenting votes.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank No
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter No
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Burbank’s Dissent
to Appoint for
a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 17, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  You are familiar with the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics regarding Dr. Paul Sweezy.

                  Since I voted against the recommendation which is in your hands, I should like to state the reasons for my action.

                  I strongly favor continuing the present appointment of Dr. Sweezy for two years, or voting him a five-year appointment from 1937. Either action would give him a full five-year faculty term.

                  I take this position because I believe his status should be reviewed in about two years. The members of the Executive Committee have known Sweezy for a long period. We are, or should be, altogether familiar with his work and his promise for growth and accomplishment. I place two more years rather than four or five as the better time for revision both from Sweezy’s point of view and from the point of view of the Department.

                  I  have had many years of experience in placing men in other institutions. It has been our experience that it is extremely difficult to place the better men advantageously after they have passed the early thirties. In this particular category the matter of a few years is of real significance. If, in 1945, Sweezy should not be advanced, the difficulties in securing an acceptable place for him will be increased. I hope this can be avoided. I believe that the colleagues who are the principal supporters of the motion for the longer term would declare that this argument carries little or no weight. However, the fact that Dr. Sweezy has no invitations from other institutions of high standing carries very considerable weight in its bearing on this problem.

                  I was reluctant to recommend a longer appointment at this time because of my estimate of Dr. Sweezy’s promise.

                  In the immediate past men have not been advanced and have gone elsewhere who were regarded, I believe, by a majority of the members of the Committee as superior to Dr. Sweezy. There are a number of men on the ground whom I regard as more promising.

                  Further, I believe that in our present situation our Instructorships should be well staggered and filled with regard for our long-time development. Considering the urgent needs of the Department in particular areas, I think it unwise to fill too many places immediately. I urge this policy strongly, since I am convinced that in some fields it is likely to be exceedingly difficult to uncover the requisite ability. It may be decidedly to our advantage to develop competition in these areas, — that is, two Instructors in the subjects involved. I would not urge this course for all areas of study and instruction, but in Agriculture and related problems, and in Labor and related problems I believe such competition may be essential.

Very sincerely yours,
(s) H. H. Burbank
H. H. Burbank

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Copied by: MEH

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Slichter’s Dissent
to Appoint for
a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 19, 1940

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  At a meeting of the Department of Economics on February 13, I voted for the reappointment of Mr. Paul Sweezy as faculty instructor but against a term of five years. I favor a two-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy is just completing a three-year term as faculty instructor. Consequently appointment for two more years would convert his three-year term into a five-year term which is more normal. On the other hand, appointment for five years following three would put Mr. Sweezy in a special class among faculty instructors and would easily be interpreted as a stronger endorsement of his work and qualifications than I think we are warranted in giving.

                  No one, of course, knows how rapidly Mr. Sweezy will develop during the next few years but I think that the chances are against our desiring to offer him a permanent place. If that is so, a two-year appointment is fairer than a five-year both to him and to the University.

Sincerely yours,
(S) Sumner H. Slichter

Copied by: MEH

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Appendix: Sweezy c.v.

Paul Marlor Sweezy

Biography

Born April 10, 1910

A.B., Harvard, 1931
A.M., Harvard, 1934
Ph.D., Harvard, 1937

Married

1934-37 Annual Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard.

1937-40 Faculty Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard, for three years.

Bibliography

“A Note on Relative Shares,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I, No. 1, October 1933.

“Pigou’s Theory of Unemployment,” Journal of Political Economy, December, 1934.

“Economics and the Crisis of Capitalism,” The Economic Forum, Spring, 1935.

“John Strachey’s Theory and Practice of Socialism,” review in The Nation, December 5, 1936.

“On the Definition of Monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1937.

“Review of The United States: A Graphic History, by Louis Hacker et al.,” The Nation, December 11, 1937.

“Review of Economics for Everybody, by Mervyn Crobaugh,” The Nation, December 25, 1937.

“Review of Socialism versus Capitalism, by A. C. Pigou,” The Nation, February 5, 1938; and Plan Age, March 1938.

“Review of The Promises Men Live By, by Harry Schernan,” The Nation, March 26, 1938.

“Review of Socialism, by Ludwig Mises,” Science and Society, Spring, 1938.

“Wage Policies and Investment,” American Economic Review, Supplement, March, 1938.

“Review of On the Economic Theory of Socialism, by Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor,” The Nation, June 25, 1938.

“Expectations and the Scope of Economics,” Review of Economic Studies, June, 1938.

“Review of Confessions of an Economic Heretic, by J. A. Hobson,” The Nation, August 27, 1938.

An Economic Program for American Democracy. With R. V. Gilbert, G. H. Hildebrand, Jr., A. W. Stuart, W. Y. Sweezy, L. Tarshis, and J. D. Wilson. The Vanguard Press. 1938.

Monopoly and Competition in the English Coal Trade, 1550-1850. (Wells Prize essay 1937-38.) Harvard Economic Studies Vol. LXIII. Harvard University Press. 1938.

“Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly,” Journal of Political Economy, August 1939.

“The Thinness of the Stock Market,” American Economic Review, December, 1938.

“Review of Full Recovery or Stagnation, by A. H. Hansen,” The Nation, November 19, 1938.

“The Power of the Purse,” The New Republic, February 8, 1939.

“Marx on the Significance of the Corporation,” Science and Society, Spring 1939.

“Review of The Brandeis Way, by A. I. Mason,” Harvard Law Review, April, 1939.

“Review of Jobs for All, by Mordecai Ezekiel,” The New Republic, April 19, 1939.

“Government Spending, its Tasks and Limits,” (discussion), Social Research, May, 1939.

“Is Further Debt Financing Sound?” (symposium), The Business Bulletin, May, 1939.

“Review of Man’s Estate, by Alfred M. Bingham,” The Boston Transcript, July 22, 1939.

“Public Works as an Aid to Private Investment,” The American City, July, 1939.

“Review of Henry George, by Albert Jay Nock,” The Nation, October 28, 1939.

“Review of Ideas are Weapons, by Max Lerner,” The Nation, December 2, 1939.

“Major Interest Groups in the American Economy,” Appendix No. 11 in The Structure of the American Economy, National Resources Committee, 1939.

In preparation:

Lectures on Marxian Economic Theory. Accepted for publication by the Oxford University Press. (Eight chapters completed in first draft.

“A Contribution to the Economic History of the Law of Corporations.” Accepted for publication by The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Dean Signals Green Light
to Appoint for
a Five-year Term

C O P Y

February 26, 1940.

Dear Mr. Chamberlin:

                  I confirm herewith the message I gave you by telephone this morning, that we are agreed to have Dr. Paul Sweezy appointed as Faculty Instructor for five years beginning on September 1, 1940. It is part of this transaction that you and we are agreed that Dr. Sweezy should be informed (first) that this appointment involves no commitment for his election to a vacancy on the permanent staff, (second) that he will be considered for election to such a vacancy in competition both with other Faculty Instructors on the staff and with outsiders, and (third) that in all likelihood this competition will be severe.

                  Will you kindly write to him to this effect and send to me both a copy of your letter and of his acknowledgment of its receipt?

                  I am

Yours sincerely,
[unsigned]

Professor E. H. Chamberlin

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Chairman Informs Sweezy
of the Appointment Decision

COPY

February 29, 1940

Dear Paul:

This letter is to confirm our conversation of several days ago. The Department of Economics has voted for you a five-year appointment as Faculty Instructor dating from September 1940, and this appointment has been approved by both Dean Ferguson and by President Conant. It goes without saying that it is an expression of a belief in your promise as an economist and in your continued usefulness to the Department over the five years to come.

                  The appointment, made during the transition from the old system to the new, in effect continues your tenure on a non-permanent basis over a period of eight years from your Ph.D. which is perfectly normal, but has the unusual result of extending over the entire eight-year period your status as “Faculty Instructor.” For this reason apprehension has been expressed both in the Department and by the University administration lest it be misinterpreted. In fairness to you it should be made perfectly clear that no one regards this appointment as involving any commitment whatever for subsequent election for a permanent position at Harvard. When such a permanent position is to be filled, the competition will include, as well as yourself and other Faculty Instructors on the ground, former members of the Department and still others from the outside. It looks now as if this competition would be severe.

                  I trust that you will understand the importance of avoiding any misunderstanding at this time. Will you please let me have an acknowledgement to this letter.

Sincerely yours,
(s) E. H. Chamberlin

Dr. Paul M. Sweezy
10 Forest Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Sweezy Confirms Understanding
Tenure Review will be Competitive

COPY

March 3, 1940

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin,
Department of Economics,
Littauer Center,
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Professor Chamberlin,

                  I have your letter of February 29th regarding my appointment to a five year term as Faculty Instructor beginning next fall. Needless to say I am happy that the Department and the Administration feel the confidence in my work to date which this appointment implies.

                  I note that both the Department and the Administration are anxious to make it quite clear that this appointment carries with it no implication of further commitments. You may rest assured that I understand the situation in this respect completely; this letter will serve to furnish a formal record of the fact.

Sincerely,
(sgd.) Paul M. Sweezy

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Official Announcement
of the Appointment Decision

PAUL MARLOR SWEEZY

Recommendation of the Dean of the Faculty:

                  I recommend the appointment of Dr. Paul Sweezy as Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Department of Economics for five years from September 1, 1940. Dr. Sweezy’s three-year term as Faculty Instructor expires this year. Prior to his present appointment he served three years as Annual Instructor before receiving his doctorate. Consequently he is entitled under our rules to the five-year Faculty Instructorship for which he is recommended. He is thirty years of age.

                  The vote of the Department on which this recommendation is based was not unanimous. The two dissenters preferred to have the five-year period divided into two periods, one of two years and the other of three. This division seems to me to conflict with the essential idea on which the new type of Faculty Instructorship rests. It denies him the opportunity of sufficient time, free from the consequences on himself and his work of an intervening judgment, in which to demonstrate his scholarship. On the plan of the dissenters Dr. Sweezy would come up for consideration again a year hence. It is not urged that the Department would be in a better position to reach a definite decision regarding him twelve months from now than it is in at present. The action recommended by the great majority of the Department is best calculated to give Dr. Sweezy a fair chance. The Department has only one other Faculty Instructor on the five-year tenure at present and he has just been appointed. Their quota is six. Hence they could have another man in direct competition with Dr. Sweezy in 1944. Dr. Sweezy is comparatively young. There is, therefore, little risk in keeping him on for five years longer. In a subject like Economics the five years between the ages of 30 and 35 constitute the period in which a man ordinarily comes to maturity.

                  The enclosed letter from me to Professor Chamberlin makes clear to Dr. Sweezy the situation in which he stands on entering on his five-year term.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

March 20, 1940.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Memorandum of the discussion between Mr. Albert Bigelow, Professors Burbank and Chamberlin, and Assistant Dean Buck, and myself [W. S. Ferguson, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] Thursday, May 9, 1940.
Dramatis Personae

Albert Francis Bigelow. Harvard Class of 1903. Harvard Law Graduate. Member of the Economics Visiting Committee. Republican member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives 1925-1944. [His son, Albert Bigelow, was a prominent pacifist.]

Paul Herman Buck. Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, associate professor in history as of 1939. He received the Pulitzer prize in American History in 1938 for his book on the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War.

William Scott Ferguson. Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences, McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History (Fun fact: Ferguson invented the reading period at Harvard)

Harold Hitchings Burbank, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy. Former chairman of the Department of Economics, chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government and Economics.

Edward Hastings Chamberlin, Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Department of Economics.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism and, on this basis, queried “whether or not he arrived at his views by thorough scholarship and by intellectual processes which command the respect of his peers” — that is to say, met the conditions formulated in the Report of the Visiting Committee of the Economics Department for 193[last digit omitted]. General discussion followed. Professor Chamberlin pointed out that the position taken by Mr. Sweezy was substantially that held by Professor Keynes of Cambridge University, scholar to whom Harvard had tendered an honorary degree at the Tercentenary. Neither Professor Burbank nor Professor Chamberlin was able to define the degree of Mr. Sweezy’s radicalism and affirmed vigorously that in making their recommendation the Department was not actuated for or against him by considerations of his politico-economic opinions. They regarded Mr. Sweezy as a well-trained economist, a man of real ability, and an excellent teacher. Mr. Bigelow raised the question whether the point of view advocated sympathetically by Mr. Sweezy was not considered dispassionately by other members of the Department in their teaching. Professor Burbank affirmed that this was the case, adding that the men who agitated irresponsibly on matters of current controversy were not in the Harvard Department of Economics.

                  Mr. Bigelow also inquired whether Mr. Sweezy was not likely to influence emotionally the opinions of young men predisposed by present conditions to seek, by any or every means, an escape from their immediate troubles. The point was made that individual undergraduates were taught economics not by one man alone but by at least four or five, among them men who were more orthodox than he in their economic theories. Professors Burbank and Chamberlin were clear that it was impossible not to have instruction on socialism in the Economics Department at Harvard and that without the services of Sweezy they would be very hard put to give it. Accordingly somebody else would be needed to replace Mr. Sweezy; and, according to Mr. Burbank, there was only one man in the country whom they regarded as his superior (Lange of Chicago) and whom in his opinion they would prefer to Sweezy when and if they contemplated making a permanent appointment in this field. He is not procurable on an Instructor’s salary. Professor Burbank thought that the needs of the Department on its permanent staff placed Labor, Economic History, and Agricultural Economics prior to the field represented by Mr. Sweezy. It was pointed out by Mr. Buck that with its quota of six Faculty Instructors, the Department could easily provide for these permanent needs and yet retain Mr. Sweezy as a Faculty Instructor of the new type. He pointed out that since the Department would have at best only two Faculty Instructors next year (excluding Sweezy) they had a real need for Sweezy to insure greater continuity in tutoring and to perform other departmental duties such as the conduct of General Final Examinations. This was admitted by both Mr. Burbank and Mr. Chamberlin.

                  I took the point of view that I was recommending Mr. Sweezy’s appointment on the grounds of his training in Economics and his intellectual distinction and his excellence as a teacher, adding that since the question of his opinions had been raised I should like to urge that neither at the present time nor a year from now* could an explanation be given which would seem to Mr. Sweezy or his friends to be at all adequate for our failure to reappoint him: in view of our agreement as to his qualifications he would be entitled to think that he was denied the type of appointment granted to his competitors primarily because of his political opinions, whereas should he be given his five-year appointment and not elected to a permanency at its termination (which Professor Burbank thought highly probable) there would be an explanation for letting him go which he could not contest; namely, the prior needs for men in other fields, the fact that, however good they were, only one Faculty Instructor out of every two would find a vacancy open for him, and the regularity of turn-over at that stage.

                  Mr. Bigelow intimated that he might wish to discuss the matter further with me and with President Conant. (Mr. Bigelow called me up later to say that he would ventilate the problem on Monday but would not press for adverse action.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

* The date at which a decision would have to be made if he were given a two-year appointment only.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 154, Folder “Economics, 1939-1940”.

Image Source: Paul Sweezy in the Harvard Class Album 1942.

Categories
Chicago Cowles Economist Market Economists Stanford

Cowles Commission. Arrow declines offer for joint appointment of research director and professor of economics. 1953

 

Tjallings Koopmans declared his intention to resign his research directorship of the Cowles Commission for Economic Research at the University of Chicago effective June 30, 1954, having served in that position for six years. This necessitated a search for an economist who could satisfy the needs of both the Cowles Commission and the Chicago Department of Economics. Kenneth Arrow, a Cowles alumnus so-to-speak, was the first target of the search. In this post you will find transcriptions of some of the relevant correspondence in the matter. Arrow was offered a salary of $12,000 (approximately $140,000 at today’s prices) which was equal to that of Koopmans and $1000 less than that of the more senior Jacob Marschak.

For a history of the Cowles Commission and Foundation for Research in Economics, see Robert W. Dimand’s Cowles Working Paper (November 2019).

Plot-spoiler: Arrow declined the offer, “The activity of administration represents for me, I feel, a violation of the principle of comparative advantage, especially if one takes account of my strong subjective preferences,” to which Economics in the Rear-view Mirror can only add, “Good Choice!”

Postscript: Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has appended the September 30 announcement of Arrow’s being appointed executive head of the Stanford economics department. OK, so the comparative advantage argument could have played a role in his Chicago decision, assuming he believed a move would have increased the productivity of both the Stanford and Chicago faculties! Now I’ll  bet that having experienced winters in Chicago and Stanford, the family simply decided to stay in California.

Posted earlier: a mini c.v. for Arrow as of 1951.

________________________

COWLES COMMISSION
FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37, ILLINOIS

July 21, 1953

Professor T. W. Schultz
c/o Hotel Maury
Casilla Correo 1385
Lima, Peru

Dear Mr. Schultz:

                  The Central Administration and the Board of Trustees have now approved our recommendation with respect to Arrow. Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to Arrow. I presume that Dean Tyler will send you a copy of his letter. May I ask you, if you can find time, to write to Arrow to support this offer, and to indicate the participation the Economics Department? In case you have secretarial assistance, may we have a carbon of your letter?

                  It may be winter in South America just now, but here it is mid-summer, with all that that means. Hoping that you find your trip interesting and profitable,

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Tjalling C. Koopmans

TCK:lb

Enclosure

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

[COPY]

July 21, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Ken:

                  In this letter, which will reach you simultaneously with a letter from Dean Tyler, I am writing to express the gratification of the Cowles Commission research staff in general, and of myself in particular, at the action of the University and of the Executive Committee of the Commission, in extending to you an invitation to join our staff as Director of Research. The Executive Committee has acted on the unanimous recommendation of our faculty, which reflects our great confidence in you as an intellectual leader. We believe that, above all others in the field, you are the person capable of giving the Commission the research leadership it needs during the years just ahead. Needless to say, we hope that you will decide to accept.

                  I well remember your statement this April that you wished not to be considered for a position which like this one has administrative aspects. As illustration you mentioned that you did not wish to become chairman of your department at Stanford either.  The fact that you are now taking another view of the latter task gives us the courage to ask you to reconsider your attitude toward the former. The administrative aspects of this position are adjustable in terms of your own preferences. I think you will find Ross Cardwell capable of discharging those administrative functions which you may wish to avoid. He brings to this a real understanding and sympathy for the objectives of the group.

                  Mr. Schultz will write to you concerning the participation of the Economics Department in this offer. Since he is currently in South America, some time will go by before his letter can reach you. Let me say only that the Department is likewise unanimous in its support for a joint offer, and hopes that you will regard participation in its teaching and other activities an compatible with your primary responsibility with regard to the Commission. A tentative ratio, two-thirds Commission, one-third Department, is proposed for your consideration.

                  I am writing to Jascha [Jacob Marschak], who is currently at the Institute for Numerical Analysis, to inform him that this offer has now been approved. Please feel free to discuss the matter with him and to regard him as an additional source of information. We also hope that you will find it possible to visit Chicago some time in September so that you may inform yourself fully with regard to the opportunities and challenge of this position. The best timing of this visit depends somewhat on Mr. Schultz’ plans, on which I am not fully informed.

                  In conclusion, I want you to know that I look forward with great anticipation to the prospect of a reintensified contact with you, both in research and in a personal way. We all hope that our proposal is challenging enough to you to earn your serious consideration and, ultimately, your acceptance.

                  Please give our best regards to Selma. We hope that she will look with sympathy on our trying to get you both back to Chicago.

Cordially yours,

Tjalling C. Koopmans

cc: Executive Committee (A. Cowles, R. L Cardwell, T. W. Schultz, R. W. Tyler)
J. Marschak

________________________

COPY

The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois
The Division of the Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

July 21, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow co The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  I take great pleasure in inviting you to become Professor of Economics of the University of Chicago and Director of Research in the Cowles Commission. This is a regular tenure position as a full professor at a salary of $12,000 per year effective for 1954-55, on a 4-E contract. As you may have heard, the provisions of the 4-E contract have recently been liberalized so that the faculty member retains his earnings from royalties, from occasional lectures, and other occasional short-term assignments.

                  The interest in your appointment is indicated by the fact that you were the unanimous selection of the Executive Committee of the Cowles Commission, as well as the research staff of the Commission and the faculty of the department of economics. We are all anxious to have you join us and feel sure that we can provide you with excellent conditions for making an important intellectual contribution. We hope that you will come to Chicago at our expense sometime in September to look into the situation as fully as you wish and to work out conditions that are satisfactory, including the time when you would be able to join our staff.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
R. W. Tyler
Dean

RWT:rk

________________________

[COPY]

August 24, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  I have returned from my field work in Peru and Mexico and learned with great pleasure from Dean Tyler and Professor Koopmans that the Chancellor has approved our recommendation to invite you to come to the University of Chicago as Professor of Economics and Director of Research in the Cowles Commission. Dean Tyler has already formally extended to you this invitation and Professor Koopmans has written to you at some length. May I convey to you the fact that this invitation is rare in that it is the unanimous view and wish of the members of the Department of Economics. This expresses in the strongest possible terms our own very high regard for your professional achievements as an economist and our firm wish to have you become one of us.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Theodore W. Schultz

TWS:jw

________________________

[COPY]

September 11, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica California

Dear Ken:

                  This is further to my handwritten letter of about a month ago, in which I indicated that I would write again upon returning to Chicago. Let me again express the hope that you may be able to visit us at a time convenient to you. I continue to believe that this is the most effective procedure for you to obtain clarification on points such as those ou have raised in conversation with Jascha. However, in case you should prefer to seek clarification by correspondence, may I suggest that you write to Dean Tyler if you have questions relating to the Cowles Commission (with a carbon copy to me) and to Mr. Schultz for questions relating to the Department.

                  We had an interesting and fruitful meeting at Kingston, in which high temperature and a light program contributed to a relaxed atmosphere.

                  Looking forward to hearing from you.

Cordially,
[unsigned copy]
Tjalling C. Koopmans

TOK:lb

Cc: J. Marschak, T.W. Schultz, R.W. Tyler

________________________

The RAND Corporation
1700 Main St. • Santa Monica • California

15 September 1953

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Professor Schultz:

Thank you very much for your letter of August 24. I am indeed thrilled by the evidence of approbation by my former colleagues at the University of Chicago.

However, for reasons set forth in the enclosed letter to Dean Tyler, I feel that I should not accept the offer. The activity of administration represents for me, I feel, a violation of the principle of comparative advantage, especially if one takes account of my strong subjective preferences.

Best regards to all members of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Kenneth J. Arrow

KJA: ge
encl.

________________________

[COPY]

15 September 1953

Dean R. W. Tyler
The Division of the Social Sciences
The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Dean Tyler:

I have thought over very seriously the kind and flattering offer to serve as Research Director of the Cowles Comission. It is with a great deal of regret that I feel that I must decline.

The stimulating and vital intellectual atmosphere at the University of Chicago and the high salary offered were very strong inducements, but I feel that I am not temperamentally qualified to assume the administrative responsibilities called for. I would feel strongly the conflict between pursuing my individual research and the responsibilities of leadership, and I do not feel that I would make a satisfactory resolution. I wish to thank you again, not least, for your willingness to wait this long for me to come to a decision.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Kenneth J. Arrow

KJA:ge
cc: Prof. T. C. Koopmans, Prof. T. W. Schultz [checkmark]

________________________

[COPY]

The University of Chicago
The Division of the Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

September 21, 1953

Mr. Kenneth J. Arrow
The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  We are greatly disappointed that you feel it unwise to accept our invitation to become Director of Research for the Cowles Commission. We think you have an important contribution to make to our University. Hence, I hope we can work out some other position here that would appeal to you.

Sincerely yours,
R. W. Tyler
Dean

RWT:rk

cc:  Mr. T. W. Schultz  [checkmark], Mr. T. C. Koopmans

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 4.

________________________

Postscript

New Economics Executive Named

Kenneth J. Arrow, professor of economics and statistics at Stanford, has been appointed executive head of the University’s Department of Economics, President Wallace Sterling announced yesterday.

Nationally known for his work in the analysis of criteria for economic decisions, Dr. Arrow has been on the Stanford faculty since 1949. As department head he replaces Professor Edward S. Shaw, who has resigned to devote full time to teaching and research.

Dr. Arrow heads a project at Stanford supported by the Office of Naval Research to study the efficiency of economic decision-making.

As a post-doctoral fellow of the Social Science Research Council, Dr. Arrow traveled extensively in Western Europe for nine months of 1952, studying statistical problems of national economic planning.

He lectured at Oxford University and the Institute of Applied Economics in Paris and was one of a small group of distinguished American economists invited to participate in a colloquium on the theory of risk. The colloquium was conducted in Paris by the National Center of Scientific Research of the French Ministry of Eduaction.

Professor Arrow was graduated by the College of the City of New York in 1940 with Phi Beta Kappa honors and as winner of the Pell medal for highest scholastic proficiency.
He served as assistant professor at the University of Chicago in 1948-49. Appointed acting assistant professor at Stanford in 1949, he became associate professor in 1950 and this year was promoted to full professor.

[Note: the promotion was announced April 28, effective September 1, 1953.]

Source: The Stanford Daily, 1 October 1953.

Image Source:  Kenneth J. Arrow as Guggenheim Fellow (1972)  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.

Categories
Development Economist Market Economists Harvard Toronto

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus William Edmund Clark, 1974

 

During the 1973-74 academic year Dale Jorgenson served as the placement officer for 34 Harvard economics Ph.D.s (in hand or anticipated) planning to go on the market. A fifth year student offering  the field of economic development with a thesis on government investment planning in Tanzania hoped to spend his first post-doc year at Harvard. Jorgensen apparently offered him a discouraging word, leading William Edmund Clark to approach John Kenneth Galbraith for help. Galbraith’s note to the department chair, James Duesenberry, is transcribed below. Galbraith could not pass up the opportunity to lend a helping hand simultaneously with a discrete back-of-the-hand at Jorgenson. 

Archival artifacts from the feud involving Jorgenson and Galbraith, inter alios, in the Harvard economics department at this time were the subject of an earlier post.

Curatorial due diligence demanded that I track down whatever happened to the Harvard economics Ph.D. alumnus William Edmund Clark. It turns out that he went back to his native Canada where he entered government service. He became much more than another faceless government economist. He rose rapidly through the bureaucratic ranks and within a decade “enjoyed” sufficient notoriety to become a Trudeaucratic target of Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney’s new government in the mid-1980s to be purged from the ranks of the civil service. From there Clark went on to an enormously successful career as a financial mover-and-shaker over the following three decades. “Red Ed” Clark also went on to make his mark in philanthropy.

The details of Clark’s truly remarkable life after his Harvard Ph.D. can be found in his Wikipedia article. John Kenneth Galbraith must have seen something that Dale Jorgenson either failed to see or didn’t want to encourage.

__________________________

Galbraith Tries an End-Run
around Jorgenson

December 20, 1973

Professor James Duesenberry
Littauer M-8
Harvard University

Dear Jim:

W. E. Clark, vitae attached, was in to see me the other day. He would like to stay on at Harvard; he has been told by Jorgenson that, in effect, there isn’t much interest in him. I find it difficult to plead we lack interest in anybody with this kind of record. I continue to suspect Mr. Jorgenson of an influence on our enterprise that is both inimical and evangelical. Couldn’t there be some corrective action without some fuss.

Yours faithfully,
John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG: efd

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

William Edmund Clark
Curriculum Vitae
  1. Born: October 10, 1947
  2. Marriage Status: Married
  3. Children: One Son
  4. Education:

Honors B.A., University of Toronto 1969. Economics
A.M. Harvard University 1971. Economics
Ph.D. Expected Harvard University. 1974 (Summer) Economics

  1. Awards, Grades:
    1. Stood first in class last three years at University of Toronto
    2. Received Excellent Minus on written Theory for Ph.D.
    3. Received Excellent on Orals for Ph.D.
      Topics: Economic Development; Theories of Social Change
    4. Woodrow Wilson Scholar
  2. Thesis. Pattern of Government Controlled Investment in Tanzania
    Thesis Advisors: A. O. Hirschman; A. MacEwan
  3. Teaching Experience:

Summer Course, Acadia University, Nova Scotia 1970
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University 1971/72.

  1. Other Work Experience:

Researcher, Center of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1966 (summer)
Researcher, Ford Foundation Project on Higher Education, University of Toronto, 1968 (summer)
Head, Research Project on Student Aid, Financed by Ontario Government and Ford Foundation, 1969 (summer)
Member, University of Toronto Tanzania Project, 1971-73
Team head, University of Toronto Tanzania Project, 1972-73

  1. Publications:

“Access to Higher Education in Ontario” joint article with D. Cook and G. Fallis

  1. Address: 11 Peabody Terrace Apt. 702 Cambridge, Mass. 02138
    Telephone: 617-492-0416
  2. References:

A.O. Hirschman, Harvard University
A. MacEwan, Harvard University
D. Nowlan, Dept. of Economics, University of Toronto
D.F. Forster, Provost, University of Toronto
A. Sinclair, Chairman, Dept. of Economics, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard Economics Dept. of Economics: General correspondence, 1967-74 (1 of 3)”.

Image Source: “Turbulence follows former ‘Trudeaucrat”,  National Post (Toronto), Aug 9, 1999.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard Michigan

Harvard. Department recommends promotion of James Duesenberry to associate professor with tenure, 1952

Thanks to Milton Friedman’s filing habits, we are able to catch a glimpse into the tenure and promotion process at Harvard for the case of James S. Duesenberry in 1952. Friedman was invited to serve on the ad hoc committee to review the case for promoting Duesenberry from assistant professor to associate professor of economics with tenure in Harvard’s economics department. A typed copy of the department’s two-page recommendation submitted by the chairman Arthur Smithies, a one page c.v. for Duesenberry, and additional letters of support by Wassily Leontief and Gottfried Haberler from Milton Friedman’s file are transcribed below .

What strikes me most is just how short this written record appears when compared to the paper steeplechase of university hiring and promotion procedures of the present day.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the Provost

April 4, 1952

Confidential

Professor Milton Friedman
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am happy to learn from President Conant that you have kindly consented to serve on the ad hoc committee to consider an appointment in our Department of Economics. The committee will hold its meeting on Friday, April 18, at ten o’clock in the Perkins Room in Massachusetts Hall.

The position to be filled is that of Associate Professor of Economics. This rank carries permanency of tenure, and an assured progress toward a full professorship provided the man appointed lives up to expectations. For this reason we are seeking as good a young man as we can find in the age bracket under approximately forty years.

The Department of Economics has recommended Dr. James B. Duesenberry. I enclose for your scrutiny a copy of the Department’s recommendation, which, like all the material presented to the ad hoc committee, is strictly confidential. The next step in procedure is for the specially appointed ad hoc committee to advise the President and the Provost. In this connection not merely should the qualifications of Dr. Duesenberry be assessed, but he should also be compared with other men of his age group in the same field.

If there are any questions I can answer before the meeting of the committee, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am also enclosing a special travel voucher for your convenience in reporting your travel expenses in connection with the meeting of the ad hoc committee.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Paul H. Buck
Paul H. Buck
Provost

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

COPY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

February 18, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Dear Provost Buck:

At its meeting of February 12th, the Department of Economics unanimously decided to recommend Assistant Professor James S. Duesenberry for promotion to an Associate Professorship beginning in the academic year 1952-1953.

The meeting was attended by Professors Black, Chamberlin, Dunlop, Galbraith, Hansen, Harris, Leontief, Mason, Slichter, and Smithies, all of whom voted in favor of the promotion. Professors Gerschenkron, Haberler, and Williams and Dr. Taylor who were unavoidably absent from the meeting have all indicated their approval.

I am attaching a brief curriculum vitae of Duesenberry and a list of his publications and papers.

We make this recommendation after a careful survey of all the economists in the country whom we felt might be qualified or available for an Associate Professorship. Altogether we considered about twenty young economists, both in the United States and abroad. It is our judgment that none of them could serve this faculty better than Duesenberry and very few if any of them are on a par with Duesenberry.

He is undoubtedly one of the very few outstanding young economists in the country. I know that if he were to indicate his availability he would be flooded with offers from many leading universities. To illustrate, the University of California has just lost Fellner to Yale and they have told me that they would gladly take Duesenberry as one of their two leading economists in Economic Theory.

When we had narrowed our list down, it included Baumol at Princeton, Dorfman at California, Tobin at Yale, Goodwin who is now in Cambridge, England, and Robert Rosa of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Rosa appealed to many of us particularly. He has had a brilliant career in the Bank which has merely been an extension of the brilliance he has shown throughout his professional career. I knew him as an undergraduate at Michigan, and he has fulfilled all the promise he showed at that time. Unfortunately, he finally decided that he was not available. Otherwise, we might have recommended Rosa’s appointment in conjunction to that of Duesenberry since we have two vacancies that we can fill.

Where Rosa would have been largely complementary to Duesenberry in view of his specific banking experience, the others on the list are more competitive with him. We were particularly impressed with Baumol who some of us know and Tobin who all of us have known for some years. Both these men are undoubtedly first class intellectually, and it would be difficult to rate them below Duesenberry. However, Duesenberry has shown a breadth of interest and a willingness to relate economics to other disciplines that the others have not yet demonstrated to the same extent. Goodwin and Dorfman are also of first-class intellectual ability, but we felt that they too were more specialized in their interests than Duesenberry.

In the last few years, Duesenberry has shown a remarkable capacity to bring together the fruits of theoretical and empirical research. His interests are now leading him in the direction of an historical study of the problem of economic development, and he has been cooperating on an experimental course on economic motivation with a member of the Social Relations Department. I believe that economies has suffered seriously in recent years from over-specialization. In particular, the theorists and the statisticians have tended to feel that the truth has been revealed only to them. History until recently has attracted far too little interest. I am confident that Duesenberry will be an important influence in reversing these tendencies.

Duesenberry made a name for himself nationally and internationally with his first book, Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. His new hypothesis of “ratchet effects” has helped to avoid many of the mistakes that had previously been made in attempting to predict consumer behavior and has wide general implications for economic analysis. In this and his other work, he has already helped to rescue economies from the straight-jacket of static analysis, and I am sure he will do much more.

In view of the present needs of the Department, I wish we could have found a man who combined all Duesenberry’s other qualities with striking performance on the lecture platform. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. However, while not a striking lecturer, Duesenberry has been and will continue to be a very effective part of our undergraduate teaching. He has been a tutor in Dunster House for some years and as such has been a conspicuous success. He has also proved to be the member of the Department best equipped to teach the senior course in economic analysis for honors students. In these respects he will prove to be an important addition to the permanent staff from the point of view of undergraduate teaching.

On personal grounds, the Department looks forward very much to having Duesenberry as a permanent member. He will combine a thoroughly independent point of view with an understanding attitude towards differences of opinion with his colleagues. In general, it is the unanimous view of the Department that we could hardly make a recommendation in which we had greater confidence.

Yours Sincerely,
/s/ Arthur Smithies
Chairman

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

JAMES STEMBLE DUESENBERRY

Born July 18, 1918

B.A., University of Michigan, 1939
M.A., ibid., 1941
Ph.D., ibid., 1948
Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan, 1939-1941
U.S.A.A.F., 1942-1946.
Instructor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1946.
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University, 1946-1948.
Assistant Professor, Harvard University, 1948 to present

Publications

Books:

Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Harvard University Press, 1949.

Business Cycles and Economic Development, to be published in the fall of 1952 by McGraw-Hill Company.

Articles:

“Income Consumption Relations”, Income, Employment and Public Policy, Norton, 1948.

“The Mechanics of Inflation”, Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 1950.

“Mr. Hicks and the Trade Cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, September, 1950.

“The Role of Demand in the Economic Structure”, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, in press.

“Some Aspects or the Theory of Economic Development”, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, December 1950.

“The Leontief Input-Output System”, (ditto); to be published in a volume on Linear Programming by Paul Samuelson.

Papers Read but not Published:

“Some New Income-Consumption Relationships and Their Implications”, Econometric Society, January, 1947.

“Induction Evidence of the Propensity to Consume”, American Economic Association and the Econometric Society, December, 1947.

The Present Status of the Consumption Function” Conference on Income and Wealth, June, 1950.

“Theory of Economic Development”, Econometric Society, December, 1951.

“Needed Revisions in the Theory of Consumer Expenditures”, Econometric Society, September, 1950.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Gottfried Haberler
Professor of Economics

325 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 20, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Mr. Buck:

If you permit, I should like to add my personal views on the proposed appointment of James Duesenberry as Associate Professor. May I say that I know Duesenberry intimately and that I have been increasingly impressed by his work. The little book, INCOME, SAVING AND THE THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, which he published with the Harvard University Press, is generally regarded as one of the most important and original contributions to the widely discussed and extremely important subject of the relations of national income, saving and consumption. It has been much and favorably commented upon. Duesenberry displays the rare talent of combining theoretical analysis, statistical analysis and sociological insight in a most illuminating and successful manner. He is also a very inspiring teacher.

In recent years he has turned his attention to the also much discussed problems of economic development. The parts of his forthcoming book which I have seen display a mastery of combining different approaches in a most fruitful way. His eminence in this particular field, which in a very welcome way rounds out the field covered by members of our department, is widely recognized in the economic profession at large. He was asked to address the convention of the American Economic Association last December, and Professor Innis of Toronto, the new president of the American Economic Association, has asked him to speak again on the problem of economic development at the next annual meeting of the Association.

To sum up, in my opinion the appointment of Duesenberry will greatly strengthen the Economics Department, enhance its reputation and help attract first rate students.

Very sincerely yours,
/s/ G. Haberler
G. Haberler

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 24, 1952

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

In anticipation of my appearance before the ad hoc committee, I would like to state my reasons for having vote [sic] in support of the departmental recommendation for appointment of Assistant Professor Duesenberry as associate professor. I have followed Jim’s development from the time he became, on my recommendation, an economics instructor and assistant in my undergraduate course on economic theory.

Duesenberry is one of the few outstanding young economists who established their reputation in the post war years. Baumol, Arrow, Goodwin and not more than one or two others, could be named as belonging to the same group. Among these, Duesenberry distinguished himself through his notable breadth of interest and what is in a sense more important, his remarkably productive scientific imagination. His well known contributions to the theory of consumption and the not yet published equally original work in the field of economic development, reveal a singular combination of intuitive insight, practical sense and theoretical “know-how”.

Duesenberry has already taken an important part in the work of the Harvard Economic Research Project, and I have no doubt that he will play a leading role in the development of economic and general social science research at Harvard.

Although not typically a smooth lecturer, Duesenberry is very effective in a classroom. His enthusiasm and real interest in students makes him an excellent tutor and undergraduate advisor.

If in its subsequent recommendations for permanent appointments we succeed in keeping our sights as high as in the present choice the future prospects of the Economics Department would be very bright indeed.

With best regards.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Wassily Leontief
Wassily Leontief

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the President

April 19, 1952

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am returning herewith material which I believe you left in the Perkins Room at the time of the ad hoc committee meeting yesterday.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Virginia Proctor
Virginia Proctor
Secretary to the President

Professor Milton Friedman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 24, Folder “25.29 Correspondence. Duesenberry, James S.”

Image Source: Harvard College. Classbook 1957.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

Chicago. Notes on conversation with U Chicago president Colwell by T.W. Schultz, 1946

Biblical Greek Scholar/Theologian Ernest Cadman Colwell served under Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins as the president of the University of Chicago from 1945 to 1951. Theodore W. Schultz was the relatively new head of the Department of Economics who met with Colwell in late September 1946 to brief the president on developments in the economics department, especially with respect to efforts being made in pursuit of several economists needed to fill the gaps left by Henry Simons’ death (1946), Chester W. Wright’s retirement (1944), resignations by Jacob Viner (1946) and Simeon E. Leland (1946), and Oskar Lange’s leave of absence (1945-).

We see in the memorandum of conversation transcribed below that John and Ursula Hicks posed a spousal hire issue needing a creative solution before an actual offer could be made and that sixty year old Frank Knight was due some sort of a “senatorial courtesy” to get him on board with the majority of the department who badly wanted to extend an offer to thirty-one year old Paul Samuelson. 

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

Mitch, David. “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946.” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (2016): 1714–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549915. Especially the online supplemental materials, where the following memo is quoted in part.

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Harro Maas, “Making Things Technical: Samuelson at MIT” in E. Roy Weintraub (ed.) MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014), pp. 272-294.

Roger Backhouse. Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson. Vol. I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 (Oxford University Press, 2017), Chapter 28 “Commitment to MIT.”

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

This discussion with President Colwell was highly satisfactory in that we considered in some detail and carefully, a number of important developments affecting the Department of Economics as follows:

1. I indicated to Mr. Colwell that the role of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago should be reviewed, with the view of achieving a better division of labor among universities within the U. S. and internationally. An increasing number of universities can do creditable undergraduate work in economics, and also satisfactory graduate work up to and beyond the master’s. There are upwards of two score of such institutions in the U. S. Meanwhile, the number of students seeking training at the undergraduate level, and also in graduate work, has increased rapidly, and the post war promises further growth in numbers. Meanwhile, many Western countries are looking to the U.S. for some of their advanced education in other fields as well as in economics), this along with the development that is taking place within the U. S., suggests that the time has come for the University of Chicago to allocate its resources even more largely to the most advanced reaches of economics. I proposed that we examine carefully the implications of this kind of refocusing of our program. I was pleased that Mr. Colwell found himself drawn to the kind of analysis I was presenting. He made several contributions to it and concurred with the analysis itself. He very cordially urged the Department to examine this thesis and reconstitute itself to serve more effectively, taking full account of the division of labor within American academic institutions.

2. I reviewed in some detail the state of the Department, pointing out the losses that have come as the result of the death of Simons, the retirement of Wright, the resignations of Viner and Leland, and the leave of absence of Lange. I expressed our pleasure in achieving the appointment of Friedman and Blough, and reaffirmed my confidence in our judgment in seeking these appointments.

With regard to additional appointments, the following individuals were discussed.

(1) Mr. and Mrs. Hicks. I reviewed the agreements we had with Mr. Hutchins, which were the foundation of negotiations last spring. I indicated that the Hicks would arrive this week to be with us the fore-part of the fall quarter. If as a result of this opportunity of being together during part of the fall quarter, the Hicks see a real opportunity for their professional efforts at the University of Chicago, and we continue to be genuinely interested in bringing them to this University, would we be permitted to offer Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the salaries and positions that we had discussed last spring realizing we might have to go higher in the case of Mr. Hicks, for I was convinced his standing warranted our paying the maximum. Mr. Colwell said he was willing to authorize an offer of $10,000 to Mr. Hicks, and probed with me for a while the merit of making it higher instead of offering a position to both individuals. It was my judgment that our bargaining power would be at a maximum if we would offer both individuals a position, but that we could escape the liability of dual membership in one family by making the offer to Mrs. Hicks a term appointment — perhaps that of a Lecturer or Research Associate, say for three years at $3,000, and then reconsider at the end of three years, where she would have the privilege of withdrawing or redefining her relationship, and the Department would likewise have that privilege. Thus, the commitment would be permanent in the case of Mr. Hicks, but meaningful in terms of time turned into professional task to Mrs. Hicks and yet allowing flexibility in her case. Mr. Colwell accepted my proposal to proceed with an offer to both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks along the lines I have outlined.

(2) I reported Mr. Viner’s observations that it was not likely Mr. Robbins would leave the London School of Economics, and that, at least for a year, there was no point in making an indirect approach again to see whether or not he might feel free to accept an appointment in this country. Mr. Colwell fully concurred.

(3) I reviewed our offer to Mr. Colin Clark to come to the University of Chicago as guest professor for a year. I also pointed out we had included in the offer $1000 for travel expenses. I Indicated further that several of my colleagues were disposed to feel that we should now make an offer of a permanent appointment to Mr. Clark, since he is not able to obtain leave of absence to come as visiting professor. I then indicated why I felt, although tentatively, that it was unwise to make this move for a permanent relationship with the Department until we had a chance to become personally acquainted with Mr. Clark, although I continue to have a high regard for his professional work as evidenced by his major writings. Mr. Colwell concurred with the view I expressed, namely, we should not make an appointment on a permanent basis, but should try to get Mr. Clark to come as a visiting professor, if not this year, perhaps next year.

(4) I reviewed the case of Albert G. Hart, indicating that he had accepted a position at Columbia before we could approach him with an offer, and that it was important to his own growth to take the position at Columbia for a year. My plan is to approach him at the end of the year, let him weigh alternatives, including the opportunities as he sees them at Columbia. My proposal to Mr. Colwell was that we approach Hart along in February or March in order to induce him to come to Chicago. We discussed Hart’s background in some detail, Mr. Colwell concurred in the procedure I outlined to him.

(5) I then outlined at some length the case of Paul Samuelson of M.I.T. Mr. Colwell had not had the privilege of visiting with Samuelson at the time he was here. Samuelson visited with Hutchins and Gustavson, as far as Central Administration was concerned. I stated it was my judgment that Samuelson is one of the younger men in economics who has a high probability of achieving a distinguished career as an economist, and that in this respect his promise is most outstanding; that I had no doubt of the merits of the case intellectually and would press for an appointment, were that the only consideration, without delay, but that I had to achieve, however, an acceptance of Mr. Samuelson in the Department, not that a majority was lacking; a mandate existed satisfying the University administrative requirements. But the obstacle lies in what in substance is a matter of “senatorial courtesy” in behalf of the most distinguished and senior member of the Department, Professor Frank Knight. I expressed the hope it would be possible to have Professor Knight concur in the appointment and feel it was being made without any discourtesy to him and his professional role and standing in this University and in the profession. I felt this end must and could be achieved and that I was going to give a great deal of effort to it in the coming months. Pending the full exploration of what can be done in this connection I wanted to reserve decision as to whether or not to recommend the appointment of Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Colwell discussed at some length his own appraisal of the problem I had presented. He seemed to be pleased with the approach that was implicit in what I was relating to him. He made the point, and made it explicitly, that if the intellectual stature of Samuelson is as high as my judgment indicated, that it was exceedingly important the University move toward an appointment. I felt sure, though, that he was disposed to await the wishes of the Department, weighing carefully the factors I had tried to describe to him.

  1. At this point Mr. Colwell took me back to my general thesis, namely, the refocusing of the goals of the Department and the use of its resources, urging me to give active attention to this task. Whereupon I suggested the achievement of this role might well mean the setting up of 5 to 7 positions in the Department for individuals to spend 2 to 5 years at this university in what would be essentially a post-doctoral role as scholars, then accept positions elsewhere consistent with their accomplishments and promise. Mr. Colwell was drawn to the proposal as I had put it and referred briefly to similar planning and developments in other fields.

T. W. Schultz.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder “3”.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard and Columbia. President of Harvard headhunting conversation regarding economists. Mitchell and Mills, 1936

The following typed notes were based on a conversation that took place on February 21, 1936 regarding possible future hires for the Harvard economics department. President James B. Conant (or someone on his behalf) met with Columbia university professors Wesley C. Mitchell and his NBER sidekick, Frederick C. Mills. This artifact comes from President Conant’s administrative records in the Harvard Archives.

In the memo we find a few frank impressions of members of the Harvard economics departments together with head-hunting tips for established and up-and-coming economists of the day.

An observation that jumps from the paper is the identification pinned to the name Arthur F. Burns, namely, “(Jew)”. Interestingly enough this was not added to Arthur William Marget (see the earlier post Harvard Alumnus. A.W. Marget. Too Jewish for Chicago? 1927.) nor to Seymour Harris.  

________________________

[stamp] FEB 25, 1936

ECONOMICS

Confidential Memorandum of a Conversation on Friday, February 21, with Wesley [Clair] Mitchell and his colleague, Professor [Frederick Cecil] Mills (?) of Columbia

General impression is that the Department of Economics at Harvard is in a better state today than these gentlemen would have thought possible a few years ago. The group from 35-50 which now faces the future is about as good as any in the country. [Edward Hastings] Chamberlin, [John Henry] Williams,[Gottfried] Haberler and Schlichter [sic, [Sumner Slichter] are certainly quite outstanding. Very little known about [Edward Sagendorph] Mason;  he seems to have made a favorable impression but no writings. [Seymour EdwinHarris slightly known, favorable but not exciting.

[John Ulric] Neff admitted to be the best man in economic history if we could get him. Names of other people in this country mentioned included:

[Robert Alexander] Brady — University of California, now working on Carnegie grant on bureaucracy; under 40.

Arthur [F.] Burns at Rutgers (Jew) now working with the Bureau of Economic Research and not available for 3 or 4 years. Said by them to be excellent.

Henry Schultz of Chicago, about in Chamberlin’s class and age, or perhaps a little better.

[Arthur William] Marget of Minnesota, Harvard Ph.D., I believe; well known, perhaps better than Chamberlin. Flashy and perhaps unsound. (Mitchell and Mills disagree to some extent on their estimate of his permanent value but agree on his present high visibility).

Winfield Riffler [sic, Winfield William Riefler], recently called to the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, probably one of the most if not the most outstanding of the younger men.

Morris [Albert] Copeland of Washington; good man but not so good as Chamberlin.

Giddons [sic, Harry David Gideonse?] of Chicago, very highly thought of by Chicago people but has not written a great deal; supposed to be an excellent organizer.

C. E. [Clarence Edwin] Ayres, University of Texas, about 40; in N.R.A. at Washington. Mitchell thinks very highly of him.

England

[Theodore Emmanuel Gugenheim] Gregory, at London School of Economics, about 50, same field as Williams but not so good. Mills more favorable than Mitchell.

Other outstanding young Englishmen:

[Richard F.] Kahn, Kings College, Cambridge

F. Colin [sic, Colin Grant] Clark, of Cambridge

Lionel Robins [sic, Lionel Charles Robbins] of London, age 35, rated very highly by both Mills and Mitchell

F. A. Hayek, another Viennese now in London; spoken of very highly by both Mills and Mitchell.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 54, Folder Economics, “1935-1936”.

Image Sources: Wesley Clair Mitchell (left) from the “Original Founders” page at the website of the Foundation for the Study of Business Cycles; Frederick C. Mills (right) from the Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. CVIII, No. 68, 11 February 1964.

Categories
CUNY Curriculum Economics Programs Economist Market LipseyR Placement Undergraduate

Queens College, NYC. Memo on Responses of Graduates about Department. Lipsey, 1974

The 1974 memo by Professor Robert E. Lipsey that summarizes the responses of recent graduates of Queens College, City University of New York to a questionnaire sent out by the department is included below. It follows a brief timeline for Lipsey’s life and career and a link to a 2001 oral history interview with him about his NBER life conducted by Claudia Goldin

Bottom line of the Queens graduates: not every economics major goes to graduate school in economics so please add more business electives, especially accounting, to the curriculum.

__________________________

Robert Edward Lipsey

1926. Born August 14 in New York City.

1944. B.A. Columbia University.

1946. M.A. Columbia University

1945-53. Research Assistant, NBER

1953-60. Research Associate, NBER

1960-. Senior Research Staff, NBER

1961. Ph.D. Columbia University

1961-64. Lecturer, economics, Columbia University

1967-1995. Professor at Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY

1975-78. Director of international studies, NBER

1978-. Director of the New York Office, NBER

1995-. Professor emeritus, Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY

2011. Died August 11, New York City.

Source: Prabook website entry: Robert Edward Lipsey.

__________________________

Bonus Links

Claudia Goldin’s interview with Robert Lipsey
(8 August, 2001)

Obituary/Tribute to Robert Lipsey by J. Devereux and Z.M. Feliciano, (2013), Robert E. Lipsey. Review of Income and Wealth, 59: 375-380.

__________________________

QUEENS COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

MEMO TO: Economics Department
FROM: R. Lipsey
RE: Graduates Comments on Queens College Economics Program
DATE: October 25, 1974

There has been a great change in the last few years in the comments on the economics program made by graduates in response to our questionnaire. The graduates of the 1960’s, particularly graduate students, most frequently complained of their lack of mathematical and quantitative training, which they felt left them unprepared for graduate school. There are still some comments of this nature, made now from business students, but the bulk of complaints now, by far is from graduates who have gone to work directly from school, or tried to. They seem to feel that there were too few business-oriented courses, and even more, that they were not told of the importance of some training in accounting for those looking for jobs.

One indication of graduates’ feelings is that of about 160 respondents, among whom only a minority answered the questions about courses that had been especially helpful and courses they had not taken, but wished they had, 33 listed accounting in one category or the other. The other subjects with more than a few listings were:

Statistics 22 (mainly helpful in graduate school)
Business Law 14
Finance 12
Computer Science 8
Marketing 7

To give the flavor of graduates’ views I have put down the main comments on this issue by those who took the trouble to write at some length. My own reaction to the comments was to wonder whether we should consider offering a Business Economics specialization, geared to those planning to work immediately after graduation and, to a smaller extent, to those aiming at business school. Such a specialization would include the present requirements (Eco. 1, 2, 5, 6, 49) but require also at least 6 credits of accounting and 6 credits chosen from Business Law, Computer Science, Corporation Finance, Business Organization, Money and Banking, Business Cycles, Econometrics or Statistics.

February 1974

“For all economics majors accounting is virtually a necessity in order to obtain a career oriented position.”

“Unfortunately I did not receive enough information with regards to the importance of accounting courses.”

September 1973

“Economics graduates from Queens College get a decent background for further graduate work. However, there is no preparation or placement efforts to speak of for the Q.C. economies graduate with a B.A.

“All economics students should be required to take at least 6 credits in accounting. I have found this to be a major stumbling block on job applications.

Many business related jobs do require that you have at least 6 hours of accounting, and without it your job choice is cut considerably.”

“…School and education should work more with the outside than straight academia.”

“…the economics department is not meeting the needs of all its students. Approximately two thirds of those who attend graduate school go to business and law schools; the economics department does not meet the need of those students.

A course as basic as Econ. 43 (marketing) was not offered once at the day school during my 4 years. This course is a prerequisite for most MBA programs – not offering it during the day is a shame!

“I had to go to night school for my marketing courses. I feel that they should be offered during the day session also.”

“I feel more emphasis should be placed on areas relative to business. These courses should help to prepare one for the business world. As it is now, my degree in economics is of no use to me. Without my background in accounting I would not have been able to find a job. This I feel is a waste of an education.”

“Economics program should be refined to include courses of a more practical nature, i.e., those with a definite business application. Perhaps more diversification in programs offered would be appropriate.

“I regret not having gone into and majoring in accounting. I’d be making more money and would have had my choice of jobs.”

“Economics majors not planning on graduate school should be advised to take accounting courses and should be persuaded to stay away from courses with no value in the ‘real’ world.”

“Queens should offer more economics courses geared towards Marketing and Banking.”

June 1972

“…advanced courses in math and accounting should be required to get the degree.”

“I suggest all economics majors who plan to go to work directly from college have at least 12 credits in accounting. The number of accounting credits I have was a frequently asked question by employment agencies.”

January 1972

“The economics major should be geared to meet the demands of business. Accounting should be permitted to be incorporated in the economies major. The major should also incorporate one or more courses in computer sciences, marketing, merchandising, business administration and a mathematics background. Unless one pursued a master’s degree in economics, the major as previously structured did not help to prepare one to meet the demands of industry.”

“Queens should have more courses relating to business.”

“Some business courses should be required of economies majors.”

“Students who plan to work directly after graduation should take 9-12 credits in Accounting. Most entry level jobs that would interest an Economics major require a basic knowledge of Accounting.”

Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. The Papers of Abba P. Lerner. Box 17, Folder 3 “Queens College of the City University of New York, New York, N.Y.: Correspondence 1939-1941, 1963-78”.

Categories
Economics Programs Economist Market Economists Johns Hopkins Kansas Sociology

Kansas. Birth of seminary of historical and political science. Blackmar, 1889

 

A 35 year old Johns Hopkins University Ph.D., Frank Wilson Blackmar, was appointed professor of History and Sociology at the University of Kansas starting in the fall semester of 1889. He joined  the history and civics professor James Hulme Canfield to establish a joint seminary of historical and political science in Lawrence, Kansas. The seminary was to serve as a social scientific laboratory following the model of historical seminaries established earlier in German universities and later transferred to North American universities such as Johns Hopkins during the last third of the 19th century. Blackmar’s Ph.D. subjects were History, Political Economy and Literature and he taught a broad range of courses in political economy, sociology, cultural and intellectual history, as well as social policy at Kansas. He wrote textbooks for both economics and sociology but he eventually left economics for what he must have perceived to be the virgin fields of sociology, a career path similar to that taken by Franklin H. Giddings at Columbia. In 1919 he served as president of the American Sociological Association. 

Frank W. Blackmar served his university for forty years until being unceremoniously shown the door to retirement by his department in 1929. He was even forced to suffer the indignity of witnessing his own venerable sociology textbook dropped for a younger competitor.

Still Blackmar is of interest to us as one of the first generation wave of newly minted Ph.D.’s who were in search of their scientific fortune across the vast expanse of the United States at the end of the 19th century. He also serves as a reminder that the disciplinary wall between economics and sociology was then little more than a speed-bump compared to the well-fortified border today.

This is a long post so I provide the following intrapost links for ease of navigation:

___________________________

Frank Wilson Blackmar

1854. Born November 3 in West Springfield, Pennsylvania.

1874. Graduated at the Northwestern State Normal School at Edinboro, Erie county, Pennsylvania.

1874-75. Taught at West Mill Creek school at Erie.

1875-78. Taught in California public schools.

1878. Enrolled at the University of the Pacific (San Jose, California).

1881. Ph.B. with honors from the University of the Pacific.

1881-82. Taught mathematics in the San Jose High School.

1882-86. Professor of mathematics in the University of the Pacific

1884. A.M. in mathematics and literature from the University of the Pacific.

1885. Married Mary S. Bowman, daughter of Rev. G.B. Bowman, of San Jose.

1886-89. Graduate student and fellow of Johns Hopkins University.

1887-88. Instructor in history.
1888-89. Fellow in history and politics.
1889. June 13. Awarded Ph.D. Thesis: “Spanish Colonization in the Southwest.” Subjects: History, Political Economy and English.  Source: Johns Hopkins University, University Circulars, July 1889, p. 97.

1889-1929. University of Kansas.

1889-1899. Professor of history and sociology.
1889. Course in political economy. Thirteen students enrolled (University Kansan, September 27, 1889, p. 1)
1890. Course “Elements of Sociology” introduced.
1893. Course “Status of Woman” introduced.
1897. Course “Questions of Practical Sociology” introduced.
1897. Course “Remedial and Corrective Agencies” introduced.
1899-1912. Professor of sociology and economics.
1912-1926. Professor of sociology.
1899-1926. Head of the Department of Sociology.
1896-1922. Dean of the Graduate School
1929. Retirement forced at age 74 after 40 years of service to the University. His request to continue full-teaching and full-salary until June 1930 was denied.

1900-02. President of the Kansas Conference of Social Work.

1919. Ninth president of the American Sociological Society

1931. March 30. Died from influenza in Lawrence, Kansas.

Books, monographs, reports

The Study of History and Sociology. Topeka: Kansas Printing Office, 1890.

Spanish Colonization in the Southwest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1890.

The History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education. U.S. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information No. 9, 1890. Contributions to American Educational History, edited by Herbert B. Adams. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1890.

Spanish Institutions in the Southwest. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1891.

The Story of Human Progress, 1896.

Higher Education in Kansas. U.S. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information No. 2, 1890.

Economics. Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company, 1900.

Spanish Colonial Policy. Publications of the American Economic Association. Vol. 1 (3), 1900, pp. 112-143.

The Study of History, Sociology, and Economics. Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company, 1901.

The Life of Charles Robinson, the First Governor of Kansas. Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company, 1902.

The Elements of Sociology. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1905.  [In the Citizen’s Library series ed. by Richard T. Ely]

Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, prominent persons, etc. (2 vols.) edited by Frank W. Blackmar. Chicago: Standard Pub. Co. Volume I;  Volume II.

Economics for High Schools and Academies. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1907.

Report on the Penitentiary to Governor Geo. H. Hodges. Topeka, Kansas: Kansas State Printing Office, 1914.

Outlines of Sociology, with J.G. Gillin. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1915. [Published in series: Social Science Textbooks, edited by Richard T. Ely. Note: Ely’s own contribution to the series bears the analogous title “Outlines of Economics”]

First edition (1915);
Revised edition (1923);
Third edition (1930).

History of the Kansas State Council of Defense. Topeka, Kansas: Kansas State Printing Plant, December 1920.

Lawrence Social Survey (joint with Ernest W. Burgess). Topeka, Kansas: Kansas State Printing Plant, 1917.

Justifiable Individualism. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1922.

History of Human Society. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1926.

___________________________

Newspaper accounts regarding Blackmar’s appointment

PROF. BLACKMAR SELECTED.
A Good Man Elected to the New Chair of History and Sociology.

At the last meeting of the board of regents of the University, Prof. James H. Canfield recommended that instead of having an assistant as fixed by the legislature, a new chair be created to be known as History and Sociology. Prof. Canfield laid out the work to be pursued by each chair and two chairs were created by the regents as advised by him and he was allowed to have his choice and he took American History and Civics.

To-day the regents, after careful consideration of all the applicants, selected Prof. Frank W. Blackmar, who is taking an advanced course at Johns Hopkins University. Prof. Blackmar is a man of experience and is a graduate of the University of the Pacific at San Jose, Cal. For several years he has been professor of mathematics at that place. The following letter to the regents bears Mr. Blackmar good recommendations:

 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Baltimore, Md.

“The best man I can suggest for your purpose is Mr. F. W. Blackmar, our senior fellow in History and Politics. He was for some years professor in a California college before coming here and has just received an offer of $1500 to go to Mills College in that state. He used to receive $2000, but deliberately threw up a good place in mathematics for the sake of studying history. He is a man of fine character and ability with lots of hard sense and good tact, withal a good speaker and writer. I have employed him upon the most important of all the government monographs, the Relation of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education, a work covering the financial history of education in thirty-eight states. His report has just been accepted in Washington and will do Blackmar great honor. In fact he can get almost anything he wants after that report is published. You will be lucky if you catch him early and you will have to give him all the law allows. I shall recommend Blackmar to the vacancy arising at Bryn Mawr, where Woodrow Wilson used to be, if I am asked to nominate. Blackmar is married, has had experience as a co-educator, and has served as an assistant here, as well as a popular lecturer to workingmen. I have just answered three applications for professors, but have given you the best man

Very truly,
H. B. Adams.

 

With Professors Blackmar and Canfield in the political history department of the University, that department is sure to become one of the most attractive in the University.

Prof. Blackmar is a protectionist, a Republican and a member of the M. E. [Methodist Episcopal] church.

The “Athens of Kansas” welcomes Prof. and Mrs. Blackmar to her midst and we trust that they will find Lawrence a pleasant place in which to live. The success of securing such an able man is due largely to Prof. Canfield and Regent Spangler and the University is to be congratulated upon the new accession to the already strong faculty.

Source: The Evening Tribune, Lawrence, Kansas. Wednesday, May 8, 1889, p. 3.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The New Chairs.

The University has taken so many strides towards the front during the past four or five years, that each step has ceased to attract special notice. But a change has just been made which deserves mention, and which has already attracted wide-spread attention and favorable comment.

For several years Professor Canfield has urged a division of his chair, that broader work might be offered in History and in Citizenship. The Board has never been able to meet the necessary expenses of such enlargement, and the work has been carried or driven toward success under many embarrassments.

But now the Regents find the funds on hand for a new chair, and have determined to establish it in this department. Accordingly a special committee has been in consultation with Professor Canfield, and together they have elaborated courses that are peculiarly attractive.

At his own request Professor Canfield retains the work in American History and Civics, which will hereafter be the title of his chair. American History is the favorite option. “Constitutional and Political History of the United States,” elaborated and given daily instead of three times a week. This work absorbs “Colonial History,” “Finance and Diplomacy of the Revolution,” and the “Federalist.” In addition to this will be offered work in Constitutional Law, Public Finance and Banking, Local Law and Administration, and International Law and Diplomacy.

The second chair will be History and Sociology.

It is not possible to say now who the new Professors will be, nor what work will be offered. But the two chairs will work together—the work of one really preparing for that of the other, and together they will make a strong team.

This division of the old chair gives just twice the latitude in choice of options and elections, and the number of students eager to avail themselves of this opportunity is very large.

LATER.

Prof. Frank W. Blackmar, formerly a Professor in the University of the Pacific, and at present a fellow in Johns Hopkins, has been appointed to the chair of History and Sociology, which was recently created by the division of Prof. Canfield’s work Prof. Blackmar comes with the best of recommendations, and will be a strong addition to the faculty.

Source: University Times, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, May 10, 1889, p. 2.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Prof. F. W. Blackmar.

The rumor as to the appointment of Prof. F. W. Blackmar of Johns Hopkins University has been proven true. Through the kindness of Regent Spangler the Journal is enabled to print the following letter concerning Mr. Blackmar:

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
BALTIMORE, Md., April 13, 1889.

To the Trustees of Kansas State University—Gentlemen:

Allow me strongly to recommend for your new chair of History and Sociology, Mr. F. W. Blackmar, our Senior Fellow in these subjects. He was for four years Professor of Mathematics in his alma mater, the University of the Pacific, where he proved such a good administrative officer that at one time he served as the deputy of the President. We have thought so highly of his ability as a teacher and as a manager of young men that last year we put him in charge of a large class in History in our undergraduate department. He taught the class to our entire satisfaction. This year as Fellow he has not been allowed to teach, but has given his entire attention to original investigation. Besides writing a scholarly thesis on “Spanish Colonization in the Southwest,” based upon Spanish and other original authorities, he has completed under my direction a most elaborate government report on “The Relation of Federal and State Aid to the Higher Education,” or a financial history of American Colleges and universities in so far as they have been supported or assisted by government appropriations. This report, I am confident, will give Mr. Blackmar a national reputation, for it will meet the needs of every State board of trustees and of all superintendents of education in these United States. In addition to this government and university work, Mr. Blackmar has lent a hand in various popular lecture courses which I have instituted here in Baltimore. I append the printed outlines of one or two of his lectures. He is a man who can go before the people, if necessary, and make himself understood on practical questions. He takes a strong interest in social science, or questions affecting the public health and welfare, such as Sanitation, Charities, the Relation of the State and City to the care of Paupers, the Insane, the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb, etc. If you should see fit to appoint Mr. Blackmar to Historical. Economic and Social Science, it would be wise to encourage him during the coming summer to visit the leading charitable institutions of New York and Massachusetts, and to acquire a practical knowledge of the best methods, from interviews with men like Mr. Brockway, of the Elmira Reformatory, and with Mr. F. S. Sanborn, long secretary of the State Board of Charities in Massachusetts, and at one time lecturer upon these subjects at Cornell University. There is a great field here for a well-trained University man. With knowledge of the best experience of the world he can promote the usefulness and economy of charitable institutions throughout an entire state or city. The Johns Hopkins University is pushing men into this new field. Two of our graduates in succession have served as Secretary of the Organized Charities of Baltimore. Another has similar position in Brooklyn. A fourth has just been made Secretary of the New York State Charities Aid Association, an office which brings him into active relation with all the charitable institutions of both city and state. I emphasize these facts because they show the practical bearings of Social Science when properly represented in a University.

Let me say, in conclusion, that Mr. Blackmar is a young man of excellent moral character, a Christian gentleman, married and in good health, although just now a little overworked while preparing for his degree as Doctor of Philosophy. He is perfectly safe in all economic and social questions and is naturally endowed with a good stock of common sense.

Very respectfully recommended,
H. B. Adams.
In charge of the Department of History and Politics.

Mr. Blackwar is 34 years of age and a native of Erie county, Pa. In 1874 he graduated at the Northwestern State Normal school at Edinboro, Erie county, Pa.; the following year he taught the West Mill Creek school at Erie, at the same time carrying on studies preparatory for college. In the autumn of 1875 he went to California and there engaged in teaching in the public schools for a term of three years; in 1878 entered the University of the Pacific, San Jose, California, and graduated from that institution in 1881 receiving the degree of Ph.B. The following year he engaged in teaching mathematics in the San Jose High School. In 1882 he was called to the chair of mathematics in the University of the Pacific which he filled acceptably for a term of four years. In 1884 he received the degree of A.M. on account of work done in mathematics and literature.

In the following year he was married to Miss Mary S. Bowman, daughter of Rev. G. B. Bowman, of San Jose.

In 1886 he entered Johns Hopkins University, when he was appointed instructor in 1887 and fellow in history and politics in 1888.

Source: Lawrence Daily Journal, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, May 10, 1889, p. 3.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Prof. Blackmar Elected.

Tuesday the board of regents after the consideration of all the applicants elected Prof. Frank W. Blackmar, who is now taking an advanced course at John Hopkins, to fill the associate chair in the history department. Prof. Blackmar is a graduate of the University of the Pacific, a republican, a prohibitionist, a Phi [Kappa] Psi. The following letter to the regents bears Prof. Blackmar good recommendations, and the Courier bids him welcome.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Baltimore, Md.

“The best man I can suggest for your purpose is Mr. F. W. Blackmar, our senior fellow in History and Politics. He was for some years professor in a California college before coming here and has just received an offer of $1500 to go to Mills College in that state. He used to receive $2000, but deliberately threw up a good place in mathematics for the sake of studying history. He is a man of fine character and ability with lots of hard sense and good tact, withal a good speaker and writer. I have employed him upon the most important of all the government monographs, the Relation of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education, a work covering the financial history of education in thirty-eight states. His report has just been accepted in Washington and will do Blackmar great honor. In fact he can get almost anything he wants after that report is published. You will be lucky if you catch him early and you will have to give him all the law allows. I shall recommend Blackmar to the vacancy arising at Bryn Mawr, where Woodrow Wilson used to be, if I am asked to nominate. Blackmar is married, has had experience as a co-educator, and has served as an assistant here, as well as a popular lecturer to workingmen. I have just answered three applications for professors, but have given you the best man

Very truly,
H.B. Adams.

Source: The University Courier, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, May 10, 1889, p. 2.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

FRANK W. BLACKMAR

An extended sketch of Prof. Blackmar was given in The Courier last Spring, but for the benefit of the new students we reproduce a part of it. Prof. Blackmar is a native of Pa., and graduated from the Northwestern Normal School in 1874. He then went to California and taught a few years in the Public Schools of that State. He then entered the University of the Pacific, and graduated with honors with the class of ’81. He taught in the San Jose High School, and was then called back to the University of the Pacific to fill the chair of mathematics. This position he held until 1886, when he resigned to pursue a post graduate course in Johns Hopkins. During the year 1887-8, he was an instructor in History at that institution, and at the time of his election to the chair of History and Sociology in the University last spring, was a Fellow in History and Politics at Johns Hopkins. He is a member of Phi [Kappa] Psi Fraternity, having joined that organization while a student at the University of the Pacific. He took his degree of Ph.D. last June, at Johns Hopkins, the subjects covered in his course being History, Political Economy and English.

Source: The University Courier, Lawrence, Kansas. Friday, August 16, 1889, p. 2.

___________________________

Department of History, Politics and Sociology—A Circular Issued Covering the Work in that Department.

The department of history in the State University has just issued a circular covering the work in that department. By the division of the chair of history and the election of an additional professor in that department the long wished for equalizing of the course was attained and under the name of American History and Civics and History and Sociology the University presents as strong and comprehensive course in that line of college work as any other college in the country. In order that our readers may know for themselves the extent of this course and also the division of the work between Prof. Canfield and Prof. Blackmer we print the circular entire.

HISTORY, POLITICS AND SOCIOLOGY.

The following statement covers the work of the last two years of the University course, and is made in answer to many inquiries received by the instructors in charge of these topics.*

Instruction in History, Polities, and Sociology is given by means of lectures, recitations, discussions, conference, and personal direction in study and research. Special pains are taken to facilitate the use of the University library by students taking these topics; authorities closely connected with the work in hand being withheld from general circulation, and rendered more available by carefully prepared card indexes.

AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVICS. — JAMES H. CANFIELD.

American History. — Instruction is given daily for two years in American History. The course has been prepared with especial care, with the thought that a thorough knowledge of the origin and development of the Nation is one of the most essential conditions of good citizenship. Marked attention is given to social life and institutional and industrial development; to the financial experiments of the general government, and to diplomatic relations; to the failure of the confederation, the struggle for the constitution, and to the text of the constitution itself; and to the constitutional and political history of the Union from 1789 to the present. For this the library now offers special facilities, in a complete Congressional Record, from the first Continental Congress to the present (including the Secret Journals and Diplomatic Correspondence), a complete set of Niles’ Register, and in a large collection of other public documents.

Local Administration and Law. — Lectures three times each week during the first term,† covering the management of public affairs in districts, townships, counties, cities, and States. This course is intended to increase the sense of the importance of home government, as well as to give instruction in its practical details.

Public Finance and Banking. — Lectures twice each week during the first term, on National, State, and municipal financiering; and on theoretical and practical banking, with the details of bank management.

Constitutional Law. — Lectures three times each week during the second term, on the constitution of the United States; with brief sketches of the institution and events that preceded its adoption, and with special attention to the sources and methods of its interpretation.

International Law and Diplomacy. — Lectures twice each week during the second term on the rise and growth of international law, and on the history of American diplomacy.

In all this work constant effort is made to determine the historic facts (as opposed to mere theorizing), to secure a fair presentation of opposing views, to promote free discussion and inquiry, and to encourage as complete personal investigation of all authorities as the University library permits. This method is thought to furnish the best conditions for sound opinion and individual judgment, while controlling neither.

HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY.
— FRANK W. BLACKMAR.

The aim in the following courses is to give a comprehensive knowledge of the great topics of history, and to investigate general social, political, and economic phenomena and theories — especially those of Europe.

Instruction will be given daily throughout the first term, as follows:

English History. — This course embraces a careful study of the English people and the growth of the English nation, including a general survey of race elements, and of social and political institutions.

The Intellectual Development of Europe. — A course of lectures tracing the history and philosophy of intellectual progress from early Greek society to modern times.
Particular attention is given to the influence of Greek philosophy, the Christian church, the relation of learning to liberal government, and of the rise of modern nationality.

Political Economy. — The fundamental and elementary principles will be discussed, and will be elaborated by descriptive and historical methods. A brief historical sketch of Political Economy may be given at the close of the course.

The second term’s work includes the following courses:

Institutional History. — Lectures three times each week, on Comparative Politics. The history of Germanic institutions will constitute the main body of the course.

The Rise of Democracy. — Lectures twice each week, on the rise of popular power and the growth of political liberty throughout Europe.

Elements of Sociology. — Lectures three times each week, on the evolution of social institutions from the primitive unit, the family; including a discussion of the laws and conditions which tend to organize society. The latter part of the course will be devoted to the elements of modern social science as preliminary to the consideration of the problems of the day.

Land and Land Tenures. — Twice each week. The course will begin with a discussion of the Roman land question and extend to the Feudal land systems of France and England, and thence to the consideration of modern land tenures of Great Britain and of the United States.

Practice Course in Economics. — A full term’s work applied in economics and in the elements of social science; consisting of conferences, discussions, practical ob-servation, and the preparation of a thesis of not less than twenty thousand words on some special topic selected by each student

All general correspondence should be addressed to the Chancellor of the University; special correspondence, to either of the instructors named in this circular.

*During the first two years of the University course, students have the subjects usually required in college courses — though with choice between four lines of work. (See University Catalogue.)

†The University year is divided into two terms, of equal length.

Source: Lawrence Daily Journal (Lawrence, Kansas), Sunday, July 14, 1889, p. 3.

___________________________

Seminary of Historical and Political Science.

Announcing the new Seminary

The Political Science Club has been succeeded by the Seminary of Historical and Political Science. This new society has been organized by Profs. J. H. Canfield and F. W. Blackmar. The membership of the society is limited to the department of History and Political Science, students having two or more studies in that department being active members and those having less than two studies being associate members.

This new association will embrace all of the best features of the Political Science Club, besides several new features. From his two years’ experience with the Political Science Club, Prof. Canfield is able to accept only those features that have proven to be practical. Under the new management the Seminary is expected to be even more interesting and valuable an adjunct to the department, in the future, than the Political Science Club has been in the past.

Source: University Kansan (Lawrence, Kansas), Friday, September 27, 1889, p. 2.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

First Annual Symposium of the Seminary of Historic and Political Science of K. S. U.

A short time ago invitations were sent out to the members of the Political Seminary, and last evening a goodly number of both active and corresponding members assembled for the first annual reception and banquet. The guests were received by Prof. J. H. Canfield, director, and Prof. Blackmar, vice-director of the Seminary; and at 8:45 the line of march was taken up for room 15, which served for a banquet hall as well as a lecture room.

Here an excellent repast was served by young lady students of the University, after which Director Canfield announced the Symposium proper. The director spoke at some length of the work accomplished in the past year, giving a list of the more important papers presented, and announced that for next year papers on subjects of interest were promised by Geo. R. Peck, of Topeka; Frank H. Betton, labor commissioner of Kansas; Judge Humphrey, of Junction City; Judge Emery, D. S. Alford, Rev. Ayers, Charlie Scott and Dr. Howland.

Prof. Canfield then introduced Vice-Director Blackmar, and asked him to compare the work done by the seminary here with the same class of work in eastern colleges. Prof. Blackmar gave a short account of the present mode of studying history and political economy, saying that it was of recent date. Comparisons with Yale, Johns Hopkins and the University of Michigan, show that the work here is as thorough as at any of those institutions. The study of the Science of History has risen into prominence, as has the study of the natural sciences, and furnishes as good mental training as do the languages or even mathematics.

At the close of Prof. Blackmar’s speech Prof. Canfield announced the real topic of the occasion, “The University in its Relation to the People,” and called on Gov. Robinson to tell of the early struggle for a university in Kansas. The governor then told in his own happy manner of the early endeavors to secure a university in Kansas, of the first faculty and how it was selected for policy’s sake, of the work that the regents had to do even in the first years of the University. His hope that the present director of the seminary would never leave the University was heartily applauded.

The time having arrived when three minute speeches were in order, Prof.

Canfield called on Mr. H. F. M. Bear to talk on the “Influence of the University in the Community.” Mr. Bear opened with a story, and when that was finished so were his three minutes.

“What a University Course in Worth to the Bar of the State” was responded to by Judge Humphrey; the judge said “That a thorough collegiate education is becoming more and more recognized as a necessity in the lawyer’s profession; that the most important function of a state school is to equip men for good, honest lawyers.”

“The University Man in Politics” was discussed by A. L. Burney, of the class of ’90, “The true duty of the University graduate in politics is to be a leader, following the teachings of the golden rule.”

Colonel O. E. Learnard, in responding to “the University man” in connection with the press, said: “It was not a good plan to mix a University training with newspaper work, but that men should graduate from the University into the newspaper profession.”

Prof. Canfield, introducing the next speaker, congratulated the University in having begun right in the matter of co-education.

Miss Hunnicut, a post-graduate student in Political Science, spoke on “Post-Graduate Work, the link between the University and practical life;” thought the course too short, should be two years instead of one — this was the only opportunity offered the student to do original work.

“University boys’ outing life” was assigned to C. E. Esterley. Mr. Esterley declared that the University boys were always successful after leaving school.

“What the University can and does do for women,” was discussed by Miss Reasoner — class of ’90. Miss Reasoner is a pleasing speaker and was listened to with close attention,

Prof. Blake in speaking on “the University and applied science,” said that everything in K.S.U. depended on the crops in Kansas, and as the crop prospect was good this year, so was the outlook for applied sciences hopeful in our University. The object in giving our young men instruction in the shops was not that they might be laborers, but directors of our great industrial enterprises in the West.”

This closed the program of a most successful meeting, and Prot. Canfield then declared the assembly adjourned for one year.

Those present were: Prof. J. H. Canfield, director; Prof. F. W. Blackmar, vice-director; Misses Lockwood, Dunn, Spencer, Reasoner and Hunnicutt; Judge Humphrey, Gov. Robinson, Dr. Howland, Rev. Mr. Ayres, B. W. Woodward, D. S. Alford, Col. O. E. Learnard, Prof. Blake, and Messrs. Chapman, Esterly, Liddeke, Slosson, Burney, Mushrush, Bear, Roberts, Morse, Hill, Wilmoth.

Source: Lawrence Daily Journal (Lawrence, Kansas), Thursday, June 5, 1890, p. 4.

___________________________

Blackmar on place of political economy 

ECONOMIC POLITICS. — One branch of political economy falls directly within the scope of history, and this is what may be termed economic politics, or that part of political economy which has to do with the action of the state concerning economical development. This has been called “Historico-Political Economy,” as treated by the historian. It deals less with economic life as a philosophy, and more with the practical affairs of economic legislation. As such it might assume the German name of “National Economy,” only that it would include more than is here intended. It is a separate study from the science of Political Economy as now constituted. However, in the earlier conditions of the science, and to a certain extent now among some French and German writers, political policies are confused with the science of political economy.

Within the scope of economic politics should be grouped those social and economic movements which have been directly connected with the political changes that have taken place in states. Some of the so-called political institutions have their direct cause of existence, in social or economic movements. The so-called new school, or, what is more explanatory, the “historical school” of political economists, in contradistinction to the old or “deductive” school, base their operations upon historical conditions rather than upon a priori arguments. Consequently, the association of political economy with the study of history has become common. It is true, on the one hand, that science of political economy that struggles with a priori principles, ideal men, ideal nations, and ideal conditions, was released from many of its defects when a careful search into historical conditions was made. On the other hand, there is a politico-economic history of nations which may be incorporated with the study of history proper, and still allow Political Economy to retain its own province undisturbed. It is this phase of political history which should come under the head of economic politics. The study of Political Economy as an independent science will be treated of under that heading.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Such was the condition of the study of history in the American college up to a recent period, that the dull, dry conning of the facts of universal history with the chief idea of knowing the facts of the world’s history only to forget them, was the recognized process. President Adams tells us that during the first two centuries of the existence of Harvard College, the study of history consisted in spending one hour at eight o’clock on Saturday mornings in the hearing of compositions and the reciting of history, both ancient and modern. In 1839 a special chair for the study of history was endowed for the college, yet it was not until 1870 that there was any real change in the method pursued of conning history. At that time two men were employed, where before one man did all of the work. From this time there was rapid improvement. The condition in Yale and in Columbia was not much better than that in Harvard; in Yale the entire services of one man were not required until after 1868, to teach history, and it was not until 1877 that another man was put into the field.

In 1857 President White, of Cornell, instituted the study of history in the University of Michigan, and used the historic method employed in Germany with some modifications. This method was adopted in Cornell in 1870, and in Johns Hopkins in 1876, at the commencement of its career. With these beginnings a rapid progress has been made towards the treatment of history from a scientific standpoint. From this time the best institutions of America abandoned the old, dull process of memorizing and forgetting the facts of history without making good use of those facts. But this progress is not equal to the progress made in the old-world institutions in the organization and arrangement of courses and the number of separate fields of study. The methods used are somewhat the same.

Modern methods of historical teaching have for their chief points the systematic work of the student under the intelligent direction of the instructor. The process involves an investigation of materials, a search after the truth, a study of particular phases of historical truth, a comparison and classification of material, and an analysis of results. History is to be studied because it is interesting, and to be followed for the truth it will yield. In all of this the facts of history must not be ignored, nor the careful reading of standard authorities neglected. But the instruction works upon the principle that a person engaged in an interesting pursuit of the truth of history will retain by real knowledge of the subject the facts which if learned by rote without understanding would soon leave him.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The MODERN SEMINARY furnishes a means of bringing together those most interested and most advanced, for the special study of subjects in history or in political and in social economy. This method, now almost universal in the foremost institutions, is of German origin, and constitutes the germ of the modern method. The seminary had its origin with the class taught by Leopold von Ranke, and from that time has been greatly improved in Germany, and extensively adopted in America. The seminary represents the historical laboratory, and each meeting should be a clearing-house of the actual work done. The object of the seminary is to develop individual thought and investigation, and to test the same by criticism and discussion. Another beneficial result will be the development in a practical way of the best methods of study. We have laboratory work in physics, chemistry, and in most of the natural sciences; if history is to be taught as a science, it must not ignore this great means of investigation. Its work may not always be original, for the word original should be used with much care in its application to any study. It must be sufficiently individual and independent that the student may verify truth by his own investigation, and learn to exercise his own judgment concerning the materials before him. The undergraduate courses in chemistry or physics seldom go beyond this in their laboratory work. The seminary is an association of individuals coöperating in the pursuit of historical truth, using scientific methods in study, research, and presentation. It should represent the highest and best work of any department or group of departments working on kindred subjects.

But whatever methods are pursued, it must be kept in mind that there are scientific processes involved, and scientific results must be expected. The chief benefits to be derived from the study of history, or of the different branches of history and sociology, are similar to those of all other sciences.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor R.T. Ely wrote an Introduction to Political Economy which was more or less sociological in its nature, and which assumed that Political Economy was a branch of Sociology. Subsequently a controversy arose as to the relative position of Economics and Sociology, which has been finally settled by Sociology taking and maintaining an independent position in the category of social sciences. While nearly everything relating to society has been called, at different times, Sociology, there is to-day a well-established body of knowledge, well-defined principles, and a distinct boundary of the science of Sociology.

A word must be said about the treatment of what is known as “social science” in a peculiar way, as if the only province of sociology was to care for broken-down and imperfect society; and that sociology has to deal only with social problems, and not with the rational development of human society. It must be acknowledged that the value of the study of charities and corrections cannot be overestimated, and that as representative of the position of a certain phase of social disorganization, the study of these is invaluable. These studies represent the outcrop pings of society, and just as a ledge in the mountains will show by its nature the condition of the original bed, so these parts of disorganized society will show the nature of the true structure. So, also, as it treats chiefly in its scientific methods of the reorganization of society, there is an opportunity offered for the application of the best results of the study of sociology.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

THE STUDY OF ECONOMICS.

INSTRUCTION in economics has been for many years a part of the regular course of nearly every college and university in the land, and has recently been making rapid advancement in the secondary schools. There has been rather more controversy respecting its scope than of the methods employed in study and instruction. Some have contended that as Economics is an abstract science its scope is narrow, comprising only the body of principles and laws that have been drawn from concrete experience. Others have broadened the subject to include much that rightfully belongs to sociology and political science. Others have adopted the historical method to such an extent as to exclude all scientific nature of the subject, reducing it to a mere relation of facts concerning the industrial affairs of the nation. As usual, extremists may be of service in quickening thought, but they seldom hit upon the correct solution of problems that concern a large number of people. While it is proper and unavoidable to hold to the abstract or deductive political economy, it is also necessary to carry on concrete investigations by the inductive method. Nor must industrial history be neglected, for this makes a strong background for the science and enables the student to approach the subject from a new point of view. If a student will observe the following analysis and obtain a thorough knowledge of the subjects enumerated therein, he will have a fair knowledge of the science of Economics from every essential point of view. This analysis represents the essentials of economics; more would be superfluous and less would be insufficient. True, there are many subjects more or less directly related to economics, such as economic statistics, economic ethics, and economic jurisprudence, but they do not make up the body of the subject as a science.

CLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMICS.

  1. Classification according to the nature and logic of the science:
    1. Pure or abstract Political Economy.
      1. Laws, principles, and theories.
    2. Applied economics.
      1. Verification of laws and principles in concrete economic life.
      2. Practical investigation into economic phenomena, general or special, and classification and deduction of the same.
      3. Consideration of ideal standards and the means of approximating them.
    3. History of economic thought.
    4. Industrial history.
    5. Methodology of the science.
  2. Classification according to agencies:
    1. Private or non-political economics.
    2. Public or political economics.
      1. Public control of industries.
      2. Taxation and finance so far as related to economics.

While this outline carefully followed would give a student a fair knowledge of economics, it is not possible for him to have such knowledge with a narrower scope. Every point of the science is carefully fortified with concrete examples of economic life, and the progress of the industries acquaints one with the causes of changes or the process of economic evolution.

METHODS OF STUDY.

The chief difficulty met by the instructor in economics is to separate the principles and laws of economics from theoretical discussion. Theory of economics may have an important place in the class-room, but it is simply discouraging to find in an ordinary economic library that theory occupies so great a place in nearly all books on the subject. If economics is a science, what are its principles, what are its laws, and what the great body of classified knowledge that makes up the real elements of the science? In beginning the subject, then, it is necessary for the instructor to define carefully the boundary of the science. The student wants to know somewhat definitely the scope and purpose of the subject. If there is a science of economics, he wants to know definitely what is comprised in the body of classified knowledge it represents, and what are the laws and principles involved in its scientific processes.

After determining the scope of the science his next difficulty is in the classification of its subject-matter. This in itself is a difficult question; nor is the difficulty confined to economics, for it abounds in all social sciences and extends to considerable extent in the physical sciences. He will find the logical and comprehensive classification of either economic principles or economic phenomena a most difficult process. If the instructor or student can find the above conditions met in a well-arranged text-book the trouble is half over, for the principles of economic science are not difficult. Such a text-book should contain all of the essentials of the science, and should eliminate all controversial points and theories not yet well founded. For the discussion of theories, the elaboration of special topics, and the consideration of the views of economists, the student, like the instructor, must go to the library. For beginning classes this library should consist of a few carefully chosen books, each with a specific purpose. The library method in economics is largely the composition method, or possibly the compilation method. The student gets a re-statement of the principle of the text or lecture, either from a different point of view or in a more extended discourse. Great care should be taken to prevent a rambling course of reading, which is frequently carried on to the confusion of the student.

After the elements have been fairly well mastered the future work of the student should be on one or more of the great topics in economics, such as Money and Monetary Theories; Banking; Taxation and Finance; Industrial History; History and Theory of Economics: or the student may work on special themes, following them to the utmost limit, such as Capital, Wages, Interest, Labor Organization, Prices, etc.

In all this study the instructor and student must not forget to go to the concrete for verification, for illustration, and, so far as possible, for investigation. He must not forget that economic life and economic society are all about him, and the processes of economic practice, change and growth are to be observed at any time he will take the pains to inquire into their operations.

So long as the operations on the farm, the management of the household, the conduct of the factory, the operation of a bank, and the management of a railroad are ever present, the student from the beginning to the end of his course may find by actual study of the concrete the operation of the laws and processes of economics. Some difficulty will be met in teaching beginners to discriminate between the production of wealth in our economic sense and the technology of wealth-getting. In all concrete investigation this is to be carefully considered. For it is the general processes of production and their effects upon the market and upon society as a whole that interest the economist. Economics will not teach a boy how to carry on agriculture, or manufacturing; it will not teach him how to grow wealthy, except that as he studies finance, taxation, money, banking, production and distribution of wealth, he will have developed a tendency of thought, and an intelligence which would make him a better business man, a better financier, if he puts his knowledge to the proper use. The subjects treated in a general way will prepare a man theoretically if not technically for a business life. And without doubt, universities will eventually develop schools of commerce, trade, banking, business, and public service, which will give a professional and technical education in the great lines of industrial life.

The student must keep his eyes turned constantly upon the economic life around him if he would keep his knowledge from becoming visionary and non-vital. By a careful study of the actual operations of society in regard to questions of wealth and well-being, he will develop a practical knowledge of affairs that will be of service to himself personally and to the public at large. He will also find it convenient and profitable to consider the defects of economic life as compared with an ideal standard of justice, and set up a program of action. It is true that here he enters the field of economic ethics. If he then searches for a remedy for existing evils he enters economic politics. Yet economics as a science cannot be said to have worked out its purpose until it has become utilitarian in its attempt to better social conditions. It will not have done its duty until it inquires what ought to be. It should determine how the economic system of the world might bring a larger measure of justice to men, and plan such measures to be acted upon by the public to bring about a better condition of affairs. Every science must in the ultimate be of practical service to humanity if it has a reason to exist, and economics is especially adapted to render great service to humanity if properly studied and wisely taught.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

SELECTED REFERENCES.

[History]

ADAMS, C. K. — On Methods of Teaching History.

ADAMS, C. K. — Recent Historical Work in Colleges and Universities of America.

ADAMS, H. B. — Special Methods of Historical Study.

ADAMS, H. B. — New Methods of Study in History.

ALLEN, W. F. — Grades and Topics in Historical Study.

BLACKMAR, F. W. — The Story of Human Progress.

BERNHEIM, ERNST. — Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode.

BURGESS, J. W. — The Methods of Historical Study in Columbia College.

CALDWELL, H. W. — American History Studies.

DIESTERWEG, G. — Instruction in History.

DROYSEN, JOH., GUS. — Grundriss der Historik.

DROYSEN, JOH., GUS. — Principles of History. (Tr. by ANDREWS.)

EMERTON, E. — The Historical Seminary in American Teaching.

FLINT, ROBERT. — The Philosophy of History.

FLING, CHARLES MORROW. — Studies in European History.

FREEMAN, E. A. — Methods of Historical Study.

GETSCHELL, MERLE S. — The Study of Mediæval History by the Library Method.

HALL, G. STANLEY. — Methods of Teaching and Studying History.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL. American History told by Contemporaries.

LORENZ, OTTOKER. — Geschichtswissenschaft.

MACE, WILLIAM H. — Method in History.

MAURENBRECHER, WILHELM. — Geschichte und Politik.

[Sociology]

BLUNTSCHLI, J. K. — The Modern State.

CROOKER, J. H. — Problems in American Society.

DE GREEF, GUILLAUME. — Introduction a la Sociologie.

FAIRBANKS, ARTHUR. — Introduction to the Study of Society.

GIDDINGS, F. H. — Principles of Sociology; Sociology and Political Economy.

COMTE, AUGUST. — The Positive Philosophy.

KELLY, EDMOND. — Government, or Human Evolution.

LOTZE, HERMANN. — Microcosmus.

SEELYE, JULIUS H. — Citizenship.

SMALL, ALBION W. — Introduction to the Study of Society.

SMALL, ALBION W. — Methodology in Sociology.

SMITH, R. M. — Statistics and Sociology.

SPENCER, HERBERT. — Principles of Sociology.

SPENCER, HERBERT. — The Study of Sociology.

WARNER, AMOS G. — American Charities.

WARD, LESTER F. — Dynamic Sociology.

WARD, LESTER F. — Outlines of Sociology.

WILSON, WOODROW. — The State.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D. — Statistics in Colleges.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D. — Practical Sociology.

[Economics]

BLACKMAR, F. W. — Economics.

COSSA, LUIGI. — Introduction to the Study of Political Economy.

ELY, R. T. — Outlines of Economics.

ELY, R. T. — The Past and Present of Political Economy.

GIDDINGS, F. H. — The Sociological Character of Political Economy.

INGRAM, J. K. — The History of Political Economy.

SMITH, R. M. — Statistics and Economics.

Source: Frank W. Blackmar, The Study of History, Sociology, and Economics, pp. 7-8, 30-31, 56-58, 66-67, 83-89. Published in the series Twentieth Century Classics, No. 17 (January 1901). Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company.

___________________________

New Staff, New Names
Rebranding

The New Professors.

The resignation of Prof. James H. Canfield, regretted by all, has led to the reorganization of the work in history and political and social science. The two departments formerly known as those of American History and Civics, and History and Sociology respectively, have been combined into the one department of History and Sociology. This department is in charge of Prof. Frank Wilson Blackmar, Ph.D. To assist in the instruction in this department, the Board has elected F. H. Hodder, Ph.D., to be Associate Professor, and E.D. Adams Ph.D., to be Assistant Professor. Dr. Hodder is taken from the faculty of Cornell University. He has for the last year been pursuing historical studies in the University of Freiburg, Germany. He comes to the University of Kansas with a fine reputation for scholarship and teaching ability. Dr. Adams is a young man, a graduate of the University of Michigan and a brother of Prof. Henry C. Adam’s. Michigan University’s professor of Political Economy and Finance. Dr. Adams comes to the University with many good words from the strong men of eastern institutions.

Source: The Lawrence Gazette (Lawrence, Kansas). Thursday, August 6, 1891, p. 2.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

New name: Department of History and Sociology (1891)

Since the publication of the last number of Seminary Notes, several important changes have taken place. First, Mr. E.D. Adams was elected Assistant in History and Sociology. Soon after this Professor Canfield resigned his professorship to go to Nebraska. Immediately after accepting his resignation, the Regents consolidated the two historical departments, under the title of History and Sociology, and elected Mr. F. H. Hodder Associate Professor. It necessarily follows that the editorial staff of Seminary Notes has two new men in the place of Professor Canfield. The present editors will carry out the original plan of the publication with such improvements as may be made from time to time.

We are glad to learn of the prosperity of the former director of the Seminary, Chancellor James A. Canfield. The number of students enrolled in the University of Nebraska is thirty per cent, greater than last year. A new Law course has been established in the university. Upon the whole the new Chancellor of Nebraska is doing just what his friends predicted — making a great success of his new work. The University of Nebraska is to be congratulated that it was able to secure such an efficient man as Chancellor Canfield.

[…]

The senior professor [Frank W. Blackmar] in the department of History and Sociology is highly gratified that the Regents of the University have again displayed their wisdom in electing two able men to positions in the department. They are young men of scholarly habits and marked ability. Professor Hodder, Associate in American History and Civics, was born at Aurora, Ill., November 6, 1860. He graduated at Michigan University in 1883, having studied history under Prof. C.K. Adams, and political economy under Prof. H.C. Adams. He was principal of the High School at Aurora. Afterwards he went to Cornell University, where he was instructor and later Assistant Professor in Political Economy from 1885 to 1890. During the last year he has been studying at the universities of Göttingen and Freiburg, under Von Hoist, Conrad and others. He is an able instructor.

Mr. E.D. Adams, Assistant in History and Sociology, was born at Decorah, Iowa, in 1865. He was a student in Iowa College, 1883 to 1885; student in the University of Michigan 1885 to 1887, taking the degree of A.B. in 1887, was principal of the High School at McGregor, Iowa, 1887 to 1888, and student of the University of Michigan for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1888 to 1890. In 1890 he took the degree of Ph.D. Since 1890 he has been connected with the census work on street railways, and since December has held the position of special agent in charge of street railways. He is doing good work in Kansas University.

Source: Seminary Notes published by the Seminary of Historical and Political Science, Vol. I, No. 2 (October 1891), pp. 39-40.

Image Source: Kansas yearbook,The Jayhawker 1901, p. 18. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.
Cf. portrait of Herbert Baxter Adams posted earlier. His master’s look?

Categories
Economist Market Exam Questions Harvard Methodology

Harvard. Final exam questions for economic methods course. Carver, 1903-04

This semester-long course on methods of economic investigation taught by Thomas Nixon Carver was listed as one being “primarily for graduates”. Only the introductory course of the department was considered “primarily for undergraduates” while the bulk of course offerings were deemed appropriate for both graduate and undergraduate students. Judging from the questions, this course appears to have been little more than a leisurely trot through John Neville Keynes, The Scope and Method of Economics (1897, 2nd ed.) along with Cairnes’ Logical Method of Political Economy (1875, 2nd ed.).

___________________________

Related previous posts

___________________________

Course Enrollment

Economics 13 1hf. Professor Carver. Methods of Economic Investigation.

Total 11: 5 Graduates, 3 Seniors, 3 Radcliffe

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1903-1904, p. 67.

___________________________

ECONOMICS 13
Mid-Year Examination. 1903-04

Discuss the following topics.

  1. The relation of economics and ethics.
  2. The departments of political economy.
  3. The fields for the observation of economic phenomena.
  4. The nature of an economic law.
  5. The use of hypotheses in economics.
  6. The relation of theoretical analysis to historical investigation.
  7. The place of diagrams and mathematical formulae in economics.
  8. The methods of investigating the causes of poverty.
  9. The methods of determining the effects of immigration on the population of the United States.
  10. The place of direct observation in economic study.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Mid-year examinations 1852-1943. Box 7, Bound volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years, 1903-04.

Image SourceHarvard Classbook 1906. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Salaries

Chicago. Suggestions to make University of Chicago professorships more attractive. Leland, 1945

 

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics – A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

In earlier posts I have provided (1) a list of visiting professors who taught economics at the University of Chicago up through 1944 (excluding those visitors who were to receive permanent appointments); (2) supporting tables with enrollment trends and faculty data (ages and educational backgrounds); (3) three lists of names for economists who in 1945 could be taken into consideration for either permanent economics, joint appointments with other department or visiting appointments at the University of Chicago.

The excerpt transcribed for this post deals with the employment conditions and prospects of University of Chicago faculty. The basic message was that Chicago had lost its position as highest-bidder in the academic market and that relative attractiveness was a function of salary to be sure, but also other conditions (teaching loads, research support, clerical support, burden of special (extra) examinations, housing, medical benefits, etc.) should be improved as well.

Leland’s laundry list of suggestions seems pretty familiar to early 21st century academics. Would love to have an analogous memo for the present to see which additional items are now included.

_________________________

POSTWAR PLANS
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions
All Intended To Be Helpful
in Improving the State
of the
University

by Simeon E. Leland, Chairman
(on his own behalf and for the Department)

1945

[…]

Making University of Chicago Professorships More Attractive

The following suggestions are, in large part, the result of actual experiences in negotiating with “outsiders” over appointments to our faculty, or are reactions observed in dealing with present faculty members with respect to appointments or promotions within the Department. Some of them undoubtedly represent aspirations of the staff. They are offered, not as criticisms of present conditions, but as suggestions for improvements for realization in the future.

1. Distinguished Professorships

At the inception of the University, President Harper established a salary scale for full professors which was the highest in the country. He literally bought his faculty, outbidding all competitors for the services of distinguished men. The University of Chicago at once gained a reputation for the payment of attractive salaries. With the passage of time this situation has changed. Although the University of Chicago is still a “high-salary” institution, the emoluments it offers are by no means the most attractive in the United States.

The enhanced salaries paid (on an individual competitive bargaining arrangement) to present staff members on the 4E contracts render utterly inadequate the $10,000 salaries paid to the holders of University Distinguished Service Professorships. When these Professorships were established the salary differentials between the Distinguished Professorships and other professorships were quite large. They are far narrower today due to the liberal treatment by the University of the “ordinary” professors. Rising costs of living have also lowered the real wages paid to our Distinguished colleagues, and others as well.

If the Distinguished Professorships are to mean much to the holders over the years to come, the stipends should be increased; otherwise, the recognition bestowed will be rewarded only by a name or possibly by a degree of freedom not possessed by colleagues — both of which by that time may be empty honors. The times seem to call for $12,000 salaries as a minimum rather than $10,000 for these Professorships.

2. Divisional Professorships

If the Divisional Professorships, such as the Social Sciences Professorships, are to carry any real distinction they should be made to rank in terms of prestige and desirability next to the Distinguished Service Professorships. At present all they have to offer is some relief from fixed teaching (which is illusory for men with real scholarly interests who always talk about problems of their intellectual world with students) and the right to teach what they wish, irrespective of departmental lines. Both of these freedoms in greater or lesser degree are accorded every member of the staff, especially the freedom to teach.

In the Social Sciences Division, a Social Sciences Professorship is supposed to signify a recognition of competence or achievement. The breadth of knowledge, the spread of intellectual interest and the true humanity of the holder (or holders) indicate a degree of competence beyond that of the ordinary professor and that of many of the University’s most distinguished appointees, yet, in last analysis, all that a Social Sciences Professorship confers upon the holder is a title with, perhaps, a scintilla of freedom. Such a chair should be made into something tangible for the holder — into something to be sought after by other members of the staff — into something to attract men from abroad. The minimum salary should be $10,000 at least. The working conditions should be far above those for ordinary men.

3. A New Type of Professorship

It is believed that named professorships with research stipends attached would attract outstanding scholars to the University. Such an appointment would not only carry an adequate salary for the incumbent but also a fund to assure him of a definite research budget so long as he occupied the designated chair. The University is probably not rich enough to afford many such appointments, but certainly it should seek to establish one in at least every division and school — granted that willing donors could be found. In any case, if the University believes its own statements concerning the importance of research and has faith in its appointees, it might well combine the two, in a few instances, to provide University Research Professorships which carry with them definite research grants to be spent as the incumbent elects. The Thomas W. Lamont Professorship at Harvard is of this type. It is held at the moment by Mr. Sumner H. Slichter, a Ph.D. of the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago.

4. Research, Clerical and Library Assistance

The climate for research around the University is not as favorable as speeches and propaganda would indicate. The professorial staff — the highest-priced talent along with administrators in the University — is required and expected to do all manner of chores that should be done for them if research output is to be maximized. Adequate stenographic service is often lacking or, at most, is not always immediately available to members of the Department. The stenographic pool in the Dean’s office is inadequate, a reflection, of course, of the present labor situation. But it is operated on the basis of bookkeeping arrangements which seem to make it freely available to all staff members only on the basis of antecedent budgets. Stenographic service should be available freely to all members of the staff for University business, for correspondence arising in connection with their work (in order to save valuable time) and for all research needs, including the copying of materials. Courses also could be improved if professors could make more materials available to students, perhaps on a nominal fee basis operated through departmental offices.

Similarly, a reasonable amount of clerical and library service should be available to staff members. Now such service is extended only as given research projects are approved, as special deals are made with individual faculty members, or as special services are given as a favor or in recognition of something or other. So long as these services are not generally available or can be had only upon request, there is a tendency that they will go first to the most vocal groups. In any case, the Department has too few people available to do the odd jobs to lighten the work and increase the research output of the faculty. Arrangements might be made whereby a clerical or service pool could meet the needs of many staff members.

5. Reduction in Examinations

The emphasis on examinations other than course examinations makes such tests too arduous a task to be well performed by the University staff. Everywhere there is objection! The time given to special terminal, qualifying and other examinations is grudgingly provided. It is given at the expense of research, creative thinking, or writing. And when the work is turned over to hired examiners who know examination techniques, but who are untrained in the fields involved, the examinations themselves become an intellectual travesty. (Actual illustrations can be supplied on request.)

It is recognized that many examinations are required and that there is a place for trained examiners; but the emphasis on examinations at the University is out of proportion to their worth. At the graduate level these examinations have operated to lower scholastic standards. Part of this is due to the efforts to deprecate courses and to offer illusory means for speeding up the educational process, hardly appropriate in the graduate and professional schools. Students are told they can visit courses (registering for R’s) and as long as they can pass final examinations they can qualify for degrees. The result is that special examinations have to be prepared; that students are rated on too limited a sample of their work; that recommendations of the University count for less than they once did. Another result of the examination emphasis is that students bone up for examinations, try their luck on this or that test and if they pass (by good fortune or otherwise), they are advanced or awarded the appropriate degrees.

From every point of view, too much faculty time is spent on examinations of various kinds; too large a fraction of the student’s record is based upon them.

6. Teaching Loads

In the matter of teaching loads, the Department, on the basis of University of Chicago conditions, has little cause for complaint. The Department has been well treated. Nevertheless, for the greatest good of the University it would like to indicate that teaching loads, even in the Department, are too high for the attainment of the best standards of graduate instruction and research.

Differentiations in teaching loads are appropriate. The load in the College may well be higher than in the Division, but in graduate and professional schools the teaching load should be low if the scholarship and research of the faculty are to be maximized. It may also be appropriate to have different teaching loads, on the average, for the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor and professor. It is the load of the productive scholars which really counts. Harvard and Columbia both have a teaching load of four hours a week for professors of Economics. This is also a factor of importance in the competition with these universities for staff members. It is a factor also affecting the quality of graduate instruction.

The reduction of teaching loads should be made a matter of University policy.

7. Salary Schedules

Salaries of members of the Department are believed to compare favorably with other salaries paid in the University. The general level of salaries paid at the University of Chicago places it among the high-salaried institutions, but it no longer ranks at the top. Harvard has recently raised its minimum professorial salary to in excess of $9,000, with commensurate increases along the line. The level of payments at Columbia, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and California Institute of Technology, for example, exceeds the level prevailing at Chicago.

Nor is it certain that the new salary plan will help attract eminent scholars to the University of Chicago. The experience of the Department to date has not been favorable to the new plan. Regardless of sentiments for and against the 4E Contract, its operation should be watched with care lest it adversely affect the quality of new appointments. In order to correct one evil, a greater one — the refusal of offers of appointment — may have been created. Many features of the 4E Contract make such terms unattractive to men who have been well treated by other institutions of high repute. If an outstanding scholar will not accept the 4E Contract, another type of contract should be offered. It is more important to secure the right scholars than to preserve a unique salary plan.

Changes in living costs have greatly decreased the value of payments here. Among the items on the postwar agenda should be new salary scales.

8. Faculty Housing

The Department was much gratified to see that the question of adequate housing for the faculty is again being considered. During the past year, more than one person who was being approached as a potential faulty member declined to consider an offer from the University as long as housing facilities are what they are in Chicago, and especially in Hyde Park. These facilities will remain unattractive until the University improves them. Princeton and Stanford, for example, have made notable contributions to the development of faculty housing. Appropriate housing should also be a good investment. If the Trustees should be unwilling to invest endowment funds in a faculty housing venture, a private company, or even a public housing corporation, should be organized in the neighborhood to meet this vital need.

Attention should also be given to the improvement of the University neighborhood. Its deterioration is a matter of great concern, affecting far more than the value of adjacent properties.

9. Miscellaneous Suggestions

There has always been much talk about improving the lot of younger men. Greater equality could be provided if faculty perquisites were increased. Former tuition differentials to faculty children and wives could be restored, or even increased with the number of children in each family. Hospital rates could be reduced. Out-patient medical service could be provided for University families at small cost. The present shortage of practicing physicians would make such a service a real boon. The University in its own interest, too, could afford to provide free medical examinations for faculty members and employees with increased public health services available at nominal cost. It might thus decrease illness among staff members or even add to their span of life (a thing in which it may not be interested under the rigid enforcement of retirement at age 65). Even the retirement policy might be examined in connection with the state of health and mental ability of emeriti over the last decade. It may be that the University is losing the services of distinguished men a few years too soon. All of these things could be done on a group basis with returns far in excess of cash outlays. To the members of the staff they would constitute significant increases in real wages.

[…]

Source: University of Chicago Library. Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box73, Folder “Economics Department, ‘Post-war Plans,’ Simeon E. Leland, 1945” pp. 30-36.

Image Source: Portrait of Simeon E. Leland. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03716, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Image colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.