Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard-Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna, Eleanor Dulles, c.v. early 1960s

 

This morning I stumbled across a c.v. for the Radcliffe M.A. and Ph.D. alumna, Eleanor Lansing Dulles,  that I found earlier in the papers of Herbert Fürth (Gottfried Haberler’s brother-in-law and Federal Reserve Board economist) at the Hoover Institution archives. While there is no date on the c.v., it would appear that it could have been prepared around 1961, though one item (International Board for construction in Berlin) is listed as running through 1964.

Her obituary in the New York Times (November 4, 1996). Best quote:

”[The State Department] is a real man’s world if ever there was one,” she said in 1958. ”It’s riddled with prejudices. If you are a woman in Government service you just have to work 10 times as hard — and even then it takes much skill to paddle around the various taboos. But it is fun to see how far you can get in spite of being a woman.”

Worth viewing are the few minutes taken from the National Portrait Gallery’s video interview of Eleanor Dulles (at age 93) conducted by Marc Pachter on November 28, 1988. She was 101 years old at the time of her death.

The major collection of her papers are at George Washington University. Papers are also to be found at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and at Princeton University.

__________________

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Radcliffe College

Eleanor Lansing Dulles, A.M.
Subject: Economics.
Special Field: International Finance.
Dissertation: “TheFrench Franc Since the War.”

Source: Radcliffe College, Report of the Dean 1925-26, p. 25.

__________________

ELEANOR LANSING DULLES

Employment Record
(See also studies)
1917-1919 Refugee relief work—France
1920-1921 Employment Management—Steel Mill, etc.
1921-1922 London School of Economics—Investigation of English Industrial methods in 75 firms
1924-1936 Teaching 8 years

Simmons College
Bryn Mawr
University of Pennsylvania

Research 1925-26, 1928-1932
Study of Unemployment Insurance in England (for President Hoover) 1931
Economic advisor to investment counselor
New York City, 1932
Government
1936 Social Security Board

Director of Financial Research
(Tax, income, and investment studies)

Represented U.S. Government at Geneva Conference on Investment of Social Security Funds, 1938

1942-1961 Department of State

Postwar planning Germany, Austria, UNRRA, British balance of payments, etc.

Bretton Woods Banks (attended conference)

Vienna, Austria (1945-49) Financial Attaché

Berlin reconstruction, investment, (1952-1960)

Underdeveloped countries
(Studies of 60 Asian, African and Latin American countries, travelled in 42)

Detailed to National Production Board 1951-52

Representative on Petroleum Committee for Defense

Originator of Benjamin Franklin Foundation

International Board for construction in Berlin 1956-1964

Personal Rank of Minister—1960
Awards and Degrees
1934 Phi Beta Kappa, University of Pennsylvania
1950 LL.D., Wilson College
1955 Distinguished Service Medal, Radcliffe
1957 Dr. h. c. rerum, Political & Econ. Science, Free University of Berlin
1957 LL.D., Western College for Women, Oxford, Ohio
1957 Carl Schurz-Steuben Plaque for Distinguished Service in furthering German-American cultural relations, presented at Berlin
1959 Ernst Reuter Medallion for Service to Berlin
1960 Citation for Distinguished Service, Bryn Mawr College
Studies and Fellowships
1914-17 A.B. Bryn Mawr College
(First New England scholarship, 1914)
1919-20 M.A. Bryn Mawr College
(Fellow labor & industrial economics)
1921-22 London School of Economics
1922-26 M.A., Ph.D. Radcliffe and Harvard College
1925-27 Faculté de Droit, University of Paris
Other courses: Bonn, Germany; Geneva, Switzerland

Languages: French, German, Spanish

Public Relations
For many years I have been on the roster for public speaking for the Department of State.

I have given some 100 or more speeches mainly in this country and have appeared on television and radio.

Publications
The French Franc, 1914-1928.
MacMillan, New York, 1929, pp. 570

A study of inflation, public finance, speculation, and changing international financial relationships with consideration of political and economic factors.

The Bank for International Settlements at Work.
Macmillan, New York, 1932, pp. 631

The origins and early operations of the BIS, the hopes for a world bank, plans for international investment and clearance mechanism, bank policy in relation to the central banks of various nations.

The Dollar, the Franc, and Inflation.
MacMillan, New York, 1933, pp. 100

A short discussion of recurrent characteristics of inflation, the dangers to special groups, and to the economy as a whole.

Depression and Reconstruction—A Study of Causes and Controls.
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1936, pp. 340

A review of alleged causes of the depression of 1929 and subsequent years, an appraisal of major national and international maladjustments and areas of disturbance and relationships changing in the development of a dynamic policy.

Financing the Social Security Act, 1936

Basic study of the tax and benefit laws and formuli.

Fiscal Capacity of States

Planned (1938) and supervised a five year study in Social Security Board of the income and capacity to pay taxes of the states & localities.

Among the several hundred articles published are for instance:

The Evolution of Reparation Ideas
The French Franc, 1928-1934
The Export-Import Bank—The First Ten Years, 1943
War and Investment Opportunity
Inflation
The Impact of the United States on Europe
The Arithmetic (financial) of Postwar Occupation
Africa—Hopes and Contradictions

Source:  Hoover Institution Archives, Papers of J. Herbert Furth, Box 4.

Image Source:. World Bank webpage: The Bretton Woods Institutions turn 60/Breaking the Mold.

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Career of A.M. in economics alumnus, Arthur Morgan Day (1867-1942)

 

This post began as a simple transcription of two typed pages that Alvin S. Johnson sent to Joseph Dorfman, who at the time was collecting material on the history of economics at Columbia University. The Columbia economics instructor who was the subject of Johnson’s letter, Arthur Morgan Day, was new to me, and I presume something of an unknown even to Joseph Dorfman. My curiosity sparked a chase through a variety of genealogical sources accessible at Ancestry.com, then a search through yearbooks of Barnard College and Columbia University catalogues at archive.org, and eventually a discovery of the reports of the Harvard Class of 1892 (available at hathitrust.org) that taken together provide us a fairly good account of Day’s life and career through age 55.

I have located only a single source that gives the year of his death: “Arthur Morgan Day (1867-1942)” in the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Vol. 31. New York: James T. White & Co., 1944.

_______________

Alvin Johnson’s recollection of Arthur Morgan Day at Columbia College

THE NEW SCHOOL
66 West 12th St. New York 11
[Tel.] Oregon 5-2700

July 17, 1951

Dear Joe Dorfman:

This is the best I can do on Day. If you don’t like it, throw it into the waste-basket.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Alvin Johnson

encl.

Dr. Joseph Dorfman
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York 27, N.Y.

[Handwritten addition by Johnson]

I’m trying to write
something on the
Faculty
AJ

* *  *  * *

Alvin Johnson’s attachment to his letter to Joseph Dorfman of July 17, 1951

When I presented myself to Dean Burgess for registration in November 1898 and announced that I wished to study economics, the Dean advised me to register for the Marshall course by Mayo-Smith, the course on History of Economics by E. R. A. Seligman, the course on theory by John Bates Clark. I confessed that my training had been in classics; that I had never attended a course, nor even a single lecture in economics. I asked whether I ought not to take the course in elementary economics, under an instructor, Arthur Morgan Day. No, said Dean Burgess, that course was only for undergraduate cubs, who had no desire to know economics. The Committee on College Requirements had seen fit to make a required course out of it; but a mature man would be wasting his time under Day.

I did not register for Day’s course. I’m sorry I did not. For Day was a true representative of the old, solid economics of Adam Smith and Malthus and Ricardo, of Senior and Cairnes and John Stuart Mill. He made shift to comprehend the marginal utilitarianism of Marshall, but it gave him no inspiration. He saw no advance in Clark’s theory and he regarded Seligman’s Historismus as merely a change of venue in economic reasoning.

Day detested me, for my ardent devotion to J. B. Clark, for my eager acceptance of Seligman’s wide explorations in all literatures. He pitied me for my destiny of going forth into the world equipped only with fluff and froth, with no sense of the grand old economists who looked facts in the face and wrote in language that the most unlicked cub of a business man could understand. When I was awarded a fellowship Day proposed that I should have the privilege of reading and grading all his examination papers, a privilege I was too immature to appreciate. The President of the University vetoed the proposal. I had my year of complete freedom, to follow my teachers, Clark and Seligman, with uncrippled ardor.

Yet I came to realize that Day was a better economist than we then assumed. It was not possible for him to follow the marginal utility calculus into a field of abstractions divorced from the comprehension of the ordinary citizen. Any man, however sodden in business thinking, could follow John Stuart Mill, agreeing, or most likely disagreeing. Only the intellectual elite could follow Menger and Wieser and Böhm[-]Bawerk, Marshall and Clark, Fisher and Fetter.

If Day were living he would find justification for his repugnance to the marginal utility theories. Keynes, an adept in marginal theory, shifted the emphasis from value to price.

Said Chesterfield, “In mixed company I always talk bawdy, for that is something in which all men can join.” Keynes always talked price. Day, prematurely, talked price, believed in talking price. There was no place for him in the marginal utility universe of talk, of those days. But I surmise, Day was a good deal of a man.

[signed]
Alvin Johnson

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection, Box 13, Folder “C.U. Dept.al history”.

_______________

From the Columbia College Catalogue, 1898-99

Economics A—Outlines of Economics—Recitations, lectures, and essays. 3 hours, second half-year. Professor Mayo-Smith and Mr. Day. [Economics A was required of juniors in the College, and open to sophomores who have taken economics I.]

Economics 1—Economic history of England America—Selected textbooks, recitations, essays, and lectures. 3 hours, first half-year. Professor Seligman and Mr. Day. [Economics I was open to juniors and qualified sophomores in the College.]

[Note: p. 11 under officers of instruction, Assistants. Address given as 128 West 103d Street.]

Source:  Columbia University in the City of New York. Catalogue 1898-99, p. 74.

_______________

1900 U.S. Census

Name: Arthur M Day
Age:    33
Birth Date:     Apr 1867
Birthplace:      Connecticut
Home in 1900:           Danbury, Fairfield, Connecticut
Ward of City: 2
Street: Westoria Avenue
House Number:          28
Race:   White
Gender:           Male
Relation to Head of House:   Son
Marital Status:           Single
Father’s name:            Josiah L Day
Father’s Birthplace:    New York
Mother’s name:          Ellen L Day
Mother’s Birthplace:  Connecticut
Occupation:    College Instructor
Months not employed:         0
Can Read:       Yes
Can Write:      Yes
Can Speak English:    Yes
Household Members:

Josiah L Day  60
Ellen L Day    58
Arthur M Day           33

_______________

From Mortarboard 1902
[Barnard College Yearbook]

Leisure Hours of Great Men
or
Intimate Glimpses of the World’s Workers at Play

Arthur Morgan Day

It is certainly pathetic
How he smothers the aesthetic
Under money, banking, trusts and corporations,
But he soothes his longing heart,
Studying dramatic art,
And high tragedy completes his aspirations.

Source: 1902 Mortarboard , p. 71.

_______________

From the Columbia Daily Spectator, 1902

Mr. Day Resigns

Mr. A. M. Day, Instructor in Economics, has resigned his position at Columbia to take a position on the new Tenement House Commission of New York City. He is to serve as one of two men to take charge of registration and compilation of statistics of tenement houses in the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Mr. Henry Raymond Mussey, Fellow in the Department, has taken Mr. Day’s position as instructor in Economics for the time being. Mr. Mussey has already acquired much popularity and confidence among the students in his classes.

*  *  *  *  *

Congratulations for Mr. Day.

The members of the Course Economics I have sent the following message of congratulation to their instructor, upon his appointment as chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the New York City Tenement House Commission. “We the undersigned members of the course, Economics I, of the current University year, having heard with pleasure of the great honor which has been conferred upon our former instructor Mr. Arthur Morgan Day, desire to extend to him our sincere congratulations and to assure him of our best wishes for a successful career in his new office.

 

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume XLV, Number 42, 21 March 1902, page 1.

_______________

From Harvard College Class of 1892 Reports

Arthur Morgan Day (1892)

[Joined the Harvard Class of 1892 in the junior year, received A.B. together with the degree of A.M.]
Honorable Mention: English Composition; Political Economy; History.

 

Source:  Secretary’s Report Harvard College Class of 1892, Number I, (1893), pp. 6, 27, 29.

 

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1896)

“1892-93, graduate student in History and Economics, H.U.; 1893-94, graduate student in History and Economics and assistant in History, H.U.; 1894-95, assistant in Economics, School of Political Science, Columbia College; 1895-96, assistant and lecturer in Economics, School of Political Science, Columbia College, and lecturer in Economics, Barnard College.”

Published “Syllabus of six lectures on ‘Money’ for Extension Department of Rutgers College, 1895.”

Delivered “six lectures on ‘Money,’ Univ. Ex. course, New Brunswick, N.J., December-January, 1894-95; two lectures on ‘Monetary Literature in U.S.’ in course of ‘Free Lectures to the People,’ under direction of Board of Education, N.Y.”

Source:  Secretary’s Report Harvard College Class of 1892, Number II, (1896), pp. 30-31.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1902)

From 1892 to 1894 was graduate student in History and Economics at Harvard; 1893-4, was assistant in History at Harvard; 1894-1902, was successively assistant lecturer, and instructor in Economics at Columbia and Barnard Colleges, and also assistant editor of “Political Science Quarterly” and “Columbia University Quarterly “; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become Registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond.

Has given numerous courses of lectures for the New York Board of Education; has lectured also in extension department of Rutgers College and in the Educational Alliance. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History”, signed reviews in the “Political Science Quarterly” and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation”, Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire “, Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.”

Source:  Harvard College, Record of the Class of 1892. Secretary’s Report No. III for the Tenth Anniversary (1902),  pp. 46-47.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1907)

Son of Josiah Lyon Day and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Born at Danbury, Connecticut, April 12, 1867. Prepared for college at the Danbury High School.

Received A.M. in 1892. From 1892 to 1894 was a graduate student in History and Economics at Harvard; 1893-94, was Assistant in History at Harvard; 1894-1902, was successively Assistant, Lecturer, and Instructor in Economics at Columbia and Barnard Colleges; also Assistant Editor of Political Science Quarterly and Columbia University Quarterly; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become Registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. In May, 1902, resigned Registrarship to become Assistant to President of Manhattan Trust Co.; in July, 1903, was made Secretary and Treasurer of Casualty Company of America; in January, 1905, entered publicity business. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and ” Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.” Belongs to Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Fifteenth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number IV, (1907), p.48.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1912)

Son of Josiah Lyon Day and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Born at Danbury, Connecticut, April 12, 1867. Prepared for college at the Danbury High School.

Attended Harvard 1888-92, A.B. and A.M.; Graduate School 1892-94.

1892 to 1894, graduate student in history and economics at Harvard; 1893-94, assistant in history at Harvard; 1894-1902, successively assistant, lecturer, and instructor in economics at Columbia and Barnard colleges; also assistant editor of Political Science Quarterly and Columbia University Quarterly; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. In May, 1902, resigned registrarship to become assistant to president of Manhattan Trust Company; in July, 1903, was made secretary and treasurer of Casualty Company of America; in January, 1905, entered publicity business; in June, 1906, employed by United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia; in August, 1906, serious attack of typhoid caused long absence from business; in June, 1908, with Blair & Co., bankers, New York; in April, 1910, began independent work as financial agent for various clients; in January, 1912, entered bond department of Prudential Insurance Company at Newark. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.” Belongs to Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Twentieth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, [Number V, (1912)], p.54.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1917)

Born at Danbury, Conn., April 12, 1867. Son of Josiah Lyon and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Prepared for College at Danbury High School, Danbury, Conn.

Attended Harvard:  1888-92; Graduate School, 1892-94.

Degrees: A.B. and A.M. 1892.

Occupation: Investments.

Address: (home) 28 Westville Ave., Danbury, Conn.; (business) 37 Wall St., New York, N.Y

FROM 1892 to 1894 I was a graduate student in history and economics at Harvard, and during 1893-94 I was assistant in history at Harvard. From 1894 to 1902 I was successively assistant, lecturer, and instructor in economics at Columbia and Barnard colleges; also assistant editor of the Political Science Quarterly and the Columbia University Quarterly. In March, 1902, I resigned from Columbia to become registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. I held this position until May, 1903, when I resigned to become assistant to the president of the Manhattan Trust Company. In July, 1903, I was made secretary and treasurer of the Casualty Company of America; and in January, 1905, I entered publicity business. I was employed by the United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia in June, 1906, but a serious attack of typhoid fever in August of that year caused a long absence from business. In June, 1908, I was with Blair & Co., bankers, in New York, and in April, 1910, I began independent work as financial agent for various clients. In January, 1912, I entered the bond department of the Prudential Insurance Company at Newark, and since December 1, 1915, I have been with Wood, Struthers & Co., bankers, 37 Wall St., N. Y.

Publications: Syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.”

Clubs and Societies: Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number VI, (1917), pp. 68-69. Includes Graduation picture.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1922)

Born at Danbury, Conn., April 12, 1867. Son of Josiah Lyon and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Prepared for College at Danbury High School, Danbury, Conn.

Attended Harvard: 1888-92; Graduate School, 1892-94.
Degrees: A.B. and A.M. 1892.

Occupation: Investments.
Address: (home) 152 Deer Hill Ave., Danbury, Conn.; (business) 5 Nassau St., New York, N.Y.

Since December 1, 1915, I have been with Wood, Struthers & Co., bankers, 5 Nassau Street, New York.

Clubs and Societies: Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Harvard College Class of 1892, Thirtieth Anniversary ReportNumber VIII, (1922), p. 70.
[note: Number IX, June 19-22, 1922 is the Supplementary Report of the Thirtieth Anniversary Celebration]

_______________

From the State of Connecticut, Military Census of 1917

State of Connecticut

By direction of an act of the Legislature of Connecticut, approved February 7th, 1917, I am required to procure certain information relative to the resources of the state. I therefore call upon you to answer the following questions.

MARCUS H. HOLCOMB, Governor.

TOWN or CITY: Danbury
DATE: March 4, 1917
POST OFFICE ADDRESS: 28 Westville Ave.

  1. What is your present Trade, Occupation or Profession ? Banking and Brokerage
  2. Have you experience in any other Trade, Occupation or Profession? College Professor
  3. What is your Age? 49
    Height? 5 ft 8 in
    Weight? 165
  4. Are your Married? Single? or Widower? Single
  5. How many persons are dependent on you for support? None wholly
  6. Are you a citizen of the United States? Yes
  7. If not a citizen of the United States have you taken out your first papers? [not applicable]
  8. If not a citizen of the United States, what is your nationality? [not applicable]
  9. Have you ever done any Military or Naval Service in this or any other Country? No
    Where? [not applicable]
    How Long? [not applicable]
    What Branch? [not applicable]
    Rank? [not applicable]
  10. Have you any serious physical disability? Yes
    If so, name it. Near sighted
  11. Can you do any of the following:
    Ride a horse? [No]
    Handle a team? [No]
    Drive an automobile? [No]
    Ride a motorcycle? [No]
    Understand telegraphy? [No]
    Operate a wireless? [No]
    Any experience with a steam engine? [No]
    Any experience with electrical machinery? [No]
    Handle a boat, power or sail? [No]
    Any experience in simple coastwise navigation? [No]
    Any experience with High Speed Marine Gasoline Engines? ? [No]
    Are you a good swimmer? [Yes]

I hereby certify that I have personally interviewed the above mentioned person and that the answers to the questions enumerated are as he gave them to me.

[signed]
Chas A Stallock[?]
Military Census Agent

Source: Connecticut Military Census of 1917. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut State Library. [available as database on-line at Ancestry.com]

 

Image Source: Class portrait and current portrait (ca 1917) of Arthur Morgan Day from Secretary’s Report for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number VI, (1917), pp. 68-69.

 

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

Italy. Terror victim, economics professor Ezio Tarantelli (1941-1985)

 

While skimming the oral history interview of Berkeley economist Lloyd Ulman (Harvard PhD, 1950), I learned that he was in Rome the day that his Italian colleague, Professor Ezio Tarantelli, was assassinated by two members of the Red Brigades in a parking lot outside of the building where he had just lectured. 

I met Ezio during my first year of graduate school at M.I.T. in 1974-75 through my classmate Francesco Giavazzi. While I probably had discussed economics and politics with him only a few times and probably less than for a couple of hours, he impressed me with a combination of intelligence, warmth, and humility that I was to discover to be relatively rare, and not just in a university setting. 

When I read the news that this mild-mannered professor of political economy in Rome had been murdered by political terrorists, I was utterly dumbfounded. Clearly having a name and a face for the victim of an act of senseless political violence made all the difference. Today I decided to add this post, a minor tribute to the memory of a most decent man and fellow economist.

___________________

About Ezio Tarantelli

Red Brigades Kill Rome Economics Professor,  by Sari Gilbert. Washington Post, March 28, 1985.

Chapter 2, “Ezio Tarantelli: Sketches of an Intellectual Biography” in Giovanni Michelangoli, Ezio Tarantelli—Economic Theory and Industrial Relations. Springer, 2012.

Italian Documentary by Monica Repetto:  Ezio Tarantelli, La forza delle idee.

___________________

Excerpt from Oral History Interview with Lloyd Ullman

Uhlman: …I became heavily involved with Bob Flanagan and David Soskice, whom I had met in Oxford, on a Brookings project which ultimately materialized in Wage Restraint: A Study of Incomes Policies in Western Europe (1983). While working on this project, David Soskice and I were invited to give back-to-back talks to Ezio Tarantelli’s class in labor economics in Rome. My topic was the role played by collective bargaining as a second-best choice when employers were confronted by an existential threat to the capitalist order. It just so happened that Italy was experiencing considerable unrest and inflation at the time. Furthermore, Tarantelli, our host, was attracting a good deal of attention as an advocate of moderating the Scala Mobile, the national system of wage escalation which was regarded at the time by many as an important generator of inflation. Which made him a prime target of the Red Brigade on the far left.

Koya: Was the Scala Mobile between the laborers or employers or was the state also involved?

Uhlman: Laborers and employers.

Koya: No state intervention here in Italy?

Uhlman: More of a neo-corporatist arrangement.
Ezio Tarantelli was a very accomplished and very intelligent, imaginative fellow. So he invited David and me to give twin seminars in a single meeting of his class one day. I spoke about the threat of radicalism as an employer inducement to bargain collectively. He regarded it as very provocative, as he put it. That evening he took Lassie and me out to dinner. David had something else to do. And so in the usual Italian style, we ate at about ten o’clock. The restaurant was quite empty. There was a couple across the room and Lassie noticed they were looking at us all the time. Later, Tarantelli said, “Look,” he said, “when I was a student, I was a guide, a tour guide, and I’m now going to drive you through Rome in the moonlight.” It was an enchanted, lovely ride. We said goodnight and spoke about getting together soon again.
The next morning I had a meeting with the head of the non-communist labor federation at the time, the CISL [Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori or Italian Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions]. Someone broke into our discussion and then left. The CISL head said, “Excuse me, but a friend of mine has just died and I have to see some television people.” Then we learned that Tarantelli had been killed by members of the Red Brigade[s]. That morning when he came to class, somebody shouted, “Professor Tarantelli!” He turned around, and they shot him. That was the most horrendous episode in my life, I can say.

Koya: So the provocation?

Uhlman: What? The provocation was that he was on the wrong side. That’s the provocation. That evening a small group of us had a meeting. David’s friends in the academic community met at the home of Ida Regalia, a well-known labor economist. We all brought over some bottles of wine and we sat around talking all evening and that was that.
Everything has a comic side to it, I guess. The next morning I had to get a haircut. My previous barber was an Oxford product, of course. The Italian barber took a look at me, walked all around me, my head, and said, “Atsa a bad haircut.” Later I walked back and Lassie and I met with David. I said, “David, sit down. I must tell you something.” I told him the story. It was just a horrible thing.

 

Source: Lloyd Ulman: An Oral History. Riyad Koya interviewer (Audio File 16, Interview October 20, 2011) pp. 233-234. University of California, Berkeley. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library.

Image Source: Screen shot from Monica Repetto’s  Ezio Tarantelli, La forza delle idee.

 

Categories
Economists Gender Germany Irwin Collier M.I.T. Yale

Farewell lecture of Irwin Collier, FU-Berlin. July 4, 2018

The ceremonial bookends to a professorship in a German university consist of an inaugural and a farewell lecture. I spoke before a public that included the six disciplines represented in the John-F.-Kennedy Institute for North American Studies (besides economics: political science, sociology, history, cultural studies and literature) as well as colleagues from the economics and business faculty of Freie Universität Berlin. Those attending included first-year undergraduates through the oldest cohorts of emeritus professors. I needed a lecture to keep the filled hall alert for 45 minutes on a particularly warm Berlin summer afternoon. I chose the fourth of July because there was no World Cup soccer on the day to compete with.

The ceremony began with an introduction by the Institute’s director, Professor Christian Lammert, who provided a comparative analysis of the twitter activity of President Donald Trump and me. It is a great way to get laughs and a gentle way to roast an honoree. Try it at your next official function, you’ll be glad you did.

Next a local American folksinger, John Shreve, warmed up the crowd for me with two songs, after which I took to the lectern and presented the following remarks. 

________________________

“Reflections on academic communities, clans, and clubs”

Abschiedsvorlesung of Prof. Irwin Collier, Ph.D.

John-F.-Kennedy Institute for North American Studies
Freie Universität Berlin
4 July 2018

One of the self-granted privileges of age, is to talk about oneself under the altruistic guise of sharing experience. And for this I beg your indulgence. On the other hand this is a farewell lecture, what else could you really expect? Now you needn’t worry that I am about to spew the cumulated bile of an underappreciated, unfortunate scholar bitter at the prospect of sealing his academic obscurity with a ceremony where others are about to celebrate his exit. While as delightful as it would be to speak long-repressed truth to the powers-that-be, this occasion lends itself to thoughtful reflection. No, instead I’ll offer from my own experience a few simply illustrative stories that most of you can relate to either through direct personal experience or have heard within your personal information bubbles.

Before getting started, let me make one thing pedantically clear: when I use the words “community”, “clan”, and “club” in what follows, but especially those latter two words, they are only to be understood as short-hand, metaphorical labels. I trust there is no need for attempting Über-precision in what is after all only offered as a series of personal reflections. My intention in speaking of communities, clans, and clubs is to offer you a simple alliterative triad that has a better chance of surviving into long-term memory than, say, “communities, tribes, and networks”, though that is what I actually mean, to be honest.

When I say academic both as adjective and noun, it is in the sense of having to do with individual membership in “the Academy” broadly understood.  I have always liked how the words “scholar and scientist” fit comfortably within the single German word “Wissenschaftler” and the Academy for me has its foundation in the Humboldtian dual mandate of research and instruction. We, the scholars and scientists of universities, have answered the call to follow that dual mandate. Of course knowledge gets produced outside the hallowed halls of the university and there are plenty of institutions that exist with the sole mission of advanced instruction. As an economist I have mostly good things to say about such division-of-labor and specialization.  But personally, I have spent about a half-century studying or working within a university setting, and half that time here at Freie Universität, so my preference is clearly revealed to serve that dual mandate.

Having a career-long interest in the history of economics, I have often had occasion to consider the life of scholars among scholars. While the filiation of ideas typically takes center stage in histories of economics (by this I mean the chronicle of how Adam Smith’s ideas begat those of David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus, that in turn begat the ideas of John Stuart Mill, that begat innovations by William Stanley Jevons, on to the synthesis by Alfred Marshall and so on up to the present day), sometimes historians of economics explore the ideas of economists within particular historical contexts (e.g., the Progressive Era, the New Deal or the Thatcher-Reagan revolution) or within the specific policy debates of their times (protectionism, industrial policy, social insurance, monetary policy rules). This afternoon I will be guilty of thinking aloud about the social context of the creation and diffusion of scientific methods and knowledge generally. Since I am an economist, presumably what I have to say fits my home discipline best. Nonetheless I would wager at least one free lunch that the structures and mechanisms I have identified are present at least in some modified form elsewhere in the Academy.

Now somewhere in my unordered college papers that have followed me from New Haven to Cambridge, Massachusetts down to Princeton, then Houston and finally a transatlantic trip to Berlin in 1994, followed by three moves within the greater Berlin area there must be the original acceptance letter I received from Yale in the Spring of 1969.  One phrase in that letter has been etched into my memory, namely, that I was thereby welcomed into the “community of scholars”. I can smile now when thinking about the enthusiasm and naiveté of that boy turning man about to embark on his journey of academic life. A “community of scholars” turns out to have been what I had sought and what I was convinced I found in the undergraduate life of Yale College. When I first explored the stacks in the tower of Sterling Memorial Library and argued about philosophy and politics in beer-fueled bull-sessions into the night with my roommates and classmates, I felt at one with a much larger academic community, not merely that of the Yale microcosm but one extending to the authors of century-old books with uncut pages waiting to be discovered in the stacks. As far as the larger academic community in that thin slice of the historical present, well, I felt cosmopolitan to a fault. I saw no higher calling than that of the scholar/scientist. Excellence was not about winning a phi-beta-kappa key for display, it was about serving a higher purpose within that greater community of scholars. I believed that the true academic freely contributed and imbibed from the ever growing pool of human knowledge and was free from lesser motives. Life-work balance could not be an issue, the life and work of an academic were simply an identity.

Two modifications of my scholar’s life plan resulted from changes in scenery: an internship in Washington DC and later graduate school along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass.

During my early undergraduate years I had little concern for applying knowledge for good, it seemed too much like engineering. Two spells in Washington, D.C. as an intern at the Council of Economic Advisers during the highpoint of the Watergate crisis taught me much about the importance of the work of policy wonks, a concept that only gained currency decades later during the Clinton Administration. My respect grew for the leaves of absence for public service or earlier work in the war effort (WWII) that I found was quite common among my professors.  Had plan A, serving the university dual mandate, not have worked, I probably would have pursued my personal happiness with a plan B, working as a government economist perhaps in the Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Labor Statistics or Bureau of the Census and this afternoon’s ceremony would most likely be taking place in some office building in the District of Columbia. But it was still clear under either Plan A or Plan B, I would need further training.

Graduate School at M.I.T. marked a transition to a higher concentration of economics than I would have ever considered possible and looking back can hardly believe I survived with any dignity. Graduate coursework was not conceived according to the tenets of liberal arts to broaden the mind. Quite to the contrary, the graduate coursework at M.I.T. was an intellectual boot-camp, where the brain got trained without ever so much as a doubt on the part of the drill-sergeants or the recruits themselves whether this was a good way to educate a professional economist.  You want to be a Navy Seal, OK, it’s your choice…and if it turns out to be too much for you to handle, ring the bell, take your M.A. and leave honorably. Of course I am exaggerating, but I do recall a West-Point graduate in my class who declared that graduate school was the most academic freedom that he had ever enjoyed. Incidentally, that M.I.T. classmate turns up in Michael Lewis’ The Big Short as having been the chief risk officer for Morgan Stanley during the financial meltdown in 2008. I’ll add here that another classmate was a principal in Long-Term Capital Management when that famous hedge fund crashed and burned in 1998. I became an expert on the East German economy and we all know what happened there in 1989. You can see the pattern, but I digress…

Clearly I wouldn’t be standing here before you today had I not survived the rigors of graduate school. In a meantime that spans not quite a half-century I have come to the realization that a “community of scholars” is actually only a Platonic ideal, something as unreal yet appealing as the Garden of Eden, the legend of King Arthur’s court in Camelot or the utopian socialisms that fired the imaginations of radical progressives in the second half of the 19th century. And yet, my experience from dealing in an academic setting, having had contact with many permutations of human natures and across a few societies, has not at all discouraged me from the quixotic quest of building or becoming a part of a genuine community of scholars. The fundamental question we all face is how to get nearer there from here. Plot spoiler: this is my farewell lecture so that can gets kicked down the road for you young folks here.

My thesis is that real existing research and instruction take place in a world spanned by two basic types of institutional frameworks, that we can call clans and clubs for short. Just as there is a spectrum of virtuous behavior along which we, our friends, rivals, and enemies can be placed, clans and clubs differ in the degree to which they help meet the criteria of a “community of scholars”.

So what constitutes an ideal or a genuine community of scholars? (1) Inclusivity. There is no frontier between us and them with respect to the search for knowledge and understanding other than a sharp boundary separating magical thinking from those in the community for whom the collection and honest interpretation of evidence and logical thinking constitute the supporting pillars for science and scholarship.  (2) Meritocratic. There is not a fixed caste system within the community of scholars. It is not a hive with a queen, drones and worker bees. Results from the mixture of individual genius, creativity, good fortune, insight, and discovery are recognized, appropriated, and honored by the community. The demographic fact of overlapping generations results in a natural ordering of junior to senior, but the filial piety of Confucianism must yield the right-of-way to the Wunderkinder in the community of scholars. (3) Self-critical. By this I mean members of a community of scholars share a categorical imperative with respect to criticizing our own work as we criticize that of others. This is important because the accumulation of knowledge and understanding is but an imperfect ratchet. Any one of us, repeat…anyone, has the capacity to pursue dead-ends, and even to forget lessons once learned.  (4) Team spirited. Yet even with all that humility we still have a capacity to cry Eureka upon discovery and other members of the community rejoice at the sound of that cry.

Undoubtedly I have missed a few items in my proposed check list of criteria. But it is easy to see their necessity to be included in any such list by considering what a university would look like when the polar opposite cases occur, where (1´) exclusivity (2´) impermeable stratification (3´) immunity from doubt and/or criticism (4´) Schadenfreude are the rule. Sounds a bit like a sequel to A Handmaid’s Tale without the dramatic costuming doesn’t it?

The essence of club and clan is captured in the Groucho Marx quip “I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member” and the familiar expression, “You can choose your friends but not your family”.  While I grant that there is a process of selection and self-selection to graduate schools that bears a resemblance to the formal admission procedure for joining a club, there is a good reason to distinguish between the two. In the case of a club you are accepted or rejected for who and what you are.  When you enter, you are a member, a peer. In contrast for a clan, the selection criteria can be quite distinct from the requirements to attain full clan membership.  The network from club membership is valuable to you as a member, but the clan becomes a part of your identity.

But before we talk about this psychological transformation of identity, allow me a brief historical word here.

My research over the past several years has focused on the evolution of graduate training in economics. Both from my own experience but also from listening to colleagues as well as reading random biographical and autobiographical accounts, I became convinced that the critical transmission of the tools of research and the ultimate values that provide the background for the selection of “interesting” questions takes place in graduate schools and there the formation of scholarly character embedded within a network of graduates becomes recognizable as a “school”.  This interest led to an inaugural grant from the Institute for New Economic Thinking for me to begin exploring university archives for documentary material that would prove useful for marking the evolution of economic theories and methods actually acquired by successive cohorts of professional economists in different universities. The research question was to identify the forces that have contributed to the convergence of economics into a contemporaneous mainstream of common scope and methods.

It was in Germany where the modern university seminary for science and scholarship emerged and it provided the ultimate model for research training at the graduate level. And that academic DNA from those seminaries was carried across the Atlantic to the emerging great universities of the United States. Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago and points west all profited from the ambitious young scholars and scientists who had been “made in Germany”. The leading role played by Germany will come again when we turn to clubs.

The clan or tribe has played an enormous role in the history of economics. Just to name a few instances, there was the grand Methodenstreit between Carl Menger of Vienna and Gustav von Schmoller of Berlin in the late 19th century on the relative merits of deduction vs. induction (sort of chicken-or-the-egg debate). The debate was ultimately won in a scientific sense by Menger but the academic street-fighter Schmoller had much greater success in occupying the professorial chairs in the German-language areas of Europe for several generations.

Other notable debates between “schools” of economics include the capital debate between the “two Cambridges” of the 1950s and 1960s, Keynesian fiscalism vs. Chicago monetarism, especially in the 1960s, fresh- vs. salt-water macroeconomics more recently, and there is the always evergreen controversy between Austrian economics (which I note in its present form is neither Austrian nor economics) and wherever the mainstream happens to find itself.   There have been cases in economics where Saul turns into Paul well along in the career. But such late breaks, such as that from the Keynes critic hired by Harvard to the man who brought Keynes to America, Alvin Hansen, or from neo-classical darling to radical economist, Stephen Marglin in the 1960s, have been rare. These are news stories much as “man bites dog” is news, because “dog bites man” is considerably less newsworthy.  The correlation between where and how you have been trained and your research style/policy positions is strong and robust. But of course you ask, is it really causation or a case of post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc inference when there is really a background factor responsible for both?

So what leads me to assert the strong identification of scholar with the school? My pop-psychological explanation is that the intense training and focus of a graduate education brings a young scholar up to humanity’s frontier of knowledge for the first time. That frontier advances rapidly and only a few, certainly not all Ph.D.’s, will move fast enough or long enough to remain on that frontier. Nonetheless that moment of arrival at the hilltop and looking out on the vast, uncharted landscape before you for the first time is a profound life-altering experience in adulthood and there is a warm-fuzzy object that you bond with — it is not a parent, rather it is the collectivity of the professors from whom you have learned and been guided and the authors of the books and papers you have digested in the course of your studies. Sure, later we all pass through a form of intellectual puberty and develop a hypersensitivity to all our professors’ faults. I think back: God there were some really awful teachers, I have witnessed examples of narcissism unchained! Etc.  One of my dearest professors upon hearing that Herbert Simon was awarded a Nobel prize in economics actually said “He can’t be any good, I haven’t read anything he has written.” Later in our careers we might have our own Mark Twain moment: “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

OK, time for a quick summary of what I have been rambling on about thus far. It appears that I had the enormous good fortune to have stumbled into what seemed a virtual academic heaven on earth.  Following that formative period when I acquired my scholarly/scientific values together with a box of analytical tools, it was time for Hänschen-klein to march off into the real world. I was an apprentice turned journeyman sorcerer, a fledgling member of a clan of economists associated with the Yale-MIT axis. Had you asked me at the time what it meant, I would have answered it was really no more than a pedigree, if anything, a signal as to the quality of the people who taught me. Gradually, I learned as I interacted in a professional context with people trained at other places and in other traditions, this Yale-MIT axis signaled belonging to a well-defined clan. Think of West Side Story, the gangs of Sharks and Jets, just without the dancing.

The first inkling I had about the influence of where you learned your economics was as an undergraduate during my Council of Economic Advisers time when a fellow intern, a graduate student from UCLA, derisively commented on the fact that I had waited hours to watch the Watergate Hearing for Nixon’s chief-of-staff H.R. Haldeman, “queues are inefficient”. Subtext: a market should have been created to let a price mechanism allocate the scarce space to the highest bidders.  Since he was my first observation, I thought it was the individual effect talking, i.e., he was just a jerk. But then later another UCLA man, a senior professor at the University of Houston when I was an assistant professor there, nonchalantly dismissed a vast swath of applied economic analysis as we interviewed young people at the annual job market, “Nobody believes welfare economics…”  I recall my first serious encounter with German ordo-liberalism at the University of Siegen. Hearing so much praise for Walter Eucken and his Freiburg school that inspired the policy architects who brought us the German social-market economy led me to read some of his work.  I felt like I was listening to folks speaking German in some remote alpine valley.

The point of these examples is that it was beginning to look to me that how and where you were trained had a major impact on the sorts of questions you asked and the style of argument and the forms of evidence you accepted. Thinking back I expected the sorts of political differences and research strategies would be more-or-less randomly distributed across departments. People, and I stress economists are people, are a heterogeneous bunch, simply put, “a mixed bag”. But even allowing for concentration of the one or other paradigm for research, couldn’t we expect serious scholars to outgrow their apprentice years as they would become exposed to inter-university variation? In a statistical sense I interpreted what I observed, namely, knowing where someone had been trained had “too much” explanatory power for what a mature university research economist would think about economics. You could see a definite family resemblance across the clan. What I still don’t really understand was why academic disputes between clans have almost invariably escalated to the intensity of a shooting feud between the Hatfields and McCoys. But then again, I’m the sort of guy who is still shocked that people are so rude to each other on twitter. The working hypothesis perhaps is best expressed in the adage, “Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.”

Time for another short historical break before reflecting on networks or clubs that academics have established.

Economics became an easily identifiable collective pursuit of truth for the first time in the middle of the 18th century at the court of Louis XV at Versailles where the French Physiocrats coalesced into a self-conscious school for the purpose of enlightened economic policy. They actually called themselves les économistes and they even had their own journal. Their time on the world stage was brief, the French Revolution scattered the school to the winds, and one member, DuPont de Nemours settled in the United States where his son founded the gunpowder business that ultimately became the DuPont corporation. Incidentally Thomas Jefferson’s idealization of the yeoman farmer and contempt for the mercantile classes was a reflection of his reading Physiocratic texts. In England in the nineteenth century political economy was passionately debated among gentlemen in clubs. Members would read their Hume, Smith, Ricardo and Malthus to join the chatter and contribute to the literary magazines of the time debating economic policy.  From about 1935 through 1950 the gradual expansion of mathematical and statistical tools had become such a critical part of the kit of the professional economist that political economy or economics was no longer “clubbable” in the literal sense.

But even before the shift to mathematical and statistical methods had become complete, substitutes for the club were found in the extra-university learned societies, professional associations, and regularly recurring conference groups. All of these networks had established admission procedures to establish whether a potential peer brought the right stuff to the table.

Just as the modern research seminar goes back to the university seminaries of Germany, the Verein für Socialpolitik was officially founded at its conference in Eisenach in October 1873 a year after an initial conference a year earlier also in Eisenach on the “soziale Frage” (social question). This association brought economists, lawyers and government statisticians together. Now some twenty-three standing field committees span the scope of economic research in the German language area. Thanks to a retired colleague, Wolfram Fischer, I received an invitation to become a member of the standing committee for the history of economics. For these standing committees one is invited to present a paper and is voted membership.  The Verein itself used to be the sort of association that members had to propose candidates whose approval then was voted upon.

The very same American students who studied in the German seminaries of economics during the last third of the 19th century, returned to become founding members of the American Economic Society, that unlike the Verein für Socialpolitik, which was long to have a sharp anti-Manchester capitalism profile, reached out to their classic liberal colleagues who initially resisted joining forces. From its early years the American Economic Association was a bigger tent than the Verein für Socialpolitik.

Two other societies worth mention are the international Econometric Society that was dedicated to the use of mathematical and formal statistical modeling in economics. It was first organized in December 1930 in Cleveland, Ohio with Joseph Schumpeter chairing a meeting of sixteen people who elected Irving Fisher of Yale as its president. The Econometric Society then met officially for the first time the following September in Lausanne. Not quite four decades later dissatisfaction with the scope of mainstream economics that focused excessively on “plenty” and with too little attention to its distribution and almost none to issues of power and politics, the Union of Radical Political Economy was founded in 1968 (This year celebrating its fiftieth anniversary at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst).

In the course of the Allied Social Sciences Meeting every year, field associations organize their panels where the networks of colleagues meet.  Of course no list of clubs would be complete without mentioning the Mt. Pelerin Society founded by economists along with historians and philosophers at the invitation of Friedrich Hayek in 1947 and which formed a bedrock of neoliberalism, long before it was fashionable.

As we say, birds of a feather, flock together and the communication among researchers working on similar topics, using similar methods, interested in the same kinds of evidence is necessary for the success of the cooperative endeavor. These networks allow sub-fields to achieve scales impossible to expect in all but the largest and richest university settings. Indeed stepping back and regarding the research output of these professional clubs whose membership spans university, disciplinary, territorial bounds, few of us would want to go back to the high days of the London Political Economy Club or even the early days of the relatively exclusive professional societies requiring formal nomination for membership.

At this point I need to insert a big fat German “Aber…” (But…). The clans and clubs of economics (and economics is hardly unique here) have a diversity problem with respect to, I’ll limit myself to the United States here, race, ethnicity, and gender. In the course of my INET funded research, I have examined archived economics departmental records of M.I.T. from the 1970s dealing with the recruitment and subsequent performance of students from traditional black colleges and of women admitted to the program. Something that struck me was the sheer experimental willingness of this overwhelmingly white, male and politically liberal department to expand the numbers of blacks and women in the economics Ph.D. program. Of course M.I.T., sitting at the apex of the economics graduate programs at that time, was able to recruit easily. But after several years, the realization set in that to avoid the creation of a Zwei-Klassensystem (twin tracks) the recruiting pools needed to be equalized and this would require a strategic switch to recruiting aggressively and exclusively from elite undergraduate programs. Having been an observer-participant from a time that I can now witness again in an archival light, I appreciate the dilemma felt by the M.I.T. economics department then between increasing the inclusivity of the clan but only at the cost of an increased risk of failure for precisely those new groups who had been previously overlooked.

Let us shift focus now from entry to the clan to the issue of gender diversity in the clubs or professional networks.  [Due to unexpected turbulence, the captain has turned on the fasten seat belt sign.] Last year a dynamite paper originally submitted as a Berkeley senior thesis was published by Alice H. Wu “Gender Stereotyping in Academia: Evidence From Economics Job Market Rumors Forum”. Ms. Wu processed more than a million posts from the anonymous online message board econjobrumors.com.  It is as close to systematic eavesdropping around a water cooler that can be done legally. It turns out that the ordered list of the thirty words most uniquely associated with women were (warning: NSFW): [read list very quickly] “hotter, lesbian, bb (internet speak for “baby”), sexism, tits, anal, marrying, feminazi, slut, hot, vagina, boobs, pregnant, pregnancy, cute, marry, levy, gorgeous, horny, crush, beautiful, secretary, dump, shopping, date, nonprofit [?!], intentions, sexy, dated and prostitute”. The analogous men-words included: [read slower] “juicy, keys, adviser, bully, prepare, fought, wharton, austrian, checkers, homo [!], genes, mathematician, advisor, burning, pricing, philly, band, nobel, amusing, greatest, textbook, goals, irate”–with the singular exception of a homophobic slur, not nearly so much to be ashamed of in guy gossip…about guys. But even before the publication of Wu’s paper, the active standing Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession of the American Economic Association was addressing issues of sexual harassment and drafting of codes of conduct. Manels (i.e., panels consisting of only men) still occur quite regularly at professional meetings but the outcry cannot be overheard. Let us just say, the situation regarding the issue of gender falls seriously short of the Platonic community of scholars, but it is not hopeless. I say this as a member of Yale’s first four-year coeducational class — looking back a half-century the differences for the better are truly striking.

I see the shortfall in meeting the criterion of inclusivity less to be found either on the race or gender fronts where important corners have been turned. The greater problem seems to me to be one of a relentless trend in which we observe the homogenization of particular methods and approaches to the exclusion of others. For a five-year old with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Today’s heterodoxy can improve the quality of the flow in the mainstream as well as vice-versa. Loyalty to the clan is only a virtue to the extent that your clan is up to good. Besides the obligation to expose one’s future students to a wide-range of views, as good as we feel and as justly we might think that we can adequately summarize “the other side”, we Hatfields are probably a poor substitute for the real McCoy.

Calls for broadening the curriculum clash with the budgetary realities forcing faculties to choose a balance between breadth and depth in the coverage of fields and methods. But my decades in this business have led me to conclude that we have less to fear from the tragic constellation of beer budgets and champagne tastes than we have to fear from the narcissistic gene of scholars, present company excluded of course (I want to be able to eat lunch in Dahlem in the future!). That narcissistic gene leads even top scholars to attempt to clone themselves into entire faculties. My hope is that a pragmatic tolerance and taste for diversity in paradigms can trickle down from senior to junior and through all levels of instruction.

In their modern clubs scholars find kindred spirits, it is there scholars can find honest peer review.  So what could possibly go wrong?  Well here is where we need a second, a vertical dimension to understand what is happening. In a race for status, gatekeepers and judges play an important role. The old question necessarily arises, who will guard the guards? Can we be confident that the norms of the Platonic community of scholars will be able to weather the winds of rivalry for the zero-sum game of status or of self-interested competition for scarce resources?

One expects economists to talk about money. So let’s talk about it in this context. My father once wisely told me when he thought that I was getting too academically big for my real-world britches: brains don’t hire money, money hires brains.   Expressed in terms a Marxist might appreciate:  my father apparently believed that the reproduction cycle goes Money—Brains—Money rather than Brains—Money—Brains. Besides putting the horse (money) before the cart (brains), I can only mention en passant that large private concentrations of wealth can and have been used to support research programs of a particular political stripe just as an unequal distribution in wealth can and has been used for disproportionate political influence (i.e. violating the essential democratic symmetry of one citizen, one vote / one voice). I’ll just mention the documented ability of the Koch brothers to have funneled enormous funds into George Mason University that had strings attached with respect to faculty hires that no self-respecting faculty member could possibly support.

Before I start foaming at the mouth, I pause to bid my colleagues here this afternoon to reflect on the distance they perceive between the Platonic ideal of an academic community and their personal experience.

A lecture title that signals “reflections” is an open confession that no attempt has been made for rigorous argument. My somewhat random walk defies summary. Still I have been raised to think that it is prudent to leave one’s audience with a nugget to share when they leave, in the event that someone should ask what I, the speaker, had to say.

For me (and I am sure for many in this room) the happiest and most productive times were in those moments when I felt firmly embedded within an environment approaching a community of scholars. Academic life has taught me that such communities are mostly figments of some philosopher’s imagination. The work of a scholar, when not the fruit of a monastic life-style, is conducted within clans and clubs. My experiences from a career in university life and listening to the experiences of others have led me to the conclusion that “academic community” is analogous to genius, and when or if ever it really exists, it is extremely rare and probably the result of rather random dependent paths of history rather than the result of conscious human intention. My plea, especially to the undergraduate and graduate students in the room, is not to sink into cynicism once you discover for yourselves that your professors and their professors, that researchers in private or government laboratories, that senior researchers in think-tanks happen to display the shortcomings I have identified in clubs (especially, exclusivity regarding who gets admitted) and clans (especially, an allegiance where blood is thicker than water). Clubs can open themselves and clans can indeed coexist peacefully and even intermarry. Rival research programs need not have to end in blood feuds like the Hatfields and McCoys. While my pursuit of happiness is found in the pursuit of truth, due diligence demands that all of us sharing that pursuit keep a watchful eye on those serving as the gate-keepers of our clubs.

So much for my reflections. Allow me a few personal words in closing.

*  * *  *

One enters and remains in our imperfect community of scholars, in part on one’s own merits but more importantly due to those who trusted that ex post merit would justify ex ante support. These scholars, near colleagues, friends and family members are too numerous to mention outside of an extended written memoir. But without them the arc of my academic life would have ended far short of Freie Universität Berlin. Fostering the development of latent or raw talent made the difference for me and my hope is that I have played a similar role in the academic lives of others.

I have had the pleasure of working with both colleagues and staffs of the Faculties of Business and Economics and the John-F.-Kennedy Institute. Secretaries like our own Kerstin Brunke have provided that first line of defense known as the front office and they deserve medals for valor. Good cheer and a quite competency have served as a wonderful complement to my management-challenged ways of dealing with the world outside.  From the offices of administration in the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences to the bowels of the libraries, I have had a reasonably blessed time. Perhaps we only survive in a Burgfrieden, a truce in times of trouble, but I cannot say that I have suffered either severely or disproportionately. At this point of my professional life I am so happy for the continued emotional and intellectual support provided by my wife, the psychiatrist Prof. Isabella Heuser-Collier, whose own Abschiedsvorlesung at Berlin’s Charité I eagerly await some two years from now.

General Douglas MacArthur immortalized the refrain from an old barracks song in his farewell address to the U.S. Congress in April 19, 1951: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” In that spirit, beginning this September at Bard College Berlin I shall fade to teaching half-time with an increased emphasis on the history of economics. This will give me significantly more time for transcribing and curating archival artifacts for my blog Economics in the Rear-view Mirror (www.irwincollier.com). I don’t really believe in the prospects of a happy hunting ground in the sky, but as a member of the greater academic community going forward, I find the prospect of my work surviving in a happy virtual cloud in the sky a spur for me to continue my work. I once toyed with the idea of slipping a $100 bill into the library copy of my M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation to reward an anonymous anybody who has decided to fish the dissertation from the safe obscurity of the Dewey library stacks. Now the thought occurs to me that perhaps leaving a bitcoin in the cloud somewhere buried in my blog would be a legacy worthy of a scholar of the early 21st century.

I thank you for your attention this afternoon but especially for being with me now at this cusp of my academic life-cycle.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Pedagogy

Harvard. Methods of teaching political economy. J. L. Laughlin, 1885

 

This morning while trawling the Harvard Crimson, a student newspaper, for announcements of speakers and topics in Harvard’s Economics Seminary of over a century ago, I came across an 1885 review of a book published by the Harvard assistant professor, J. Laurence Laughlin, who was to later teach at Cornell and ultimately become the founding head of the department of political economy at the University of Chicago. Chasing down that book I found a chapter in which Laughlin discussed general pedagogical issues that come up when trying to inflict basic economic principles on the young. It is an interesting set of reflections with much insight. Given Laughlin’s role in building up the Chicago economics department (cf. the first 25 years of Laughlin’s department), I believe visitors to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror will be interested in hearing Laughlin’s practical advice of how to teach economics.

In an earlier posting we have Laughlin’s recommended library for instructors of economics from 1887 with nearly all items conveniently linked. You’re welcome!

__________________

METHODS OF TEACHING POLITICAL ECONOMY.

Chapter Five of
The Study of Political Economy: Hints to Students and Teachers
by J. Laurence Laughlin, 1885

A NATION is sometimes so bitterly taught by sad experience in financial errors—as was the case with France in John Law’s time, and again in the issue of paper assignats during the Revolution—that, on the principle of the “burned child,” it afterwards finds that it unconsciously keeps to the right and avoids the wrong path. So that to-day France is a country where correct conceptions of money are almost universal, and whose public monetary experiments are, as a rule, most admirably conducted. In somewhat the same way does the individual gain his proper knowledge of political economy. Principles must be seen working in a concrete form. The key to efficient teaching of it is to connect principles with actual facts; and this process can go on in the beginner’s mind only through experience. By experience, I mean [116] the personal (subjective) effort of each one to realize the working of the principle for himself in the facts of his own knowledge. The pupil must be put in the way of assimilating for himself the principles of his subject in such a manner that he feels their truth because they are apparent in explanation of concrete things all around him. That this is the aim to be always kept in view by the teacher and student has been made clear, it is to be hoped, by the previous analysis of the character and discipline of political economy in Chapters II and III. It is now my purpose to make some suggestions as to the practical methods of teaching by which this can be carried into effect.

1. The relative advantages of lectures and recitations for political economy have never, to my knowledge, been openly discussed. An experience with both methods of teaching leads me to think that the lecture system, pure and simple, is so ineffective that it ought to be set aside at once as entirely undesirable. The disciplinary power to be gained by the study is almost wholly lost to the student by this method of teaching. Nothing is so useful as a sharp [117] struggle, an effort, a keen discussion, or possibly a failure of comprehension at the time; for nothing will so awaken one to intellectual effort, and finally result in the safe lodgment of the principle within one’s mind as an obstruction and its removal. This is not gained by listening to lectures. No matter how clear the exposition of the principles may be, no matter how fresh and striking the illustrations, it still remains that the student is relieved by the instructor from carrying on the mental processes which he ought to conduct for himself. In fact, the clearer the exposition by the instructor, the less is left to the student—the lecturer, in fact, is the chief gainer by the system. Moreover, while listening to a connected and logical unfolding of the principles, the student is lulled into a false belief that, as he understands all that has been so clearly presented to him, he knows the subject quite well enough; and the result is to send out a number of conceited men who really can not carry on a rational economic discussion. They wholly miss the discipline which gives exactitude, mental breadth, keenness, and power to express [118] themselves plainly and to the point. Then, not being forced to think over a principle in its application to various phases of concrete phenomena, they know the truth only in connection with the illustrations given by the lecturer, while they utterly fail to assimilate the principles into their own thinking. The subject then becomes to them a matter of memory. They memorize the general statements without ever realizing their practical side, and that which is memorized for the day of examination is forgotten more speedily than it is learned, and the sum total of the discipline has been simply a stretching of the memory. In fact, with the average student, in almost any subject the lecture system leads to cramming. At the best, it affords a constant temptation to put off that kind of mental struggle which ought to be carried on by the student himself—a period of doubts and questions—by which alone a clearer conception of the subject ultimately emerges. In fact, without it, it is doubtful if the student ever gets much, if any, of that mental attrition on the subject which is the most valuable part of the work. An experience of a year with [119] lecturing in an elementary course to a class of two hundred and fifty, including the best and the poorest men in the university, practically convinced me, when taken with other evidence, of the truth of the above position; for, as contrasted with the work of similar men in other years under a different system, their examination-books were the most unsatisfactory I had ever read.

The usual alternative to the lecture system is the plan of recitations from a text-book. Even the simplest form of recitations is, in my opinion, better than listening to lectures. At the very least, the student is put to it to express the sense in his own words, and that, too, under the criticism of the teacher. But this plan has its evident difficulties. If the pupil is called upon for only that which is contained in the book, he falls into the habit of memorizing, and fails to think for himself. If you give him the clew, he can tell you on what part of the page the statement is found, and he can talk in the language of the book; but he knows nothing of the power of applying it to what he sees. If the learner is very clever and [120] inquisitive, he may do something for himself, but the average pupil quite misses the real good of such a course.

2. As it is evident that neither lectures nor formal recitations in the old fashion are satisfactory, we are inevitably led to adopt a plan which possesses the advantages of both. Some text-book is essential as a basis for the instruction.* In it the pupil should find an exposition of the principles, and a provocation to apply them to practical things as he reads. Then he should come to the class-room as intelligently familiar with the principles as his reading can make him. Now comes the work of the instructor. With a class of beginners, it is [121] surprising how easy it is to show even to the best men a gap in their knowledge, or a misunderstanding of the principle. Present an illustration different from that of the book, and ask them to explain the situation, and very few will be able to respond. The necessity of seeing the essential point in the facts and the attempt to describe the operation of the principle will effectually rout the man who has merely memorized the book, and teach him to think out the matter more thoroughly for himself in the future. The teacher, also, will try to find out the accidental obstacles which in a young mind obstruct the understanding of the point in question. Let the pupil be asked to state the matter, and let the teacher note the imperfections. At the same time he can stimulate another student by questioning him as to one of these imperfections. If a correction is not obtained in a clear and connected manner from a member of the class, let the instructor apply the Socratic method. At first ask a question which the learner readily understands, and then lead him naturally and gradually by logical steps up to the point wherein he had failed of understanding. [122] He will then see his own difficulty, and at the same time he has had a little robust exercise for his mind. If this is carried on before his fellows, it will the better cultivate coolness and self-control before an audience.

* The question naturally arises in the teacher’s mind, What is the best text-book? This, of course, is a matter of individual experience and judgment, and competent persons will differ in offering advice. From my own point of view, I should strongly recommend for mature students, who can give to it fifty or sixty hours of recitation, Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy.” For those who wish a less severe course, for a shorter time, Mr. and Mrs. Marshall’s ”Economies of Industry” is an excellent book. For the same persons, a forthcoming book by Professor Simon Newcomb, to be published this summer (1885), would be admirable. I have seen the advanced sheets, and find the system of applying principles to facts at the end of each chapter admirably carried out. For books to be consulted by the teacher, he is referred to the “Library” list at the beginning of this volume.

3. Above all, the hour should not be wasted in simply rehearsing what has been read in the book. The student should go away from the class-room feeling that he has received some new idea, or some interesting fact which illustrates his subject. The work of the class-room should be cumulative in its effect as compared with the results of text-book reading. The teacher should in every way stimulate questions from members of his class, and urge the statement by them, either orally or in writing, of their doubts and difficulties. If there is some timidity in presenting a weakness in the presence of a class, ask a question of some more manly person of the number, and the timid student will soon see that others are not much better off than he. In fact, all will have difficulties in understanding, or in interpreting principles, some trivial, some serious; and the pupil will become discouraged unless these are removed. [123] When each one sees that others are also hindered by obstacles, there will be a greater freedom in asking questions. Moreover, in order to keep up a steady and regular training, which will produce the best disciplinary results, let the questions of the instructor every day run backward in review, and especially aim to bring out the connection of one part of the subject with another. It will be very effective if done just about the time that the past work is growing a little dim before the presence of newer ideas. In no subject, perhaps, more than in political economy, is it necessary to know the preliminary steps in order to understand the later work; so that the pupil must be actually in possession of principles previously expounded, for which he may be called upon at any time. It is simply impossible for a person to be absent and neglectful for a time in his study, and then come into the class-room to make a brilliant show on an intermediate fragment of the subject. He can be too easily exposed as a humbug to attempt it a second time. Moreover, thus to force him to do the work as he goes along is the greatest favor one [124] can do for the pupil; and the usual cramming before the examination becomes, in reality, a general review, which is very useful in bringing him to see the connection existing throughout the whole subject.

4. If the class is so large that it is impossible for the instructor to reach each member as often as he might wish with the above method, there is one device which is more or less useful. At the beginning of the hour let him write a question upon the blackboard, to be answered by each one in writing within the first ten or fifteen minutes. The attempt to write out an explanation clearly, without hint or clew from the instructor, will reveal to the best student the deficiencies and gaps in his knowledge. Each one will then have the keenest interest to know what is considered a satisfactory answer to the question. At the next exercise of the class, the instructor can read some good and some bad answers, point out the general mistakes, and advise his pupils for the future. No exercise can be better than this in cultivating the habit of careful expression, and in learning how to make a clear and pointed exposition of [125] a subject in a short space. This practice tends to secure the accuracy which in the oral discussions is made second to fluency and readiness. The teacher, I believe, will be forced to some such method as this, if he hopes to get a real idea of the prevailing difficulties in the minds of his class. They are in the nature of anonymous communications, in which, as no one else can know what he is writing, the student may without timidity show exactly what he can do. In fact, the written answers afford admirable means of judging how far the class have taken serious hold of the subject, and they enable the instructor to modify the nature of his questions to members, or to change the character of the exercise to suit a set of slower men. But one of the best uses of these written answers, in my experience, has been to break down the timidity which prevented questions in the classroom. The criticism of an answer before the class is certain to bring out as defender, either the writer, or one who gave a similar reply and the whole number of men will be very restive under criticism of a piece of work at which each has tried his hand. As soon as questioning [126] becomes natural and easy, the number of written exercises can be diminished, and the whole hour given to discussions with the class.

5. Since the chief work of the class-room is not to enable students to discover principles, but rather to understand and apply them, probably the most useful method of interesting a class is to present to them, in extracts from the newspapers of the day, bits of fallacious discussions* which may come under the head of the subject in hand, and then to ask for criticism and discussion. This will also suggest doubts and difficulties which had not been anticipated in the minds of some, and will aid in stimulating questions. The appositeness of a timely topic before the public is peculiarly serviceable for such purposes. In fact, the practical matters of our own country will never fail to excite a lively interest in almost any class; and through this interest the teacher can find a [127] way of leading men to study principles more carefully. A National or State campaign is very likely to furnish an instructor with a plentiful supply of extracts from speeches of an economic character for discussion by his class. The learner in political economy is not hindered by the same disagreeable obstacles, as hamper the medical student, in finding subjects on which to put his learning into practice.

* Professor W. G. Sumner has published a volume of “Problems in Political Economy” (1884), which adopts the plan above described for advanced classes. The system is also most excellently carried out in a forthcoming elementary treatise on Political Economy by Simon Newcomb, to be published during the coming summer.

6. Many minds are unable to keep hold on an abstraction, or general principle; or they may have been untrained in making nice distinctions between ideas or definitions. And these students form a very large proportion of the ordinary classes. To such persons a skillful teacher ought to offer some help. Diagrams have seemed to me most useful for this purpose, and a reason can be given for their use. Just as in beginning a strange language, when words of widely different meaning have a similarity to the untutored eye, the distinctions do not make much impression. So it is in regard to principles and definitions in political economy. Therefore, visible expression of the abstract relationships, by diagrams, or by any figures [128] which represent the abstract in a concrete form, will be of very considerable service to the average student. This matter seems to me to be of such practical importance in teaching that it will be worth while to illustrate my meaning by a few examples.

(a.) Since material wealth comprises all things that have value; since capital is only that wealth employed in reproduction, and not used by the owner himself; and since money is that part of wealth in circulation aiding in the transfer of goods — the relations between the three may be expressed to the commonest apprehension by some such device as the following, in which the area of circle A represents the total amount of wealth; B, the capital saved out of the total wealth; and C, the money by which goods are transferred—only that part of circle C being capital which, inside of circle B, is being used as a means to production.

Again, (b) it is seen that different classes of laborers, arranged according to their skill, [129] form, as it were, social strata, of which the largest and the poorest paid is composed of the unskilled laborers at the bottom. This may be shown to the eye at once by the section of a triangle, in which A represents the largest and least paid class; B, the better-educated, and relatively more skillful laborers; ending finally in the few at the top, of the most competent executive managers. Now, if A were to become as fully skilled as B, and competition should become free between all members of A and B; and if this were to go on in the same way to include C—the effects of this breaking down of the barriers which hinder competition might be illustrated by the following changes in the above triangle: the areas of A, B, and C may be thrown together into [130] one area within the whole of which movement and choice are perfectly free to the laborer, and wherein wages are in proportion to sacrifice. This can be done by striking out the lines of division between A, B, and C, and representing the change by the area included between the base and the dotted lines.

Examples might be multiplied in illustration of my method, but these must suffice. By such means there can be planted inside even the dull mind an outline of an idea which can then be modeled and shaded to the condition of a natural truth. The teacher will find, by experience, that an idea thus given is very seldom forgotten. The pupil has thus once turned the abstraction into a concrete form, and, after he has once grasped it, he can now [131] use it for himself. It does not at all imply that he will get hard and definite conceptions of human affairs by this process; for he is shown that the principle appears in other forms, and he is constantly seeing that it is so. Having found out how a principle explains one set of facts, he can be led to see its application to other conditions.

7. In close connection with this method, but having an entirely different end in view, is the use of charts and graphic representations of statistics. The method just described above aimed to help in finding concrete expressions for the general principles; but graphic methods usually serve best to assist in that part of the economic process heretofore referred to as verification. There is an abundance of economic facts in regard to which the connection between cause and effect is either unknown or grossly misunderstood. In truth, the subjects to which political economy applies are constantly changing, nay, are even multiplying. These data, after having been collected with great care (which is the duty of the statistician), are the materials for the process [132] of verification. By this “systematized method of observation,” says Cairnes,* “we can most effectually check and verify the accuracy of our reasoning from the fundamental assumptions of the science; while the same expedient offers, also, by much the most efficacious means of bringing into view the action of those minor or disturbing agencies which modify, sometimes so extensively, the actual course of events. The mode in which these latter influences affect the phenomena of wealth is, in general, unobvious, and often intricate, so that their existence does not readily discover itself to a reasoner engaged in the development of the more capital economic doctrines.” In this part of the process graphic representations of statistics are invaluable.

*”Logical Method,” p. 97.

Every one knows the common dislike of dreary statistics; to many persons columns of statistics are repellent or meaningless. Collections of facts regarding banking, finance, taxation, and wages become a tangle in which one’s direction is constantly lost. But arranged graphically the whole direction of a movement [133] is seen at once, and the mind takes in new and unexpected changes, which force an investigation into their cause. Moreover, there comes a certain breadth of treatment, when, in looking at the facts graphically expressed, one is able to see the whole field at once. There is no waste of thought on temporary and accidental movements, for the action is seen from beginning to end at one glance. There are many charts which would illustrate this meaning very distinctly; but perhaps none are simpler than the one here appended, showing the steady and continuous fall in the value of silver relatively to gold since the discovery of the New World. No one has ever claimed that there has been any “unfriendliness” displayed toward silver in the legislation of the chief countries of the world before the present century, at the farthest, and yet the white metal has been steadily on the decline ever since the Spanish galleons, in the fifteenth century, began to pour the precious metals of America into the coffers of Spain.

Another illustration of my meaning can be found in the study of the facts relating to [134]

[135] American shipping. We have heard—until the story is now worn threadbare—of the decline of our tonnage engaged in the foreign carrying trade; we have listened to explanations which attribute this decline wholly to our Civil War, or to the introduction of steam and iron (or steel) ships. But by collating the statistics for sailing-vessels alone, if we separate the question entirely from steam and iron, and compare our situation in regard to sailing-vessels with that before the use of steam— the period of our great shipping prosperity— the comparison gives some curious results. These are shown to the eye at a glance; and it would have been difficult to find them had not this graphic system been applied. The striking facts imperatively call for explanation. We see at once that, practically, to the end of the war our sailing tonnage changed only with the total; and that after 1869 it was the foreign tonnage which then rose and kept a close attendance on the total, while the American figures showed scarcely any relative change. The two lines, representing foreign and American vessels, after a short struggle with each

[136]

Chart showing the Tonnage of Sailing Vessels entered at Seaports of the United States each year, from 1844 to 1883, inclusive.

[137] other exactly changed their relative positions to the line representing the total tonnage. The graphic method lays bare the naked facts for the scalpel of the investigator. The student is then in a position to apply principles and discover explanations. No table of figures, I am convinced, would disclose vital relations in the statistics in the searching way by which it is done with the aid of a few lines on a chart.

In short, the more extended collection of economic data is now rendered possible through the better methods employed in census and statistical bureaus, and the resort to the work of verification of economic principles in the examination of these data is one of the best means by which political economy can be redeemed from the baseless and common charge of being made up of formulas which have no practical use. Into this work one can carry no instrument so effective and helpful as graphic representations. In fact, the investigator, after having collected his tables and columns of figures, will find his gain in first putting them in some graphic form, before he can intelligently see exactly with what he has to grapple; [138] then he can turn his energies directly upon the problems which are disclosed by the chart to every other eye as well as his own.

There are, however, other important gains to be derived from the use of charts by the teacher. Above all, they are interesting. They will attract the idler by something new which he can easily understand, although he can not explain the causes; they stimulate the quick by putting them at once in possession of the facts to be explained. When lecturing upon practical questions, one great difficulty presents itself to the teacher in trying to find the means of laying before his class the actual condition of the subject which is to be investigated. If it were proposed to place the statistics on the blackboard before him, the time of the lecturer would all be lost while the student was copying figures. The references to the books can be given where these figures dealt with by the lecturer are collected, but by a chart long columns of statistics are easily imported into the class-room, become the basis of discussion, and are photographed on the listener’s mind once for all in an attractive and interesting [139] way. The slow and painful work of months is in this way presented to a class in a few minutes, and the practical lessons caught at a glance. For this purpose, charts are the labor-saving machines of statistics.

A word or two as to the details of preparing charts may not be impertinent. They can be made on common glazed white cotton cloth (called sarcenet cambric), which receives ink or water-colors; but the labor of ruling the cloth in squares before the construction of the chart is very considerable. Use can be made, however, of heavy manila paper, made large enough by sticking two large sheets together. Some printers can now rule this paper in squares to suit the convenience of the worker; but these guiding-lines ought to be faint, and not so heavy as to overpower the lines of the chart. The instructor can also have a blackboard ruled with faint white lines, after the manner of co-ordinate paper, in his room, on which he can in half an hour put a simple chart, ready for the coming lecture. Different colored crayons serve the purpose admirably. Students can then use co-ordinate paper in their notes, [140] and draw off an accurate copy of the chart in a few moments, before or after the lecture. This is a necessary course, unless some more feasible method than now exists should be found by the instructor for multiplying copies from his single chart in such numbers as to supply all members of his class.

So far I have been speaking of charts for the class-room. Perhaps, in their own good time, such economic charts can be bought of educational agencies. But ordinary co-ordinate paper, on a small scale, is the best form in which first to construct the chart. It can be purchased in sheets at a small price, and is invaluable for both student and instructor. In fact, no lesson is more stimulating to a class than to give them the data of a subject and ask them to put it into graphic form with the use of such paper. For the first time they begin to realize that statistics are not dry; indeed, any one who has turned over the pages of Walker’s “Statistical Atlas” will find out for himself how the columns of census tables* can [141] talk to him in forms and colors not only without weariness, but with a sense of surprise at the interest they excite.

* Another successful attempt, on an elaborate scale, has been made with the materials of the census of 1880 by Messrs. Gannett and Hewes in Scribner’s “Statistical Atlas of the United States” (1885). [Fletcher Willis Hewes, Henry Gannett. Scribner’s Statistical Atlas of the United States: Showing by Graphic Methods Their Present Condition and Their Political, Social and Industrial DevelopmentCharles Scribner’s Sons, 1884]

8. When the instructor comes to examinations he will find some difficulties in combining an ideal plan with actual conditions. In making out a paper he ought, of course, to keep in view that the questions should be selected so as to test not the memory, but the power of the pupil to apply principles. For this reason the ideal paper should contain nothing which the student has seen in that form before. The facts he is called upon to explain ought to be fresh ones, and the fallacies he is to examine should be such as he had not previously considered. This, however, is not wholly necessary. The explanation of parts of the subject is certain to be difficult enough to warrant questions upon them even if they have been referred to in the class-room many times before. For practical purposes, however, it seems best to remember that a class is composed of all kinds of persons, and, while the majority of [142] the questions should be of the character which I have described, yet at least a few easier and more encouraging questions should be set. In the examination-room the student, moreover, should be instructed to study each question with care, and avoid haste in answering, before he is sure that he has really caught the pivotal point of the question. Fairly good students often write about the question but do not answer it. It should be definitely understood that no credit is to be given for irrelevant answers. Then, also, the examination can be used as a teaching process; since, by inserting an important subject, the attention given to it at these times will be such as to keep it from speedy oblivion. Moreover, it will be well, as soon after the examination as possible, to read a good and a poor answer to each question before the class. They will know better what is expected of them in the future—like troops after their first fight. After such an examination the instructor will find his class much more disciplined and more ready to exert themselves in the intellectual wrestling. The vigorous preparation for the examination has really given [143] them a better grasp of the subject, and the teacher can easily bring on a warm discussion now, because they really know something and feel that they know it. In all this it is understood, of course, that I have had in mind written examinations.

9. When first approaching the study, it has been found to be of service to some minds to suggest that on the first reading of the textbook they note in the margins in a few penciled words the gist of each paragraph as it is read; then, at the close of the chapter, that the reader review it by means of his marginal notes, and, finally, make a general but brief synopsis of the chapter. This will both save time and teach that essential thing—how to study rapidly but thoroughly. It will destroy aimless reading, which is so common in these days of many books.

10. Inasmuch as a vigorous contact of mind with mind on a subject which students are approaching for the first time is necessary to produce something more than a cartilaginous or veal-like quality in their knowledge, it is desirable to stimulate discussion among members of [144] the class outside of the class-room. To accomplish this purpose, I know of no better plan than to recommend students to form temporary clubs of three or four persons to meet two or three times a week for an hour’s discussion of the questions and topics which have been suggested by the text-book, by newspapers, or by facts of every-day observation. Such discussions, if the evil of irrelevancy can be frowned upon, will toughen the intellectual fiber, and give the means also of getting more from the instructor through questions upon difficulties and disagreements which have arisen in the clubs.* Congenial persons might group themselves together in this way with profit to their economic progress, and gain something also in social pleasure of a healthy kind.

* When about twenty, John Stuart Mill met twice a week in Threadneedle Street, from 8.30 to 10 A. M., with a political economy club, composed of Grote, Roebuck, Ellis, Graham, and Prescott, in which they discussed James Mill’s and Ricardo’s books. It was understood that a topic should not be passed by until each member had had full chance for a discussion of his difficulties and objections. In these meetings Mill elaborated whatever he has added to the knowledge of political economy.

11. In advanced courses, much of what has been said in regard to details in the conduct of [145] the class will be less important, because the teaching is necessarily different in kind. Such courses naturally fall either (1) into those which continue to study principles, as in the systems of various writers or schools of political economy in the past and present, or (2) into those which treat historical or practical questions. In the former, the lecture system is unsatisfactory for reasons already given; for the members of the class should themselves be constantly wrestling with the fuller discussion of subjects in which they can hitherto have had only a general knowledge. Experience seems to show that a topic, furnished with references to writers, affords the best method of procedure. This, of course, implies a good working library and a list of reserved books.

In the practical courses a large part of the training consists in teaching the student how to use books, how to familiarize himself with the principal storehouses of statistics, such as the English “Parliamentary Documents,” or our own Government publications; how to collect his materials in a useful form; how to apply graphic representations wherever possible; in [146] brief, to learn how to carry on an investigation in the economic field. Of course, the familiarity with the facts of several of the leading questions of the day will form no small part of the advantage of such work. But the greatest good comes, of course, from putting the student on his own resources at once and forcing him to find his own materials, look up his own books and authorities, and come to a conclusion on the subject assigned to him independently of all aid or suggestion. The instructor can then at the conferences take up a paper for criticism and discussion, or first assign it to another member for that purpose. This is a feasible plan; but, if carried on throughout a whole course, it requires of the student in a regular college course so much time that his other work must suffer, and, in addition, but few subjects can be taken up in this thorough and leisurely way. This plan can be properly carried out only when there are a few persons able to devote their whole time to some economic investigations. In practice it has been found best to use the lecture system partially. One subject can be taken up by the instructor at regular exercises, [147] for which he furnishes beforehand the references, and partly lectures and partly discusses the subject with his class, thus guiding them steadily over the field and directing the disposition of the time to be devoted to each subject. In this way many more subjects can be reached during the year. But the advantages of the investigating method can be partly retained by requiring a monograph from each member of the class on a practical subject of his own selection from a list prepared by the instructor, and this thesis can count for attendance on part of the lecture-work. In this thesis the student is pushed to do his best to give a really serious study to some particular topic, and he is expected to do it independently of any aid beyond general oversight and direction; and he is warned that the paper will be of greater value, provided it contains the bibliography of the subject and constant reference by page and volume to his authorities.

12. The preparation of bibliographies is part of a teacher’s duty. Moreover, he who has access to a rich and well-appointed library can do a service to the rest of his guild by leaving [148] behind him notes of his bookish experiences. He can in a few words say whether a book is good or bad for a particular use, or indicate what part of it contains a valuable discussion or useful facts in a subject within his study. For this purpose it has been a great convenience to have little blank-books of ordinary stiff manila paper, six inches by three, with each sheet perforated like postage-stamps near the butt of the book, so that it can be torn off smoothly. On each page a book can be entered under a suitable heading, with its exact title and author, and room still be left for a very generous amount of criticism or commendation, or for noting the contents of the book. The cards can be laid away alphabetically by subjects in a drawer, and will prove of invaluable aid at many times. Books of which one has heard but never seen, can also be entered with a star, to be erased when a book has been examined. This systematic habit is peculiarly desirable when one is hunting for the facts of a certain subject. By this means one will be saved the loss of time caused by failure to remember where a statement has once been seen.

[149] 13. In the foregoing remarks on methods of teaching political economy, I have kept in mind persons of the age and maturity possessed by usual college students. As a rule, these are the only persons who are given instruction in this subject. Still, knowing as we do the need of simple elementary instruction in political economy in the secondary and high schools, so that younger pupils of less maturity than the college student ought to have good effective teaching, something ought to be said as to the methods which may be serviceable for such classes.

A difficulty with which we are met at the outset is the lack of training among high-school teachers for original and suggestive object teaching in economics. Any scheme, based on such a system, implies the possession of a very considerable economic training by the teachers. What is meant may be seen by the following excellent suggestions for certain parts of the study made by Dr. Ely:*

* In Methods of Teaching and Studying History,” edited by G. Stanley Hall, p. 63.

“The writer has indeed found it possible to [150] entertain a school-room full of boys, varying in age from five to sixteen, with a discourse on two definitions of capital—one taken from a celebrated writer, and the other from an obscure pamphlet on socialism by a radical reformer. As the school was in the country, illustrations were taken from farm-life, such as corn-planting and harvesting, and from the outdoor sports of the boys, such as trapping for rabbits.”

In teaching the functions of money, the following approach to the subject, suggested by the same writer as a means of awakening an interest, is a good one: “Take into the classroom the different kinds of money in use in the United States, both paper and coin, and ask questions about them, and talk about them. Show the class a greenback and a national banknote, and ask them to tell you the difference. After they have all failed, as they probably will, ask some one to read what is engraved on the notes, after which the difference may be further elucidated.”

If the teacher is sufficiently master of the subject to proceed by such ways to acquire a [151] hold on the young pupil he will probably not— as things now go—be found in a high school. It is to be hoped that he may in the future; but, until that is the fact, some more practicable method of teaching must be adopted. Much must, therefore, depend on the text-book. But no fully satisfactory one is available for such purposes. Of existing books the following may be suggested: W. S. Jevons’s “Primer of Political Economy” (1878). This little treatise is marred by the treatment of utility and value; but yet it is a really good sketch of the subject in 134 pages. The teacher can further illustrate the principles to his class by familiar facts, as already explained. The instructor should set forth distinctly in his mind, as a general object to be kept before him, the attempt to leave in the understanding of his pupils some simple principle in each case. If he is talking of capital, the several illustrations should all lead the pupil back to the essential truth which is finally to be stated in general terms. Then, the pupil, when reviewing, should be required to reverse the process, and then called on for principles and asked to illustrate them. The aim of the [152] teacher should be, after awakening interest, not simply to teach some few facts to which economic principles apply, but to try to drive home a few fundamental truths, and exercise the pupil, as far as time and skill allow, in tracing their operation in facts. For economic facts are constantly shifting, while principles do not. A boy taught how properly to view one set of facts about paper money will go all right as long as the conditions remain exactly the same, but when they change he is very badly off for guidance. In elementary teaching, therefore, the teacher should aim at giving a clear comprehension of simple principles, and at offering materials for practice in applying these principles. Much, consequently, which has been said in regard to more mature students will be equally applicable to the teaching of young boys.

In this brief and inadequate way I have attempted to suggest from my own experience what may enable others to avoid difficulties, and possibly to aid in a more rational method of teaching political economy. It is scarcely more [153] probable that what I have said is all new than that others should agree with me throughout in what I have advanced; nor is it unlikely that other teachers may have many other suggestions to make in addition to mine. If my efforts may call them out and aid in better methods of teaching, I shall be amply repaid.

THE END.

 

Source:  J. Laurence Laughlin. The Study of Political Economy: Hints to Students and Teachers. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885. Chapter V (pp. 115-153).

Image Source: From the University of Chicago yearbook Cap & Gown 1907.

Categories
Berkeley Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. Alumna Alice Bourneuf, 1955

 

 

In the continuing series, meet an economics Ph.D. alumnus/a, we have here an obituary for the Harvard Ph.D. (1955), Alice Bourneuf, whose career milestones included early work in the IMF through the building up the economics department at Boston College. Paul Samuelson counted her among Schumpeter’s circle of graduate students at Harvard in the 1930’s.

_____________________

Alice Bourneuf (1912-1980)
Boston College Obituary

Alice Bourneuf, professor emeritus, dies
Instrumental in shaping economics department

Alice E. Bourneuf, Boston College economics professor emeritus, died Dec. 7 in Boston after a long illness. Bourneuf, 68, was the first woman to hold a tenured professorate within the College of Arts and Sciences and was instrumental in making the department of economics the distinguished unit it is today.

President Monan was with Bourneuf in her final moments and was principal celebrant of a memorial Mass at the Chapel of the Most Blessed Trinity, Newton Campus, Dec. 13.

Bourneuf was born in Haverhill on Oct. 2, 1912. Her career in education and public service spanned four decades.

She graduated from Radcliffe in 1933 and continued her studies there, receiving the MA in 1939 and the PhD in 1955. An authority on national and international economies, her main fields of research and writing were macroeconomic theory, money and banking, public finance, business cycles, unemployment and investment.

She participated in the formulation of international monetary plans for the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC from 1942 to 1946. From 1946 to 1948 she conducted research on exchange rates and internal financial problems for the International Monetary Fund. She was senior economist for the Marshall Plan in Norway and France from 1948 to 1953.

After teaching at Mt. Holyoke College and the University of California at Berkeley, Bourneuf joined the BC economics department as a tenured full professor in 1959. She retired in 1977.

Recalling Bourneuf, Assoc. Prof. Harold Peterson (Economics) said she was “one of the two or three people who’ve had a profound influence on my life.” He spoke of how she “revolutionized” and “modernized” the economics program here, bringing in new faculty to help her accomplish the task.

“Hers was a constant struggle,” Peterson added. “She showed us immense courage, both in her life and in her death.”

Prof. Michael Mann (Economics) called Bourneuf “a towering figure at BC.” Mann said she was an inspiration not only to her immediate colleagues, but to the entire university and the community-at-large as well. “Alice set standards for academic integrity—for good work, quality work,” Mann said. “Even those who disagreed with her respected her opinions.”

“The economics department at Boston College is now well-known,” said Harvard economist Richard E. Caves. “It’s rise is primarily attributed to Alice Bourneuf.”

MIT economist Paul Samuelson called Bourneuf “a magnificent person and economist.” Recalling Bourneuf’s recruitment activities on behalf of BC, Samuelson said, “When Alice Bourneuf and (economics professor) Fr. Robert McEwen appeared at American Economic Association conventions, department heads quaked for the ivory they were hoarding.”

In 1976, BC established the Bourneuf Award, which is given annually to the outstanding undergraduate in the field of economics. Bourneuf also received honorary degrees from Boston College (1977) and Regis College (1975) and was the recipient of numerous fellowships and honors during her lifetime. In October 1979 the University dedicated Bourneuf House, offices of the academic vice president. Asked about the honor at that time, Bourneuf said, “I can’t believe it or understand it. They should have named it after some famous person.” She leaves four sisters, two brothers and 18 nieces and nephews.

 

Source:   Boston College Biweekly, Volume 1, Number 8, 18 December 1980, pp. 1,4.

Image Source:  Webpage “Breaking the Mold” at the World Bank/IMF website: The Bretton Woods Institutions turn 60.

Categories
Columbia Cornell Economists M.I.T.

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus, David Durand. Obituary, 1996

 

David Durand’s Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation (degree awarded in 1941) was published as Risk Elements in Consumer Instalment Financing. National Bureau of Economic Research, Financial Research Program, Studies in Consumer Instalment Financing, no. 8. New York: NBER, 1941. He is perhaps best known among economists, as Paul Samuelson notes, for his pioneering empirical work on the yield curve.

David Durand. Basic Yields of Corporate Bonds, 1900-1942. NBER, June 1942.

______________

Prof. David Durand of MIT Dies at 83
February 28, 1996

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.–Dr. David Durand, a professor emeritus of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was an early adherent of applying statistical methods–especially sampling–to problems in corporate finance and other fields, died Monday, Feb. 26, at the MIT Infirmary. Dr. Durand, who lived in Lexington, Mass., was 83.

His family said the cause of death was aplastic anemia.

Raised in Ithaca, N.Y., Dr. Durand received a bachelor of arts degree from Cornell University in 1934, and both a master’s degree (1938) and PhD (1941) from Columbia University. He was a lieutenant in the US Naval Reserve during World War II, serving in the Hawaiian Islands and on Guam.

Before coming to MIT in 1953, he was associated with the National Bureau of Economic Research, then in Riverdale, N.Y., and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University. He also did consulting work for the Twentieth Century Fund and taught part-time at Columbia.

It was at the National Bureau of Economic Research, said MIT economist Dr. Paul A. Samuelson, an Institute professor and Nobel laureate, that Dr. Durand “pioneered the empirical study of how long-term bonds usually require a higher yield than short. Everyone understands that today, but he was the first to document it.”

Dr. Durand’s first appointment at MIT was as a research associate at the Sloan School of Management. He became an associate professor in 1955 and professor in 1958. He retired in 1973.

In addition to the application of statistical methods to financial problems, his fields of specialization included term structure of interest rates and statistics.

His research in finance included a sampling analysis of default experience for consumer installment loans, farm mortgage lending experience and factors affecting bank stock prices.

His work with statistical methodology and techniques involved the early use of punched card equipment for general statistical tabulation as well as for mathematical computation.

He was the author of a textbook, Stable Chaos, as well as numerous articles for professional journals. He was an associate editor of Financial Management for a number of years.

Some of Dr. Durand’s strongly-held views stirred lively debate with other members of the management faculty.

One of his former doctoral students, Don Lewin of Lewin Associates of York, Pa., a consulting firm, said that Dr. Durand “used his keen intellect and statistical knowledge and skills to develop many ideas” and to question whether statistical models matched reality. “Frequently, this did not endear him to those enamored of a model. Indeed, his doubting approach caused him to be often in the center of a controversy.”

In one such case involving the cost of capital, Dr. Durand wrote that two Sloan colleagues who disagreed with him “have cut out for themselves the extremely difficult, if not impossible, task of being pure and practical at the same time. Starting with a perfect market in a perfect world, they have taken a few steps in the direction of realism; but they have not made significant progress…”

Dr. Durand insisted, too, Dr. Lewin said, that the model builder rely heavily on his or her own judgment. In Stable Chaos, Dr. Durand wrote, “Systematic procedures and objective tests serve to strengthen the analyst’s judgment, not to replace it; they enable him to learn more quickly and more effectively from his own experience, and to sharpen his critical faculties.”

Dr. Durand also championed good writing and enlivened some of his own journal articles with intriguing figures of speech. In one, he wrote: “To suppose that any imaginative analyst or responsible financial manager, interested in a comprehensive view, would be content to base an important appraisal and the subsequent investment decision on just one of the many useful numbers available is on a par with supposing that a hungry gourmet at a smorgasbord would be content to make a whole meal of pickled herring…”

Another former student, Dr. Paul D. Berger, professor and department chair in Quantitative Methods & Marketing at the Boston University School of Management, recalls Dr. Durand as “a special teacher and mentor to many students. He had a ‘jolly’ manner about himself that set students at ease and allowed them to enjoy the material he imparted to them. He cared about people and was dedicated to academic integrity and excellence.”

Dr. Durand was a member of the American Economic Association, the Finance Association, the American Society for Quality Control, the American Statistical Association, the Econometric Society, the Biometric Society, the Institute of Mathematical Statistics and the International Association for Statistics in Physical Science.

He leaves his wife, Edith (Elbogen) Durand of Lexington, and a daughter, Marie Durand of Princeton, N.J.

There was no funeral service.

A memorial service will be held in the MIT Chapel on April 13 at 1 PM.

Contributions may be made to Deep Springs College in Dyer, Nev. 89010.

Source:  MIT News. Obituary for Prof. David Durand, February 28, 1996.

Image Source:David Durand portrait at the MIT Museum Website  .

Categories
Columbia Economists Pennsylvania

Columbia. Memorial minute for Professor Henry Seager, 1930

 

Earlier posts dealing with Columbia professor Henry Seager provided his syllabus on the trust problem and a link to his 22-page general lecture on economics from 1907/08. This post provides a report of his death in Kiev from bronchial pneumonia while traveling through the Soviet Union, details from an endowment for economic research in his will, and a memorial minute delivered by his colleague Wesley Clair Mitchell (that probably reveals at least as much about Mitchell as it does about Seager.

_________________

HENRY SEAGER DIES ON TOUR OF RUSSIA
Columbia Spectator.  September 30, 1930.

Professor Henry Roger Seegar [sic], former professor at Columbia, […] died during the Summer vacation period.

Professor Seegar [sic], formerly of the Department of Political Economy, died in Kiev, Russia, in August. He was on tour with twenty-five other economists who were making a study of the Soviet Government’s five-year industrialization plan. After spending some time in France and Germany, the group left for Russia on July 7.

Professor Seegar [sic], was taken ill with bronchial pneumonia a month later. His condition grew worse and several days after the first attack, he died.

Member of Party

One of the leading economists in the country, Professor Seegar [sic],  had been asked to accompany the party which was under the leadership of one of his former pupils, David Ostrinsky. The purpose of the expedition was to study at first-hand the conditions in the Soviet Republic.

[…]

Source:  The Columbia Spectator, Vol. 54, No. 1 (September 25, 1930) p. 8.

_________________

ENDOWMENT GIVEN BY SEAGER’S WILL
Late Professor Leaves Fund for Advancement of Study and Research
Columbia Spectator. October 16, 1930.

A foundation to be known as the Schuyler Fiske Seager Endowment for the Advancement of Economic Study and Research “is to be established at Columbia from the residuary estate of the late Dr. Henry Rogers Seager, Professor of Political Economy here for twenty-five years, according to terms of his will published yesterday. Since the will has not as yet been probated, the total amount of the endowment cannot be ascertained yet, it was learned yesterday at the office of Frederick A. Goetze, Treasurer of the University, who was named executor of the estate.

The will falls in line with a statement recently made by Professor James C. Egbert of the School of Business, who declared in his report to Dr. Butler that an endowment for economic study would be highly desirable. Professor Egbert was of the opinion that such a sum could be used for the formation of a bureau of public utility economics.

Was Noted Economist

Dr. Seager who died this Summer while at the head of a group of economists studying conditions at Kiev, Russia, was known as an outstanding figure in academic economics. He was classed as an authority whose opinion frequently was sought in the practical determination of affairs.

Until the death of the first of seven relatives, the will stipulates, the foundation will not be started. These seven are to receive the residuary income during their lives and upon the death of the survivors the balance of the share of each in the principal is to be added to the fund.

The Trustees of the University have been named trustees of the residuary fund by Dr. Seager and they are to make the payments to the seven beneficiaries, who include his an uncle, an aunt, two nieces and two nephews. Dr. Seager wrote that he was establishing the foundation in memory of his father, Schuyler Fiske Seager, and his son who bears the same name. The will directs the trustees to expend the incom. of the fund each year “for such purposes as they shall deem most likely to contribute to the advancement of economic study and research during such year.”

Source:  The Columbia Spectator, Vol. 54, No. 16 (October 16, 1930) pp. 1,3.

_________________

Memorial minute for Professor Seager

There being no reports from the Standing committees the Faculty proceeded to the election of a Chairman of the Committee on Instruction to succeed Professor Seager. The President [Nicholas Murray Butler] recognized Professor [Wesley Clair] Mitchell, who offered the following resolution:

The Faculty of Political Science records with deep sorrow the loss of one of its most distinguished and best-loved members, Professor Henry Rogers Seager, who died in Kiev, August 23rd, 1930.

Coming to Columbia from the University of Pennsylvania in his thirty-second year, Professor Seager gave his life to those high interests for which universities stand—the increase of knowledge, the training of future investigators, and the effort to raise the level of human life by taking thought. His contributions to economics were characterized by keen analytic insight and by wide acquaintance with actual conditions. No student of labor problems was held in higher esteem by the various interests concerned with that warmly controversial field. His sound judgment, his accurate knowledge, and is impartiality made him equally successful in dealing with the various forms assumed by business organizations and the efforts of government to prevent abuses of corporate powers. As a teacher Professor Seager won the affectionate gratitude of successive generations of students, whom he helped with their personal as well as their intellectual problems. As a colleague, he was generous and just, winning the confidence and the affection of his associates, young and old. As a citizen he was zealous and sensible: working ardently for causes which commanded his sympathy, yet shrewd in planning and efficient in execution—the type of “social reformer” who uses the wisdom of the serpent in the service of noble ideals.

It was characteristic of Professor Seager’s fresh mind and courage at an age when most men relax that he should become an active student of the extraordinary experiment in social reorganization now being conducted in Russia. Popular prejudice had never deterred him from taking a scientist’s interest in any social development and he hesitated as little at sixty as in his youth. Always eager for first-hand knowledge, and eager to share with others, he organized a group of economists to make a tour of inspection in Russia, with the expectation of returning presently for more through researches. It was characteristic also that he should overtax his physical strength in making the most of the opportunities for observation by his companions and himself. He died as he had lived, in the pursuit of knowledge and in the service of others.

The Resolution was adopted by a rising vote of the Faculty…

 

Source:  From the copy of the official minutes of the regular meeting of the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University (October 10, 1930) in Columbia University Archives, Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-29, pp. 656-657.

Image Source: Henry R. Seager (1915) from Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Economists Harvard Radcliffe Swarthmore

Harvard. Wolfgang Stolper describes his training in letter to Hobart College, 1941

 

This post provides Wolfgang Stolper‘s own description of his academic training, teaching and research interests as of early 1941 in a letter to the President of Hobart College regarding his application for an assistant professorship. Stolper’s Harvard coursework for 1934-37 was transcribed for an earlier post. He was on the job market for the 1941-42 academic year after having taught a wide range of courses at Harvard since completing his Ph.D. in 1938. 

Hobart’s offer ended up being only 73% of the offer he was to receive from  Swarthmore (and which he accepted). From the April 29, 1941 letter from President’s office at Swarthmore:  “I realize that the salary which we are offering you [$3300] is considerably under what you have been receiving this year. It is, however, the equivalent of your combined Harvard and Radcliffe salaries for the past two years…” A follow-up letter from the President of Swarthmore College dated May 7, 1941 confirmed the approval of Stolper’s appointment as Assistant Professor of Economics at Swarthmore for 1941-42 at a salary of $3300 ($900 higher than the Hobart offer).

Also of some interest is the rather casual/modest mention of what ultimately was to become Wolfgang Stolper’s greatest hit: “Right now I am finishing another article on Protection and Real Wages.”

________________

Carbon copy of Wolfgang Stolper’s letter
to President of Hobart College

Wolfgang F. Stolper

19 Ware Street
March 18, 1941

Mr. Brooks Otis
Hobart College
Geneva, N.Y.

 

Dear Mr. Otis,

I am writing this letter to you about my background and training, as you suggested at our meeting on March 17. If you think it desirable either you or I can ask the Harvard appointment office to send you all the documents concerning me.

First about my background. I was born in Vienna in May 1912. There I went to elementary school and through the first three years of high school. We then moved to Berlin where I finished high school (humanistisches Gymnasium) in 1930, and where I also studied law for three semesters. I then went to Bonn, where I studied law and economics in about the same proportions. My economics teachers were Professors Spiethoff, who is now retired, H. v. Beckerath, who is now at Chapel Hill, and Schumpeter who is now in Harvard. From Bonn I went to to Zürich where I wrote a thesis under Professor Eugen Grossmann on the reasons, economic and otherwise, which lead the various nations to defend different economic policies during the World Economic Conference in London in 1933.

In August 1934 I came to Harvard as a Holtzer fellow, and I held a University fellowship during the next year 1935/36. Since 1936 I have been teaching. I took somewhat more than the required eight courses, my main interests within the field of economics being: Theory, Money and Banking, Business Cycles, International Economic Relations, and Building.

In May, 1935 I took my M.A., and in May, 1938 I got my Ph.D.. My thesis was on the British housing boom from 1931-36, and its connection with monetary policy in the widest sense.

My teaching experience has been quite extensive, more so, I believe, than that of most of my colleagues. Besides the usual complement of tutees and the principles course I have been giving half of the lectures in the course on International Economic Relations [Econ 43a,  Report of the President of Harvard College 1938-39, p. 98;  Report of the President of Harvard College 1939-40, p. 99;  Report of the President of Harvard College 1940-41, p. 58,], and I am this year assisting Professors Haberler and Hansen in the course on Business Cycles [Econ 45a, Report of the President of Harvard College 1940-41, p. 58]. In Radcliffe College I am also giving a section of the course on principles, half of the course on International Economic Relations, and also half of the course on Business Cycles [Radcliffe College. Courses of Instruction 1940-41, pp. 43, 45.]. This year I was also asked to give a University Extension course on International Economic Relations [Report of the President of Harvard College 1940-41, p. 347].

The list of my publications does not look too impressive. I have published a number of short book reviews in the American Economic Review, a short theoretical article in the Quarterly Journal. My thesis which I have revised and brought up to date will be published by the Harvard University Press. I also just signed a contract with Blakiston Co. to write a text on International Trade together with my friend, Dr. H.K. Heuser who is Professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Right now I am finishing another article on Protection and Real Wages.

Perhaps I should add that I am married and have a ten-year old son.

I hope that this information is what you wanted. My teachers and senior colleagues will of course be glad to give you any information about me which you might want. I need hardly add that I am very interested in the position, and that I, therefore, hope very much to hear from you again in the not too distant future.

Yours very sincerely,

________________

Job Offer to Wolfgang Stolper from Hobart College

HOBART COLLEGE
Geneva, New York

April 29, 1941

The President

 

Mr. Wolfgang F. Stolper
19 Ware Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Dear Mr. Stolper:

I regret to think that more than a month has passed since I talked with you at Cambridge. Doubtless you have gathered that we had entirely lost interest in you in the interim. That is, however, by no means the case. Since we have to appoint three men at this time, a sociologist, a political scientist and an economist we have, necessarily, had to proceed rather slowly. Our major preoccupation so far has not been Economics simply because we have had to concentrate on one thing at a time. We have now, however, reached a point where the Economics appointment is directly concerning us.

I am writing this letter to you to find out more definitely what your expectations would be. The plain fact is that we find that we cannot offer the salary that we should like to. The best thing that we can do for next year in Economics is an Assistant Professorship at twenty-four hundred dollars ($2400.00). I might also add, as I think I said to you personally, that anyone appointed to this position would have considerable freedom in the choice of courses and in the teaching, and a considerable opportunity to influence the operation and planning of the whole Social Science curriculum here in cooperation with his colleagues in Sociology and Political Science,–that is, of course, if he cared to do so.

If it is not too much trouble, would you drop me a line stating whether you would still be interested in the job as outlined above?

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Brooks Otis

BO/bg

________________

Carbon copy of Stolper letter
declining Hobart offer

Wolfgang F. Stolper

19 Ware Street
May 2, 1941

Mr. Brooks Otis
Hobart College
Geneva, N.Y.

 

Dear Mr. Otis,

Thank you very much for your letter of April 29. I regret very much that I have to reject your offer to come to Hobart next year since I have just accepted a position as Assistant Professor at Swarthmore College.

I was very glad to have had a chance of meeting you, and I hope very much that this letter will not be the end of our relationship.

Very truly yours,

 

Source:Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Wolfgang F. Stolper Papers, Box 23, Folder “[illegibly marked]”

Image Source: Wolfgang F. Stolper from  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (Fellow, 1947).

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Gender

Chicago. Ph.D. Alumna, 1927. Mabel Agnes Magee. Professor at Wells College.

 

 

This post provides some biographical material for Mabel Agnes Magee who received her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1927. As I was browsing through Chicago departmental records, I came across her name in a form submitted to hire her as an assistant for three quarters in 1927-28 at a salary of $500. I decided to put on my detective gumshoes and see what I could find about her pre- and post-Chicago life. From at least 1930 (U.S. Census) through her retirement, she taught at the sister college to Cornell, Wells College.  Mabel Magee was born in Massachusetts, did her undergraduate studies at Simmons College, received an M.A. from Columbia University, taught briefly at Wheaton College in Massachusetts, went on Chicago for her Ph.D. in economics. So except for her graduate training at Columbia and Chicago, Mabel Magee spent her academic life entirely in women’s colleges. She is mentioned in Wade L. Thomas’ “A Brief History of the New York State Economics Association” (New York Economic Review, Fall 2011) as the host of meetings at Wells College in May 1948 that constituted the beginning of the “Central New York Economics Conference” that was the predecessor to the New York State Economics Association.

Mabel Magee retired from Wells College to DeBary, Florida, a town just north of Orlando. I have found no indication that she either married or had children. Also, up to now I have not been able to determine when she died. 

__________________

AEA Listing, 1957

MAGEE, Mabel Agnes, Box 469, DeBary, Fla. (1925) Wells Col., prof. emeritus, teach., gov. serv.; b. 1889; B.S., 1912, Simmons Col.; M.A., 1920, Columbia; Ph.D., 1927, Chicago. Fields 14abd, 8, 2b. Doc. dis. Women’s clothing industry of Chicago: study of labor relations. Pub. Trends in location of women’s clothing industry (Univ. of Chicago, 1931); “Constitutional and statutory limitations on local taxation,” 1936, 1938, 1944, “Constitutional and statutory provisions regarding local property taxation,” Tax Systems. Res. Role of federal property its local finance. Dir. Dir. of Amer. Schol.

 

Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, Handbook of the American Economic Association (Jul., 1957), p. 186.

__________________

1912 Simmons Yearbook,  Microcosm

[Portrait and signature], 698 Salem Street, South Groveland, Massachusetts. Groveland High School.

Source: Simmons College. Microcosm 1912, p. 66.

__________________

1923 Wheaton College 1923, Nike

Mabel Agnes Magee was listed as instructor in economics and history in the department of economic and sociology at Wheaton College

[Education] B.S. Simmons College; A.M. Columbia University.

[Previous Employment] Registrar’s Assistant, Simmons College; Private Secretary to president of South End National Bank, Boston; Teller at Haverhill National Bank; Private Secretary to William J. Mack, Impartial Chairman and Arbitrator Ladies’ Garment Industry, Cleveland, Ohio.

Source: Wheaton College yearbook Nike 1923  (edited by class of 1924, Wheaton College), p. 16.

__________________

Miscellaneous Facts Drawn from U.S. Census Reports

1900.  Born December 1889.

1910.  Home on Salem Street in Groveland, Massachusetts. Parents: John and Hannah Magee, born in Canada and Massachusetts, respectively. Two brothers: George and Edward L. Magee.

1920.  [same information, without brother George in household, note: last name incorrectly transcribed as “Magie”]

1930. Home on Main Street South in Ledyard, New York. Occupation “Teacher” at Wells College. Head of household: Anne C. Jones (34 yrs). Also residing there: Mariam R. Small (31 yrs), Elisabeth G. Kimball (30 yrs), and Andrew McGardon (47 yrs).

__________________

From other AEA published membership information

1928. Address given at Faculty Exchange, University of Chicago.

1938. Institutional affiliation given as Wells College.

1948. Institutional affiliation given as Wells College.

1966. No longer included in AEA membership directory.

__________________

 Foreign travel

1952. Arrived in New York City from Amsterdam on a KLM flight on August 25.

1961. Arrived in New York City from Paris on Lufthansa 806. U.S. address given as 12 Estiella [sic, Estrella] Road, Debory [sic, DeBary], Florida.

Source:  From ancestry.org’s immigration and emigration data base.

__________________

 

Image Source:  Senior portrait of Mabel Agnes Magee in the Simmons College Yearbook, Microcosm 1912, p. 66.