Category: Pennsylvania

Categories
Economists Gender Johns Hopkins Pennsylvania

John Hopkins. Economics Ph.D. alumna Peggy Richman née Brewer, later Musgrave. 1962

 

Assortative mating is often observed among the Econ. The last post was dedicated to the Harvard economics Ph.D. alumnus, Richard Abel-Musgrave (1937) and what was good for that gander should be presumed to be good for today’s goose as well, meaning here, the Johns Hopkins economics Ph.D. alumna (1962) and future spouse of Richard Musgrave, Peggy Brewer Musgrave.

The official obituary reproduced in this post comes from the collection of emeriti obituaries at the University of California, Santa Cruz. I casually note that we discover that the young Englishwoman Peggy Brewer worked in the O.S.S. during World War II. I presume if there were more to her service than being a desk jockey in an analytic or clerical capacity, a story would have found its place in the obituary.

Let us note that Peggy Richman née Brewer, later Musgrave, received her Ph.D. at age thirty-eight…Nevertheless she persisted! And she succeeded both personally and professionally.

______________________

Johns Hopkins Dissertation

Peggy (Brewer) Richman. Taxation of Foreign Investment Income: An Economic Analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963. Based on the author’s Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1962.

______________________

University of California, Santa Cruz
Obituary

Peggy B. Musgrave
(1924-2017)

Professor Emerita Peggy B. Musgrave has died in New Jersey, at the age of 93. Born in Maldon, England in 1924, Peggy’s parents, Herbert and Blanche Brewer, were of modest means. Her father, however, was a self-taught intellectual; one whose writings had attracted the attention of George Bernard Shaw and Sir Norman Angell, among others. Surrounded, as she was, by his books on science, natural history, and philosophy, it was inevitable that her own intellectual curiosity would lead her to pursue a life of academic research and scholarship; she wasted no time. At the age of eleven, she passed the entrance examination to the local Grammar School, and at eighteen matriculated to Cambridge University, the first student from her school to have done so; in celebration, the school was given a holiday.

Unfortunately in 1944, in the midst of WWII, Peggy’s approaching Cambridge graduation was short-circuited by conscription into war service. Consequently, she served in the American OSS until the end of the war, in London, and it is there that she met and married a fellow OSS officer, and moved to the U.S.

Following a stint at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Peggy concurrently completed her B.A. and M.A. in economics at American University in Washington D.C., and shortly thereafter an economics PhD. at Johns Hopkins; her thesis was published in book form. Also, during this time she worked as a summer intern at both the Federal Reserve and the International Tax Division of the Treasury Dept.

She began her professional life as a senior research associate at Columbia University and a member of a study group on economic integration in Common Markets headed by Prof. Carl Shoup. The mid-sixties found her teaching international economics at the University of Pennsylvania, where she had been appointed as an assistant professor. It was at this point that Peggy was with her second husband, soul-mate and love of her life, Richard A. Musgrave, who was then teaching at Princeton University. Now together, they moved to Cambridge, MA., where he had taken up the H.H. Burbank Professorship in public economics at Harvard. Peggy then joined the International Tax Program at the Harvard Law School where she produced further publication.

Peggy continued her academic career, first as an associate and then full professor at Northeastern University in Boston; and it was at this point that she and Richard, full-bore academic collaborators, were invited to San Francisco as visiting Ford Research Professors at Berkeley; and while working at Berkeley, the University of California offered the professorship at Santa Cruz. She served at UCSC until 1992, and was heavily involved in both teaching and administration. She was provost of Crown College at UCSC from July 1, 1987-1989.

Her husband, the noted scholar on public finance, then retired from Harvard, also spent two years as an adjunct professor at UCSC. He died in 2007 at the age of 96.

Peggy’s economics scholarship followed from her principal interest in the taxation of foreign investment; a subject concerning which she testified at several Congressional hearings; and about which she wrote a white paper for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

She was a member of the American Economic Association, the National Tax Association, and was an Honorary member of the International Institute of Public Finance; as well, an honorary board member of the Center for Economic Studies at the University of Munich. The International Institute of Public Finance (IIPF) created the “Peggy and Richard Musgrave Prize” in 2003 to honor and encourage younger scholars whose work meets the high standards of scientific quality, creativity and relevance that has been a mark of the Musgraves’ contribution to public finance.

Peggy is survived by three children, Pamela Clyne of New Jersey, Roger Richman of Malibu, Ca., and Thomas Richman, of Boulder, Co., four grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. Her ashes will be buried with those of her husband and his father in Cambridge, MA. The memorial will be private.

Source (and image): From the emeriti obituaries collection at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Categories
Exam Questions Pennsylvania Syllabus

Pennsylvania. Theories of business cycles. Reading assignments and exam. Weintraub, 1954-55.

 

The following list of course reading assignments and final exam come from the first semester of Sidney Weintraub’s course at the University of Pennsylvania during the academic year 1954-55 that surveyed business cycle theories. There are an additional two pages of added readings in Weintraub’s papers but I accidentally missed copying the first page and will need to add that list later. 

I found a copy of the final exam for the second semester of the course, appended below, that reveals the more empirical emphasis of the second semester. Hopefully we will find a copy of the syllabus for the second semester.

_______________________

Brief Bio

Sidney Weintraub (1914-1983) was an American economist and a professor who specialized in the post-Keynesian school of economics. He was best known for his proposal to use the federal income tax to discourage wage and price inflation in a tax-based incomes policy (TIP). Raised in New York, Weintraub studied at the London School of Economics before being forced to return to the United States at the outbreak of World War II. He earned his Ph.D. from New York University in 1941, and began teaching economics at St. John’s University following the war. He joined the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1950, where he remained for the rest of his career. Weintraub also founded and co-edited the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics.

Weintraub married Sheila Ellen Weintraub and had two sons, E. Roy and A. Neil Weintraub. E. Roy Weintraub is an economics professor at Duke University.

Source: Preliminary Guide to the Sidney Weintraub Papers. Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Project.

_______________________

ECONOMICS 612
Theories of Business Cycles
Fall Term 1954-55

Assignment Sheet

The first semester will be devoted to a study of theories of business fluctuations with readings largely confined to original sources. Classroom discussion will center upon the logical structure of the theories. The added references constitute suggestions for further reading on the specific topics but are not a prerequisite for the particular class session.

Session 1. Introduction: Early Cycle Theory.
Session 2. Underconsumption and Overinvestment theories.

a. Underconsumption theories: John Hobson, The Industrial System, pp. 39-54, 284-301;
W. T. Foster and W. Catchings, Profits, pp. 247-282, 398-421.

b. Overinvestment theories: A. Spiethoff, “Business Cycles”, in International Economic Papers(No. 3), pp. 75-81, 147-171;
Gustav Cassel, in Hansen and Clemence [H. and C.], Readings in Business Cycles, pp. 116-128.
Session 3. Psychological Impulse and Cumulative Propagation.

A.C. Pigou, Industrial Fluctuations, pp. 26-35, 72-98;
Albert Aftalion, in H. and C., Readings, pp. 129-138.
Session 4. Wesley Mitchell: Eclecticism and Quantitative Verification.

W. Mitchell, Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting, pp. 47-60, 376-378, 451-468 and pp. 150-165 in H. and C., Readings: “What Happens During Business Cycles,” pp. 6-12, 251-255.
Also, A. F. Burns, Frontiers of Economic Knowledge, pp. 187-198.
Read Schumpeter, Vol. I, Ch. 2
Session 5. Monetary Disequilibrium.

Warburton, [“The Misplaced Emphasis in Contemporary Business Fluctuation Theory”, in] Readings in Monetary Theory [1951].
R. G. Hawtrey, “The Trade Cycle”, pp. 330-349 in AEA Readings in Business Cycle Theory.
F. A. Hayek, Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle, Ch. 3 and Prices and Production (2nded.) pp. 65-88.
Session 6. Swedish Contributions: The Cumulative Process.

K. Wicksell, “The Enigma of Business Cycles”, in International Economic Papers (Vol. 3), pp. 58-74.
J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, pp. 283-302.
Session 7. Innovations and Investment Irregularity.

J. Schumpeter, pp. 1-19 in AEA Readings in Business Cycle Theory. (Also, Clemence and Doody, The Schumpeterian System, pp. 9-22, 95-101).
D. H. Robertson, pp. 166-174 in H. and C., Readings.
Session 8. Long Waves and Cycles.

N. Kondratieff, pp. 20-42 in AEA, Readings;
G. Garvy, pp. 438-466 in H. and C., Readings.
Session 9. J. M. Keynes: Income Levels and Cycles.

J. M. Keynes, General Theory, Ch. 22.
Session 10-11. Neo-Keynesian Theories.

J. R. Hicks, The Trade Cycle.
Session 12. Econometric Theories.

T. C. Koopmans, “The Econometric Approach to Business Fluctuations” AEA (Proc. May 1949).
Session 13. Economic Trends and Cycles.

S. Kuznets, Economic Change, pp. 125-144.
A. F. Burns, Frontiers, pp. 107-134.
Session 14-15. Contemporary Critiques of Cycle Theory.

R. A. Gordon, “Business Cycles: The Quantitative Historical Approach”, AEA(Proc. May 1949), pp. 47-63.
C. Warburton, “The Theory of Turning Points in Business Fluctuations”, QJE(Nov. 1950); see , [“The Misplaced Emphasis in Contemporary Business Fluctuation Theory”, in]  Readings in Monetary Theory.
A. Knox, “On a Theory of the Trade Cycle”, pp. 267-277 in H. and C., Readings;
N. Kaldor, “Economic Growth and Cyclical Fluctuations”, Economic Journal(Mar. 1954).

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Sidney Weintraub Papers, Box 19, Folder 1a “Miscellany Notes”.

_______________________

Final Examination.
Economics 612.
January 1955

Answer all questions.

  1. In which theories do you find the view that business cycles are chiefly a manifestation of capitalist growth? Explain the individual analyses and differences at some length.
  2. Referring to (1), indicate the theories in which the growth aspect is either ignored or denied, and the reasons for its suppression.
  3. Irving Fisher declared: “I see no reason to believe in “the” business cycle. It is simply the fluctuation about its own mean.” Discuss.
  4. Lloyd Metzler wrote: “Traditional theory usually assumed that the economic system is inherently unstable……” argue, pro and con.
  5. There have been several attempts to place causal emphasis on agriculture as the cycle-maker. Explain the major ones briefly. Prepare the strongest possible argument for the agricultural thesis.
  6. Wesley Mitchell placed substantial stress on the lag of retail prices behind wholesale prices, as well as the failure of wages to move synchronously with finished goods prices. Do you think that these divergent price movements are major cycle factors? Why?

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Sidney Weintraub Papers, Box 15, Folder 16 “Miscellany Notes”.

_______________________

Economics 612
Final Exam
June 3, 1955
11:00-1:30

Answer 3 out of 4

  1. a. Discuss the major conceptual and statistical limitations of the national income and product data published by the U. S. Department of Commerce.
    b. Describe and evaluate the National Bureau of Economic Research approach to the measurement and forecasting of business cycles.
  2. a. Discuss the major factors which might be expected to affect individuals’ saving and the relevant empirical evidence from cross-sectional data.
    b. Describe and appraise the major statistical relationships which have been developed to explain fluctuations or variations in individuals’ saving.
  3. Summarize and evaluate the empirical evidence on the factors determining the demand for (a) plant and equipment and (b) inventories.
    In your answer indicate briefly the economic rationale of the statistical relationships you refer to.
  4. a. Write out a system of equations which on the basis of experience to data you might utilize to forecast economic activity for the next year, indicating both limitations and possible future improvements.
    b. Discuss and evaluate the types of models developed by Lawrence Klein and others.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Sidney Weintraub Papers, Box 19, Folder 1a “Miscellany Notes”.

Image Source: Gonçalo L. Fonseca’s The History of Economic Thought Website: biography of Sidney Weintraub.

Categories
Funny Business Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. Share of doctoral dissertations by field that used (cited?) foreign language titles, 1954-55

The previous post included a column from a table that ranked economics graduate programs in 1957 included in the appendix to a study written at the University of Pennsylvania that also included the following table. 

I cannot help but tweak an old joke,

What do you call a graduate student who knows three languages?…Trilingual.
What do you call a graduate student who knows two languages?…Bilingual
What do you call a graduate student who knows one language?…An American economics graduate student.

(I’ll show myself out…)

_____________________

Before economists stopped writing their Ph.D. dissertations in English…

A study of the doctoral dissertations accepted [at the University of Pennsylvania] in 1954-1955 shows the extent to which foreign language titles were used in the preparation of the dissertation.

Foreign languages

 100%
Linguistics

80%

Natural Sciences

 77%
Political Science

58%

History

 50%
English

43%

Education

 33%
Behavioral Sciences

21%

Economics

17%

Source:  Hayward Keniston. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (January 1959), p.95.

Image Source: Cover of English Sounds for Foreign Tongues: A Drill Book by Sarah Tracy Barrows (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1918).

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

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

 

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

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

Anyhow without further apology…

______________________

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

______________________

From Keniston’s Appendix (1959)

Standing of
American Graduate Departments
in the Arts and Sciences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

OVER-ALL STANDING
(Total Scores)

1925

1957

1.

 Chicago

1543

1.

 Harvard

5403

2.

 Harvard

1535

2.

 California

4750

3.

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

4094

5.

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

3495

7.

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

2453

9.

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

1934

11.

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

1442

13.

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

1366

15.

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

1249

17.

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

874

19.

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

759

 

ECONOMICS

1925

1957
1. Harvard 92 1. Harvard

298

2.

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

241

4.

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

196

6.

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

184

8.

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

174

10.

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

70

12.

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

66

14.

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

32

16.

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

31

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

 

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

 

 

Categories
Economists Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. A protectionist professor forced to leave the Wharton School, Robert Ellis Thompson, ca 1894

 

 

More and more universities are putting digitized, searchable copies of the student newspaper online. Up to now I have made ample use of the archives of the Harvard Crimson, the Columbia Spectator, and the U of M Daily. While sampling the Yale Daily News archive, I came across the name of a guest lecturer from the University of Pennsylvania, Robert Ellis Thompson in the January 28, 1885 issue.

It was reported that Thompson had been instructor, then assistant professor of mathematics before receiving “a chair of Social Science”. Thompson was also reported to have just delivered a course of lectures on the subject of “Protection” at Harvard. Wondering why I had not come across (or noticed) his name before, I reached for volume three of Joseph Dorfman’s Economic Mind in American Civilization, and came up with relatively little:

…there was general agreement in the academic world on most major [economic] issues. The one exception was the question of the tariff, but even here, by the end of the period, only one leading Eastern institution and a few Midwestern state universities could be said to be clearly protectionist. The one was the University of Pennsylvania, where the Reverend Robert Ellis Thompson (1844-1924), professor of social science, held to Carey’s views throughout, even on money.*

*Robert Ellis Thompson’s Social Science and National Economy (Philadelphia: Porter-Coates, 1875), was promoted far and wide by the powerful protectionist Industrial League of Pennsylvania. For biographical detail, see “Memorial Meeting in Honor of Robert Ellis Thompson,” The Barnwell Bulletin, February 1925, pp. 3-23; James H. S. Bossard, “Robert Ellis Thompson, Pioneer Professor in Social Science,” The American Journal of Sociology, September 1929, pp. 239-49.

Source:  Joseph Dorfman. The Economic Mind in American Civilization. Vol 3, 1865-1918 (New York: Viking Press, 1949), p. 80, bibliographic notes p. xvi.

___________________________

Sketch of Life and Career of Robert Ellis Thompson

The University of Pennsylvania archives provides the following sketch of Robert Ellis Thompson’s life and career. One’s curiosity is naturally aroused by the indication that Thompson had been eased/forced out of his professorship by the Provost. Was there a political/philosophical issue involved? Plot-spoiler: Thompson appears to have been at cross-purposes with the direction of the Wharton School of Finance and Economy and his way or the highway led to an off-ramp into a very successful, 27-year second career as president of Central High School in Philadelphia for him.
On the founding of the Wharton School, see Chapter 8  of Edgar Potts Cheyney’s History of the University of Pennsylvania 1740-1940 , esp. pp. 288-293. This reference and more detail about the Penn economics department are found at Gonçalo L. Fonseca’s History of Economic Thought Website. 

Robert Ellis Thompson
1844 – 1924

  • A.B. 1865, A.M. 1868, D.D. (hon.) 1887
  • Member of Zelosophic Society and University Chess Club
  • Phi Beta Kappa, class salutatorian, and Junior English Prize recipient
  • Professor of mathematics, social science, history, and English literature

Born in Lurgan, County Down, Ireland, on April 15, 1844, Robert Ellis Thompson was the son of Samuel and Catherine Ellis Thompson. The family came to Philadelphia when Robert was thirteen years old.

Thompson entered the University as a freshman in the Class of 1865 and served as class historian in his sophomore year. During his college years he was a member of the Zelosophic Society and the University Chess Club. He was also a Phi Beta Kappa honoree, recipient of the Junior English Prize, and the class salutatorian.

Thompson’s degrees from the University of Pennsylvania included an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in 1887. Additionally, he earned a Ph.D. from Hamilton College in 1879 and received a LL.D. from Muhlenberg College in 1909.

A Presbyterian clergyman and educator, Thompson began teaching at the University of Pennsylvania in 1868 as an instructor in mathematics; in 1871 he was promoted to an assistant professor of mathematics. From 1874 until 1883 he taught at Penn as professor of social science, and then from 1883 to 1893, he was John Welsh Centennial Professor of History and English Literature. During these years, Thompson lectured at Harvard and Yale from 1884 to 1887 and also at the Princeton Theological Seminary. Thompson was editor of Penn Monthly from 1870 to 1880, and of The American from 1881 to 1892. He published Social Science and National Economy in 1875, and also served as editor for the first two volumes of the Encyclopedia Americana, a supplement to the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1883 to 1885.

In 1892 Provost William Pepper (nephew of Class of 1865 classmate John Sergeant Gerhard) requested Thompson’s resignation from the John Welsh Chair of History and English Literature. Thompson refused to resign and also declined a proposed transfer to a chair of biblical literature, American church history, and industrial history. Eventually however, he was unsuccessful in the attempt to keep his job and, in 1894, took over the presidency of Central High School in Philadelphia. He remained there for twenty-seven years until he was forced out of this post under a state law which fixed the retirement age for teachers at seventy years. He was an outspoken defender of labor unions (1911) and proponent of female suffrage, predicting in 1911 that a woman would be elected mayor of Philadelphia by 1961. He married Mary Neely in 1874. She died in 1894, while Robert Ellis Thompson died on October 19, 1924 in Philadelphia.

Source: Robert Ellis Thompson (1844-1924). University of Pennsylvania. University Archives & Record Center. Web series “Penn People”.

___________________________

Selection of publications by Robert Ellis Thompson
[results of a relatively casual bibliographic search]

Books

Social Science and National Economy (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1875).

Thompson’s Social Science and National Economy, reviewed. Penn Monthly, Vol. 6 (September 1875), pp. 692-698.

Third, revised edition published as Elements of Political Economy with Especial Reference to the Industrial History of Nations (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1882).

Relief of Local and State Taxation through Distribution of the National Surplus. [Series of revised articles in The American.] Philadelphia: Edward Stern & Co., 1883.

Protection to Home Industry. Four lectures delivered to Harvard University, January, 1885. (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1886)

De Civitate Dei—the Divine Order of Human Society. Princeton Stone Lectures (Philadelphia: John D. Wattles, 1891).

Syllabus of a Course of Six Lectures on Money and Banking. University Extension Lectures, Series D, No. 3. American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, 1894. [Transcription at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror]

Political Economy for High Schools and Academies. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1895.

A History of the Presbyterian Churches of the United States. New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1895.

The History of the Dwelling-House and its Future. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1914.

 

Articles published in Penn Monthly

The Old Education. Vol. 1 (February 1870), pp. 52-60.

A Current Revolution.  Vol. 1 (April 1870), pp. 121-130.

Ulster in America. Vol. 1 (June 1870), pp. 202-209.

Harbaugh’s Harfe. [Review of Gedichte in Pennsylvanisch-Deutscher Mundart von H. Harbaugh] Vol. 1 (August 1870), pp. 202-286.

The Three Arches. Vol. 1 (September 1870), pp. 202-329.

The Protective Question Abroad. Vol. 1 (Nov. 1870), pp. 436-440.

The Revision of the Old Testament. Vol. 2 (January 1871), pp. 44-52.

Zeisberger’s Mission to the Indians. [Review of Edmund de Schweinitz’s The Life and Times of David Zeisberger, the Western Pioneer and Apostle to the Indians] Vol. 2 (February 1871), pp. 97-106.

The Race and the Individual in their Parallel Development. Vol. 2 (May 1871), pp. 250-263.

The German Mystics as American Colonists.—I. Vol. 2 (August 1871), pp. 391-403.

The German Mystics as American Colonists.—II. Vol. 2 (September 1871), pp. 443-451.

The German Mystics as American Colonists.—III. Vol. 2 (October 1871), pp. 487-497.

Darwin on his Travels. [Review of second American edition of  the Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Round the World] Vol. 2 (November 1871), pp. 562-572.

The Origin of Free Masonry. [Review of G.. W. Steinbrenner’s The Origin and Early History of Masonry] Vol. 2 (December 1871), pp. 617-626.

Some German Critics of Adam Smith. [unsigned, perhaps Thompson] Vol. 3 (Nov. 1872), pp. 586-96.

Review of E. Dühring’s Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie und des Socialismus. Vol. 3 (Nov. 1872), pp. 631-33.

The Communisms of the Old World. Vol. 5 (January 1874), pp. 12-28

The Teutonic Mark. [This article is in great measure supplementary of the series on “The Communisms of the Old World.”] Vol. 5 (August 1874), pp. 557-578.

Prof. Cairnes on Political Economy. Vol. 5 (September 1874), pp. 637-750

The Economic Wrongs of Ireland. Vol. 5 (October 1874), pp. 713-750

Communism and Serfdom in Russia. Vol. 5 (November 1874), pp. 791-808

National Education.—IV. Vol. 6 (May 1875), pp. 327-341

Carey and Ricardo in Europe. Vol. 8 (July 1877), pp. 548-557.

Recent Economic Literature. Vol. 8 (December 1877), pp. 956-968.

Is Christianity on the Wane among Us?. Vol. 9 (January 1878), pp. 45-65.

Use and Abuse of Examinations. [L. Wiese, German Letters on English Education, 1854 and 1876] Vol. 9 (May 1878), pp. 379-400.

De Laveleye’s Primitive Property. Vol. 9 (August 1878), pp. 620-633.

How It Strikes a Stranger. [Review of Hermann Grothe, Die Industrie Amerikas] Vol. 9 (October 1878), pp. 782-793.

The Commercial Future. Vol. 9 (November 1878), pp. 869-889.

My Neighborhood as a Starting-Point in Education. [Substance of an Address delivered before the National Educational Association, July 31, 1879] Vol. 10 (September 1879), pp. 664-676.

The Proposed Franco-American Treaty. Vol. 10 (October 1879), pp. 772-778.

Henry Charles Carey. [Memorial] Vol. 10 (November 1879), pp. 816-834. Frontpiece.

The Silver Question in England. Vol. 11 (January 1880), pp. 64-74.

Spiritualism in Germany. Vol. 11 (February 1880), pp. 97-117.

The Issues of the Campaign. Vol. 11 (August 1880), pp. 630-649.

Lessons of Social Science in the Streets of Philadelphia. Vol. 11 (December 1880), pp. 919-941.

The Future of our Public School System. Vol. 12 (April 1881), pp. 282-292.

 

Image Source: Robert Ellis Thompson, ca. 1880. University of Pennsylvania. University Archives & Record Center. Web series “Penn People”.

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Harvard Michigan Pennsylvania Salaries

Chicago. Instructional Staff Salaries by Rank, 1919

 

The following transcription of a draft copy of a report on the University of Chicago salary scale for instructional staff from ca. 1919 is interesting because it begins with a brief chronology of the salary scale from the founding of the University of Chicago to the time of the report. Since pay raises were being recommended, figures are given for other universities for comparison. The ratio between a Head professor to a beginning assistant professor was 3.5 to 1 during the early years of the University of Chicago. The compression was relatively minor by 1919, with the committee recommending a ratio of 3.33 to 1. For nearly  the first thirty years the top salary for a professor at the University of Chicago was $7000.

Handwritten additions to the draft are indicated by the use of italics in the transcription that follows.

________________

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SALARY SCALE

The Board of Trustees,
The University of Chicago,

Gentlemen:

The Committee appointed at the May meeting of the Board herewith submits the following report on the scale of salaries in the teaching staff of the University with recommendations for the modifications of the same.

At the time of the organization of the University in the autumn of 1891, the following scale of salaries was informally determined:

Head Professor, $4000, to $5000.
Professor, $3000.
Associate Professor, $2500.
Assistant Professor, for a four year term, $2000.
Instructor, for a three year term, $1200, $1400, $1600.
Associate, for a two year term, $1000, $1100.

            In the minutes of the Board there is no record of this definite scale, which the various actions recorded implied. At the November meeting, 1891, the salary of the Head Professors was fixed at $6000. At the December meeting, 1891, it was increased to $7000. This change in the salary of a Head Professor, was due to obvious circumstances connected with securing suitable men for the new institution. No change was made in the rest of the scale.

In 1894 and thereafter new Head Professors were appointed, but on the original scale of $4000 to $5000. It thus appears, although not specifically recorded in the minutes of the Board, that the $7000 salaries were merely adapted at the organization of the University as a temporary expedient.

In 1907 the salary question was again taken into consideration by the Board. It was plain that the salary of a Professor, $3000, was too low, and that a general reorganization was desirable. At the meeting of the Board in December, 1907, it was tentatively agreed, 1st: that for members of the permanent staff in each of the three grades a maximum and a minimum salary shall be fixed, and that for any individual within those grades the exact salary paid shall depend, not on the time of service, but on the discretion of the Board, and, 2nd: that for members of the Faculty appointed for a term of years, a maximum and a minimum salary shall be fixed, with advances depending on term of service.

At the meeting of the Board in January, 1908, the following salary scale was enacted:

Heads of Departments, maximum [sic] $4000, minimum [sic], $6000.
Professors not Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $4500.
Associate Professor, Minimum, $2500; Maximum, $3000.
Assistant Professor, four years, $2000; On reappointment, $2500.
Instructors, three years, $1200, $1400, $1600; On reappointment, $1800.
Associates, two years, $1000 to $1200.

*  * *  *  *  *

            At the meeting of the Board in January, 1911, it was voted that thereafter the administration of Departments should ordinarily be conducted by a chairman, to be appointed by the President, to serve three years, at the end of which term a new Chairman shall be appointed or the same one reappointed.

At the meeting in February, 1908, action was taken ratifying the action of the Trustees of the Baptist Theological Union, of the previous day. Scale of salaries in the Divinity School was enacted as follows:

Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3500; Maximum, $4500.
Professors not Heads of Departments, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $4000.

            The remaining scale as in the Faculties of Arts, Literature, and Science.

It was also voted that salaries paid or ranks given to members of a Department shall be determined without reference to the method of departmental administration, and that whenever the interest of the University seems to make it desirable, more than one person in the same Department may be given the maximum rank and salary.

Considering conditions relative to the cost of living, it becomes desirable now in all institutions of learning so far as practicable to provide larger salaries. This matter is receiving similar consideration throughout the country. In the University of Michigan the State Legislature made an additional appropriation of $300,000.00 at its last session for the purpose of increasing salaries. The scale was altered for Professors from the former rate of minimum $2500 and maximum $4000, to a minimum of $3200 and a maximum usually of $5000. Several have been advanced to $5500, and a small number to $6000. The increase in the salaries of Professors has reached an average of approximately 25%. Associate Professors have been advanced from a scale of $2100 to $2400, to a scale of $2800 to $3100, the advance in individual cases being about twenty five percent.

Assistant Professors are advanced from a scale of $1500 to $2000, to a scale of $2200 to $2700, the increase being about 30%.

Instructors are advanced from a scale of $900 to $1600, to a scale of $1300 to $2100, an increase of about 30%.

In Yale University the salary of an Associate Professor isadvanced to $3500, being about 30% increase. The salary of Assistant Professors isadvanced to $2500 for three years and $3000 for two additional years, or about 20%. Instructors for four years have salaries ranging from $1250 to $2000, at an increase of 25%. In the Law School the maximum for Professors isadvanced from $7000 to $7500. The present scale for Professors is at a minimum of $4000 and a maximum of $6000. It is intended to increase that in the autumn at a probable rate of about 25% in individual cases. The new maximum is therefore not yet enacted.

In Harvard the present scale of Professors salaries has a minimum of $4000 and a maximum of $5500; Associate Professors at $3500—after five years service—$4000; Assistant Professors, for the first five years, $2500, for the second five years, $3000; Instructors ranging from $1000 to $1500. Harvard is engaged in a plan for raising an $11,000,000 endowment, the greater part of which is to be used for salaries.

Columbia University has not an exact scale. Professors’ salaries range from $4000 to $15,000. There are twenty receiving a salary of $6000, eight a salary of $6500 to $7000. Those whose salaries are above $7000 are mostly in professional schools. There are thirty with a salary of $5000. No immediate change in the salary scale is contemplated.

In the University of Pennsylvania the maximum for a full time professorship is $8000. As a matter of fact there are very few whose salaries are $6000, or more. It is intended to make an increase of 20% for all receiving $4000 or $6000, 10% for all receiving over $6000, and 20% for all receiving less than $4000. This increase is to come into effect in the autumn of 1919.

Under all the circumstances and with the funds available from the present income of the University the committee recommends the following:

PROPOSED NEW SCALE.

            In the Faculties of Arts, Literature and Sciences.

Professor, Minimum, $4000; Maximum, $7000.
Associate Professor, Minimum, $3000; Maximum, $3600.
Assistant Professor, Minimum, $2100; Maximum, $2700.
Instructors, for three years, $1500, $1600, $1700. On reappointment to a maximum of $2000.
Associates, for two years, $1200, $1300.

            In the Faculty of the Divinity School.

Professor, Minimum, $4000; Maximum, $5000.
Other ranks as in Arts, Literature and Science.

            In the Faculty of the Law School.

Professor, Minimum of $6000, increased by $500 at the end of each three years of satisfactory service to a maximum of $8500. For Assistant and Associate Professors no change. These last appointments in the Law School are usually temporary and a considerable flexibility is desirable. It is recommended that for the Faculty of the Law School the new scale take effect fro the fiscal year 1920-1921. It will involve an addition of $5250 to the budget of that year over the present budget of 1919-1920.

Respectfully Submitted
[Signed] M. A. Ryerson
H. G. Grey
H. P. Judson

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations. Records. Box 76. Folder: 4, “Salaries, 1916-1920”.

 

Image Source: 1894 University of Chicago Convocation. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf3-00416, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard Pennsylvania Williams

Harvard. Job placements of economics PhDs. Jewish candidates, 1928-29

 

In this post I provide transcriptions of four letters concerning Harvard Ph.D.s on the job market. Two of candidates (Mandell Morton Bober and Richard Vincent Gilbert) were Jewish and this was considered an important characteristic to signal to prospective employers. Nothing from the Harvard side indicates anything other than a willingness to provide information that would be revealed in the process of recruitment anyway. In an earlier post we could read a similar letter by Allyn Young’s on behalf of his protégé Arthur William Marget for a position at the University of Chicago in 1927. In the cases below we again see anti-Jewish prejudice on the demand side of the market for academic economists.

Before getting to the letters (that are also interesting for providing a glimpse into job placement at the time), I provide a bit of information about each of the Harvard alumni discussed.

______________

Harvard Ph.Ds discussed

Beach, Walter Edwards

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1929.
Thesis title: International gold movements in relation to business cycles.
A.B. Stanford University, 1922; A.M. Harvard University.
1929. Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.

Bober, Mandell Morton

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1925.
Thesis title: Karl Marx’s interpretation of history.
S.B. University of Montana, 1918; A.M. Harvard University, 1920.
1925. Instructor in Economics, Boston University.
1926. Instructor in Economics. and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.

Gilbert, Richard Vincent

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1930.
Thesis title: Theory of International Payments.
S.B. Harvard University, 1923; A.M. Harvard University, 1925.

Hohman, Elmo Paul

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1925.
Thesis title: The American whaleman: a study of the conditions of labor in the whaling industry, 1785-1885.
A.B. University of Illinois, 1916; A.M. University of Illinois, 1917; A.M. Harvard University, 1920.
1925. Assistant Professor of Economics, Northwestern University.
1926. Assistant Professor of Economics, Northwestern University. Evanston, Ill.

Patton, Harald Smith

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1926.
Thesis Title: Grain growers’ cooperation in Western Canada.
A.B. University of Toronto, 1912; A.M. Harvard University, 1921.
1926. Associate Professor of Economics, University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, O.

Remer, Charles Frederick

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1923.
Thesis title: The foreign trade of China.
A.B. University of Minnesota, 1908; A.M. Harvard University, 1917.
1923. Instructor in Economics, and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.
1926. Orrin Sage Professor of Economics, Williams College. Williamstown, Mass.

Roberts, Christopher

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1927.
Thesis title: The History of the Middlesex Canal.
S.B. Haverford College, 1921; A.M. Harvard University 1922.
1927. Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.

Smith, Walter Buckingham

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1928.
Thesis title: Money and prices in the United States from 1802 to 1820.
A.B. Oberlin College, 1917; A. M. Harvard University, 1924.
1928. Assistant Professor Economics, Wellesley College.

Taylor, Overton Hume

Harvard, Ph.D. in Economics, 1928.
Thesis title: The idea of a Natural Order in Early Modern Economic Thought.
A.B. University of Colorado 1921.
1928. Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics, Harvard University.

 

Source: Harvard University. Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Science Who have received their Degree in Course from Harvard University, 1873-1926, with the Titles of their Theses. Cambridge: 1926. Also Annual Reports of the President of Harvard College.

______________

Carbon copy
Possible candidates for Charles Frederick Remer successor at Williams College

June 19, 1928.

Dear Professor Taussig:

Professor Burbank has asked me to write to you in answer to your letter of the 13th regarding possibilities for Remer’s position at Williams.

He believes that Bober can be recommended in the highest terms, but that the matter of his race should be mentioned. Gilbert, now at Rochester, is very able and in spite of the fact that he still has to complete his work for the Ph.D., might well be considered. He does not think so very highly of Patton; Hohman at Northwestern is fully as good.

He wonders what you would say regarding Walter Smith. He has some personal qualities that might cause trouble at Williamstown, but he is fully as capable as Remer.

If Professor Bullock has not left for Europe he suggests that he should be consulted since he knows the Williamstown situation very well.

Sincerely yours,

[unsigned, departmental secretary?]

______________

 

Carbon copy
Possible candidates for position at St. Lawrence University

January 28, 1929.

My dear Mr. Cram:

I have your note regarding the position at St. Lawrence University.

Beach probably will not go out next year. He wishes to stay here another year, and if we can make adequate provision for him we will do so.

If St. Lawrence is insistent upon the Ph.D you might recommend in very strong terms Christopher Roberts. If they will take a Jew you can recommend in superlative terms Professor M. M. Bober, now at Lawrence College; and also you might recommend under the above conditions, but perhaps less strongly R. V. Gilbert whom we expect to take the Ph.D this June.

However, before making any recommendations you should have the salary terms, the amount of teaching required, and the subjects to be taught.

Very sincerely,

H.H. Burbank.

HHB:BR

______________

Possible candidate for position at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia

Wharton School of Finance and Commerce

May 16, 1929.

Professor H. H. Burbank
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

My dear Professor Burbank:

Thanks for your letter of May 8, informing me that Mr. Gilbert is of Jewish extraction. Professor Taussig had already told me that such was the case.

However, this will make no difference to us so long as his personality and bearing are attractive.

I am giving serious consideration to Mr. Gilbert, along with two other men who have been suggested to me from other sources. If Gilbert receives his Ph.D. this year, we may make him an offer, but we cannot consider him if he has not completed his work for the doctorate.

Sincerely yours,

[signed|
Raymond T. Bye
Acting Chairman
Department of Economics

RTB:T

______________

Possible candidate for position at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (cont.)

University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia

Wharton School of Finance and Commerce

June 17, 1929.

Professor H. H. Burbank
Department of Economics
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

My dear Professor Burbank:

I hope that I did not cause you and your colleagues any inconvenience in pressing you and Dr. [O. H.] Taylor for an immediate decision on our offer to him. Things had dragged along here so long that I felt something must be done quickly and I know that I had prepared both Dr. Taylor and you for the possibility of our making him an offer, so that I felt it would not be difficult for you to make arrangements on short notice.

When I met you in Boston I was so well impressed with what you and Professor Vanderblue told me about Dr. Bober that I arranged for him to come here to meet us. We were all favorably impressed and I made every effort to secure his appointment to the position, but the Provost of the University was not willing to recommend a person of the Jewish race, so I had to give him up. It was then that I made the offer to Taylor. I think Dr. Taylor will fit into our problem for next year very nicely, for we need someone primarily to teach graduate courses. I question, however, whether we shall want to keep him permanently because, as I understand it, he is less effective as an undergraduate teacher. That is why I asked you to let him go on a year’s leave of absence. However, it is possible that the men here may like him so much that they will want to keep him permanently if he will stay. That will be for Professor E. M. Patterson to decide. He will be back as chairman of the department next year.

I want to thank you most cordially for your very material assistance in helping me to find a man to fill the vacancy here.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Raymond T. Bye
Acting Chairman
Department of Economics

RTB:T

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Econoics. Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950.Box 14, Folder “Positions for 1929-30”.

Image Source: Left, Senior year picture of R.V. Gilbert and, right, tutor picture of M.M. Bober (1926) in Harvard Class Album, 1923 and 1926, respectively.

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Economists Harvard Illinois Johns Hopkins Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Stanford Toronto Wisconsin Yale

Economics Graduate Programs Ranked in 1925

 

Filed away in the archived records of the University of Chicago’s Office of the President is a copy of a report from January 1925 from Miami University (Ohio) that was based on a survey of college and university professors to obtain a rank ordering of graduate programs in different fields. The following ordering for economics graduate programs 1924-25 is based on two dozen responses. I have added institutional affiliations from the AEA membership list of the time and a few internet searches. The study was designed to have a rough balance between college and university professors and a broad geographic representation. What the study lacks in sophistication will amuse you in its presumption.

_____________________

This rating was prepared in the following way: The members of the Miami University faculty representing twenty fields of instruction were called together and a list of the universities which conceivably might be doing high grade work leading to a doctor’s degree in one or more subjects was prepared on their advice. Each professor was then requested to submit a list of from forty to sixty men who were teaching his subject in colleges and universities in this country, at least half of the names on the list to be those of professors in colleges rather than in universities. It was further agreed that the list should be fairly well distributed geographically over the United States. [p. 3]

 

ECONOMICS

Ratings submitted by: John H. Ashworth [Maine] , Lloyd V. Ballard [Beloit], Gilbert H. Barnes [Chicago], Clarence E. Bonnett [Tulane], John E. Brindley [Iowa State], E. J. Brown [Arizona], J. W. Crook [Amherst], Ira B. Cross [California], Edmund E. Day [Michigan], Herbert Feis [ILO], Frank A. Fetter [Princeton], Eugene Gredier, Lewis H. Haney [N.Y.U.], Wilbur O. Hedrick [Michigan State], Floyd N. House [Chicago], Walter E. Lagerquist [Northwestern], W. E. Leonard, L. C. Marshall [Chicago], W. C. Mitchell [Columbia], C. T. Murchison [North Carolina], Tipton A. Snavely [Virginia], E. T. Towne [North Dakota], J. H. Underwood [Montana], M. S. Wildman [Stanford].

 

Combined Ratings:  (24)

1 2 3 4-5
Harvard 20 4 0 0
Columbia 11 9 2 1
Chicago 9 7 3 2
Wisconsin 8 7 4 2
Yale 3 3 9 3
Johns Hopkins 2 4 8 3
Michigan 0 6 4 5
Pennsylvania 0 3 6 8
Illinois 0 5 4 4
Cornell 0 2 7 5
Princeton 2 1 4 4
California 0 3 4 5
Minnesota 0 2 4 6
Northwestern 0 2 3 6
Stanford 0 1 4 6
Ohio State 0 1 2 8
Toronto 0 2 2 3

Staffs:

HARVARD: F.W. Taussig, E.F. Gay, T.N. Carver, W.Z. Ripley, C.J. Bullock, A.A. Young, W.M. Persons, A.P. Usher, A.S. Dewing, W.J. Cunningham, T.H. Sanders, W.M. Cole, A.E. Monroe, H.H. Burbank, A.H. Cole, J. H. Williams, W.L. Crum, R.S. Meriam.

COLUMBIA: R.E. Chaddock, F.H. Giddings, S.M. Lindsay, W.C. Mitchell, H.L. Moore, W. Fogburn, H.R. Seager, E.R.A. Seligman, V.G. Sinkhovitch, E.E. Agger, Emilie J. Hutchinson, A.A. Tenney, R.G. Tugwell, W.E. Weld.

CHICAGO: L.C. Marshall, C.W. Wright, J.A. Field, H.A. Millis, J.M. Clark, Jacob Viner, L. W. Mints, W.H. Spencer, N.W. Barnes, C.C. Colby, P.H. Douglas, J.O. McKinsey, E.A. Duddy, A.C. Hodge, L.C. Sorrell.

WISCONSIN: Commons, Elwell, Ely Garner, Gilman, Hibbard, Kiekhofer, Macklin, Scott, Kolb, McMurry, McNall, Gleaser, Jamison, Jerome, Miller, S. Perlman.

YALE: Olive Day, F.R. Fairchild, R.B. Westerfield, T.S. Adams, A.L. Bishop, W.M. Daniels, Irving Fisher, E.S. Furniss, A.H. Armbruster, N.S. Buck.

JOHNS HOPKINS: W.W. Willoughby, Goodnow, W.F. Willoughby, Thach, Latane.

MICHIGAN: Rodkey, Van Sickle, Peterson, Goodrich, Sharfman, Griffin, May, Taylor, Dickinson, Paton, Caverly, Wolaver.

PENNSYLVANIA: E.R. Johnson, E.S. Mead, S.S. Heubner, T. Conway, H.W. Hess, E.M. Patterson, G.G. Huebner, H.T. Collings, R. Riegel, C.K. Knight, W.P. Raine, F. Parker, R.T. Bye, W.C. Schluter, J.H. Willits, A.H. Williams, R.S. Morris, C.P. White, F.E. Williams, H.J. Loman, C.A. Kulp, S.H. Patterson, E.L. McKenna, W.W. Hewett, F.G. Tryon, H.S. Person, L.W. Hall.

ILLINOIS: Bogart, Robinson, Thompson, Weston, Litman, Watkins, Hunter, Wright, Norton.

CORNELL: W.F. Willcox, H.J. Davenport, D. English, H.L. Reed, S.H. Slichter, M.A. Copeland, S. Kendrick.

PRINCETON: F.A. Fetter, E.W. Kemmerer, G.B. McClellan, D.A. McCabe, F.H. Dixon, S.E. Howard, F.D. Graham.

CALIFORNIA: I.B. Cross, S. Daggett, H.R. Hatfield, J.B. Peixotte, C.C. Plehm, L.W. Stebbins, S. Blum, A.H. Mowbray, N.J. Silberling, C.C. Staehling, P.F. Cadman, F. Fluegel, B.N. Grimes, P.S. Taylor, Helen Jeter, E.T. Grether.

MINNESOTA: G.W. Dorwie, J.D. Black, R.G. Blakey, F.B. Garver, N.S.B. Gras, J.S. Young, A.H. Hansen, B.D. Mudgett, J.E. Cummings, E.A. Heilman, H.B Price, J.J. Reighard, J.W. Stehman, H. Working, C.L. Rotzell, W.R. Myers.

NORTHWESTERN: Deibler, Heilman, Secrist, Bailey, Pooley, Eliot, Ray Curtis, Bell, Hohman, Fagg.

STANFORD: M.S. Wildman, W.S. Beach, E. Jones, H.L. Lutz, A.C. Whitaker, J.G. Davis, A.E. Taylor, J.B. Canning.

OHIO STATE: M.B. Hammond, H.G. Hayes, A.B. Wolf, H.F. Waldradt, C.O. Ruggles, W.C. Weidler, J.A. Fisher, H.E. Hoagland, H.H. Maynard, C.A. Dice, M.E. Pike, J.A. Fitzgerald, F.E. Held, M.N. Nelson, R.C. Davis, C.W. Reeder, T.N. Beckman.

Compiled with the assistance of J.B. Dennison, associate professor of economics.

 

Source:  Raymond Mollyneaux Hughes, A Study of the Graduate Schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University (January 1925), pp. 14-15.  Copy from University of Chicago. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations. Records, Box 47, Folder #5 “Study of the Graduate Schools of America”, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago.

 

Image Source: Four prize winners in annual beauty show, Washington Bathing Beach, Washington, D.C. from the U. S. Library of Congress. Prints & Photographs. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b43364

 

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
Pennsylvania Regulations

Pennsylvania. Rules for graduate degrees, 1897-98

 

The previous post provided the list of graduate courses in economics and related fields (Politics, Sociology, and Statistics) offered at the University of Pennsylvania in 1897-98. This post adds the regulations governing admission, residence requirements, degree requirements for the M.A. and Ph.D. and tuition fees (plot spoiler: annual tuition was $100).

The graduate courses of instruction were arranged in sixteen groups that together constituted the Department of Philosophy. Hence, the doctoral degrees awarded for a major subject (e.g., economics) within one of these groups was logically called “doctor of philosophy”, i.e., Ph.D.

The unit of instructional account was the “standard course” which would be a lecture course of one hour per week for one academic year” so a two hour course for one term would be credited as one standard course and a one hour course for one term would be credited as 1/2 standard course. The overwhelming majority of courses offered in the group “Economics, Politics, Sociology and Statistics” were two-hour, one-term courses.

A Master’s degree required at least twelve standard courses, i.e. twelve hours of lectures  to attend per term for two terms, the normal load for one academic year. A doctoral student was required to complete at least twenty-four standard courses, so  two-years of course work.  A doctoral student was to declare three “branches of learning” in which proficiency was to be achieved. The choice of the three branches was subject to the approval of a Group Committee. The major subject would be the principal subject selected within the particular group and two minor subjects, one of which was recommended to be taken from outside of the group, presumably from history, philosophy, ethics or psychology if one’s major was, say, economics. “In every case the minor subjects shall be so related to the major as to conduce to some recognized and approved end.”  The minimum foreign language requirement was a good reading knowledge of two European languages besides English, at least one of which had to be “a modern tongue”.

Following the presentation of a thesis “upon some topic in the line of his major subject, showing high attainment or power of original and independent research” and its approval by the Group Committee in which his major lies, the candidate for the Ph.D. had to pass “a private written examination conducted by his instructors” as well as a public oral examination covering both the major and minor subjects.

__________________

Regulations for Graduate Degrees in the Department of Philosophy
University of Pennsylvania, 1897-98

The Department of Philosophy offers advanced instruction in the various branches of Literature and Science The instruction is intended primarily for persons who have profited by the advantages of a full college course, and who are desirous of continuing their studies upon lines more strictly defined and specialized. Others, however, may be admitted to study in the Department, under conditions hereinafter specified.

The session of 1897-98 will begin on Friday, October 1.

 

ARRANGEMENT OF COURSES.

The courses of instruction offered in this Department are arranged under the sixteen following groups:

  1. Semitic Languages.
  2. American Archaeology and Languages.
  3. Indo-European Philology.
  4. Classical Languages.
  5. Germanic Languages.
  6. Romanic Languages.
  7. English.
  8. Philosophy, Ethics, Psychology and Pedagogy.
  9. History.
  10. Economics, Politics, Sociology and Statistics.
  11. Mathematics.
  12. Astronomy.
  13. Physics.
  14. Chemistry.
  15. Botany and Zoology.
  16. Geology and Mineralogy.

All persons authorized to give instruction within a group constitute the Group Committee. To the several Group Committees are entrusted the arrangement of their respective courses, and the oversight of students taking majors within the group.

The instruction given within a group is subdivided into lecture courses, seminary courses and laboratory courses.

In stating the minimum requirements for residence and degrees a ”standard” course is used; this is a lecture course of one hour per week for one academic year. The lecture courses as actually given will be either multiples or fractional parts of this standard. The ratio of value of the several seminary and laboratory courses to the standard is variable, and will be set in each case by the Group Committee.

 

ADMISSION.

Students desiring to enter this Department must present themselves in person to the Dean.

Any person may be admitted by the Dean as a special student, not a candidate for a degree, upon the presentation of written statements from the instructors with whom he desires to work, certifying to his fitness and consenting to his admission.

Any person holding the degree of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science from some college or university whose degrees are recognized by this University as equivalent to its own may be admitted by the Dean as a candidate for a higher degree. In such cases the applicant’s diploma must be submitted to the inspection of the Dean.

Students who are allowed to become candidates for a higher degree are termed regular students. Those who are not candidates for a degree a.e termed special students.

If the degree has been taken five or more years before the date of application, the Dean may at his discretion require of the applicant further evidence of his ability to pursue with profit his studies in the Department.

Persons who do not hold a Bachelor’s degree may, in exceptional cases, be admitted as candidates for a degree; provided they satisfy the Executive Committee of the Faculty, by examination, or in such other way as the Committee may in each case determine, that they possess not only the knowledge necessary to the profitable pursuit of the subjects they may select, but also that general cultivation and training which is the result of a properly conducted college course.

Students already registered as candidates for a degree in other Departments of the University are allowed to pursue courses in this Department, and regular students of this Department are allowed to pursue courses in other Departments by the concurrent action of the respective Deans.

After admission, each student will be furnished with a matriculation card; no student who cannot show his matriculation card will be allowed to take any course. These cards are good only for the year in which they are issued, and must be renewed from year to year. For such renewal, personal application must be made at the office.

 

RESIDENCE.

All candidates for higher degrees are required to spend at least one year in residence at this University. To be construed in residence at this University, a student must pursue not less than six standard lecture courses or their equivalent, simultaneously. Work done at other universities may be accepted by the several Group Committees in lieu of a part of the work required for a degree.

When only one year is spent in residence at this University, it must be the last year of the student’s course.

 

DEGREES.

The degrees conferred in the Faculty of Philosophy are Doctor of Philosophy, (Ph.D.), Master of Arts, (A.M.), and Master of Science, (M.S.).

The right to recommend a candidate to the Board of Trustees for a higher degree is vested in a Board of Examiners, consisting of the Dean and three members of the Faculty, representing those branches of study in which the candidate has been working. Before a student can offer himself for examination, he must present to the Dean suitable written certificates from the Group Committees under whose supervision his work has been prosecuted, setting forth that he has not only complied with all conditions prescribed by the rules, but is also in the judgment of those committees fitted by his ability and attainments to receive the degree in question. No student can acquire a right to such recommendation merely by attending lectures, passing examinations, or by compliance with any prescribed conditions whatever. The requirements for degrees hereinafter specified must therefore be regarded as minimum requirements only, and it remains within the power of any Group Committee to refuse to grant any student a recommendation for the higher degree. All degrees are conferred at the annual commencement in June.

 

THE MASTER’S DEGREE.

Only those who have received the degree of Bachelor of Arts can proceed to that of Master of Arts.

Only those who have received the degree of Bachelor of Science can proceed to that of Master of Science.

The work for the Master’s Degree will occupy the student’s undivided time for at least one academic year. The candidate will be required to elect, with the consent of the Dean, not less than twelve standard courses or their equivalent, and to pursue them to the satisfaction of the committees offering them. He must then pass a private written examination under the direction of his instructors, and a public oral examination in the presence of the Board of Examiners, and of such members of the Faculty as desire to attend.

 

THE DOCTOR’S DEGREE.

The degree of Doctor of Philosophy is conferred solely in recognition of marked ability and high attainments in some definite branch of learning.

The degree will in no case be granted before the expiration of two years after the date of the candidate’s baccalaureate degree, nor upon a candidate who has not completed twenty-four standard courses or their equivalent. A student of ability, who has already had a good undergraduate course and pursues in graduate work the same topics to which he devoted special attention as an undergraduate, will usually be able to attain his degree in three years; but students whose college training has been in any respect defective, or who cannot devote their undivided attention to the work, will require a longer period of time.

The candidate for the Doctor’s degree must, upon entering the Department, elect the group within which he intends to do the greater part of his work, and will then pass under the jurisdiction of the committee in charge of that group. He must designate, with the consent of the committee, three branches of learning in which he desires to become proficient. One of these, which shall be known as his principal or major subject, shall lie within the group; although the Group Committee may direct him to courses given in other groups, and may allow them to be accounted part of the major work. The other two shall be known as his subordinate or minor subjects. It is recommended that at least one minor be taken outside the group in which his major lies. In every case the minor subjects shall be so related to the major as to conduce to some recognized and approved end.

Every candidate for the Doctor’s degree must possess a good reading knowledge of those languages which are judged by the committee in charge of the major essential to the prosecution of his major work.

Under no circumstances may a candidate present himself for his degree before he can show a good reading knowledge of two European languages besides English, one of which must be a modern tongue.

He must also present a thesis upon some topic in the line of his major subject, showing high attainment or power of original and independent research. This thesis must be presented and approved by the Group Committee in which his major lies before he can be admitted to the examinations.

The thesis must be typewritten or printed, unless upon recommendation of the committee in charge the Dean authorize the acceptance of a written thesis. The committee may require the thesis to be printed before recommending the candidate for the degree. If the thesis is written or typewritten, one copy must be deposited in the Library of the University before the student can be recommended for his degree; if printed, fifty copies must be deposited.

The candidate for the Doctor’s degree must pass a private written examination conducted by his instructors, and a public oral examination. The final examination is conducted by the Board of Examiners as hereinbefore provided, representing the candidate’s major and two minor subjects respectively, in the presence of such members of the Faculty as may desire to attend.

 

FEES.

For regular students the tuition fee is one hundred (100.00) dollars per annum. The graduation fee is twenty-five (25.00) dollars.

For special students a fee is charged according to the number of courses taken The fee for a course is found by multiplying ten dollars by the number of hours of instruction offered per week throughout the year, and adding five dollars to this product. If several courses be taken with the same instructor, this five dollars is added only once. Fees are payable to the Registrar in two instalments, on November 1 and February 1, strictly in advance.

 

Source:  Catalogue of the University of Pennsylvania. Fasciculus of the Department of Philosophy. Announcements for Session 1897-98, pp. 17-21.

 

Image Source:  University Library (built 1890, Furness, Evans & Co., architect; now Anne and Jerome Fisher Fine Arts Library), interior, reading room, 1898. University of Pennsylvania Digital Image Collection.