Category: Pennsylvania

We have here I think the first major extracurricular Summer Workshop in Economics for university graduates, post-docs and teachers of social studies and college instructors. Perhaps a dream-team of 1894 American economists (note the absence of Ely of Wisconsin, Taussig of Harvard and Laughlin of Chicago, though I don’t know if they might have been approached). The overview of Economic Science in America is really very interesting, both for ringing the exceptionalism bell and the light it casts on German graduate training in economics. The (approximate) ages of the lecturers in the Summer Meeting of Economists: Andrews (50), Clark (47), Giddings (39), Hadley (38), Jenks (38), Mayo-Smith (40), Patten(42), and Seligman (33).

Here the Announcement of the Summer Meeting of Economists by section:

Corps of Lecturers
Economic Science in America
To Graduates of Colleges
A Word to Students and Teachers of History
Statement of Courses
Program of Lectures
Preparatory Reading
More about University Extension

 

_________________________

Summer Meeting of Economists

IN CONNECTION WITH
The Second Session of the University Extension Summer Meeting,
JULY 2-28, 1894.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA.

 

CORPS OF LECTURERS:

E. B. ANDREWS, Brown University; J. B. CLARK, Amherst College; F. H. GIDDINGS, Bryn Mawr College; A. T. HADLEY, Yale University; J. W. JENKS, Cornell University; R. MAYO-SMITH, Columbia College; S. N. PATTEN, University of Pennsylvania; E. R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia College.

The Summer Meeting of Economists is held for the purpose of giving expression to present American Economic thought. The instructors are all identified with the recent remarkable expansion of Economic science and they have made important additions to its literature. The lectures which they will deliver in the Summer Meeting are intended primarily for students and teachers of economics, rather than for the diffusion of elementary knowledge.

The lectures will occupy about three hours daily for the four weeks. After each lecture an opportunity will be given for general discussion of the subject presented in the lecture. Besides the lectures and discussions, arrangement has been made for informal talks from several of the regular lecturers of the corps on methods of teaching. The program will be of interest to teachers of History, Political Science and similar subjects and to University students looking forward to any profession in which will be found useful a knowledge of economic science, and of the relations between economics and sociology on the one hand and economics and politics on the other.

Statement of the courses offered in the Economics Department of the Summer Meeting, program of lectures, and other information relating to the meeting, are contained in this number of the Bulletin. We present our readers also with a supplement with portraits of the lecturers in the Economics Department. An early number of the Bulletin, containing full announcement of other Summer Meeting Departments, will be sent on application.

Inaugural Lecture of Summer Meeting, Saturday evening, June 30, by Richard Watson Gilder, editor of the Century Magazine. Admission free by ticket.

Registration for Department of Economics, Ten Dollars.

Inclusive Ticket admitting to all Departments of Summer Meeting, Fifteen Dollars.

Instruction in other departments in Literature, Science, Architecture, Music, History, Mathematics, and Pedagogy.

For information concerning the Department of Economics or other Departments, address:
EDWARD T. DEVINE, Director, Fifteenth and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia.

Back to top

_________________________

 

Economic Science in America.

The eight economists who constitute the corps of instructors in the Summer Meeting are representative of various phases of the new economics which, since the seventies, has swept like a wave over Europe and America. Until the appearance of General Walker’s “The Wages Question,” in 1876, there had been in the economic thought of the United States, two distinct and antagonistic schools. The orthodox English system had its chief interpretation in a translation of the Political Economy of J. B. Say, though there were American editions of the “Wealth of Nations” in its author’s lifetime, and the works of Ricardo, Malthus and McCulloch were familiar to students. After 1848, Mill’s Political Economy to some extent supplanted that of Say as the standard textbook. The native American economics dates not from Rae, who is properly of the English school, though he was a protectionist, and though by accident his book was published in Boston instead of in Scotland, nor from List, whose National System although contained in brief outline in a series of letters written in 1827 at Reading, Pa., had little or no influence on any American writers until it came through the medium of a French translation from the German work, but from Henry C. Carey, the Philadelphia economist, whose first book appeared in 1835.

The orthodox Political Economy, strongest in the New England colleges and in the South, stood for hard money and free trade. The Economics of Carey stood for protection and expansion of the currency. The former was in harmony with the naturally conservative temper of the English race, embodied, perhaps, more fully in Americans than in the English themselves, the latter was an expression of the spirit of enterprise which was called forth in the American people, or better, perhaps, forced upon them by their economic conditions. This first school of American thinkers was fortunate in thus being identified with what came to be known as the characteristic American spirit; it was unfortunate in its lack of conservatism on the question of money, and the resumption of specie payments in 1879, must be looked upon as a final victory for its opponents on the subject in which, if there is to be prosperity and progress, conservatism is essential.

Both these tendencies, that toward conservatism and that toward industrial enterprise, were characteristically American, but the one found its most natural expression in the English economics, the other in Carey’s system. Both schools influenced political thought. Daniel Webster in the Senate, would not have delivered his phillipic against “Political Economy” if that which he attacked had not had an active influence. Carey would not have found his German, French and Italian disciples if his system had been without scientific basis, and had been calculated like the essays of Mathew Carey, merely to exercise a temporary political influence. No doubt Carey cared much more about converting voters to his own views than he did about accomplishing a revolution in the science, yet he professed and, perhaps, came nearer than his critics have cared to admit in realizing both aims.

Such was the general condition of economic science in America when, in 1876, General Walker published his “Wages Question.” This book and the “Political Economy” of 1883, mark a new epoch. General Walker would doubtless prefer to be classed, if a classification is necessary, with the orthodox school of economists. He does not break with its earlier representatives on what they would have regarded as fundamental questions. His book naturally displaced Mill as the ordinary text at Oxford and Cambridge. Even in the discussion of distribution where Walker proposes his most radical departures, he starts with the Ricardian doctrine of rent, and declares, explicitly, that on this question he is a “Ricardian of Ricardians.” Nevertheless the appearance of these books in America mark the close of a long and, with the exceptions that have been noted, an almost barren epoch. Several textbooks, a few of them excellent for their purpose, had been prepared by American writers, but whatever originality they contained appeared chiefly in the omission, from the reproduction of the orthodox system, of particular dogmas which were felt to be inconsistent with the industrial conditions with which the writers were familiar.* Unlike his predecessors General Walker did not merely omit, he examined and analyzed those conditions, and when he was compelled to form new conclusions he neither attacked the old system entire, because of its errors, nor made the mistake of regarding his discoveries as slight modifications of detail. It has become clear that the changes were important though they were not revolutionary.

[footnote: *One exception to this statement must be made in favor of the clear and vigorous writings of Professor A. L. Perry, who did much to keep alive an interest in Political Economy in its languishing days and whose text-books have perhaps had more readers than those of any other American writer.]

In view of the introduction of a marked German influence almost immediately after Walker’s views became known, it is fair to regard the Political Economy of 1883 as the culmination of the influence of the “English economics” as it was also the most important contribution to economic science by the writers of that school since the appearance of the Political Economy of John Stuart Mill. If Walker belongs to the English school it must not be forgotten that his system is that of the English school remoulded by a man who understood and felt the full significance of American industrial conditions, and who was entirely free from any notion that Political Economy is a science comprising only a few ready-made principles and laws which are capable of statement in formal propositions.

Soon after the close of the Civil War, there was noticed a new interest in the scientific study of monetary and industrial, financial and economic problems. The pen of David A. Wells is to be credited in very large part with the creation of this new interest and with the diversion of public attention from the purely political to the economic aspects of the issues then in the public mind. His treatment of the probable issue of the war itself is typical of the character of his discussions. Far in advance of general public opinion, Mr. Wells discerned that the North would win because of its greater economic resources. This insistence on a controlling economic element in questions of public policy is always needed, but never more than in this period when political passions had dominated the country so completely and when a depreciated currency, a large national debt, and when a devastated South called for careful attention to sound policy in recuperative measures and in the new industrial activity which peace was to inaugurate. The reputation of the author of “Recent Economic Changes,” does not rest entirely upon the pamphlets which he issued at this time; but if we are to estimate rightly the causes of the intense interest in economics during the past twenty years we must not ignore their influence both on public opinion in general and particularly upon the young men who were interested in the great problems of the day, but were dissatisfied with the conventional political arguments.

And now began a new influence in American economics. The universities were unable to meet the demand for competent guidance in these studies and students began to seek such instruction abroad. The greater hospitality of the German universities, the unrivaled reputation of the founders of the German historical school of economics, and a feeling that more would be gained by foreign residence in a country whose institutions differ radically from our own were among the causes that combined to attract the American students almost exclusively to the German universities. Within a few years the American colleges began to give evidence of the new movement in the expansion of the curricula, the founding of new chairs, and the increase of students.

The English influence had been communicated by the importation and the republication of books. The German influence came through personal channels. This difference in the method of communication accounts in part for the astonishing differences in results. In the case of the English economics there were at hand standards of orthodoxy, a “system” in crystallized form. In the college classes there was produced a ready conviction of the correctness of certain principles and dogmas. In the case of the German influence such standards were lacking. Each new doctor of philosophy brought back the ideas of his instructors and associates in the foreign universities not in a formulated exact system, but in the form in which they had been impressed upon himself. He brought not so much a system of economics as an enthusiasm for independent research. The result is that no “system” has been transplanted by the newer economics, but only tendencies and a quickening impulse to activity in every branch of economic investigation, and already the impulse is seen to be of more importance than the particular tendencies.

When the American Economic Association was formed in 1885, as a tangible evidence of the new birth, a platform was adopted committing the association though not the individual members to favor increased industrial activity in the State, increased emphasis on the ethical element in economics, and increased attention to the historical method as distinguished from the deductive method which some of the leaders of the new organization believed to have been responsible for the decay of interest in economic science. But this platform was found to be too narrow, and in a few years it was discarded for a simple statement that any one might be chosen a member who is interested in the study of economics. General Walker was elected the first president of the association and continued in that office until 1892. Dr. Richard T. Ely, who served as secretary until the same year, labored indefatigablv in the interests of the association, building up its membership and also for a time editing its publications. In 1893 Professor Charles F. Dunbar, of Harvard, became president, and Professor Edward A. Ross, then of Cornell, secretary, and for the present year Professor John B. Clark, of Amherst, is president, and Professor J. W. Jenks, of CornelI, the secretary of the association. Professor F. H. Giddings succeeded Dr. Ely as chairman of the publication committee, a position which is held at present by Professor H. H. Powers, of Smith College.

The seven annual meetings of the American Economic Association have served as milestones of a rapid development of the science. Its position in the universities as a regular discipline of the university curriculum has become every year more secure. Thirty or forty professors and assistants are engaged in teaching its principles. Schools of finance and economy, departments of political and social science, lectureships on special economic topics abound. Every college has either an independent chair of Political Economy or a combined chair of economics and history, or some other subject. The larger universities have now organized, and in some instances liberally endowed these departments until they rival the best equipped corresponding departments of German, French and Italian universities. The movement which began in the seventies by sending dozens of students across the Atlantic, already bears fruit in courses of study sufficiently attractive to hold at home scores of students quite as ambitious and as discriminating.

There must be noticed finally, a new movement coming in part from the Austrian economists, in part from the English economist, Jevons, and in part originating with native-American writers, a movement which has been pronounced by some critics reactionary, but by its friends the most promising of all the various phases of our economic thought, the movement in the direction of deductive theory. Professor Patten’s “Premises of Political Economy” and Professor Clark’s “Philosophy of Wealth,” published respectively in 1885 and 1886, were its first fruits; and abundant evidences of its subsequent fruitfulness are to be found in the monographs of the Economic Association, in articles published in the economic journals and in the later literature generally. The translation of Böhm-Bawerk’s works by Professor William Smart, and the appearance of Professor Marshall’s “Principles of Economics,” both of which have had great influence in America, are landmarks in the progress of this movement. The “newer economics” has much to say of the relation between value and utility, the economic basis of prosperity and progress, the effects of dynamic forces. It seeks a new correlation of the social sciences, and in its scheme of human progress does not omit to take account of costs, and to distinguish sharply individual costs or “expenses” from social costs, which latter item it measures subjectively and ventures to compare directly with utilities or “satisfactions” as a means of determining the, social surplus.

One group of writers belonging with the newer movement, but devoting its energies directly to sociological studies, gives promise of rescuing that much misconceived branch of study from the hands of its injudicious representatives and putting it upon a high scientific plane. Professor F. H. Giddings who will become Professor of Sociology in Columbia College on July 1 of the present year, is the foremost scholar of this group, and the first man in any American university to occupy a chair with this designation. The future of economic science in American universities is bright with promise of scholarly and useful work. The attitude of the university world and of the public toward what is after all a new science, is all that could be desired. One indication of the present healthy and vigorous condition of this branch of science in American universities, is the quality and quantity of its scientific literature. The “younger economists” are already mature in years and in scholarship, and the publications of the American Economic Association, of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, of the separate universities in their series of Political Economy, Public Law, of studies in Historical and Political Science, etc., add to the stock of valuable economic literature no less than the regular issues of such quarterly journals as the Yale Review, the Journal of Political Economy the Political Science Quarterly and the Quarterly Journal of Economics, or the bi-monthly journal, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

The Summer Meeting of economists, of which announcement is made in full in this number of the Bulletin, may well become a great landmark, an emphatic sign of the golden opportunities awaiting students who turn their attention seriously to these problems.

Edward T. Devine.
The American Society for the Extension of University Teaching

 

Back to top

 

_________________________

To Graduates of Colleges.

The increasing tendency toward specialization in the upper college classes makes it difficult for the college student to secure an acquaintance with as many different subjects properly falling within the college curriculum as every cultured man or woman considers desirable. College students who have specialized on economics and finance, may have left serious gaps in their knowledge of the physical sciences and vice versa, while both may have neglected the humanities, belles lettres and philosophy. University Extension courses in the local centres have already been eagerly utilized by many college graduates to supply such deficiencies and even if the purpose of the movement be chiefly, as some contend, to carry university privileges to those that have them not, it is attaining that purpose in meeting just such demands. The University Extension Summer Meeting offers similar opportunities. It takes place in a vacation month. It calls to the lecture room eminent specialists in many departments of university study. The student who is proficient in literature may hear brief courses in science or philosophy. The teacher who is thoroughly familiar with his special subject may make a careful study of a pedagogical system, or may refresh his intellectual powers by attacking vigorously a new line of study. It is true that every teacher should at some time or other have “specialized” to such an extent as to understand and to share somewhat the modern university spirit, but it is also true that modern culture demands of persons trained in a special subject a sufficient knowledge of other and entirely distinct fields of knowledge to awaken an intelligent interesting the achievements of the specialists of those fields.

In two ways therefore the Summer Meeting may be of use to college graduates. It will give to the student of a particular subject a favorable opportunity to supplement his specialized knowledge by a general—not necessarily a superficial—knowledge of other subjects. It will enable the student who wishes to broaden his knowledge of his own subject to do so by acquainting himself at first hand with a knowledge of the systems held and the methods employed by teachers of that subject in other institutions. It will be of great advantage for instance for the young man who has studied Political Economy in the University of Pennsylvania, or Johns Hopkins, or Cornell, to hear lecturers from Yale and Columbia discuss the same subject; and to become acquainted with the men who have studied that subject in those institutions, and vice versa. No student of history in an Eastern institution could fail to profit by the course of lectures on the Place of the West in our history by the professor of History in the University of Wisconsin. Graduates of normal schools, or of departments of pedagogy will derive more benefit than any others from the course on the Herbartian pedagogy by one who vigorously champions the system and has studied it at its fountain head in the University of Jena, and from the lectures on child study and its pedagogical value by the specialist who has been prosecuting an investigation of that subject in the State Normal School of Massachusetts, and under the direction of Dr. G. Stanley Hall, of Clark University.

This is the great advantage of the Summer Meeting over a summer session of corresponding length in any single university. We plan not a summer school, but a meeting, a mingling of students and lecturers, a gathering with all the definiteness of aim and of program which characterizes a school or the summer term of a university, but with the added advantages of a University Extension spirit as an esprit de corps and a union of progressive elements from many universities in an elective system of lectures and classes.

Back to top

 

_________________________

A Word to Students and Teachers of History.

The now famous report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies contains the following resolutions from the “Conference on History, Civil Government and Political Economy:”

Resolved: That formal instruction in Political Economy be omitted from the school program; but that economic subjects be treated in connection with other pertinent subjects. (Resolution 9.)

Resolved: That no formal instruction in Political Economy be given in the secondary schools, but that in connection particularly with United States History, Civil Government and Commercial Geography, instruction be given in those economic topics, a knowledge of which is essential to the understanding of our economic life and development. (Resolution 30.)

Accompanying the resolutions is a memorandum in which it is stated that “in making these recommendations the Conference does not intend to suggest that less time than is customary be given to Political Economy or that less emphasis be given to its importance as a study in the high schools;” and the report of the Conference elsewhere contains the following significant statements: “The methods of teaching the economic principles thus indicated must be left to the discretion of the teacher. It is a subject in which textbook work is particularly inefficient, and no teacher ought to undertake the work who has not had some training in economic reasoning.”

The unavoidable inference from these resolutions and recommendations is that every teacher of history, civil government, or commercial geography in the schools of secondary grade should have some opportunity for training in economic reasoning. Since, in the opinion of the committee, there are no “proper text-books for high school use” it becomes of importance that teachers should become familiar at first hand with the vital principles as taught by the best economic authorities. A few years ago it was thought necessary to visit the German or other foreign universities for such contact with leaders of economic thought. At present the men who are teaching these subjects in Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Cornell and Pennsylvania, are scholars of international reputation and are original contributors to economic science.

The program of the Department of Economics in the Summer Meeting is framed with the express end of giving a rapid view of such principles as are by the economists deemed essential, and illustrating the methods of instruction in vogue in the leading universities. Those who expect to teach Political Economy in university, college or secondary school, those who are expecting to give instruction in history, civil government or commercial geography, and those who are regularly engaged in teaching these branches are cordially invited to examine carefully the courses announced for the Summer Meeting of Economists, and to avail themselves of the opportunities offered by the meeting.

The president, first vice-president and secretary of the American Economic Association are included in the corps of instructors. Among higher institutions Amherst, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania and Yale are represented. One of the instructors is a university president, the others are university or college professors. All have written important books or monographs on economic subjects. All have national and even international scientific reputation. All are associated with the recent notable development of economic science, and the corresponding expansion of economic departments in the higher educational institutions. They do not however, all represent the same or similar tendencies. The corps includes the two or three economists who have done most among American writers to emphasize the importance of deductive work, and the necessity of reforming economic theory, but it also contains the two or three men who would be first thought of in connection with such practical topics as public finance, railways and trusts.

It is difficult to imagine a more profitable method of spending a vacation month for a person who has a professional interest in acquainting himself with the methods used and the conclusions held by the men whose scientific reputation and academic standing entitle them to speak with a certain degree of authority. If the Committee of Ten and the Conference on History, Civil Government and Political Economy are correct in their view, this includes not merely the teacher of Political Economy and Political Science, but also teaches of such allied subjects as commercial geography, civil government and history.

The above considerations are strengthened by the fact that parallel with these economic course there will be instruction in European and American history by such distinguished and competent lecturers as Professor John Bach McMaster and Mr. W. H. Munro, of the University of Pennsylvania, Professor Frederick J. Turner, of the University of Wisconsin, Professor W. H. Mace, of Syracuse University and Dr. Edward Everett Hale, of Boston. A fuller announcement of these courses will be sent on application. Round-Table Conferences on the teaching of history in secondary schools will be conducted by Professor Ray Greene Huling, of Boston, and Professor Edward G. Bourne, of Adelbert College, both of whom were members of the conference from whose report extracts have been made.

Back to top

 

_________________________

Statement of Courses in the
Summer Meeting of Economists,

July 2-28, 1894.

 

Course I—Money. By E. Benjamin Andrews, LL. D., President of Brown University.

Five Lectures—July 16-20. (1) Money and the Times; (2) England’s Monetary Experiment in India; (3) “Counter” and Quality in Monetary Theory; (4) What Fixes Prices; (5) Labor as a Standard of Value.

Course II—Distribution. By J. B. Clark, Ph. D., Professor of Political Economy in Amherst College, and Lecturer in Johns Hopkins University.

Ten Lectures—July 2-18. (1) Normal Distribution equivalent to Proportionate Production; (2) The Relation of the Law of Value to the Law of Wages and Interest; (3) The Social Law of Value; (4) Groups and Sub-groups in Industrial Society; (5) The Nature of Capital and the Source of Wages and Interest; (6) The Static Law of Distribution ; (7) Dynamic Forces and their Effects; (8) The Origin and the Distribution of Normal Profits; (9) Trusts and Public Policy; (10) Labor Unions and Public Policy.

Course III—Scientific Subdivision of Political Economy. By F. H. Giddings, M. A., Professor of Political Science in Bryn Mawr College and Professor elect of Sociology in Columbia College.

Five Lecture»—July 2-7. (1) The Conception and Definition of Political Economy; (2) The Concepts of Utility, Cost and Value; (3) The Theory of Consumption; (4) The Theory of Production; (5) The Theory of Relative Values.

Course IV—Theories of Population. By Arthur T. Hadley, M. A., Professor of Political Economy in Yale University.

Two Lectures—July 5, 6.

Course V—Relations of Economics and Politics. By J. W. Jenks, Ph. D, Professor of Political Economy and Civil and Social Institutions in Cornell University.

Five Lectures—July 16-20. (1) The Nature and Scope of Economics and of Politics Compared; (2) Influence of Economic Conditions upon Political Constitutions; (3) The Influence of Economic Conditions and Theories upon Certain Social and Legal Institutions not Primarily Political; (4) The Influence of Present Economic Conditions and Beliefs upon Present Political Methods and Doctrine; (5) The Political Reforms that would be of most Economic Advantage.

Course VI—Ethnical Basis for Social Progress in the United States. By Richmond Mayo-Smith, Ph. D., Professor of Political Economy and Social Science in Columbia College.

Three Lectures— July 24-26. (1) Theories of Mixture of Races and Nationalities and Application to the United States; (2) Assimilating Influence of Climate and Intermarriages; (3) Assimilating Influence of Social Environment.

Course VII—Introduction to the Ricardian Economics. By Simon N. Patten, Ph. D., Professor of Political Economy in the University of Pennsylvania.

Five Lectures—July 9-13.

Course VIII—Premises of Political Economy. By Simon N. Patten, Ph. D.

Five Lectures—July 16-20.

Course IX—Theory of Dynamic Economics. By Simon X. Patten, Ph. D.

Five Lectures—July 23-27.

Course X—Public Finance. By Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph. D., Professor of Political Economy and Finance in Columbia College.

Five Lectures—July 23-27. (1) The Development of Taxation; (2) The Effects of Taxation; (3) The Basis of Taxation; (4) The Principles of Taxation; (5) The Single Tax.

Course XI—Various Phases of the Money Question. By Professor Clark, Professor Giddings, Professor Patten and Professor Seligman.

Address “The Monetary Conference of 1 892.” By President Andrews. July 19.

Address on Methods of Teaching Political Economy. By members of the corps of lecturers.

Discussion of the subjects presented in each of the various courses by those in attendance. The lecture will usually last for sixty minutes, and the discussion for thirty minutes. An hour and a half is allowed for each exercise.

Back to top

 

_________________________

 

Program of Lectures.
Summer Meeting of Economists.

[For program of other departments apply to the Director.]

July 2.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Giddings.

The Conception and Definition of Political Economy.

10 A. M.—Professor Clark.

Normal Distribution Equivalent to Proportionate Production.

July 3.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Giddings.

The Concepts of Utilitv, Cost and Value.

10 A. M— Professor Clark.

The Relation of the Law of Value to the Law of Wages and Interest.

July 4.

10 A. M.—Address by Edward Everett Hale, D. D., in the University Library.

July 5.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Giddings.

The Theory of Consumption.

10 A. M.—Professor Clark.

The Social Law of Value.

11.30 A. M.—Professor Hadley.

Theories of Population.

July 6.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Giddings.

The Theory of Production.

10 A. M.—Professor Clark.

Groups and Sub-Groups in Industrial Society.

11.30 A. M.—Professor Hadley.

Theories of Population.

5 P. M.—Professor Clark.

An Ideal Standard of Value.

July 7.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Giddings.

The Theory of Relative Values.

10 A. M—Professor Clark.

The Nature of Capital and the Sources of Wages and Interest.

July 9.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Ricardian System of Economics.

10 A. M.—Professor Clark.

The Static Law of Distribution.

5 P. M.—Address on Methods.

July 10

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Ricardo’s Theory of Distribution.

10 A. M.—Professor Clark.

Dynamic Forces and their Effects.

5 P. M.—Address on Methods.

July 11.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Ricardo’s Theory of Money.

10 A. M— Professor Clark.

The Origin and Distribution of Normal Profits.

5 P. M.—Address on Methods.

July 12.

8.30 A. M— Professor Patten.

The Confusion of Industrial and Monetary Problems.

10 A. M.—Professor Clark.

Trusts and Public Policy.

July 13.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Ricardian System of Economics.

10 A. M.—Professor Clark.

Labor Unions and Public Policy.

July 16.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Premises of Political Economy.

10 A. M.—President Andrews.

Money and the Times.

July 17.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Premises of Political Economy.

10 A. M.—President Andrews.

England’s Monetary Experiment in India.

July 18.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

The Stability of Prices.

10 A. M.—President Andrews.

“Counter” and Quality in Monetary Theory.

July 19.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

The Law of Diminishing Returns.

10 A. M.—President Andrews.

What Fixes Prices?

8 P. M.—President Andrews.

Monetary Conference.

July 20.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

The Consumption of Wealth.

10 A. M.—President Andrews.

Labor as a Standard of Value.

July 23.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Theory of Dynamic Economics.

5 P. M.—Professor Seligman.

Development of Taxation.

8 P. M.—Professor Jenks.

Nature and Scope of Economics and Politics Compared.

July 24.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Theory of Dynamic Economics.

10 A. M.—Professor Seligman.

The Effects of Taxation.

11.30 A. M.—Professor Mayo-Smith.

Theories of Mixture of Races, and Nationalities.

8 P. M.—Professor Jenks. Influence of Economic Conditions upon Political Constitutions.

July 25.

8.30 A. M — Professor Patten.

Theory of Dynamic Economics.

10 A. M.—Professor Seligman.

Basis of Taxation.

11.30 A. M.—Professor Mayo-Smith.

Assimilating Influences of Climate and Intermarriages.

8 P. M.—Professor Jenks.

Influence of Economic Conditions and Theories upon Certain Social and Legal Institutions not Primarily Political.

July 26.

8.30 A. M.—Professor Patten.

Theory of Dynamic Economics.

10 A. M.—Professor Seligman.

The Principles of Taxation.

11.30 A. M.— Professor Mayo-Smith.

Assimilating Influences of Social Environment.

8 P. M.—Professor Jenks.

Influence of Present Economic Conditions and Beliefs upon Present Political Methods and Doctrine.

July 27.

8.30 A. M — Professor Patten.

Theory of Dynamic Economics.

10 A. M.—Professor Seligman.

The Single Tax.

11.30 A. M.—Professor Jenks.

The Political Reforms that would be of Most Economic Advantage.

 

Back to top

_________________________

 

Preparatory Reading.

Those who expect to attend the sessions of the Summer Meeting of Economists will find it of advantage to possess a knowledge of the elements of the science such as may be obtained by the study of Walker’s Political Economy, Marshall’s Principles of Economics or Mill’s Political Economy.

In special preparation for the meeting, Giddings’ The Theory of Sociology (in press) will be found useful. In special preparation for Course I, students may read Andrews’ An Honest Dollar, and Nicholson’s Money and Monetary Problems; for Courses II and III, Clark’s Philosophy of Wealth, and Modern Distributive Process, by Clark and Giddings; for Course VII, Patten’s The Interpretation of Ricardo in Quarterly Journal of Economics for April, 1893; for Course VIII, Patten’s Premises of Political Economy; for Course IX, The Theory of Dynamic Economics.

Back to top

_________________________

Source: American Society for the Extension of University Teaching. The University Extension Bulletin. Vol. I, No. 8. Philadelphia: May 10, 1894.

Image Source: American Society for the Extension of University Teaching. Supplement to the The University Extension Bulletin. Vol. I, No. 8. Philadelphia: May 10, 1894. Copy found in Box 2 of Franklin Henry Giddings Papers, Columbia Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Folder “Photographs”.

 

More on what University Extension was all about.

• Essay by Simon N. Patten, The Place of University Extension.  [n.d.]
• Bittner, W. S. “The University Extension Movement.” Department of the Interior. Bureau of Education. Bulletin, 1919, No. 84. Washington: GPO, 1920.

 

Back to top