Category: Regulations

Categories
Chicago Curriculum Economics Programs Regulations Yale

Ruggles-Friedman correspondence on Draft Report on Graduate Training in Economics, 1955

 

A transcription of the complete printed Report of the Panel Discussions on Graduate Training in Economics at Yale (1956) was provided in the previous posting. A copy of the draft of that report from December 1955 can be found in Milton Friedman’s file of correspondence with the chairperson of the Yale Committee responsible for the report, Richard Ruggles, along with Ruggles’ cover letter and a copy of Friedman’s response. The first couple of pages of the draft are transcribed below because they provide a little bit of the backstory for the Report as does Ruggles’ cover letter. Otherwise the only substantive change between the two versions, aside from a rearrangement of a few sections in the Report, comes from Friedman’s reservations concerning the publication of doctoral theses in a university series. These were incorporated into the final Report. 

Fun Fact: Richard Ruggles graduated from Harvard in 1939. Classmates included his later Yale colleagues James Tobin and William Parker. The composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein was also a member of that Harvard class of ’39.

________________________

Letter from Richard Ruggles to Milton Friedman
Requesting Comments on Panel Report

 

YALE UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
New Haven, Connecticut

Richard Ruggles

December 12th 1955

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

Dear Milton,

At long last a preliminary draft of the report on the panel discussions held at Yale last spring has been prepared. This draft is based on notes taken on the discussions in the five panel meetings, and the draft has been gone over and revised according to the interpretations they placed upon the discussions in which they participated. Although the same agenda was followed in all the panel discussions, the amount of time spent on the various topics differed considerably.

Our intended procedure is as follows. We would like all the panel participants to send in their comments on this draft. In light of these comments one or more of three possible courses of action will be taken on each specific part of the draft. If numerous comments of the same general nature are made, the draft will be revised to present these views in the body of the text. This revision may consist either of replacing present sections or adding alternative views. In cases where only one or two individuals disagree on a particular point in the text, this disagreement may be handled by appropriate foontoe references. In instances where an individual panel member feels it desirable, he may write a section embodying his views and this will be appended to the report as a supplementary statement. It is not the object of this report to come out with an appearance of any greater degree of consensus than actually exists.

There appears to be widespread interest in the results of this inquiry. Numerous requests for copies of the final report have already been received. We had expected to publish the report here at Yale, but in view of the very great interest that has been shown, the committee has instructed me to ask the panel members whether or not they would approve of having the report published in an economic journal such as the American Economic Review. I would therefore appreciate it if, when you send in your comments about the panel report, you could also let me know whether or not you would approve of such publication.

Sincerely yours

[signed] Richard

ssk
enc.

________________________

Introduction to Draft Report of the Panel Discussions on Graduate Training in Economics

Confidential Preliminary Draft;
Not for Distribution

REPORT OF THE PANEL DISCUSSIONS ON GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS

The program of graduate training in economics at Yale, and generally elsewhere in the United States, is the result of an evolutionary development. The changes that have occurred over the last two or three decades have taken the form of specific improvements in already existing programs. Although this approach can be expected to improve a graduate training program, it will in all probability lead to an end result quite different from, and not necessarily superior to, that which would result from a comprehensive reshaping of the program to meet the changed requirements, new objectives, and shifting substance in the field itself. Any minor change in an existing program must necessarily tie in with those parts of the program which remain unchanged; because the system as a whole has not been subjected to an overall redesign, it will be found necessary to modify any partial revisions so that consistency, equity, and flexibility will all be preserved.

Revision by such minor steps has a number of advantages. The degree of risk involved is minimized. Also, the changes undertaken can be expected to be within the capabilities of the organization which puts them into force. Finally, if changes are undertaken by small stages the existing program will usually be flexible enough to incorporate them without disruption.

A major reorganization involving the setting up of an entirely new program, on the other hand, faces many problems arising from lack of experience. Because such a system is new, it is often impossible to judge whether it can be carried out with the resources available. Finally, the implementation of the new system completely different in structural form may require flexibility on the part of those responsible for carrying it out that cannot be achieved quickly.

Thus it is no accident that change is usually of an evolutionary nature, but the possibility of setting up a completely new system should not be ignored. Evolutionary development, if not subjected to periodic overall review, can easily proceed in a direction which turns out to be sterile and unsuited to the needs of the society. Because evolutionary development is piecemeal, it tends unconsciously to take the underlying assumptions of the system for granted, and not to question the overall objectives and goals in relation to the requirements which must be met. Even if a comprehensive reorganization is never undertaken, it should be considered periodically. Even a complete failure in the attempt may breed new insights and suggest new directions that an orderly evolution should take. It was with these considerations in mind that the Department of Economics at Yale undertook to review the problem of graduate training in economics.

The monograph on graduate training published by the American Economic Association was extremely instructive with respect to the current status of economics training in the country, and the possible standards and improvements in such standards that might be established. The monograph, however, did not attempt to explore any major changes in the system itself.

Participation in an overall review should not be restricted to those who are administering the present system. Individuals concerned primarily with the substance of the field often have ideas that should receive consideration. Similarly, those who make use of the people who are trained, who may themselves be very little concerned either with substance or with training methods, will have valuable contributions to make concerning the areas of strength or weakness in the products of the training.

A considerable period of time was therefore invested in searching out new ideas from people in charge of administering programs, people interested in specialized areas of economics, people in business, and people in government and international organizations. During the fall and early winter of 1954-55, a great many interviews were conducted with representatives of these groups. These people were encouraged to discuss any portions of the overall problem they thought important, and no set questionnaire was used to elicit their responses. This procedure had two advantages. First, the influence of the preconceptions of the interviewers was kept to a minimum, and second, the interviews provided a sort of ink-blot test which was useful in assessing the kinds of problem that generally worried people in the different groups.

The material gathered from these interviews naturally lacked order and did not readily fit into any single comprehensive organization, but it was extremely useful in providing a basis for an agenda for a more orderly and comprehensive discussion. Such an agenda, together with a brief discussion of the various ideas expressed by individuals in the interviews, was therefore drawn up, and on the basis of this agenda a series of six panel discussions were held at Yale in the spring of 1955. The topics chosen for panel discussion covered only a few selected problems of graduate training in economics. In view of the limited time available for panel discussion, it was thought preferable to focus on a relatively small number of major issues. The choice of problems to be included was based on (1) their relative importance in suggesting possible new directions for graduate education, and (2) the amount of controversy they generated among the people with whom they were discussed.

The following report presents the results of the discussions of this agenda by the six panels.

[…]

________________________

Carbon copy of Milton Friedman’s Response to Ruggles

9 January 1956

Mr. Richard Ruggles
Department of Economics
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

Dear Dick:

Your report of the panel discussions strikes me as an excellent statement though my recollection of the discussions themselves are so vague that I would hardly feel competent to testify to the accuracy of the summary of the views expressed at the particular discussion that I participated in.

I find myself in substantial agreement with almost the whole of your report, the one point about which I have real doubts is the bottom half of page 15. While there are clearly some advantages to having a publication in the form of an annual series, it seems to me that most important of all that the better theses or redrafts of them will be worth publication in the regular professional journals and this would be much preferable. I feel that an entirely University series will not offer any substantial incentive to high quality but may well have the opposite effect.

Aside from this one point, the questions I have about the report are on a different level. My major question is whether you want to present the report as an observer’s summary of the panel discussions on the one hand or as the conclusions which the Yale committee drew from the panel discussions on the other. The present draft has more of the flavor of the first yet it seems to me that you would do better to do the second, making it explicit that the report records the judgment of the particular people in the Yale committee but is based on the discussions with the panels. This would seem to me to have two very great advantages. In the first place it avoids committing any of the panel members or giving the impression that they are responsible for or in agreement with what was said. In the second place it makes it easier to be firm and to avoid wishy-washy statements.

This choice ties in very much with the question you ask about publication. If the report takes the second form suggested, there is no need to ask panel members whether they approve of publication but only whether they are willing to have their names listed as having been participants. If the report takes the first form, I am at a loss to know what my approval signifies. I think it would be useful to publish the report. I agree generally with it but I would not want to be listed in the capacity of a co-author or as one who lists himself as fully responsible for it.

My second main question about the present report is whether it would not gain greatly by being less hypothetical and arid. What I have in mind is that there are no references at all in the report as to what is happening at any other institution except in the vaguest terms. Yet almost every suggestion that is made is now in effect in one or more institutions. The report, I think, would gain greatly in effectiveness and persuasiveness if it referred to the experiments or named institutions as evidence of the feasibility of the various changes and of their desirability. The outstanding example, it seems to me, is materially the suggestions with respect to the thesis which is here put forward as if it were an untried suggestion, whereas our experience—and for all I know that of other institutions—gives very relevant evidence on both its feasibility and desirability.

I hope you will pardon me for commenting so fully on questions not really covered in your letter. I am sure that the report of your committee will have an important influence on the course of graduate training in economics.

Sincerely yours,

Milton Friedman

MF:pan

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 32, Folder 16 “Correspondence: Ruggles, Richard”.

Image Source:  Richard Ruggles, noted economic statistician, dies. Yale Bulletin & Calendar Vol. 29, No. 23 (March 23, 2001).

 

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Allowing math to substitute for second foreign language, 1950

 

 

In a previous posting Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provided a except from the Faculty Minutes of Columbia University’s Faculty of Political Science agreeing to the modification of the second foreign language requirement in its Ph.D. program to allow mathematics to count for that second foreign language. Below we have the full proposal submitted by the department of economics which notes that Harvard and Chicago had already modified their own language requirements this way.

_________________________

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

April 10, 1950

PROPOSAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS TO MODIFY THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE Ph.D. DEGREE IN ORDER TO PERMIT AN OPTION IN MATHEMATICS.

The regulations of the Faculty and of the Department of Economics now require that any candidate for the Ph.D. degree in Economics shall satisfy the Department that he can read two modern languages, in addition to English. This requirement dates back to a period when very substantial parts of the important current literature in Economics were written in a foreign language, usually French or German. In recent years, however, the necessity for using more than one foreign language has become less urgent for the average economist. Much the larger part of the central core of modern economic thought is now available either in English, or in languages such as Swedish or Dutch which are not ordinarily offered toward the language requirement. On the other hand, mathematical tools are playing an increasingly large part in the study and development of Economics, and there is an important and growing body of economic literature which can be read only with some understanding of Mathematics.

The Department of Economics therefore requests approval of a modification of the present language requirement to give the candidate for the Ph.D. in Economics, in cases where it is of particular value to the candidate’s scholarly interests, the option of offering Mathematics in place of one of the two foreign languages now required toward the Ph.D. Harvard and Chicago already have such an option. The required level of proficiency in Mathematics would have to be specified rather explicitly by the Department, but this specification is not a problem of any great difficulty. The Department of Mathematical Statistics has very kindly offered its assistance in the matter.

If this proposal is approved in general principle, certain changes in the present text of the 1949-50 Faculty announcement will be required. The suggested phrasing of the changes is as follows:

With respect to the Faculty requirements:

Revise p. 24, paragraph entitled “Languages”, by adding the following sentence at the end of the paragraph:

…Prospective candidates in the Department of Economics may under certain circumstances, and with the permission of the Executive Officer of that Department, offer Mathematics and one foreign language instead of two foreign languages (see the specific requirements of the Department of Economics, below).

            With respect to the Department of Economics requirements:

Substitute the following for the first five lines of the paragraph headed “Languages”, on p. 41 (option 1 is the present requirement):

Languages; Option in Mathematics. The prospective candidate must meet one of the two following requirements.
(1) The prospective candidate may satisfy the Department of Economics that he can read two modern languages in addition to Engish. The combination of French and German is preferred. Russian, Italian, Spanish or another language may be selected, with the written permission of the Executive Officer of the Department, in cases where such other language is of particular value to the prospective candidate’s scholarly interests, but ordinarily a combination of two Romance languages may not be selected.
(2) Where it is of particular value to his scholarly interests and with the written permission of the Executive Officer, the prospective candidate may offer Mathematics in the place of one of the two foreign languages. A student selecting this option will be required to demonstrate his knowledge of algebra, analytical geometry and the differential and integral calculus.

Minor changes in the text of the rest of the paragraph will also be necessary, if the second option is approved.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries. Columbiana, Department of Economics Collection. General departmental notices, memoranda, etc. Curriculum material. Box 1, Folder “Committee on Instruction.”

Image Source: Alma Mater on the steps of Columbia University.

Categories
Harvard Regulations

Harvard. Regulations regarding graduate degrees in economics, 1951

 

 

This 1951 draft of the regulations governing the award of A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Harvard was submitted by Arthur Smithies to his colleagues. There were few changes when compared to the 1947 regulations, the reduction of field examinations from six to five appears indeed to have been the most significant change.

With this posting Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has reached 500 transcribed artifacts!  

_____________________________

[3/5/51]

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
MEMORANDUM

TO:      Members of the Department
FROM: Arthur Smithies

I am distributing an edited copy of the present requirements for the Ph.D. It incorporates our decision to reduce the number of fields to five and makes what I think are editorial improvements.

I invite your attention specifically to Paragraph 4 under the Ph.D. requirements. I feel very strongly that something on these lines should be said here but feel there is a great deal of room for improvement in my own statement.

The Graduate School is anxious to get out a new printed edition of this announcement, so I hope we can dispose of it at the next Department meeting.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
DEGREES IN ECONOMICS

MASTER OF ARTS

  1. Residence—Two full terms of advanced work with acceptable grades at Harvard.
  2. Languages—A reading knowledge of advanced economic texts in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Scandinavian languages, or Russian, which is to be tested by a rigorous two-hour examination in which foreign language texts are to be translated into English. The examinations are given by the Department in the first week of November and March. This requirement must be met before taking the general examination.
  3. Plan of Study—Plans of Study must be approved by the Chairman of the Department at the end of the first term in residence.
  4. General Oral Examination—The candidate will be examined on four fields, as presented in the Plan of Study, selected from the groups below:
    1. Two from Group A, including Economic Theory
    2. Two from Groups A, B, and C (not more than one from Group C)

GROUP A

  1. Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to the Development of Economic Thought since 1776.
  2. Economic History since 1750, or some other approved field in Economic History
  3. Statistical Method and its Application

GROUP B

  1. Money and Banking
  2. Economic Fluctuations and Forecasting
  3. Transportation
  4. Business Organization and Control
  5. Public Finance
  6. International Trade and Tariff Policies
  7. Economics of Agriculture
  8. Labor Problems
  9. Land Economics
  10. Socialism and Social Reform
  11. Economic History before 1750
  12. Consumption Distribution and Prices
  13. Economics of Public Utilities
  14. Social Security

Group C

  1. Forestry Economics
  2. Any of the historical fields defined under the requirements for the Ph.D. in History
  3. Certain fields in Political Science listed under the requirements for the Ph.D. in Political Science.
  4. Jurisprudence (selected topics)
  5. Philosophy (selected topics)
  6. Anthropology
  7. History of Political Theory
  8. International Law
  9. Sociology. Certain fields defined under the requirements for the Ph.D. in Sociology.
  1. Preparation for General Oral Examination—(a) The fields of study are covered in part by formal course instruction, but supplementary reading must be undertaken to meet the requirements. (b) Preparation for the field Economic Theory and its History will normally require two full courses in the field at the graduate level, or equivalent private reading. (c) In Statistics, Economics 121, or its equivalent, is a prerequisite to graduate instruction. Professor Frickey should be consulted. (d) Usually four terms of graduate study at Harvard are necessary as preparation for the general examination, but a candidate who has been credited with graduate work of high order at another institution may be able to prepare himself in a shorter period.
  2. Arranging the Examination—The oral, or general, examinations are not set at any specified date. The arrangements for the examination must be made at least six weeks in advance of the date proposed by the candidate. Consult the Secretary of the Department, M-8 Littauer Center.
  3. Quality of Work—Candidates for this degree must give evidence, in their course records, of the capacity for distinguished work. Ordinarily, candidates whose records at Harvard do not average at least B will not be allowed to present themselves for the general examination.
  4. Excuses from Final Course Examinations—Candidates for the Master’s degree who are not candidates for the Ph.D. degree must take the final examinations in courses.
  5. Application for Degree—An application for the Master’s degree must be filed by December 1 for a degree at midyear and by March 1 for the degree at Commencement. Two terms in residence at the full tuition rate at Harvard University are required for each degree conferred.

SPECIAL MASTER OF ARTS FOR VETERANS

The only changes from the stated conditions given above are:

  1. On petition a candidate may present himself for an oral examination in which quantitatively the requirement in Economic Theory is one that can be met in one year of graduate study.
  2. The requirements regarding the offering of Economic History or Statistics are eliminated.
  3. General Oral Examination—The candidate will be examined on four fields as presented in the Plan of Study. (See list of fields of study above.)
    1. Economic Theory
    2. Three from Groups A, B, and C (not more than one from Group C.)

It must be understood that the oral examination for this degree will not be accepted as part of the formal requirements for the Ph.D. degree.

This special Master of Arts for veterans is open only to those veterans who entered the armed services before 1945.

 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

The requirements for this degree are:

  1. Residence—Not less than four terms devoted to advanced studies approved as affording suitable preparation for the degree. At least three of these terms must be spent in residence at Harvard University. Graduate work completed in another institution may be offered in full or partial fulfillment of the fourth term. Consult the
  2. Languages— A reading knowledge of advanced economic texts in two foreign languages which is tested by a rigorous two-hour examination in each language in which foreign language texts are to be translated into English. One of the languages in which examination is taken is to be either French or German. The second language can be chosen from the following: French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Scandinavian languages, and Russian, which is to be tested by a rigorous two-hour examination in which foreign language texts are to be translated into English.

Students have the option of substituting Mathematics for the second language. In this case, the student must take an examination to show his capacity to read and understand the more elementary mathematical presentations used in economics. This includes such knowledge of analytic geometry as is frequently given in the first year of college and such knowledge of differential calculus and integral calculus as is frequently given in a single-year course in college. In terms of present courses at Harvard College, this means through Mathematics 2. By exception, a pass grade in Math 2a and 2b at Harvard or Radcliffe or adequate grades in mathematics courses taken elsewhere will be accepted in place of the special mathematics examination.

Students whose native language is not English may petition the Department to be excused from examination in the second language. The student would then be examined in either French or German. In considering such petitions, account is taken of the amount of original economic literature written in the student’s native language, as well as of his general academic standing.

Language requirements should be met at least six months before the Special examination.

  1. Plan of Study—Every candidate is required to submit to the Department for its approval a plan showing his fields of study and his preparation in these fields. This plan of study must be submitted at the end of the first term of graduate work. Candidates may present for consideration of the Department reasonable substitutes for any of the fields named in the several groups.

The plan of study must include five fields, approved by the Department, selected as follows from the list of fields stated under the requirements for the Master’s degree:

  1. The three subjects in Group A are required, and
  2. Two from Groups B and  Group C (not more than one from Group C)
  1. General Oral Examination—The general oral examination for the Ph.D. is the same as the examination for the Master’s degree.

However, while preparation for the M.A. degree will normally consist of formal course work, Ph.D. candidates are encouraged to be more flexible; and to avoid the tendency of the course system to compartmentalize knowledge. In preparation for the general examination the student’s main purposes should be to provide himself with tools of analysis, to be aware of the contributions that theory, history and statistics can make to the solution of economic problems and to appreciate the relation of economics to other disciplines.

During their first year of graduate study, students will normally take formal courses in Theory, History, and Statistics; but during their second year they are encouraged to take informal reading courses as part of their programs of study.

  1. Excuses from Final Course Examinations— Ordinarily candidates are excused from the final examinations in courses included in the fields presented for the general examination provided the general examination is passed after December 1 in the fall term and April 15 in the spring term and before the course examinations are held. Students must receive at least a grade of “good” in the general examination to be excused. Students taking the general examination at the end of the second term are expected to take the course examinations.
  2. Fifth Field (write-off field)—The requirement regarding the fifth field of study in the Ph.D. program is usually fulfilled by the passing of the equivalent of a full year graduate course offered at Harvard and completed with the grade of B Plus or higher. Seminars offered by the Graduate School of Public Administration are not acceptable for “write-off” purposes. One-half course must have been completed in the write-off field with a grade of B Plus or higher before the general examination.
  3. Thesis—The thesis should be written in one of the fields taken in the general oral examination. It must show an original treatment of its subject and give evidence of independent research.

Every candidate should report to the Department, as soon as possible after his general examination, the subject of his thesis and the member of the Department under whom he intends to work. Two bound copies of the thesis (the original and first copy) must be in the hands of the Chairman of the Department by December 1 and April 1 for degrees at midyear or Commencement. The thesis must be accepted by the Department before the candidate can be admitted to the final examination. It must be accompanied by two copies of a brief summary, not exceeding 1200 words in length, which shall indicate as clearly as possible the methods, material, and results of the investigation. Wherever possible students are urged to begin work on their thesis as soon as possible after the general examination.

  1. Special Oral Examination—The special examination is intended to give the student an opportunity to defend his thesis.

At present it is expected that one year of residence will elapse between the general and the special examinations. The preparation for the doctorate is regarded by the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and by the Department as a continuous process. Ordinarily, the candidate must stand for the final examination within five years after passing the general examination.

To arrange for the date of the special examination, consult the Secretary of the Department, M-8 Littauer Center, six weeks in advance of the proposed date. Application for the Ph.D. degree must be filed by December 1 for the degree at midyear, and March 1 for the degree at Commencement. The special examination must be taken within five years of the general examination. (Note: two terms of residence at full tuition rate in Harvard University are required for each degree conferred.)

 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

  1. The program of study for the degree will be made up of six fields chosen from the groups given below. Four (or under certain conditions, three) of these fields, including Economic Theory, which is required, will be presented for the general examination. Only two fields, including Economic Theory, may ordinarily be chosen from Group A. Fields other than those here stated may be offered. Emphasis is placed upon an integrated program. In all cases the program of study must be approved by the Chairman of the Department of Economics. For advice, see the Chairman of the Department of Economics. For advice, see the Chairman of the Department of Economics on courses relating to economics and the Secretary of the Doctoral Board at the Graduate School of Business Administration for business subjects.

GROUP A

  1. Economic Theory and its History, with special reference to the Development of the History of Economic Thought since 1776.
  2. Economic History since 1750.
  3. Public Finance and Taxation.
  4. Economics of Agriculture.

GROUP B

  1. Accounting
  2. Marketing
  3. Foreign Trade
  4. Production
  5. Money and Banking
  6. Business Organization and Control
  7. Transportation
  8. Insurance
  9. Statistical Method and its Application
  10. Economics of Public Utilities
  11. Labor
  1. Special Examination and Thesis—The procedure in general follows that outlined for the Ph.D. in Economics. The field for the special examination should ordinarily be chosen from Group B.

Further information regarding courses and programs of study may be obtained by writing directly to the Department of Economics, Littauer M-8, Cambridge 38, Mass.

March 8, 1951

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. Personal Papers of John Kenneth Galbraith, Series 5 Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 517, Folder “General Correspondence 12/7/49-12/31/53”.

 

Categories
Harvard Regulations

Harvard. Written vs. Oral Exams. Gerschenkron vs. Chamberlin, 1958

Continue reading “Harvard. Written vs. Oral Exams. Gerschenkron vs. Chamberlin, 1958”
Categories
Harvard Regulations

Harvard. M.A. and Ph.D. requirements in Economics, 1958

 

 

Some economists keep more extensive files from their departmental lives than others. John Kenneth Galbraith not only wrote faster than most folks read, but routine departmental business is laced with his  wit (when he writes) and fortified with other people’s memos and supplements that have been filed with as great a care as successive drafts of Galbraith’s own writings and correspondence.

For new visitors to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror, I should mention that my principal focus is the history of the organization and content of economics graduate education. Today we have an addition to the collection of “rules and regulations” governing the degree requirements for economists. It is only coincidental that this artifact has been recovered from the Galbraith papers. 

_____________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics, Littauer M-8

September 18, 1958

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a copy of the latest departmental supplement. It includes all the latest revisions. Note especially the new requirement of the written General Examination, pp. 3-4.

Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

_____________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Supplement to the General Announcement*

[*To be read in conjunction with the Excerpts from the General Announcement and/or the General Announcement.]

 

Higher Degrees under the Department of Economics

The graduate program of the Department of Economics is designed both to provide students with a general graduate education in economics and to train them to undertake research in particular fields. While the Department has always stressed the importance of economic theory, history and statistics, its interest in abstract economics has always been tempered by its realization of the need to apply economics to the resolution of practical issues; it offers work also in mathematical economics and econometrics. As part of its empirical work, the Department, in cooperation with other branches of the University, operates and advanced statistical laboratory with the latest types of computational machines.

Students in economics are eligible for the regular Graduate School scholarships (see Excerpts from the General Announcement). The Henry Lee Memorial Scholarship is reserved specifically for students in Political Economy. At present, there are available ten to twenty scholarships yielding from $800 to $3,000. In addition, the Department hires annually about ten teaching fellows with stipends ranging from $880 to a maximum of $2,640. Ordinarily these appointments are available on a competitive basis to able student who have completed two years of graduate study in this Department.

The David A. Wells Prize is awarded annually for the best thesis on a subject which lies within the field of economics and is acceptable to the Department of Economics. Further details are available in the Department Office.

The Economics Club organized by graduate students meets regularly to hear speakers and to discuss problems of common interest.

 

HIGHER DEGREES IN ECONOMICS
Master of Arts (A.M.)

Prerequisites for Admission—Normally a distinguished undergraduate record and competence in a foreign language. Concentration in economics is not demanded, however, and persons with honor grades in their undergraduate work are welcomed. All applicants are urged to take the Aptitude Test of the Graduate Record Examination.

Residence—A minimum of two years: see General Announcement. The Department may waive up to one year of this requirement if a student has done graduate work elsewhere.

Program of Study—Four fields selected as follows from the fields listed below. Two fields, including Economic Theory, must be selected from Group A, and two must be chosen from Groups A, B and C (not more than one from group C).

GROUP A

(1) Economic Theory and Its History, with special reference to the Development of Economic Thought since 1776.
(2) Economic History since 1750, or some other approved field in Economic History.
(3) Statistical Method and Its Application.

 

GROUP B

(4) Money and Banking
(5) Economic Fluctuations and Forecasting.
(6) Transportation.
(7) Business Organization and Control.
(8) Public Finance.
(9) International Trade and Tariff Policies.
(10) Economics of Agriculture or Land Economics.
(11) Labor Problems.
(12) Socialism and Social Reform.
(13) Economic History before 1750.
(14) Consumption, Distribution, and Prices.
(15) Economics of Public Utilities.
(16) Social Security.
(17) Location and Regional Economics.
(18) Economics of Underdeveloped Areas.
(19) Forestry Economics.
(20) Any of the historical fields defined under requirements for the Ph.D. in History.
(21) Certain fields in Political Science listed under requirements for the Ph.D. in Political Science.

 

GROUP C

(22) Jurisprudence (selected topics).
(23) Anthropology.
(24) Philosophy (selected topics).
(25) History of Political Theory.
(26) International Law.
(27) Certain fields in Sociology defined under the requirements for the Ph.D. in Sociology.

Each student is required to submit for Departmental approval a plan showing four fields. The plan must be filed at the beginning of the third term of study on an official departmental form. Students may present for consideration of the Department reasonable substitutes for any of the fields named in the several groups.

Generally, students will take six courses, including one or two seminars, and two reading courses. During their first year of graduate study, students will normally take formal courses in theory, history, and statistics; but during their second year they are encouraged to take reading courses. These may consist of work under the direction of a member of the Faculty, or of independent work; in the latter case, the student must secure the approval of the Chairman of the Department.

Languages—A fluent reading knowledge, to be tested by a rigorous two-hour written examination, of advanced economic texts in one of the following languages: French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, a Scandinavian language, or Russian.

A student may substitute mathematics for this requirement, in which case he must take an examination to show his capacity to read and understand the more elementary mathematics used in economics. This includes knowledge of analytic geometry and differential and integral calculus.

Examinations are given by the Department in the first week of November and March. This requirement should be fulfilled during the first term of residence, and must be fulfilled before the General Written Examination. A student who has twice failed a language or mathematics examination must present to the Department proof of further study before he can take the examination a third time.

General Examinations—Each student will take a General Written and a General Oral Examination, normally during his fourth term of residence.

The General Written Examination precedes the General Oral Examination and will consist of a four-hour comprehensive test in Economic Theory and its History. This examination will be given in March. A student whose graduate record at Harvard does not average at least B will not be allowed to take the General Written Examination.

The General Oral Examination is a two-hour examination in four fields selected in accordance with the rules stated under Program of Study. In his preparation for the examination, the student’s main purpose should be to provide himself with tools of analysis, to be aware of the contributions that theory, history, and statistics can make to the solution of economic problems, and to appreciate the relation of economics to other disciplines. A student who has not passed the General Written Examination cannot present himself for the General Oral Examination.

The General Oral Examinations are held throughout the academic year. The student should consult the Secretary of the Department six weeks in advance of the date upon which he proposes to be examined.

Thesis—None required.

 

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

Prerequisites for Admission—In general, same as for the A.M.

Residence—Minimum of two years; see General Announcement.

Program of Study—Same as for the A.M., except that five fields are required, to be selected as follows. The three subjects in Group A are required, and two subjects from Groups B and C (not more than one from Group C). The student should include as one of his five fields the subject within which his thesis falls.

Languages—Two foreign languages selected from those listed under the requirements for the A.M. A test in one language must be passed before taking the General Written Examination and the other passed at least six months before the Special Examination. All candidates must offer French or German.

Mathematics may be substituted for the second language. For such substitution refer to rules for the A.M.

A student whose native language is not English may petition the Department to be excused from examination in the second language. He will then normally be examined in either French or German before taking his General Written Examination. In considering such petitions, account is taken of the amount of original economic literature in the student’s native language as well as of his general academic standing.

            General Examinations—Same as for the A.M. except that the General Oral Examination will cover five fields. The requirement of the fifth field is usually fulfilled by completing a full-year graduate course, other than Theory, in the Department of Economics at Harvard with the grade of B+ or higher. Seminars offered by the Graduate School of Public Administration are not acceptable for such “write-off” purposes. One half-course must have been completed in the write-off field with a grade of B+ or higher before the General Oral Examination. If the requirement for the write-off is not met prior to the General Oral Examination, all five fields must be offered.

Ordinarily students who have completed three terms of residence at Harvard are excused from the final examination in courses included in the fields presented for the General Oral Examination, provided it is passed after December 1 in the fall term, or after April 1 in the spring term, and before final course examinations are held, and provided it is passed with at least a grade of “Good”.

Thesis—The thesis should be written in one of the fields offered in the General Oral Examination and must show an original treatment of the subject and give evidence of independent research. The candidate must obtain written consent for his proposed topic from the faculty member who has agreed to supervise his thesis and must submit it to the Chairman within six months after passing the General Oral Examination. A student must make a report of progress on his thesis to the Department once a year until the thesis is submitted for approval. The thesis in final form together with a brief summary (4-10pp.) must be submitted within five years from the date of the General Oral Examination. Two bound copies of the thesis (the original and first copy) must be in the hands of the Department by December 1 for a degree at Mid-year and March 1 for a degree at Commencement.

Special Examination—After approval of the thesis, the candidate must pass an oral examination of one and one-half hours, not less than one-half hour to be devoted to intensive examination in the special field without primary reference to the thesis. No examinations are held during the summer.

 

Ph.D. IN BUSINESS ECONOMICS

The purpose of this degree is to combine the more general training in Economics with the technical training in business courses and to prepare students to teach in schools of business administration.

Prerequisites for Admission—Same as for the Ph.D. in Economics.

Residence—Same as for the Ph.D. in Economics.

Program of Study—The student should prepare himself in five fields chosen from the groups given below. Only two fields, including Economic Theory and its History, may ordinarily be chosen from Group A. In all cases the program of study must be approved by the Chairman of the Department of Economics. For advice on courses relating to business subjects, students should see Professor John Lintner of the Business School.

 

GROUP A

(1) Economic Theory and Its History, with special reference to the Development of the History of Economic Thought since 1776.
(2) Economic History since 1750.
(3) Public Finance and Taxation.
(4) Economics of Agriculture.

 

GROUP B

(5) Accounting.
(6) Marketing.
(7) Foreign Trade.
(8) Production.
(9) Money and Banking.
(10) Business Organization and Control.
(11) Transportation.
(12) Insurance.
(13) Statistical Method and Its Application.
(14) Economics of Public Utilities.
(15) Labor.

 

Languages—Same as for the Ph.D. in Economics.

General Examinations—Same as for the Ph.D. in Economics.

Thesis—Same as for the Ph.D. in Economics.

Special Examination—Same as for the Ph.D. in Economics.

Further information regarding courses and programs of study in Economics may be obtained by writing directly to the Chairman, Department of Economics, M-8 Littauer Center, Cambridge 38, Massachusetts. Inquiries concerning admission and scholarships should be addressed to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 24 Quincy Street, Cambridge 38, Massachusetts.

 

Source:  John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers, Series 5 Harvard University File, 1949-1990, Box 525, Folder “Harvard Dept of Econ: [Departmental Documents]”.

 

Categories
Chicago Fields Regulations

Chicago. L. C. Marshall Memos Regarding Doctoral Field Committees and Advising, 1926-27

 

 

The following set of memoranda from the head of the department of economics at the University of Chicago provides us with an academic administrator’s perspective of the organization of a doctoral program and the departmental structure by fields. We see to which fields different economics professors were associated (consigned?), none of which we couldn’t guess, but memoranda like these help to nail these things down for sure. It is dull reading, and perhaps next time I make it to the University of Chicago archives, I’ll be able to find some of the actual written responses by field which should provide us more content. Still I find it interesting to see just how underwhelming was the prompt response to the chair’s request to his colleagues to meet with each other and write something up as seen in his three part reminder/nudge/nag memorandum dated about a half-year after his first requests! 

 

__________________________________

Memo #1. Formalizing Academic Advising

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Memorandum to: P. H. Douglas, H. A. Millis, Jacob Viner C. W. Wright

from L. C. Marshall

October 13, 1926

I am inclined to think it would be a good plan if we arranged for a somewhat decentralized system of advice for our students who are preparing for the doctorate. I refer particularly to their four fields.

When a man has decided that he wishes to use fields a, b, c, d (let us say) for the doctorate, would it not be a good plan for someone in each field to take him in hand and talk the whole situation over with him? What formal previous training has he had? What informal? What practical experience? What courses in Economics here would be useful to him? What courses in other Departments would be useful? What informal reading might wisely be covered, etc., etc.

If such a scheme were carried out there ought to be some sort of formal written record of the comments and recommendations of the group advisor, so that there could be no future misunderstanding and so that a temporary absence of the advisor would not cause any embarrassment.

It would be easy to provide a memorandum pad that would provide an original for the candidate, a duplicate for the registering representative and a triplicate for the group advisor.

Won’t you give me suggestions of the kind of thing that ought to appear on a pad of this kind?

__________________________________

Memo #2. Coordinating Fields within Common Economics & Business Doctoral Program

 

November 22, 1926

Memorandum to all persons mentioned herein:

The problem attacked in this memorandum is that of carrying through effectively the legislation which has established the single Ph.D. degree for work in our group.

The particular aspect of that problem which is taken up below is the matter of securing competent advice and counsel (not compulsion) in the fields in which candidates present themselves for written examinations.

Will the person whose name in underscored in each group undertake (within the next week, if reasonably possible) the responsibility of calling a meeting of the members of his group with the idea of

(a) listing the resources (mainly courses) available in our own offerings
(b) listing the resources (mainly courses) available in other divisions of the University
(c) listing fruitful lines of practical endeavor or outside experience
(d) and in particular, developing any other fruitful lines of counsel and suggestion for candidates in the field.

And will each leader of these group discussions please put the outcome in writing and send it to the undersigned? It is possible that (d) above will yield results that will cause all of us to get together for further discussion.

FIELDS FOR THE SINGLE DEGREE

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Business Administration

(a) Viner, Douglas, Cox, Nerlove, Kyrk [in pencil: “Edie, Schultz, Knight”]
(b) McKinsey, Meech, Stone, Barnes

  1. Statistics and Accounting: Theory and Application of Quantitative Method

(a) Cox, Schultz, Nerlove
(b) Rorem, McKinsey, Daines

  1. Economic History and Historical Method

Wright, Sorrell, Viner, Palyi

  1. The Financial System and Financial Administration

Mints, Cox, Meech, Palyi

  1. Labor and Personnel Administration

Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. The Market and the Administration Marketing

Duddy, Palmer, Barnes, Dinsmore

  1. Risk and its Administration

Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints

  1. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration

Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas

  1. Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production

Mitchell, Marshall, Schultz, Sorrell

  1. Government Finance

Viner, Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity

Spencer, Wright, Millis, Christ, Pomeroy

  1. Population and the Standard of Living

Kyrk, Douglas, Viner

  1. Field proposed by the candidate

L. C. Marshall

 

__________________________________

Memo #3. Advanced General Survey Courses by Field

November 30, 1926

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall to All Persons Mentioned Herein:

 

The problem attacked in this memorandum is that of carrying through effectively our arrangements with respect to our advanced general survey courses—courses that in the past we have sometimes referred to as “Introduction to the Graduate Study of X,” although we are not now following this terminology.

The following background facts will need to be kept in mind:

  1. We are to have introductory point of view courses designed to give an organic view of the Economic Order. These courses are numbered 102, 103, 104.
  2. Our next range of courses is designed primarily to deal with method. This range includes: 1. Economic History; 2. Statistics; 3. Accounting; 4. Intermediate Theory.
  3. The foregoing seven courses are the only courses for which we assume responsibility as far as the ordinary [pencil: “Arts & Literature] undergraduate is concerned. It may well be that from time to time some member of the staff will be interested in giving for undergraduates a course on some live problem of the day, but this is an exceptional matter and not a matter of our standard arrangement.
  4. Our best undergraduates may move on to the type of courses referred to above in the first paragraph, such as courses 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. In general the prerequisites for admission to these courses (as far as undergraduates are concerned) would be a certain number of majors in our work plus 27 majors with an average of B. Under the regulations which the Graduate Faculty has laid down, students who have less than 27 majors could not be admitted to these courses except with the consent of the group and Dean Laing.

It is highly essential that our work in these advanced survey courses such as 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. shall:

  1. Really assume the method courses mentioned above: really be conducted at a level which assumes that the student possesses certain techniques
  2. Really assume an adequate background of subject-matter content.

Will the person whose name is underscored in each group undertake (as promptly as reasonably may be) the responsibility of conducting conferences designed

  1. To lead to explicit definite arrangements looking toward the actual utilization of the earlier method courses in these advanced survey courses.
  2. To prepare a bibliography that can be mimeographed and placed in each student’s hands who enters one of these advanced survey courses. This bibliography is not to be a bibliography of the course (that is a separate matter) but a bibliography of what is assumed by way of preparation for the course. Whether a somewhat different bibliography should be made for the Economics course and the Business course in a given field is left for each group to discuss. Personally I hope that it will be a single bibliography for the two. Mr. Palyi suggests the desirability of a bibliographical article (worthy of pulication) for each field. This seems to me an admirable suggestion—one difficult to resist.

Will each leader of the group referred to below please put the outcome of your discussion in writing and send to the undersigned? It is to be hoped that you will find other matters to report upon in addition to the foregoing.

GROUPS

  1. The Financial System and Financial Administration

Meech, Mints, Cox, Palyi

  1. Labor and Personnel Administration

Douglas, Millis, Stone, Kornhauser

  1. The Market and the Administration Marketing

Palmer, Duddy, Barnes, Dinsmore

  1. Risk and its Administration

Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints

  1. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration

Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas

  1. Government Finance

Viner, Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. Population and the Standard of Living

Kyrk, Douglas, Viner

  1. Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production

Mitchell, Daines, McKinsey

The following fields are not included in this memorandum either because of specific course prerequisites or because of obvious difficulties in the case:

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Administration
  2. Statistics and Accounting
  3. Economic History and Historical Method
  4. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity

__________________________________

Memo #4. Written Field Examinations

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
THE WORK IN ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

Memorandum to:
Members of the Instructing Staff from L. C. Marshall, January 27, 1927

This communication is directed toward carrying one step farther the work of the various groups which are preparing for the effective administration of the single doctorate.

You will remember that in each functional field an analysis has been made of our resources. This looks in the direction of more competent advice to students concentrating in the various fields. You will also remember that in each functional field certain steps have been taken looking toward the more effective operation of the courses that in the past we have sometimes referred to as “Introduction to the Graduate Study of X.”

The primary purpose of this present memorandum is to suggest to each functional group that it now examine carefully the matter of the written examination in that field; giving attention to the character of the standards which should be insisted upon, the number and type and grouping of questions which should be asked, and any other significant issues. After each group has examined the issues and difficulties in its particular field it may prove necessary to have a general meeting of all groups to determine general policies in these matters. It seems unnecessary to hold a general meeting in advance of the special meeting since we can assume our existing standards and practices as at least a point of departure for the group discussions.

Will the person whose name is underscored undertake as promptly as reasonably may be the responsibility of conducting group conferences on this matter of written examinations for the doctorate.

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Administration (Here is the only really difficult problem in the whole matter. This field is to be required of all candidates and the outstanding problem is how to formulate an examination that will properly cover the case. Probably there will be little or no difficulty in the case of economic theory for students who are primarily interested in Business Administration for they would certainly have covered 301, 302, 309 and they would almost certainly have covered a theoretical course in some special field, e.g., Wages, in the field of Labor. The case is different in the matter of the Business Administration requirement for persons who are primarily interested in orthodox Economics, since Business Administration courses are confessedly not as well organized as courses in Economic Theory. The difficulty may, however, be exaggerated in our minds. Under our new groupings most candidates will automatically have come into contact with an administrative course in one or more functional fields. Probably a little practical wisdom in arranging requirements for a brief transition period will leave us with few problems in this matter after the transition is over.)
    Douglas, Viner, Millis, Cox, Nerlove, Spencer, McKinsey, Meech, Stone
  2. Statistics and Accounting; theory and application of quantitative method. (Our general standard has been general knowledge of both fields and detailed knowledge of one in case this field of work is offered.)
    Daines, Wright, Cox, Schultz, Nerlove, Rorem, McKinsey
  3. Economic History and Historical Method (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Wright, Sorrell, Viner, Palyi
  4. The Financial System and Financial Administration.
    Cox, Mints, Meech, Palyi, Wright
  5. Labor and Personnel Administration.
    Stone, Millis, Douglas, Kornhauser
  6. The Market and Market Administration
    Barnes, Duddy, Palmer, Dinsmore
  7. Risk and its Administration
    Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
  8. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration. (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas
  9. Resources, Technology and Administration of Production. . (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Mitchell, Daines, Schultz, Sorrell
  10. Government Finance. . (Since no particular change is occurring in this field the leader of the group may be able to cover the case by informal conversations.)
    Millis, Viner, Douglas, Stone
  11. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity. (Although no great change is taking place in this field, the problem is sufficiently difficult to justify a conference.)
    Pomeroy, Spencer, Wright, Millis, Christ
  12. Population and the Standard of Living. (In Mr. Field’s absence let us omit discussion of the written examination.)

__________________________________

Memo #5. Please Respond to Memos #2-#4

May 25, 1927

Follow up Memorandum to persons mentioned herein from L. C. Marshall

On November 22, 1926, a memorandum was sent to certain groups of committees dealing with the problem of securing competent advice and counsel in the fields in which candidates present themselves for written examinations. The committees were asked to list the resources available in the University in each field; to list fruitful lines of practical endeavor or outside experience; and to indicate other fruitful lines of counsel and suggestion for candidates.

It was hoped that data would become available in time to make the circular for 1927-28 more attractive and in time to prepare mimeographed sheets for the use of students this year.

Below is a statement of the committees, with their chairmen. The asterisk indicates that the committee has reported. Will those who have not yet reported please do so as soon as possible.

Theory, Viner
Administration, McKinsey*
Statistics, Cox*
Accounting, Rorem*
Econ. Hist. etc. Wright
Finance etc. Mints
Labor etc. Millis*
Market etc. Duddy*
Risk etc. Nerlove*
Transportation etc. Sorrell
Resources etc. Mitchell*
Govt. Finance, Viner
Social Direction etc. Spencer*
Population etc. Kyrk

* * * * * *

On November 30, 1926, a memorandum was sent to certain groups of committees dealing with the problem of carrying through effectively our arrangements with respect to our advanced general survey courses. Each committee was asked to indicate what definite things can be done in the way of making certain that the preparatory method courses will eventually be utilized; what can be done in the way of mimeographed bibliography indicating what is assumed by way of preparation for each advance survey course; what other things can be done.

It was hope that the data would be available in time to enable us to take quite a long step forward in this matter in connection with the 1927-28 advanced survey courses.

Below is a statement of the committees with their chairmen. The asterisk indicates that the committee has reported. Will those who have not yet reported please do so as soon as possible.

Finance etc. Meech*
Labor etc. Douglas
Market etc. Palmer*
Risk etc. Nerlove*
Transportation etc. Sorrell
Govt. Finance, Viner
Population etc. Kyrk
Resources etc. Mitchell

* * * * * *

On Feb. 3, 1927 a memorandum [Probably the memorandum was that dated January 27, 1927] was sent to certain groups of committees dealing with the problem of the character of the written examination in each functional field.

It was hoped that we could start the year 1927-28 with a clearer view of what should be our positions with respect to these examinations.

Below is a statement of the committees with their chairmen. The asterisk indicates that the committee has reported. Will those who have not yet reported please do so as soon as possible?

Economic Theory and Principles of Business Administration, Douglas
Statistics and Accounting: Theory and Application of Quantitative Method, Daines
Economic History and Historical Method, Wright
The Financial System and Financial Administration, Cox
Labor and Personnel Administration, Stone
The Market and the Administration Marketing, Barns*
Risk and its Administration, Nerlove
Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration, Sorrell
Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production, Mitchell
Government Finance, Millis
Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity, Pomeroy*

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 22, Folder 6.

Categories
Chicago Fields Regulations

Chicago. Doctoral Field Exams Schedule for the Friedmans, Stigler, Wallis. 1935

Milton Friedman, Rose Friedman née Director, George Stigler, and W. Allen Wallis all took some of their doctoral field examinations at the University of Chicago in the Spring Quarter of 1935. The names of the examiners and the other examinees can be seen from the mimeographed page I found in George Stigler’s papers at the University of Chicago Archives. I have included in this post the field examination requirements for doctoral students in economics from the annual Announcements published for the 1934-35 academic year.

______________________

 Three Field Examinations for Doctorate

“The candidate is expected to have general training in the important fields listed below and to specialize in three fields, one of which must be Economic Theory, including Monetary and Cycle Theory, and another must be the field of his thesis. The fields to be chosen (in addition to Economic Theory) may be taken from (1) Statistics; (2) Accounting; (3) Economic History; (4) Finance and Financial Administration; (5) Government Finance; (6) Labor and Personnel Administration; (7) Trusts and Public Utilities; (8) International Economic Relations; (9) some other field proposed by the candidate. A field proposed by the candidate may be in Economics or in another social science, the arrangement in either case being made with the Department of Economics. It is desired to develop that program of work which best meets the needs of the individual student. This usually involves the election of some courses in other departments and possibly the development of a field in another social science as a substitute for one of the fields in economics.

“The candidate’s grasp of his three fields of specialization is tested by preliminary written examinations which must be passed to the satisfaction of the Department before admission to candidacy. The final oral examination is on the field of concentration and on the thesis. The written examinations can be taken in one quarter or they can be divided between two quarters, not necessarily consecutive quarters, at the option of the candidate. The written examinations are given in the sixth, seventh, and eighth weeks of the Autumn, Spring, and Summer quarters. The written examination in general economic theory, including monetary and cycle theory, is in two parts and will require five hours in all. The written examination in each of the other fields requires from three to four hours. Notice of intention to take any written examination must be filed with the Department at least three weeks before the examinations begin. In written examinations for the doctorate the questions cover both the theoretical and administrative aspects of the field.”

 

Source: Announcements. The University of Chicago. The College and the Divisions for the Sessions of 1934-35, pp. 283-4.

______________________

 

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DOCTORATE

Spring Quarter, 1935

The schedule below shows the preliminary examinations requested for the current quarter. Will the Chairman of each Committee please be responsible for turning in the complete examination by at least one week before the date on which it is to be given?

Dates Examinations Committees Students Enrolled
Saturday, May 11
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Economic Theory
(New Plan)		 Viner, Chairman
Schultz
Yntema
Knight		 Friedman, M.
Shohan, C.J.
Stigler, G.J. (Brookings)
Wallis, W.A.
1:30, S.S.R. 417 Monetary and Cycle Theory Mints
Cox
Saturday, May 18
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Financial System and Financial Administration Mints, Chairman
Cox
Meech
Gideonse		 Curtis, C.H.
Shohan, C.J.
Saturday, May 18
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Government Finance Leland, Chairman
Simons		 Stigler, G.J. (Brookings)
Saturday, May 18
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Statistics Schultz, Chairman
Cover
Yntema		 Director, R.
Friedman, M.
Jacoby, N.H. (Springfield)
Saturday, May 25
8:30, S.S.R. 417		 Economic History Wright, Chairman
Nef
Knight		 Ostrander, F.T. (Williams)
Shohan, C.J.

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives, George Stigler Papers Addenda, Box 33, Folder “1935 Univ. of Chicago, Class Notes (Gray binder)”.

Image Source: Rose and Milton Friedman. From The Prodos Blog.

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Requirements for Ph.D., 1920

The following requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science were published in the Columbia University Bulletin of Information. Announcement 1920-1921 of Courses offered in History, Economics and Public Law. The date of publication of the Bulletin is January 31, 1920 which is two weeks before the Faculty officially approved the requirements proposed by the Committee on Instruction. This would suggest that in this matter the Faculty served as a rubber-stamp for its Committee on Instruction.

Of particular interest are two resolutions that follow these requirements, one that would have opened all courses to women (unless the professor in charge objected!!) and a second proposed by the economist Henry Seager to allow greater flexibility in the choice of a second foreign language. The women’s resolution was tabled (!) and the language resolution was adopted.

 

Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science
Feb. 13, 1920

Upon motion of Professor [Carlton J. H.] Hayes [Professor of History] on behalf of the Committee on Instruction, the Faculty then approved the following requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as a substitute for the requirements adopted by the Faculty at its meeting on March 28, 1919, and set forth on pages 468 to 471 of the Minutes of the Faculty:

I. Requirements

  1. General. The degree is conferred upon such students as shall satisfy the requirements as to preliminary training, residence, languages, subjects, and dissertation.
  2. Preliminary Training. The candidate must have received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University or from some other approved university or college, or have had an education equivalent to that represented by such a degree, and must have been regularly accepted as a graduate student by the University Committee on Admissions.
  3. Residence. The candidate must have pursued graduate studies for at least two academic years, one of which must have been spent at this University, and the other of which, if not spent here, at an institution accepted as offering courses of similar standard. A year’s residence at this University is defined as registration for and attendance upon courses aggregating not less that thirty tuition points distributed over a period of not less than one academic year or its equivalent.
  4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at last one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally, the language requirements for each subject are as indicated in the following paragraph.
  5. Subjects. The candidate must have familiarized himself with one subject of primary interest and at least one subject of secondary interest, chosen from the following list of subjects. Information with reference to the scope of each of these subjects and special departmental requirements may be obtained from the Executive Officer of the Department within which it belongs.

Ancient History (French, German, Latin, and Greek)
Medieval History (French, German, Latin)
Modern European History (French & German)
American History (French or Spanish or Portuguese)
Political and Social Philosophy (French, German, and Latin)
American Government (French or German)
European Governments (French and German)
Constitutional Law (French or German)
International Law (French and either German or Latin)
Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence (Latin and either French or German)
Economic Theory, History, and Statistics (French and German)
Public and Private Finance (French and German)
Social Economic Problems, including Labor, Industrial Orgnization, Trade, Transportation, etc. (French & German)
Sociology, Historical, Statistical and Political (French and German)
Social Legislation and Statistics (French and German)

  1. Dissertation. The main test of the candidate’s qualification is the production of a dissertation which shall demonstrate his capacity to contribute to the advancement of learning within the field of his selection. Such dissertation must give evidence of the candidate’s capacity to present in good literary form the results of original researches upon some approved topic. The dissertation must be printed in a form acceptable to the Faculty before the degree will be awarded.

 

II. Procedure

  1. Notice of Prospective Candidacy. As soon as possible after the beginning of his graduate residence the student shall give notice of prospective candidacy to the Executive Officer of the Department in which the subject of his primary interest lies, and in consultation with him make a choice of subjects.
  2. Languages and Written Work. As soon as possible after giving notice of prospective candidacy, the student shall submit to the Executive Officer of the Department concerned an essay or other paper giving satisfactory evidence of his ability to make researches and to express himself in correct English. At the same time the student shall be tested, by some officer of instruction designated by the Executive Officer of the Department, as to his ability to read the required languages; language tests are normally given in October and February.
  3. Examination on Subjects. Having pursued graduate studies in this University, or in some other institution approved by it, for the equivalent of at least six months after the satisfactory completion of the tests on languages and written work, the student, upon the advice of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, shall make application, through the Executive Officer of the Department concerned, to the Dean for examination in subjects. Such application may be made at any time, but to secure the examination in any given academic year the application must be made before April 15. The applicant will be notified by the Dean of the date of his examination. This examination is an oral examination, which may be supplemented by a written examination when required by the Department concerned, and is conducted by a committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the applicant will be expected to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the subjects of his primary and secondary interest and of the literature pertaining thereto.
  4. Matriculation. Upon the successful passing of the required examination in his subjects, the applicant will be recommended by the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department to the Dean for matriculation, which is admission to candidacy for the degree.
  5. Dissertation. Soon after beginning his graduate residence, the student should choose the subject of his dissertation. His investigations and researches may be pursued either in connection with the work of some research course or under the direction and supervision of some member of the Faculty independently of any course. In either case a very considerable part of the time of the candidate or prospective candidate for the degree should be devoted to work upon his dissertation. The dissertation may be completed either during the period of residence, or in absentia. In advance of its being printed for presentation to the Faculty it must be approved by the professor in charge and accepted by the Executive Officer of the Department concerned. Such acceptance, however, is not to be construed as acceptance by the Faculty.
  6. Final Examination: Defense of the Dissertation. At least one month in advance of the time at which he wishes to present himself for the defense of his dissertation, but not later than March 15 in any academic year, the candidate must make application therefor to the Dean, who will thereafter notify him of the date of the final examination. This examination is an oral examination conducted by a Committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the candidate will be held to a defense of his dissertation in respect of its content, the sources upon which it is based, the interpretations that are made, the conclusions that are drawn, as well as in respect of the candidate’s acquainted with the literature and available sources of information upon subjects that are cognate to the subject of his dissertation.

 

On behalf of the Committee on Instruction, Professor Hayes then presented the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That all courses offered under the Faculty of Political Science, except those in which the Professor in charge objects, be open to women graduates.

            Upon motion the Faculty voted to lay this resolution on the table.

 

On behalf of the Committee on Instruction, Professor [Henry Rogers] Seager [Professor of Political Economy] then moved the following resolution, which was adopted:

RESOLVED: That the foreign language requirement prescribed as “normal” in the Faculty regulations governing the award of the doctorate may be modified: either by the substitution of another language for a prescribed language, with the approval of the Department concerned; or by the omission of a prescribed language, with the approval of the Committee on Instruction on the recommendation of the Executive Officer of the Department concerned; provided that one European language other than English shall be required.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939. Minutes of February 13, 1920, pp.488-493.

 

Image Source: New York Public Library Digital Collections, Image ID 68250.

 

Categories
Chicago Regulations

Chicago. Memo to M.A. candidates on deadline for theses, 1924

 

 

By itself such an archival artifact from 1924 is just another boring piece of paper. But it is evidence that the search for an optimal deadline to balance the interests of thesis writers with the interests (and capacities) of professors did seem to require an explicit memorandum from the University of Chicago department head to M.A. candidates regarding both deadlines and numbers of copies. This was a time when three copies meant typing with carbon paper, so having the copies due on the day of the oral examination gives us a sense perhaps of just how (ahem) deeply read the M.A. theses were, at least by the non-principal-advisor members of the committees.

______________________________

 

MEMORANDUM TO CANDIDATES FOR THE MASTER’S DEGREE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
SPRING QUARTER 1924

  1. Theses should be in the hands of the reading committee not later than May 15. An earlier date is much to be preferred since the committee should have ample time for reading the thesis and the candidate should then have time for making any needed corrections. If three copies of the thesis are made available for the reading committee action will, of course, be expedited.
  2. Three typewritten copies of the thesis in its final form are due on the day of the oral examination.
  3. May 30 is the final date for oral examinations. Please arrange an hour with my office.
  4. The committee on your thesis is indicated below:

[blank space: to be filled in]

L. C. Marshall

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Economics Department. Records & Addenda. Box 22, Folder 8. Cf. Folder 8 (includes names for committees)

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Memo from the Dean on Registration-Books, 1909

While Economics in the Rear-View Mirror  is focussed on the content of graduate education in economics (including both the transmission of the tools and norms of economic science and scholarship), from time to time I’ll be adding artifacts related to the certification function of degree-granting institutions that have established rules to regulate the “paper-chase” of their graduate students. Examples: degree rules at Harvard for 1911-12, Chicago for 1903, Columbia University for 1908-10.

Today’s posting is a 1909 memo written by the founding Dean of Columbia’s Faculty of Political Science, John W. Burgess. Instead of having instructors filing grade reports to a central registrar’s office that performed the bookkeeping of course credits, Deans relied on student registration-books in which instructor signatures were collected, analogous to the German system in which students individually collected their Seminar Scheine (certificates) issued professor by professor, course by course as proof of their academic work. In Wolfgang Stolper’s papers at Duke University one sees that he carefully kept his Scheine from his course work at the University of Bonn before he went to Harvard.  

_______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled thus far. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below.  There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting…

________________________

[Registration books]

Course Records. It should be noted that the student is expected to keep his own record of courses attended. In the registration-book which is furnished him for this purpose, he enters at the beginning of each half-year the courses which he proposes to attend. At the beginning and end of each course the professor in charge certifies the student’s attendance by his signature. Before presenting himself for examination for any degree, the student must submit his registration-book to the Dean of the Faculty in which his major subject lies in order that the Dean may satisfy himself that the required minimum number of courses has been attended. Lost registration-books may be replaced if the professors are able from their own records or recollection to certify attendance; but if they are unable to do this, the candidate may lose credit for attendance.

Source: Course Regulations, 1908-10. Columbia University.

________________________

 

Columbia University
in the City New York

FACULTIES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND PURE SCIENCE

Office of the Dean

September 23, 1909

My dear Professor:

The Dean’s attention has recently been called to the fact that there is some misunderstanding, or at least some difference of understanding, among the officers of instruction of the Graduate Faculties in regard to the signification of their signatures to the courses in the registration-books. Inasmuch as these books are the only evidence which the Dean has of the attendance of students upon the courses of instruction for which they are registered, and of the fulfillment of the requirements in regard to attendance whereby they become qualified to attain a higher degrees, the Dean deems it his duty to make known to the officers of instruction the interpretation placed in his office upon their signatures. The Dean understands that they certify that, to the best knowledge and belief of the officers signing, the student has generally attended the course in person, and that no substitution of work done or said to be done in absentia from the lecture room or conference room of the officer has been allowed for the certified attendance upon the courses of instruction. The Dean’s office will adhere to this interpretation of the requirement of attendance, until otherwise instructed by the Council of the University; or, of course, by the Trustees.

Very truly yours,

John W. Burgess

Dean

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files, 1890- (UA#001), Box 318, Folder “1.1.14 5/8; Burgess, John William; 1/1909-6/1910”.

Image Source: Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2. Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1899,  p. 481.