Category: Teaching

Yale. On different approaches to teaching college economics. Ruggles, 1964

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-09-20

Yale professor Richard Ruggles gave a great deal of thought to the organization of undergraduate and graduate instruction in economics. For a special issue of Challenge magazine dedicated to the question of improving economic literacy in society published in 1964, Ruggles contributed the following short essay on the difficulties of offering a single principles of economics course to meet the needs of very different publics compounded by the incentives that lead instructors to teach as though every student’s ultimate goal was to become an academic research economist. Plot-spoiler: one size does not fit all.

____________________________

On graduate training in economics.
Ruggles’ Yale conference, 1955.

During the fall and early winter of 1954-55, Richard Ruggles and colleagues in the Yale economics department organized a series of interviews with representatives of business, government, international organizations, and universities to review the ultimate goals of a graduate education in economics and to identify future desirable directions the evolution of economics training might take. The interviews were followed by panel discussions in the Spring of 1955 attended by, among others, seven future economics Nobel prize winners.

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS,
A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale, 1956.

____________________________

TEACHING COLLEGE ECONOMICS
By Richard Ruggles

There is a wide divergence of opinion on what subject matter should be emphasized in the elementary college economics course. Some argue that its primary function should be to improve the student’s ability to be an intelligent citizen; others feel that the basic economics course should be handled as part of the general cultural background offered in a liberal arts college. A third view is that freshmen economics is basically a useful background subject for those entering business, law and engineering. And, finally, there are those who feel that introductory economics should be taught as a professional discipline. RICHARD RUGGLES, Professor of Economics at Yale University, examines the different approaches to the teaching of college economics, as well as the equally thorny problem of teaching materials.

The teaching of economics to college undergraduates is viewed with considerable uneasiness by both students and teachers. Many of the students find themselves in the difficult position of arbitrating between the ideas they hear in the classroom and those which are established doctrine in the minds of their parents. Others find the subject dull and uninspired, full of abstractions and generalizations which do not appear to match the reality around them. The teachers, on the other hand, are plagued by the multitude of purposes which the teaching of economics is supposed to serve. Disagreements among faculty members about the major purpose of economics teaching are often responsible for considerable acrimony.

First, there are those who believe that the primary function of economics training is to improve the student’s ability to function as a citizen and an individual. Proponents of this view point out that the level of economic literacy in the nation is very low. Neither voters nor legislators generally understand the basic problems involved in economic policy making. But, it is argued, if the next generation is properly trained, economic policy will improve. While the obvious irrationality of economic decision making at the national level propels many teachers of economics to concentrate on this aspect of economic education, others, who do not feel the frustration of economic events as acutely, place more emphasis on the individual aspects of economics training for citizenship. They may give priority to instruction which will help the student spend his money wisely, invest, and cope with financial problems he may encounter.

A second view of economic education considers economics as an integral part of the general education which should be given to all students attending a liberal arts college. The basic economics course is viewed as a cultural subject much like survey courses in literature, music, history and science. For such a purpose it is appropriate to paint with a broad brush, providing a survey course which is related to other subjects but also has its own individual stamp as a separate discipline. In the more extreme cases, economics may be submerged in a general course which treats the behavioral sciences as a group, or it may be combined with political science or history.

A third point of view presents the argument that economics is basically a tool subject, useful as a background for students who are intending to go into business, law or engineering. Economics in this role serves the same function as biology is supposed to serve for pre-med students. Economics is also viewed as useful for students in related disciplines such as history and political science. From this point of view, the major function of economics teaching is to provide needed service courses for students who are primarily concerned with other professions and disciplines. Emphasis is therefore placed on providing information on how the economy functions in terms of its institutions and government regulations. Finally, there are always a number of staff members who feel that economics should be kept pure and untainted. From this point of view, economics is a professional discipline with a body of rigorous theory which must be mastered if one is to enjoy the essence of the subject. Abstractions are not necessarily the means to this end; they are in large part the heart of the subject. Since the proponents of this view consider that it is the integrity of the discipline which is at stake, they often put up strong resistance to the service concept of economics, and even object to the presentation of institutional material or to any orientation of an applied nature. Instead attention is focused on the type of material which a Ph.D. candidate in economics is expected to master.

The content of economics as taught to undergraduates reflects these divergent objectives. The major exposure of college students to economics comes, of course, in the basic elementary course. Typically, 50 to 75 per cent of undergraduates take the elementary course in economics. No more than 10 to 15 per cent of these become economics majors. And no more than two to three per cent of economics majors go on to graduate training in economics. Thus the number of potential professional economists is a very minute percentage of those taking the elementary course, yet in many ways at many institutions the course is created for these few. At the major universities which offer graduate training in economics, the elementary course is often taught by graduate assistants. These graduate assistants are aspiring to be professional economists, and they have a tendency to wish that their students shared these aspirations. In fact, the pride and joy of a teacher is a student who wishes to be just like that teacher, and in a profession where theory, abstraction and a high degree of specialization are status symbols, the results for the teaching curriculum are obvious. The energy and enthusiasm of graduate assistants is often very great, and they are anxious to impart to the students the full kit of abstract tools which they themselves have so recently mastered. The course must also serve all the other purposes.

It must present a wide range of contemporary economic policy issues and information about major economic institutions. It must provide a comprehensive survey of economics for that large body of undergraduates who will never take any more courses in the area. It must also equip the student who expects to major in the field of economics with the tools he will need for more advanced courses. In most institutions the elementary course is a prerequisite for all other courses in economics, and it is expected that higher level courses will build on the foundation of the elementary course. The result of all of these pressures is to produce a jumbled polyglot of topics which are jammed into an incredibly short span of time. The major benefactors of these basic courses are those who teach them, since they are forced to master and digest an enormous amount of material before they can present it. In fact, a graduate student’s training is not complete until he has taught the elementary course.

At institutions which do not have graduate students, elementary economics may be quite a different subject. The content of the course will depend a great deal upon the individual teacher. Where the course is taught by someone just out of graduate school, he will tend to behave like his recent colleagues, the graduate assistants, and in these cases he will face many of the same problems. In some institutions, however, the course may revolve around such practical matters as how the stock market operates and the problems of family finance. In other instances, the elementary course may be a propaganda piece on how well the free enterprise system operates and how all problems would be solved if we left everything to the invisible hand as described by Adam Smith.

Economics courses beyond the elementary level at almost all schools are generally considered the domain of senior faculty members, whether or not they are equipped to teach them. Every professor regards the course he teaches as his own private property and does not take kindly to suggestions by his colleagues. Rightly or wrongly, he considers himself the authority on the subject he teaches. If, for any reason, the course must be taught by someone else, as for instance when the regular teacher goes on leave, it is usually found that the same course differs considerably in scope, orientation and content.

Thus, for example, a course on money and banking taught by one instructor may cover a body of material on banking institutions, banking practices, problems of credit, and the money supply. Another instructor teaching the same course may disregard such material entirely and cover instead problems of employment, prices and output, with heavy accent on fiscal policy and income analysis. As a result, it is often necessary to supply the name of the instructor as well as the name of the course in order to understand what training a student has had.

Teaching materials probably play an even more important role in economic education than do teachers. Many students can educate themselves if they are assigned good texts and readings, even though their teachers are mediocre or poor, but it is difficult for even the best teacher to provide a good course in the absence of good teaching materials.

Unfortunately, teaching materials are normally produced as a by product of academic life, with a mere fraction of the total resources devoted to the educational process. In a course of 20 or 30 students, instructional costs amount to about $100 to $200 per student, but the total cost of teaching materials will rarely be more than $10 to $20 — and most of that goes to the paper and printing industries, not to the more intellectual factors of production. Authors usually receive 10 to 15 per cent of the total amount spent on teaching materials, or approximately one per cent of the total teaching cost for the course as a whole. The preparation of teaching materials, furthermore, is never considered a full-time job. There is a mass of material produced, but most of it is developed on the side a kind of moonlighting activity. The fact that textbook writing often attracts the best talent in the profession is due to the existence of relatively high returns for those few who can turn out successful texts. But even the best talents could do a much better job if textbook writing were not just a spare-time activity.

Textbooks, like platforms of political parties try to be all things to all people. They are designed to cover a multitude of purposes, and try to echo the most widely accepted doctrines in a manner that will offend no one. Teachers are supposed to pick and choose what they want to use, rearranging and adding. The resulting mixture is often an ill-adapted set of disjointed and heterogeneous readings, and much of the potentiality for a consistent and cumulative body of teaching material is lost. In some fields, notably physics and mathematics, there are indications that the profession is sufficiently concerned about this problem to provide an organized effort to improve the quality of teaching materials. In economics, however, the development of teaching materials still depends upon the invisible hand.

It is quite possible that a different mix of the factors of production and some innovations in the teaching process could be introduced which would greatly improve teaching effectiveness and provide a greater feedback in terms of the advancement of the subject itself. At the present time, it is not feasible for textbook writers to undertake major efforts to fill in gaps in knowledge. Economics texts rely heavily on causal empiricism and reasoning by analogy; their major effort is devoted to organizing and presenting existing knowledge. But the preparation of good teaching materials should involve devoting substantial resources to those problem areas to which adequate attention has not yet been given.

The dynamic factors which economics relies upon to explain productivity growth in other sectors of the economy, such as specialization, division of labor and the development of new techniques, are all sadly lacking in the preparation of the discipline’s own teaching materials, and production is essentially still a handicraft process.

There is no obvious solution to this problem, but one thing is certain: the present industrial organization of the teaching profession does not readily foster the kinds of approaches which are capable of yielding a solution.

It is very difficult to evaluate the impact of college level economics courses. In terms of the prevailing views on major economic policies, it would appear that the economic and political temper of the times is a more important factor than the level of intellectual enlightenment. A recession accompanied by substantial unemployment or a major threat to a nation’s security will be quite effective in making both voters and legislators doubt the validity and meaningfulness of traditional balanced budget precepts. But in a prosperous peacetime economy, these doubts evaporate, and college graduates who once were exposed to economics but who are now a part of the business community echo the “sound” doctrines around them, despite the fact that such doctrines would result in slower growth, smaller profits and future recessions.

Despite the obvious shortcomings of confused objectives and inadequate resources devoted to the preparation of teaching materials, economic education nevertheless does progress. Much of this progress is due to the development of the subject itself. From this point of view the future holds considerable promise.

With the introduction of electronic data processing and the development of statistical techniques, economists are now able to formulate and test hypotheses in a manner which has not heretofore been possible. Up to now economics has been an armchair discipline, depending mainly on logical reasoning and causal empiricism. Perhaps in the near future it can evolve into the social science it claims to be. Then and only then can the teaching of economics reach its true potential.

Source: U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Economic Progress. Economic Education: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Economic Progress of the Joint Economic Committee Congress of the United States vol. 2, Selected Materials (1967),pp. 231-234. Originally published in Challenge (Special Issue “Economic Literacy in a Free Society”, March 1964).

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

Tags RugglesR

Harvard. Junior Year Seminar/Tutorial Reading Assignments. Caves, 1964-1965

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-11-05

The evolution of the Harvard tutorial system as an integral aspect of its undergraduate economics program is a subject worthy of a long essay. For now we simply add the following snapshot of the “Tutorial for Credit, Junior Year” that Richard Caves had been tasked to reform when he joined the Harvard faculty in the 1962-63 academic year. This post provides the reading lists for the third iteration of Caves’ seminar/tutorial model that replaced the earlier lecture/tutorial model.

As far as content goes, the 1964-65 version of Economics 98 can be seen to have attempted an ambitious, advanced intermediate coverage of mainstream micro- and macroeconomics.

Harvard’s Memorial Minute for Richard Earl Caves (1931-2019).

____________________________

Course Announcement

*Economics 98a. Tutorial for Credit — Junior Year

Half course (fall term). Tu., 2-4, and tutorial meetings to be arranged. Professor Caves, Assistant Professor T. A. Wilson, Dr. Brunt and other Members of the Department.

*Economics 98b. Tutorial for Credit — Junior Year

Half course (spring term). Tu., 2-4, and tutorial meetings to be arranged. Professor Caves, Assistant Professor T. A. Wilson, Dr. Brunt and other Members of the Department.

Economics 98a will deal with micro-economic and 98b with macro-economic theories and policies. These seminars will serve as preparation for more specialized training in their subject matter in Group IV graduate and undergraduate courses. Economics 98a and 98b are required of all honors candidates and are open to non-honors candidates with the permission of the instructor.

The courses will consist of both seminar and tutorial, normally with one seminar and one tutorial session a week.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe, 1964-1965, p. 106.

____________________________

Harvard Crimson Article on the New Junior Seminars
May 16, 1962

Ec. 98 Will Be Taught in Small Seminar Units
Lecture Format Found Unwieldy

By Richard B. Ruge

The Economics Department announced yesterday that four seminar-groups of approximately 20 students each will replace the once weekly lectures in Ec. 98, or tutorial for credit, and that an associate professor at the University of California has been appointed to head the new junior tutorial program.

John T. Dunlop, chairman of the Department, said that increased enrollment in 98 had made lecture presentation of the subject matter — the central core of economic concepts — ineffective. Since Gill Plan opened tutorial for credit all concentrators, the number of students in the course has jumped to 80.

Dunlop declared that the use of two-hour, smaller seminar discussion groups meeting once a week is “more properly the spirit of tutorial, will improve a level of instruction, and will allow the students and professors to develop their own interests more thoroughly and participate in good give-and-take discussions.”

The seminars will split into smaller groups of four of five students, meeting once a week for 90 minutes to present and discuss papers. These groups will focus on the major aspect of economic thought considered in the larger seminars.

Caves to Head Program

Heading the program will be [Richard] Caves, who will become professor of economics on July 1. An expert on industrial organization, Caves worked on a new foreign trade program as deputy special assistant to the President in 1961. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard before joining the faculty at California.

Source: The Harvard Crimson, May 16, 1962.

____________________________

Tutorial Assignments for Ec 98a Fall 1964

Harvard University
Department of Economics

Economics 98a
List of Suggested Tutorial Assignments
August 17, 1964

This list includes items which tutors may find helpful as assignments for discussion in tutorial sections, bases for small projects or papers, and the like. Many but not all have been used successfully for these purposes in the past. A few items contain mathematical or statistical complexities that make them suitable only for students with special backgrounds. Make sure that you check any item before using it.

If time permits, a more complete list will be prepared and issued at the beginning of the semester. Suggestions for additions from the tutors would be appreciated, as would reports of adverse experiences with any of the following items.

R.E.C.

Consumer behavior [sic, “1. Introduction” not included here]

Becker, Gary S., “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, February, 1962, 1-13

Houthakker, H.S., “An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns, Commemorating the Centenary of Engel’s Law,” Econometrica October, 1957, 532-551

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletins on Demand Analysis, No. 1253 (meat), 1168 (dairy products), 1136 (wheat)

Alchian, A., “The Meaning of Utility Measurement,” American Economic Review, March, 1953, 26-50

Ellsberg, D., “Classic and Current Notions of Messurable Utility,” Economic Journal, September, 1954, 528-556

Friedman, M., and L.J,. Savage, “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Am. Econ. Assn., Readings in Price Theory, chap. 3

Theory of the firm

Hirshleifer, J., “An Exposition of the Equilibrium of the Firm: Symmetry between Product and Factor Analyses,” Economica, August, 1962, 263-268

Scott, R.H., “Inferior Factors of Production,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1962, 86-97

Apel, H., “Marginal Cost Constancy and Its Implications,” American Economic Review, December, 1948, 870-886

Hitch, C.J., and R.N. McKean, The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age, chaps. 7, 8

Cookenboo, Leslie, Jr., Crude Oil Pipe Lines and Competition in the Oil Industry, chap. 1

F.T. Moore, “Economies of Scale: Some Statistical Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1959, 232-245; also discussion August, 1960, 493-499

Alexander, Sidney, “The Effect of Size of Manufacturing Corporation on the Distribution of the Rate of Return,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August, 1949, 229-235

Johnston, J., Statistical Cost Analysis, chap. 4 (secs, 1, 3, 4); chap. 5; chap. 6 (pp. 186-194)

Staehle, Hans, “Measurement of Statistical Cost Functions,” American Economic Review, June, 1942; Readings in Price Theory, chap. 13

Eiteman, W.J., and G.E. Guthrie, “The Shape of the Average Cost Curve,” American Economic Review, December, 1952, 832-839

Hall and Hitch, “Price Theory and Business Behavior,” in T. Wilson, ed., Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism

Earley, J.S., “Recent Developments in Cost Accounting and the ‘Marginal Analysis’,” Journal of Political Economy, June, 1955, 227-242

Earley, J.S., “Marginal Policies of ‘Excellently Managed Companies,” American Economic Review, March, 1956, 44-70

Grayson, C.J., Decisions under Uncertainty, pp. 233-278

Competitive product and factor markets

Vernon L. Smith, “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, April, 1962, 111-137

Ezekiel, M., “The Cobweb Theorem,” Am, Econ, Assn., Readings in Business Cycle Theory, chap. 21

Richardson, G.B., Information and Investment.

Friedman, M., Price Theory: A Provisional Text, chaps, 7-9

Lester, R.A., and Machlup, F., marginalist controversy, reprinted in R.V. Clemence, ed., Readings in Economic Analysis, Vol. 2, chaps, 6-9

Bachmura, F.T., “Man-Land Equalization through Migration,” American Economic Review, December, 1959, 1004-1017

General equilibrium and welfare

Stone, Richard, and G. Croft-Murray, Social Accounting and Economic Models, chaps. 1-3

Lange, Oscar, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, B. Lippincott, ed.

Hirshleifer, J. et al., Water Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy, chap. 8

Nelson, J.R., ed., Marginal Cost Pricing in Practice, chaps. 1, 2, 3, 5 (skip pp. 110-123), 6, 7

Imperfect competition: product markets
1. Monopoly

Neale, Walter C., “The Peculiar Economics of Professional Sports,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1964, 1-14

Olson, M., and D. McFarland, “The Restoration of Pure Monopoly and the Concept of the Industry,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, November, 1962, 613-631

Wallace, D.H., Market Control in the Aluminum Industry, Part II

Davidson, R.K., Price Discrimination in Selling Gas and Electricity

1. Monopolistic competition

Stigler, G.J., Five Lectures on Economic Problems, Lecture 2

Chamberlin, E.H., Towards a More General Theory of Value, chap. 15

1. Oligopoly

Peck, M.J., Competition in the Aluminum Industry, 1945-1948

Markham, J., Competition in the Rayon Industry

Weiss, L.W., Economics and American Industry, chaps, 7, 8

Modigilani, F., “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” Journal of Political Economy, June, 1958, 215-232

Shubik, M., “A Game Theorist Looks at the Antitrust Laws and the Automobile Industry,” Stanford Law Review, July, 1956

Marris, Robin, “A Model of the ‘Managerial’ Enterprise,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1963, 185-209

Imperfect, competition: factor markets

Fellner, W.J., “Prices and Wages under Bilateral Monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1947, 503-532

Segal, Martin, “The Relation between Union Wage Impact and Market Structure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1964, 115-128

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

Harvard University
Department of Economics

DRAFT Reading List
Economics 98a
Fall Term, 1964

Students will be requested to purchase W.J.L. Ryan, Price Theory (London: Macmillan, 1958). Seminars may vary in the extent that they depend on Ryan for the basic exposition of micro theory. The following list assumes complete dependence on Ryan. Other readings are very tentatively included, and the list probably errs on the side of containing too much.

Introduction

Lange, Oscar, “The Scope and Method of Economics,” in Arleigh P. Hess et al., Outside Readings in Economics, pp. 1-20

Knight, Frank, The Economic Organization, pp. 3-66

1. Consumer behavior

Ryan, chaps. 1, 6

Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book III (or a textbook treatment of utility theory, such as D.S. Watson, Price Theory and Its Uses, chaps 4, 5)

One of the following:

Duesenberry, James S., Income. Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, pp. 6-39

Leibenstein, H., “Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects In the Theory of Consumers’ Demand,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1950, 183-207

Frisch, Ragnar, “Some Basic Principles of Cost of Living Measurements,” Econometrica, October, 1954, 407-421

Fisher, Irving, The Theory of Interest, pp. 61-124.

Theory of the firm

Ryan, chaps. 2, 3

Chamberlin, E.H., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Appendix B

Dean, Joel, Managerial Economics, pp. 257-313

Universities—National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, Business Concentration and Price Policy, pp. 213-238

Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, pp. 4-21, 26-43

Bierman, Harold, and S. Smidt, The Capital Budgeting Decision, chaps, 1-6, 9

Competitive product and factor markets

Ryan, Chap, 4

Chamberlin, chap. 2

Marshall, Book V, chaps. 1-5; Book IV, chap. 13

Working, E.J., “What Do Statistical Demand Curves Show?”, in American Economic Association, Readings in Price Theory, chap. 4

Robinson, Joan, “Rising Supply Price,” Readings in Price Theory, pp. 233-241

1. General equilibrium and welfare

Ryan, chap. 9

Boulding, Kenneth, “Welfare Economics,” in B.F. Haley, ed, for American

Economic Association, A Survey of Contemporary Economics, pp. 1-34

Bator, Francis M., “The Simple Analytics of Welfare Maximization,” American Economic Review,March, 1957, 22-44 (omit 44-59)

Scitovsky, Tibor, “Two Concepts of External Economies,” Journal of Political Economy, April, 1954, 143-151

McKean, R.N., Efficiency In Government through Systems Analysis, chaps, 1-5 (or something else on benefit-cost analysis)

Imperfect competition: Product markets

Ryan, chap. 9

1. Monopoly

Ryan, chap. 10

Bain, Joe S., Price Theory, pp. 208-247

Weiss, L.W., Economics and American Industry, chap. 5

1. Monopolistic competition

Chamberlin, chaps. 1, 4, 5

Triffin, Robert, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, pp. 78-89

Weiss, chap. 9

1. Oligopoly

Ryan, chap. 11

Fellner, William, Competition Among the Few, chap. 1

Sweezy, Paul, “Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly,” Readings in Price Theory, chap. 20

Bain, pp. 297-332

Duesenberry, James S., Business Cycles and Economic Growth, chap. 6

Baumol, W.J., Business Behavior, Value, and Growth, pp. 27-32, 45-46

Imperfect competition: factor markers

Chamberlin, chap. 8

Dunlop, John T., “Wage Policies of Trade Unions,” American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, chap. 19

Cartter, A.M., Theory of Wages and Employment, chaps. 7, 8

Friedman, Milton, “Some Comments on the Significance of Labor Unions for Economic Policy,” The Impact of the Union, D. McC. Wright, ed., pp 204-234

____________________________

Tutorial Assignments for Ec 98b Spring 1965

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Economics 98b
Reading List
Spring Term, 1965

All selections listed below should be considered as assigned, although the leaders of Individual seminars may choose either to add or subtract items. Students may wish to purchase Gardner Ackley, Macroeconomic Theory (New York: Macmillan, 1961), which will be assigned in part, especially at the beginning of the semester, and will serve as a general reference for issues which arise during the course. R.C.O. Matthews, The Business Cycle, will also be used extensively.

Introduction of macro-economics (two weeks)
1. The national income

Gardner Ackley, Macroeconomic Theory, chaps. 1-4.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, July, 1964, pp. 7-40.

S. Rosen, National Income, pp. 172-187.

1. Prices and employment: pre-Keynesian background

Ackley, pp. 105-167.

Income and employment determination (seven weeks)
1. Effective demand

J.M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, chaps. 1, 2.

A.H. Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, pp. 25-35.

P. Wells, “Aggregate Demand and Supply: An Explanation of Chapter III of the General Theory,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXVIII (Nov., 1962), pp. 585-59.

1. Consumption function and the multiplier

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, pp. 67-85.

J.S. Duesenberry, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, chaps. 3, 5,

J. Tobin, “Relative Income, Absolute Income, and Saving,” Money, Trade and Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of J.H. Williams, pp. 135-156.

M. Friedman, A Theory of the Consumption Function, 220-229, 233-239.

Ackley, chap. 10.

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, pp. 86-114.

A.H. Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, chap. 12.

W.J. Baumol and M.H. Peston, “More on the Multiplier Effects of a Balanced Budget,” American Economic Review, XLV (March, 1955), 140-148.

1. Investment

Keynes, chap. 11.

Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, chap. 9.

J.M. Clark, “Business Acceleration and the Law of Demand: A Technical Factor in Economic Cycles,” in American Economic Association, Readings in Business Cycle Theory, chap, 11.

R.C.O. Matthews, The Business Cycle, , chaps. 3-5.

J.S. Duesenberry, Business Cycles and Economic Growth, chaps. 4, 5.

J.R. Meyer and R. Glauber, Investment Decisions, Economic Forecasting, and Public Policy, pp. 1-22.

1. Interest

Keynes, pp. 165-185, 195-209.

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes, chap. 6.

L.R. Klein, The Keynesian Revolution, pp. 117-123.

1. The Keynesian system

Keynes, pp. 257-271.

H.G. Johnson, Money, Trade and Economic Growth, chap. 5.

V. L. Smith, “A Graphical Exposition of the Complete Keynesian System,” Southern Economic Journal, XXIII (October, 1956), 115-125.

Ackley, chap. 15.

D. Patinkin, “Keynesian Economics Rehabilitated: A Rejoinder,” Economic Journal, LXIV (Sept.,1959), pp. 582-587.

D. Patinkin, “Price Flexibility and Full Employment,” American Economic Association, Readings in Monetary Theory, pp. 252-283

A.P. Lerner, “Comment,” American Economic Review, LI (May, 1961), pp. 20-23.

Models of growth, fluctuations, and inflation (three weeks)
1. Economic growth and fluctuations

Duesenberry, Business Cycles and Economic Growth, chap, 2.

W.J. Baumol, Economic Dynamics, chaps. 2, 3.

Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, chap. 11.

D.B. Suits, “Forecasting and Analysis with an Econometric Model,” American Economic Review, LII (March, 1962), 104-132 (pp. 118-31 optional).

Matthews, chaps. 2, 13.

1. Inflation

A.C.L. Day and S.T. Beza, Money and Income, chaps. 19-21.

Keynes, pp. 292-304.

M. Friedman, “Some Comments on the Significance of Labor Unions in Economic Policy,” Impact of the Union, D. McC. Wright, ed., 204-234.

S. Slichter, “Do the Wage-Fixing Arrangements in the American Labor Market Have an Inflationary Bias?” American Economic Review, XLIV (May, 1954), pp. 322-346.

C. Schultze, Recent Inflation in the United States (Study paper No. 1, Employment, Growth and Price Levels), pp. 1-77. Joint Economic Committee

O. Eckstein and T.A. Wilson, “Determination of Money Wages in American Industry,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXVI (August, 1962), 379-409.

1. Coordinating Policy for Growth and Stability

J. Tinbergen, Economic Policy: Principles and Design, pp. 1-37.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics 1964-1965 (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Harvard Square, 1961. From the Cambridge Historical Commission, image in the Photo Morgue Collection. Online: Digital Commonwealth.

Tags Brunt, Caves, Dunlop, Gill, WilsonTA

Cornell Dartmouth Economists Harvard Michigan Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Recitation section work described. Day, 1914

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-09-05

About 110 years ago the structure of a common lecture and smaller recitation sections for large college courses was novel enough to warrant a description with explanation. The assistant professor of economics and statistician, Edmund Ezra Day (Harvard Ph.D., 1909) penned a two page article for the Harvard Illustrated Magazine that is transcribed following a brief overview of Day’s career.

Day went on to professorships at Harvard and the University of Michigan followed by a detour through the Rockefeller Foundation that took him to the Presidency of Cornell University. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror begins this post with a chronology of Edmund Ezra Day’s life.

___________________________

Biographical Timeline

1883. Born December 7 to Ezra Alonzo and Louise Moulton (Nelson) Day at Manchester, New Hampshire.

1905. B.S., Dartmouth College (Phi Beta Kappa).

1906. A.M., Dartmouth College.

1906-10. Instructor of economics, Dartmouth College.

1909. Ph.D., Harvard University. Thesis: “The History of the General Property Tax in Massachusetts.”

1910-20. Assistant professor of economics, Harvard University.

1912. Married June 5 to Emily Sophia Emerson (daughter of Dean Charles F. Emerson of Dartmouth College). Two sons and two daughters.

1915. Questions on the Principles of Economics (with Joseph Stancliffe Davis). New York: Macmillan.

1918. Seven months as statistician of the division of planning and statistics of the U. S. shipping board. Director, in 1919.

1918. September to December 1918 as statistician of the central bureau of planning and statistics of the war industries board.

1920-23. Professor of economics, Harvard University.

1920. “An Index of the Physical Volume of Production”. The Review of Economic Statistics (September 1920—January 1921).

1922. Revised edition of Questions on the Principles of Economics (with Joseph Stancliffe Davis). New York: Macmillan.

1920-23. Chairman of the department of economics.

1923-27. Professor of economics, University of Michigan. Beginning second semester of 1922-23 academic year)

1923-24. Chairman department of economics, University of Michigan.

1925. Statistical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.

1924-28. Founding dean of the school of business administration, University of Michigan. (leave of absence during 1927-28).

1927. Dean of Administration, University of Michigan.

1927. President of the American Statistical Association.

1927-28. Leave of absence to act as administrative head of Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial for the promotion of social sciences in New York City.

1928. The Growth of Manufactures, 1899 to 1923. A Study of Indexes of Increase in the Volume of Manufactured Products (with Woodlief Thomas). Census Monographs VIII. Washington, D.C.: USGPO.

1928-37. Director for the social sciences of the Rockefeller Foundation.

1930-37. Director for general education and for the social sciences with the General Education Board.

1932-33. U.S. representative on the preparatory commission of experts for the economic conference, held in London in 1933.

1937-49. President of Cornell University.

1941. The Defense of Freedom: Four Addresses on the Present Crisis in American Democracy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

1941 or 1942. Oncoming Changes in the Organization of American Public Education. By Edmund E. Day, Chairman of the Committee on Teacher Education of the Association of Colleges and Universities of the State of New York.

1949-50. Chancellor, Cornell University.

1951. March 23. Died from a heart attack.

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

Other misc. facts: Edmund Ezra Day was president of the New York State Citizens Council, the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, the World Student Service Fund; he was chairman of the American Council on Education, director of the National Bureau of Economic Research, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (appointed January 1937), Councillor of the National Industrial Conference Board, and a trustee of Tuskegee institute beginning 1939. He held fifteen honorary degrees.

Sources:

Memorial minute. Cornell, 1951.
Ithaca Journal, March 23, 1951. p. 1. “Dr. Day, President Emeritus of Cornell, Dies at 67 of heart Attack in his Car.”
The National Cyclopedia of American Biography, 1942.

___________________________

Section Work in Economics

EDMUND E. DAY, ’09, Assistant Professor in Economics.

Among the methods of undergraduate instruction, the section-meeting is of large importance. By the section-meeting is meant an exercise attended by only a fraction of the men enrolled in the course. Usually it stands combined in varying proportions with the lecture. Usually, too, it is not in charge of the instructor “giving the course” (sic), but rather of an assistant. But neither of these common features is essential to the section idea.

The most important single question raised by the section method is: What is its purpose? Undoubtedly the section may, and does, serve many ends. It clearly is valuable in the grading of undergraduate work. It is in this rôle that, in many courses, the section is really significant. Such are the cases in which one-half of the only section-hour each week is devoted to a written test, and the balance of the hour to remarks by the assistant. But the section may certainly be made more than an adjunct to the College Office. Obviously, the section-meeting fosters that familiarity between student and instructor which should invariably exert a wholesome influence; serving the same purpose in undergraduate instruction that publicity does in politics.

Furthermore, in many courses the section-meeting offers the only opportunity for open discussion, for a free give and take between instructor and instructed. Such discussion is the sine qua non of effective teaching in many, if not in most, subjects. It develops clear thinking, power in logical analysis, and effective speech. It stimulates that interest which encourages faithful work from day to day, instead of hasty cramming at examinations. In general, it makes for permanent intellectual power as against temporary mental acquisition.

Such being the opportunities of the section-meeting, by what organization and methods may they best be seized? The immediate interest of the student might seem to demand that the instructor in charge of the course should conduct its sections. But this would violate every rule of good economy. Professors of scholarly and scientific experience and reputation, while they would probably give section instruction better than most assistants, have a vastly greater advantage in the work they are at present doing. In the long run they best advance undergraduate instruction by delegating section work to the younger men. Nor is this so generally to the disadvantage of the section as is commonly supposed. As a rule, the young instructor of promise brings to his task a zest, a sympathetic knowledge of college ways and ideals, an appreciation of the difficulties of the beginner which the older man has long since lost. And after all, teaching ability is in large measure a gift which needs little polishing by experience, good teachers are just as rare among older men as among the younger.

Section instructors and students should be, as we have noted, on terms of familiarity. Therefore assistants should be selected with great care. Appointments in the past have perhaps too little emphasized the need of certain human qualities not weighted in the Ph.D. examination. The leaven of a little sympathy, of more good humor, and of still more downright fairness and good sense works wonders in raising the level of section instruction.

Grading seems an essential element in section work, but it should be reduced to a minimum. This does not mean that it should be confined to a written test. Some grading had best accompany work in discussion. This seems necessary to compel intelligent discussion. Too often discussion degenerates into what the undergraduate expressively calls “drool.” Upon the other hand, so-called discussion sometimes is narrowed into mere drill upon the text. The assistant must steer the difficult course between the two extremes. In this endeavor a reasonable amount of inconspicuous “policing” is desirable.

Spirited and stimulated discussion is, after all, the most significant aim of the section-meeting. This imposes responsibilities upon instructor and student alike. The instructor must be able to direct and control discussion, the student must contribute his share of thought and interest; together they coöperate to make section work a success. The test of the section work in any course lies in the quality of the discussion provoked.

The weaknesses of the section are such as to call for improvement, rather than abolition, of the method. Improvement is in large measure a question of money cost. Adequate outlay would probably guarantee section instructors satisfactory alike to students and department staffs. Sufficient outlay to secure assistants with a firm grasp of their subjects is absolutely essential. But some improvements probably are within reach without much additional cost. Thus, by careful provision for standardizing grading, we may reduce the risks involved in the assignment of different students to assistants in the same course but of different experience and temperament. The value of section work may be more generally recognized and upheld. Greater emphasis may be laid on teaching ability in selecting assistants. And finally, possibly in coöperation with the Education Department, assistants may be helped to acquire the gentle art of section work.

Other improvements of the section method will undoubtedly be suggested. But to give it up entirely seems unwise; the section has probably come to stay. It seems, for the present, an advisable concession to large-scale education.

Source: The Harvard Illustrated Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 6 (March 1914), 295-296.

Image Source: Edmund Ezra Day in Harvard Class Album 1915.

Tags Day

Columbia Economists Germany Popular Economics Princeton Teaching

New York City Schools. Essay on Economics and the High School Teacher of Economics. Tildsley, 1919

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-07-20

Every so often I make an effort to track down students whose names have been recorded in course lists. I do this in part to hone my genealogical skills but primarily to obtain a broader sense of the population obtaining advanced training in economics beyond the exclusive society of those who ultimately clear all the hurdles in order to be awarded the Ph.D. degree. This post began with a simple list of the participants in Professor Edwin R.A. Seligman’s seminar in political economy and finance at Columbia University in 1901-02 published in the annual presidential report for that year (p. 154).

John L. Tildsley’s seminar topic was “Economic Aspects of Colonial Expansion.” I began to dig into finding out more about this Tildsley fellow, who was completely unknown to me other than for the distinction of having attended a graduate course in economics at Columbia but never having received an economics Ph.D. from the university.

It turns out that this B.A. and M.A. graduate from Princeton had indeed already been awarded a doctorate in economics from the Friedrichs Universität Halle-Wittenberg (Germany), renamed the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg in 1933, before he took any coursework at Columbia. A link to his German language doctoral dissertation on the Chartist movement is provided below.

I also found out that John Lee Tildsley went on to a distinguished if controversial career [e.g., he had no qualms about firing teachers for expressing radical opinions in the classroom] in the top tier of educational administration for the public high-schools in New York City. No less a critical writer than Upton Sinclair aimed his words at Tildsley.

For the purposes of Economics in the Rear-View Mirror John L. Tildsley is of particular interest as someone who had done much to introduce economics into the curriculum of New York City public schools.

Following data on his life culled from Who’s Who in America and New York Times articles on the occasions of his retirement and death, I have included his March 1919 essay dedicated to economics and the economics teacher in New York City high schools.

_________________________

Life and Career
of John Lee Tildsley

from Who’s Who in America, 1934

John Lee Tildsley, educator

Born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Mar. 13, 1867;
Son of John and Elizabeth (Withington) Tidsley;
Married Bertha Alice Watters, of New York City, June 24, 1896;
Children—Jane, John Lee, Margaret, Kathleen (deceased).

B.A., Princeton, 1893 [Classmate of A. Piatt Andrew], M.A. 1894;
Boudinot fellow in history, Princeton, 1893-94;
Teacher Greek and history, Lawrenceville (New Jersey) School, 1894-96;
Studied Universities of Halle and Berlin, 1896-98, Ph.D., Halle, 1898;
Teacher of history, Morris High School, New York City, 1898-1902;
Studied economics, Columbia, 1902;
Head of dept. of economics, High School of Commerce, 1902-08;
Principal of DeWitt Clinton High School, 1908-14;
Principal of High School of Commerce, 1914-16;
Associate Superintendent, Oct. 1916-July 1920;
District Superintendent, July 1920, City of New York.

Member: Headmasters’ Assn., Phi Beta Kappa.
Democrat.
Episcopalian.

Formulated and introduced into public schools of New York City, courses in economics and civics for secondary grades. Speaker and writer on teaching and problems of school administration.

Club: Nipnichsen.
Home: [2741 Edgehill Ave.] Spuyten Duyvil, [Bronx] New York.

Source: Who’s Who in America 1934, p. 2356.

* * * * * * * * * *

Tildsley’s 1898 doctoral dissertation on the Chartist movement (in German)

Tildsley, John L. Die Entstehung und die ökonomischen Grundsätze der Chartistenbewegung, Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der philosophischen Doktorwürde der hohen philosophischen Fakultät der vereinigten Friedrichs-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Halle a.S. 1898.

* * * * * * * * * *

New York Times, September 2, 1937

Dr. John L. Tildsley, Associate Superintendent of Schools, retired on Sept. 1, 1937.

One of Dr. Tildsley’s pet ideas has been the formation of special schools for bright pupils. As a result of his efforts two such schools are to be established in this city, the first to be opened next February in Brooklyn.
‘This new school will develop independent habits of work on the part of the superior student,’ he has explained. ‘Special emphasis will be placed upon the development of social-mindedness.’

* * * * * * * * * *

New York Times, November 22, 1948

Dr. John L. Tildsley died November 21, 1948 in St. Luke’s Hospital, New York, N.Y.

In 1920, having fallen out of the graces of Mayor John F. Hylan because of a political speech, he was denied a second term as associate superintendent.
At the urging of many admirers, he was assigned to the position of assistant superintendent which he held until the Fusion Board of Education restored him to his former rank in the spring of 1937.
When Dr. Tildsley was demoted he refused to be silenced, constantly championing controversial causes. He attacked the ‘frontier thinkers’ of Teachers College, and charged that under the existing high school set up much waste resulted to the city and to the pupil.
He urged the development of ‘nonconformist’ pupils, and angered patriotic organizations by suggesting that patriotic songs and holidays have little value in the schools.
Born in Pittsburgh of British parents, Dr. Tildsley received his early education in schools in Lockport, N.Y., and at the Mount Hermon School. Instead of becoming a minister, as he originally had planned, he decided to study at Princeton University, where Woodrow Wilson was one of his instructors for three years.

* * * * * * * * * *

Tildsley became a target of Upton Sinclair’s critical pen for his campaign to regulate teachers’ opinions expressed in school

Upton Sinclair, The Goslings: A Study of the American Schools (1924). See Chapters XV (Honest Graft) and XVI (A Letter to Woodrow Wilson), XVII (An Arrangement of Little Bits).

Cf. Teachers’ Defense Fund. The Trial of the Three Suspended Teachers of the De Witt Clinton High School (1917).

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

HISS TILDSLEY FOR PRAISE OF GERMANS
School Superintendent Aroused Criticism by Talk in Ascension Parish House.
LIKES TEUTON DISCIPLINE
When He Said Their Military Success Was a Credit to Them the Trouble Began.

The New York Times, December 10, 1917.

Dr. John L. Tildsley, Associate Superintendent of Schools in charge of high schools, whose investigation of the opinions of the teachers at the De Witt Clinton High School resulted in the suspension and trial of three of them and in the transfer of six others, was hissed last night in the parish house of the Church of the Ascension, Fifth Avenue and Eleventh Street, when he said that the success of the Germans in military affairs was a credit to them rather than a discredit, and that their “good qualities” ought not to be ignored even if “they happen to be our enemies.”

Dr. Tildsley was also denounced as a “Prussian by instinct and education,” because of his laudation of family life in Germany and because he asserted that it was desirable to have in this country more obedience instinctively to authority as exemplified by the obedience of the German child to its father. The denouncer was Adolph Benet, a lawyer, who said that Dr. Tildsley’s sojourn in Germany, where he studied at the University of Halle, caused him to misunderstand Germany.

“There is one thing that is bad in Germany,” declared Mr Benet. “That thing is unqualified and instinctive respect for authority. And Dr. Tildsley, after living in Germany and observing the country, would come here and try to introduce here the worst part of the whole German system. I say Dr. Tildsley is a Prussian by instinct and a Prussian by education. Why did he not say these things two months ago when many were denouncing a Judge who is now Mayor-elect?”

The stormy part of the evening took place in the parish house, where the audience repaired to ask questions after Dr. Tildsley delivered an address in the church on “Regulation of Opinion in the Schools.” The hissing of the speaker occurred during his explanation of his ideas on obedience. He explained the system of instinctive obedience to authority which marks all Germans, and then said: “German family life is magnificent, and we ought to emulate it.” Here the hissing began. A minute later it began again and grew in volume for about minute, when it stopped.

In reply to another question relating to his charges against teachers, Dr. Tildslev. said that teachers have too much protection in the schools, and that not a single high school teacher in nineteen years has been brought up on charges. In this connection he declared that when a teacher is brought up on charges the Board of Education is handicapped in the handling of the case because must accept such a lawyer as it gets from the Corporation Counsel while the teacher may get the cleverest lawyer that money can buy. This was taken by the high school teacher in the audience to mean that Dr. Tildsley was dissatisfied with handling of the trial against the three teachers by the Corporation Counsel.

In his formal address Dr. Tildsley said that the teachers who were tried and those who were transferred were not accused of disloyalty. Later. in the parish house. he said he believed they were all internationalists and doubted whether a teacher who had the spirit of internationalism had the spirit necessary to teach high school students.

He said the teachers he investigated held that unrestricted expression of opinion was the best means of developing good citizenship. With this point of view he said, he and others differed. He quoted one teacher as being a believer in Bertrand Russell and he read from one of Russell’s works a passage which said in substance that it did not matter what the teacher said but what he felt and that it was what he felt that reached the consciousness of the pupils. It was Dr. Tildsley’s belief that the opinions which the teachers hold are accepted by the pupils, even if they if they were unexpressed. Dr. Tildsley read the letter of Hyman Herman, the sixteen-year-old pupil whose composition was the basis for a charge against Samuel Schmalhauser one of the suspended teachers. In this letter President Wilson was denounced as a “murderer.” Dr. Tildsley said the teacher was in in no way responsible for the letter.

While the speaker said that the teachers loyal he investigated were not disloyal and declared their convictions were honest, he also said that though the nation had gone to war they were unable to subscribe to the decision of the majority. He divided the radical group among the teachers into three classes, those who believe in absolute and unrestrained expression by the students, those who are opposed to the war and do not believe in it, and a third class, born in Germany, , who cannot be blamed for feeling as they do about Germany. The last mentioned he declared, must not allow any of their feelings to escape into their teaching. He gave a clean bill oi health as to loyalty to all the teachers in the De Witt Clinton High School.

“A teacher is not an ordinary citizen who has the right to express his opinions freely,” continued Dr. Tildsley. “Every teacher always teaches himself, and if he has not the right ideas toward the Government he has no right to accept payment from the taxpayers. We make no claim that any of these teachers were consciously disloyal, but if because of this belief in unrestricted utterance they spread disloyalty they are not persons to be intrusted with the teaching of citizenship to students.”

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

From the New York Times, November 5, 1918:

…the dismissal of Thomas Mufson, A. Henry Schneer, and Samuel D. Schmalhausen in the De Witt Clinton High School was upheld by Acting New York Commissioner of Education E. Thomas Finegan.

_________________________

ECONOMICS AND THE TEACHER OF ECONOMICS IN THE NEW YORK CITY HIGH SCHOOLS

John L. Tildsley,
Associate Superintendent in Charge of High Schools.
[March 1919]

Every student graduated in June, 1920 and thereafter from the general course of the high schools of New York City, must have had a course in economics of not less than five periods a week for one-half year. This requirement, recently adopted by the Board of Superintendents, is one of the changes which may be charged directly to the clearer vision of our educational needs which the war has brought us. Many of us have long believed that economics is an essential element in the curriculum of the public high school, whose fundamental aim is to train the young to play their part in an environment whose ruling forces are preeminently industrial and commercial. But it has required the revelation of the dangers inherent in our untrained citizenship to cause us to force a place for the upwelcome intruder among the college preparatory subjects whose vested rights are based on immemorial possession of the field of secondary education.

One of the chief aims of the Board of Superintendents in establishing this new requirement is, without doubt, to give high school students a specialized training which shall bring to them some understanding of the forces economic and political which so largely determine their happiness and general well being, to the end that these students shall discharge more intelligently their duties as citizens in a democracy, and shall develop their productive capacity to the increase of their own well being and to the resulting advancement of the common good. A further reason for introducing economics is the belief that the boys and girls who have had this training will be better able to analyze the various remedies proposed for the evils of our social organization and to detect the iallacies which are so often put forth as measures of reform. These students should find in such training an antidote to the movements which have as their aim the over throw of institutions which the experience of our race has evolved through the centuries.

Because of this realization that economics deals not only with the conduct of business enterprises but also with political institutions and with movements for social amelioration, it is apt to enroll among its teachers the enthusiastic social reformer whose sympathies are all-embracing, who readily becomes a propagandist for his or her pet project of reform, and who finds it impossible to resist the temptation to enroll converts among the trusting students of his or her classes. It is because of this conception of the nature of economics teaching in our educational program that the new subject has been some what despised by the teachers of the sterner disciplinary subjects.

With full sympathy with the vocational aim of economics, I would offer as its chief claim for a place in our high school curriculum, that it is essentially a disciplinary subject, that it can be taught and should be taught so as to yield a training of the highest order, somewhat different in its processes, but no less searching in its demands upon the students, than mathematics or physical science.

It is a subject, therefore, to be taught by the man with the keenly analytical mind, by the man who can detect the untruth and train pupils to detect the untruth in the major premise, by the man who from tested premises can proceed to a valid conclusion. Economics is essentially applied logic rather than a confused program of social reform, as too many of its advocates have led the layman to believe.

Economics in the past has been for the most part a college and university subject. Consequently the well-trained student of economics has found his work in the college, in government service, on newspaper or magazine, and, in ever-increasing numbers, in bank ing and finance. Practically none has sought to find a career for himself in secondary work.

With full knowledge of this fact, we have added economics to the high school curriculum in the hope that ultimately the demand will create a supply of teachers thoroughly trained in economic theory before they begin their teaching. Meanwhile, we confidently expect that men thoroughly trained in other subjects which require a high degree of analysis and synthesis, will come to the rescue as they see the need. Applying the knowledge of scientific method which they possess to the new subject matter, these teachers may speedily acquire that mastery of principles which is necessary for the effective teaching of economics.

In my own experience, as I sought for economics teachers in the High School of Commerce, I found them among the teachers of mathematics and of biology. Certain of these teachers, who had an interest in business and public affairs and who were masters of scientific methods, became in the course of a single term expert teachers of economics. They even preferred the new subject to the old, because of the greater interest manifested by the students in this subject which never fails to enlist the enthusiastic interest of students when properly taught.

I trust, therefore, that some of our teachers who enjoy close, accurate thinking will take up some economic text, such as Taussig, Seligman, Seager, Carver, or Marshall, and, having read this, will follow it up with other texts on the specific fields of economics to which they find themselves attracted. Very soon, I believe, such teachers, in view of the urgent need for teachers of economics, will realize the very great service they can render our schools by utilizing their knowledge of boys and girls, their mastery of method, their awakened interest in economics and social phenomena, in training these boys and girls in this most vital subject.

As a text book for classroom use, I recommend a systematic book, such as Bullock’s Introduction to [the Study of] Economics, which lays the emphasis on principles rather than on descriptions of industrial processes or on the operation of social agencies. There are several books which are more interestingly written, but in the hands of most teachers they will lead to a descriptive treatment of industry and social institutions, to discussions for which the students are not qualified because of their ignorance of and want of drill in economic principles.

Our students need to be trained in economic theory before they attempt to discuss measures of social reform. They need to grasp the meaning of utility, value, price, before they take up the study of industrial processes. It is because of hazy conception of these primary elements that we fall so readily into error. The key to economic thinking lies in a clear understanding of the terms margin and marginal. The boy who has digested the concept “marginal utility” is already on the way to becoming a student of economics. Until he has arrived at an understanding of the nature of value, he is hardly ready to discuss socialism, wage theories, the single tax or other like themes.

The temptation for the untrained or inexperienced teacher is to begin with the study of actual business, partly as a means of interesting the student by causing him to feel that he is dealing with practical life, partly because he conceives business as a laboratory and desires as a scientist to employ the inductive method. The study of the factory or store takes the place of the study of the crayfish. The analogy does not hold. Induction in economics is the method of discovery, it is not the method of teaching, especially of secondary teaching. The method is deductive. The teacher must assume that certain great principles have been shown to be valid. He should drill on these principles and their application till the pupil has mastered them.

Let no one believe that this means a dull grind. Even such a subject as marginal utility can be made interesting to every student. It is altogether a matter of method. The concept must be presented from a dozen different angles. There must be no lecturing, no mere hearing of recitations. The pupil must not be assigned a few pages or paragraphs in the book and then left to work out his salvation. The real teaching must be done in the recitation period, with the teacher at the blackboard with a piece of chalk in his hand, ready to answer all questions and with a dozen illustrations at his command with which to drive home the principle, illustrations with which the pupils are thoroughly familiar because taken from the daily occurrences about them. For example, to explain the principle that the value of any commodity is determined by its marginal utility and that its marginal utility is the lowest use to which any commodity must be put in order to exhaust its supply, take the teacher’s desk as the illustration. Elicit from the pupils the different uses to which that desk may be put, and write the list as it is given on the blackboard. Some boy will remark that the desk could be used for firewood and will ask why the value of the desk is not determined by its utility as firewood; then comes the query, will not the supply of desks be exhausted before it is necessary to use them as firewood? As a result of this give and take process, the boys, in one recitation, may grasp this principle which is the very keystone of our modern economics.

John Bates Clark, our foremost theorist, once said to me that there is no principle in economics so difficult that it cannot be understood by a ten year old child if it is properly taught. But how often it is not properly taught! Teaching economics is like kneading bread. The teacher must turn over these principles again and again until they are kneaded into the boy so thoroughly that they have become a part of his mind stuff. When he has once had kneaded into him the concepts of the margin, marginal utility, the marginal producer, the marginal land, the marginal unit of capital, the marginal laborer, he can move fearlessly forward to the conquest of the most involved propositions of actual business. In business, in government, in all the multitudinous activities of life, we come to grief because our concepts are not clearly defined. Because of deficient analysis, we accept wrong premises and because of muddy reasoning, we allow factors to enter into the conclusion which were not in the premises. If economics be taught with the same degree of analysis of conditions, with the same accuracy in checking the reasoning as in geometry, the teacher will find himself surprised by the ability of the students to solve a most difficult problem in the incidence of taxation or one in the operations of foreign exchange. As a means of testing whether the student has gained a clear concept, problem questions should be assigned at the close of every discussion, to be answered at home in writing by the pupil, and written tests should be given at least once a week. Purely oral work makes possible much confusion of thought on the part of the pupil without the knowledge of the teacher. The slovenly thinking which may thus become a habit will produce a wrongly-trained citizen more dangerous than one who has had no training in economics at all. The problems which this training fits the student to solve are precisely the kind of problems that every businessman is called upon to face every day of his life. For example, the man who keeps the country store at Marlborough or Milton on the Hudson will soon need to decide how large a stock of goods he will order for the fall trade. This may seem to be a simple problem and yet he needs all his experience to enable him to analyze the problem of demand for his goods. This involves the effect of the mild weather on the vines and peach trees, the possibility of his customers again securing boys and girls from New York to pick the crops, the matter of freight rates on fruit, the buying capacity of the people of New York which, in turn, involves a knowledge of conditions in many industries. After he has considered all of these elements, he has come to a conclusion as to demand for his goods, but he has not yet touched the question whether the cost of his goods is to be higher or lower before September next. Do we wonder that failures are so common when we realize that few of our people, even our college graduates, are trained in accurate observation, keen analysis, rigid reasoning? The development of these powers in his pupils should be the fundamental aim of every teacher of economics this coming year. If this aim should be realized for every high school pupil in this country, we should not need to fear for the future of our city, our state, our nation. Inefficient government is due chiefly to the failure of our people to realize the connection between incompetent or dishonest officials and the well-being of the individual. Dangerous movements like the I. W. W. and Bolshevism are due to slovenly thinking, poor analysis of conditions by both the members of these organizations and those responsible for the conditions which breed these dangerous movements. Marxian socialism is based on premises which will not bear analysis, namely, the Marxian theory of value, which is not evolved from experience, the resulting expropriation theory, which depends upon this false theory of value, and the inevitable class struggle and the ultimate triumph of the proletariat, an unwarranted conclusion from invalid premises.

I have indicated that the primary aim of the Board of Superintendents in making economics a required subject was vocational in character. Through the medium of this subject it seeks to train good citizens. I trust I have made clear that this vocational aim can be best realized by making all aims subsidiary to the disciplinary aim; that we should, therefore, make the recitation periods in this subject exercises in exact analysis and rigid reasoning. If our schools can produce a generation of students with trained intelligence, students who can see straight, and think straight on economic data, we need not fear the attacks on our cherished institutions of the newcomers from lands where they have not been permitted to be trained and where the nursing of grievances has so stimulated the emotional nature as to render the dispassionate analysis of industrial movements and civil activities almost an impossibility.

Effective teaching in economics brings to the teacher an immediate reward, for the efficient teacher of economics must keep in touch not only with the changes in economic theory but with the movements in industry and finance, with problems of labor, problems of administration, local and national, with the vast field of legislation, and these not only in America, but in Asia, Australia, South America and Europe as well. Every newspaper, every periodical yields him material for his classroom. Almost every man he meets may be made to contribute to his work. The boundaries of his subject are ever widening. There is, moreover, no need of the stultifying repetition of subject matter, for there is no end to the material for the elucidation of economic principles. Nor is the teacher of economics in the high school compelled to create in his pupils an interest in the subject. for every New York boy is an economist in embryo. Questions of cost, price, wages, profits, labor, capital, are already the subjects of daily discussion.

The complaint so often heard that the teacher is academic, that he is removed from the world of practical affairs, and has little touch with the man in the street, cannot be made of the teachers of economics, who is vitally interested in his teaching. The more he studies his subject, the more he becomes a citizen of the world with an ever-deepening interest in all kinds of men and in all that pertains to man, the broader becomes his sympathies, the wider his vision.

The New York high schools offer great opportunities for men and women who, whether trained students of economics or not, are students of life. Here they may serve the state as effectively as the soldier in the field. Here they may train the young for lasting usefulness to themselves and to the city, while at the same time they are broadening their interests, expanding their vision and growing in intellectual vigor under, the compulsion of keeping pace with the demands of a subject which reflects as a mirror the changing needs and desires of men. The teaching of economics in high schools demands our strongest teachers. There is no place for the man who has finished his growth, who cannot change to meet changed conditions; nor is there place for the man who loves change just because it is change. The teacher of economics in the New York City high schools should be a co-worker with all those who seek to preserve and to develop those institutions, economic and civic, which have stood the test and gained the approval of the wise among us through the years. He should be a man who is fundamentally an optimist, constructive in his outlook on life, not destructive. If his motto be, “All’s wrong with the world,” there should be no place for him as a teacher of economics in a high school in New York City or in any other American city.

Economics is closely allied with the study of civics or government. In every school where there is not a full program in economics, the teacher of economics should also teach the civics. With the great increase in our civics work, there should be established in each school a department of economics and civics. For each of these subjects a license is being issued and separate examinations are being held. For the new department first assistants may be appointed and will be appointed.

May we not, therefore, confidently expect that some of our strongest teachers shall prepare themselves for this most interesting and vital work which will be given in every high school beginning September next?

Source: Bulletin of the High Points in the Work of the High Schools of New York City, Vol. I, No 3 (March 1919), pp. 3-7.

Image Source: Photo of Dr. John L. Tildsley in “Modern Girls Not All Wild; Here is Proof” [Construction of a new building to house Girls’ Commercial High on Classon Avenue, near Union Street] Sunday News,Brooklyn Section, p. B-15.

Tags Carver, ClarkJB, Marshall, Seager, Seligman, Taussig, Tildsley

Curriculum Economics Programs Economists M.I.T. Teaching

M.I.T. Charles Kindleberger’s Ruminations on Professional Education, 1966

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-05-16

Today’s post was an absolute treat to prepare. It gives us an opportunity to rise above the tactical aspects of economics education (i.e. syllabi and exams) to consider issues of grand strategy in higher education.

Charles Kindleberger was one of my professors in graduate school. Though I did take his course in European economic history, I must confess that I was not ready to absorb much of the intuition and wisdom that he tried to share with us. That said, my classmates and I very much respected his old-school, gentlemanly charm and deeply appreciated the scholar-economist dutifully warning us whipper-snappers that “the second-derivative is the refuge of a scoundrel!”

While this essay from 1966 mostly appears to present a distillation of Kindleberger’s experience at M.I.T. in the economics department and as chairman of the Institute Faculty, in it you will find timeless insights into the nature of higher education in general and of training in economics in particular.

Research Tip: I found this jewel of an essay while trawling through the collection of Technology Review ar srchive.org.

_______________________

The following essay was one of three papers having the theme “Innovation in Education” prepared for the 1966 M.I.T. Alumni Seminar.

Charles P. Kindleberger is professor of economics and chairman of the Faculty at M.I.T. He is known for teaching and research on world trade and economic development, and he is a member of the President’s Committee on International Monetary Arrangements. As chairman of the Faculty, Dr. Kindlberger has participated directly in many of the recent developments in professional undergraduate curricula at the Institute.

_______________________

Professional Education:
Towards a Way of Thought

by Charles P. Kindleberger

Technology Review, November 1966

THE age of the amateur is dead. Professionalism rules — in the cockpit of spaceships, in football, and in learning. We have abandoned the British tradition of the amateur who was good at everything for that of the Grandes Ecoles, with rigorous scientific training leading to professional competence. “He’s a pro,” which used to be insulting in Britain, is now a compliment everywhere.

There is some room left for the amateur tradition — in politics. It is not good enough to duck the question of where the Inner Belt road should be located by saying that these are matters for resolution by experts. In economics, also, the number of distinct opinions on a given issue is frequently greater than one and sometimes approaches the number of experts. Social scientists resent that mere people feel entitled to have opinions on issues on which popular knowledge and capacity for theorizing are limited, but they have found no way to prevent it. And there is claimed to be scope for flair, inspiration and style — the hallmarks of the amateur — at the frontiers of science, when the ordinary professionals have carried the subject as far as they can. On the whole, however, the demand for professionals and professional education is greater than it has ever been.

Part of this demand is wasteful. An economic study some years ago claimed that there was not so much a shortage of scientists and engineers as very wasteful use of those on hand. Some part of the demand for Ph.D.’s today could perhaps be satisfied with M.S.’s, and some of the jobs seeking master’s could be filled by bachelor’s. During the long years of inadequate effective demand and considerable unemployment, we have tended to upgrade job requirements throughout the economy.

But the upgrading of the educational requirements of business and the professions goes well beyond snobbism and cultural lag. Knowledge has expanded. There is 100 times more information to be obtained today than in 1900, and it is estimated that by 2000 A.D. there will be 1000 times as much knowledge. Periodicals have risen in number from 45,000 in 1950 to 95,000 currently. Librarians blanch under the prospect of coping with the accelerating torrent of periodicals, books, monographs. A major problem in research is to find out what has been done by others so as to avoid rediscovering the same information.

The result is more professional education and more specialization. Eighty-five per cent of today’s new doctors are trained as specialists rather than general practitioners. Lawyers are experts in taxation, trusts domestic or international corporate law, or anti-trust. The man who used to be merely an economist is now a specialist in international economics or African trade. The one year of internship in medicine which was normal in 1945 has been extended to two, three or even four. Business recruits directly from the universities but increasingly from graduate schools of business, and even then the bright young graduate in management is put into a training program. Increasingly the practice is to spend a year in post-doctoral work in another university to extend one’s research training even beyond the scope of the doctorate. This stretching of the educational process to the point where the first professional income is not earned until age 25, or in some lines, 30 is expensive in many, as has been widely recognized by foundations, government, and, somewhat earlier, by parents. Together with the knowledge explosion, it is putting enormous pressure on our educational institutions to break out of old patterns and to find new ways of producing and packaging professional education.

These problems can properly be discussed in three Parts — preprofessional education, professional education as such, and mid-career upgrading. The divisions are hard to keep distinct, as will become apparent, but each section presents particular problems for the university in trying to rationalize and increase the efficiency of its professional mission.

BY preprofessional education is meant the provision of the prerequisites for professional training. In some fields such as law these are nothing more than the good general education which used to be required of the British civil servant. But I refer rather to the mathematics and physics which are needed for engineering, to organic chemistry and anatomy which used to be all that were needed as prerequisites for medical school, and to the elementary courses in a given field which must be mastered before a student goes on to the advanced reaches of any subject.

Any subject can be taught as general education, as preprofessional training, and for professional uses freshman mathematics can be taught so that the student learns to differentiate and integrate, which he needs to know preprofessionally outside of professional mathematics, or he can be taught them and mathematical analysis as well, either for general education, which includes a glimpse of the beauties of the mathematician’s universe, or as part of preprofessional work in mathematics. The clash between two of the ways of addressing a subject was neatly illustrated last spring by the resignation of 11 members of the Dartmouth medical school faculty who wanted to teach biochemistry, micro-biology and cytology as professional subjects rather than as preprofessional training for medicine.

The problem in the humanities is easier. One can argue that the ability to write a simple sentence is preprofessional education widely neglected, but for the most part English is taught as general education. But mathematics, physics, and chemistry are general education of a special sort, preprofessional education more narrowly.

The Challenge of Teaching

Most professional mathematicians, physicists, and chemists — and economists, political scientists, and psychologists as well — prefer professional to general preprofessional teaching. Preprofessional teaching for the narrow group or students which you know is going to be drawn further into the professional subject being taught is challenging and fascinating, but as general education, or preprofessional training for other fields, such training often fails to engage the excitement of the ordinary as opposed to the great teacher. The ordinary teacher is more engaged by the subject than by the students as people. The result is that he may succumb to the temptation to neglect this teaching, or to make it interesting to himself by making it more professional, or both. On his side the student is either bewildered or bored, or both. It is on this account that the quality of teaching in the first two years presents a problem of particular difficulty.

The problem is met not only at the university level. In medical school, I understand, the first two years are taken up with some anatomy and physiology but with a great deal of preprofessional training in biophysics, biochemistry, and subjects like pharmacology. It is difficult to have these well taught on the one hand, and well learned on the other, when the main professional mission or the school is clinical medicine.

Articulation: Skip or Repeat?

Articulation is painful. If the superbly trained preprofessional has to follow the regular route he is bored and discouraged. If he tries to skip large portions of early professional training which his preprofessional work presumably covered, he is never quite clear what of the work the others are taking he has mastered and what he has not.

Medical schools’ admissions officers profess to be looking for broad-gauged young men and women with wide-ranging interests developed through general education rather than those who have extensive study and good grades in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. In their admissions choices, however, they are likely to favor the science specialist over the generalist on the score or preprofessional advantage. But this leaves the particularly well-trained young scientist likely to waste a great deal of the first two years of medical school while his generalist colleagues catch up. The problem is particularly acute for graduates of such preprofessional curricula as molecular biology at places like M.I.T. for they are catapulted somewhere into the middle of the normal first two years of training in medicine

We have a similar problem in graduate education in economics for those students who come to us with excellent training in social science from their undergraduate institutions. For them to take the first year of graduate training — the regular courses in micro- and macro-economic theory, mathematics, statistics and economic history — involves a duplication of some 60 to 75 per cent of what they have already studied. The second time around, and more systematically, this material is warmed-over porridge and not very appetizing. But to leap right into the second year of graduate work runs the risk of missing vital elements of preparation in the 25 to 40 per cent which has been missed. And we find that the undergraduate teachers have exhausted a considerable portion of the wonder and beauty of first looking into Marshall’s Principles, if I may transliterate a line from Keats; indeed, a small but disturbing fraction of our best-taught young men become sufficiently discouraged to drop out. This can be regarded perhaps a difficulty of articulating professional rather than preprofessional education, but it is a general one.

The Several Routes to a Profession

Some of these difficulties might be overcome if the choice of profession were made earlier and all students followed the same path. But this is impossible. Professional choices are not made consistently by various young people at the same stage, with the result that there must be a variety of avenues to professional education rather than merely one. And if professional choice is made only in the junior year of college, at 21, it is hard to push the preprofessional training to lower levels.

While there are children who have known since the age of five that they wanted to be involved with electricity, or machinery, or the human body as a life’s work, career choice is more and more presenting a difficult problem to American youth. Two generations ago father dominance helped, and hurt, such choice. Today fathers know enough not to push their children in directions of which they approve — or most of them know enough. The result is that career choice is much more squarely left to youth and is consequently fraught with youthful tension. The college dropout phenomenon is one aspect. Some young men welcome the army, the Peace Corps, or a year of travel, as legitimate means of delay in facing the necessity for career choice. Certain types of graduate training — business and law — are an escape from the need for decision. But even at M.I.T. at least 30 per cent of our undergraduates end up majoring in a different field than they put down as their intended specialization when they were admitted, and 20 per cent actually switch majors after they have chosen one at the end of their freshman year.

The social sciences labor under a considerable disability here, because fixing on a social science as a career comes as a rule much later than comparable decisions in science, engineering, medicine, or humanities. Children are aware of the body, animals, earth, sky, machines, and even prose, poetry, and the existence of the past, long before they become aware of the complexities of human society. The early models for career choice, as is well known, are firemen, policemen, and, in my day, streetcar conductors.

The consequence of late career decision is that one cannot insist that all applicants for professional training have completed their preprofessional work on admission — that all M.I.T. students, for example, come with calculus, or all medical students already have molecular biology, biochemistry, and biophysics. The only equitable, and I may add efficient, system of education is to keep all options open as long as possible. In consequence preprofessional cannot be dumped completely onto other training systems — by the technological institutes on to the schools, and by the graduate training programs on to the colleges. Some preprofessional education must be kept side-by-side with the professional, to offer a chance for the later chooser to catch up. This means that professional education must maintain a several-track system.

To keep preprofessional and professional education side-by-side in the same institution presents problems of teaching, as has already been mentioned. The ordinary instructor finds it easy and productive to take on advanced professional students — undergraduates in their senior year, or graduate students who have mastered the fundamentals. They work together, as members of a scholarly team, able to communicate in two directions. Preprofessional teaching, as I have said is less interesting.

There is no good solution for this problem. To divide the university into upper and lower division, as is sometimes done, creates a two-class system with invidious overtones. To separate preprofessional training off into colleges with dedicated teachers, and admit students to the universities only into graduate school from the four-year colleges and into the upper classes from junior colleges would not only violate traditions — which are important in the lives of institutions — but also compound the problem of articulation. The solution we see at M.I.T. is to strengthen the place of preprofessional teaching in the value system of the Institute, to restore it to the high esteem it enjoyed before it slipped under the pressure on staff of research, consulting, professional service and keeping up with the literature. No one contemplates that it is possible to staff a first-rate technological institution completely with instructors who are first-rate at teaching as they are at research and professional service. But the administration, the faculty, and the students can let all instructing staff know that whatever the professional demands on their time, teaching is not the marginal and dispensable activity.

Professional Education

The central issues in professional education have mostly been touched upon already: the extension or the material to be mastered, the difficulties of starting earlier because of late career choice, the downgrading of the bachelor’s and master’s degrees, the development postdoctoral training, the need for a rigorous scientific (instead of rule-of-thumb and seat-of-the-pants) approach in the applied fields because of the rapid rate of obsolescence, and so on. But I would make three points.

First, there is a risk that the revulsion from the empirical approach to engineering and applied social science in favor of science and pure theory can be carried too far. The simplest solution to a problem is not only the most efficient; it is also the most elegant. While it is true that one can stumble on solutions to applied problems as a by-product of pure theory, it is also true that theory is sometimes pursued for its own sake beyond the point of diminishing returns. It is not clear how much biophysics should be known to the gynecologist, how much topology to the student of fiscal policy, how much communication theory to the professor of the French language. I sometimes characterize these problems by a reference to medieval scholasticism and ask how many angels can dance on the rate of interest. Theory and pure mathematics are at the top or the pecking order in the intellectual world, and this is as it should be, just as the theoretical and mathematical requirements for the lowliest professional specialties have been increased. But high power can be overdone.

Second, the question of interdisciplinary education remains complex. The practitioner continues to be trained in a variety of fields — history, law, economics and political science for the foreign service officer; contracts, property, wills, constitution and international law for the lawyer (although the Yale Law School curriculum has been altered to include a year and a half of specialization); finance, statistics, accounting, marketing, and psychology for business; and so on. At the same time, research is increasingly conducted by centers which bring different specialists to bear on a single problem with the vantage point of their own focus: aeronautical, electrical, and mechanical engineers in instrumentation, for example. But the professional teaching which produces these scholars cannot be widely interdisciplinary. A man must master one social or physical science before attempting to integrate two. In my experience, the joint degree which bridges two or more fields in one Ph.D. is satisfactory neither for the student nor the faculty involved, and not only because of jurisdictional jealousies. Each field has an intellectual integrity as a discipline, much as it may lack in providing the complete answer to a complex research problem. The attempt to master them all ends in a mastery of none.

This is a pat answer which does not fully satisfy me. More and more professional practice is becoming the equivalent of research. Architectural design of a building is no longer a simple problem of drawing and construction engineering; as we at M.I.T. are acutely conscious, an architect needs to master the Venturi principle if his skyscraper is not to set up wind currents or micro-meteorology which makes it difficult to open the building’s doors. The designer of a rehousing project has to understand sociological grouping into communities.

Third, the narrowing distinction between research and practice leads me to question the desirability or intermediate degrees between the master’s and the doctorate, which we have developed at M.I.T. in the engineer degrees. These degrees are awarded to students who have completed the course work for the doctorate but who do not write the thesis. Their justification is that the student has undertaken course work beyond the master’s level and should get academic recognition for it. I can understand awarding the intermediate degree as a consolation prize to a student who is not being allowed to go on for the doctorate because of insufficient research creativity, or to a fully competent student who is unable for one reason or another to finish his thesis and who has gone far beyond the master’s level. But these degrees should not become ends in themselves. Teachers should have had exposure to a substantial research experience. and so. if possible, should practitioners.

IF there is an overpowering amount for professionals to learn, not only in the separate fields but in combining one or more of them, there is no need to learn it all at once, in the four, five, six to ten years between high school and professional practice. One of the most interesting developments in professional education today is mid-career schooling. This began in the business schools and is spreading rapidly. At M.I.T. we have the Sloan School of Management programs for junior and senior executives, the new Center for Advanced Engineering Study, and a host of one- and two-week summer courses. The larger companies — General Motors, General Electric, I.B.M., to cite only those I have lectured to — run training programs for their own executives. The American Bar Association has a Committee on Continuing Legal Education which runs week-long, weekend and day seminars on new problems in the law. The medical associations, national, state, and specialty groups, conduct study sessions of varying length in new techniques, medicines, specialties.

Mid-career education presents serious teaching problems. The engineer returning to the Center for Advanced Engineering Study, or the young executive enrolled in the Sloan Fellowship Program at M.I.T., is likely to need preprofessional brushing up before he can handle the material taught in professional subjects. The Sloan Fellows’ beginning experience is a summer term spent in a specially designed course which gets them up to first-year graduate speed for the regular year. The Center for Advanced Engineering has had design and give special subjects in modern calculus and quantum mechanics. This preprofessional teaching, I can say from experience, has its own special rewards for the teacher, because the students have a fresh point of view, a capacity to relate theory to real situations in a way that the undergraduate and regular graduate student cannot do. But here is another special job of teaching, and that is expensive.

Mid-career education is expensive for the university, for the student (who must uproot his family for the time) and for his company, which normally pays both his salary and tuition charges. Its great contribution is not the correction of obsolescence though this has importance. The real point is to give an opportunity in today’s complex world for a man who has worked his way through one field, and demonstrated his capacity, to introduce a slight shift in orientation and train for wider responsibilities. It used to be that only the armed services were wise enough to see its desirability and budget for the expense of training at all stages of a successful career. The State Department has long had program of sending individuals to do a year of graduate work and is now beginning to operate its own foreign Service Institute course of six months. It seems inevitable that government, industry, the learned professions and, above all others, university instructors must count on continuing education and re-education in a world of changing knowledge and maturing people.

This mid-career training need not be undertaken by the universities. The costs of adding to the diversity of the multiversity are high. It is more cheaply done without uprooting families. And yet there is benefit in bringing people from different companies, backgrounds and experience to rub elbows, in plunging the man of affairs back into the scholarly environment. The profit is mutual, so long as mid-career trainees do not overwhelm the academic tradition. There are obvious limits to how far universities can respond to the demand. If mid-career education grows, as is likely, it is reasonable to expect the development of new institutions which provide the specialized preprofessional training and mix students from different backgrounds.

No pat series of answers emerges from a discussion of professional education. I feel confident in rejecting a number of proposals for major reform. Starting professional studies earlier is undesirable insofar as it cuts general education on the one hand and closes off options for late deciders on the other. Eliminating the doctoral dissertation, or converting it to a longish paper representing a couple of months’ work, abolishes the vital test of whether a man can organize and carry through a substantial research project, a test of increasing importance in a world where the distinction between research and practice is narrowing. Dividing the university into divisions for general education and professional training not only misses the point that the same treatment of a subject can be preprofessional, general, or professional education for students with different abilities, backgrounds, and programs, but divides the faculty into elite and non-elite members in a way which subverts morale and harms the teaching mission of the university. How to improve the university’s performance in discharging the mission of general and preprofessional teaching remains an imposing challenge. Social science is a long way from ability to change value systems, and the real solution to the problem of undergraduate teaching is to restore the prestige accorded to non-professional teaching in the value systems or university staffs.

We have come a long way in American education, I believe, when we recognize that we have serious problems of what, when and how to teach and are prepared to modify the traditional system and to experiment with new techniques. The exact character of the new techniques may be less important than the attitude that the subject is important and that present conditions can be improved.

My basic conclusion is the trite one: professional education is a vastly different process than providing a young man with a hatful of formulas and training him to select the right one for the right occasion. The real task is to teach — if it can be taught, or by example to train — the young to attack a problem as a good experimental physicist, biologist, engineer, or economist would; to have a feel for the data and for the limits of standard analytical techniques; to sense, after a time, the distinction between the run-of-the-mill textbook case and that with new and puzzling complications. It is not enough to do what a professional does: one must think the way a professional thinks. And this capacity is communicated in a complex osmotic process which may be independent of or only very loosely connected with prerequisites, examinations, credits, and theses, much less closed-circuit television, teaching machines, computers, and high-powered mathematics. The educational process is an elusive one, but I venture to predict that in the long run it will be found to resemble more the chemistry of slow-cooking on the back of the stove than that of infrared split-second broiling of steaks from the deep freeze.

Source: MIT, Technology Review, 69(1), November 1966.

Image Source: Portrait of Charles Poor Kindleberger at the MIT Museum website. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Tags Kindleberger

Harvard Regulations Teaching

Harvard. On the organization of the Division of History, Government, and Economics. Burbank, 1934

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-12-05

Professor Harold H. Burbank (Burbie to his friends) was a decades-long administrative multitasker during the first half of the 20th century. His realms covered both the tutorial system in the Division of History, Government, and Economics as well as the chairmanship of the economics department.The document transcribed for this post appears to have served as Burbank’s background briefing on the organization of the Division of History, Government, and Economics for the committee, chaired by the President of Princeton, Harold W. Dodds, tasked with establishing a school of public administration at Harvard.

_________________________

Who’s Who

James Bryant Conant (1893-1978) was a chemist, educator and public servant. The wide variety of his interests and occupations are reflected in the title of his memoirs, My Several Lives. Conant’s “several lives” included periods as a chemistry instructor, University president, national director of defense research, ambassador to Germany and as an author of critical works examining secondary education in the United States. Conant’s pursuits carried him from his boyhood home in Boston to Harvard University and eventually around the globe.

Conant graduated from Harvard College in 1914, completing a three-year program as an undergraduate concentrator in chemistry. He remained at the University, studying with Elmer Kohler, and received his degree two years later. An academic career followed, during which time Conant worked at Harvard as an instructor (1917), assistant professor (1919) and eventually as a tenured professor (1927) of organic chemistry. In 1921 he married Grace Thayer Richards, daughter of chemistry professor Theodore William Richards, whom Conant had met at a dinner for graduate students at Professor Richards’ house.

In 1933, despite the fact that his only previous administrative experience was a term as chair of the Chemistry Department, Conant was appointed to succeed A. Lawrence Lowell as President of Harvard University. President Conant worked to enhance Harvard’s position as a national institution with an international reputation for academic achievement. He established the National Scholarships which allowed young men of intellectual promise to attend Harvard College regardless of their financial circumstances or proximity to Cambridge, Massachusetts. He also broadened the intellectual scope of the undergraduate student body through the General Education Program. This program required each undergraduate, regardless of his concentration, to take courses in three broad disciplines: the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. President Conant further promoted intellectual exchange through the establishment of the prestigious University Professorships, which gave leading scholars tenured appointments at the University, unencumbered by ties to specific faculties or departments.

Conant’s achievements also included expansion in the teaching of education and of journalism. In the fall of 1935 the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Graduate School of Education voted to recommend his plan for the establishment of a new degree, the Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.). The M.A.T. required prospective teachers to demonstrate a command of educational theory as well as familiarity with specific subjects by undergoing examination by members from both the teaching faculty and their specific subject faculty. Three years later, Conant helped to establish the Nieman Fellowships. These fellowships fund a year of study at Harvard for professional journalists.

During wartime, Conant balanced his service to the University with a commitment to national affairs. In 1917 he briefly left Harvard to join the Chemical Warfare Service and by the end of the First World War he was promoted to the rank of major. Conant, an outspoken critic of Nazi Germany, played a more prominent role during the Second World War. As a member and chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, he and his colleagues were responsible for the technical direction of military scientific research, including atomic research. At the end of the war he declined to become the first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, although he continued to serve as Chairman of the National Science Board.

Conant retired from Harvard in 1953. He immediately began another of his “lives,” serving as U.S. High Commissioner to Germany and Ambassador to Germany. In 1957 he resigned his diplomatic post and once again turned his attention to American education. In 1957, Conant, along with the Educational Testing Service, administered a large scale study of American high schools. Following this, he studied and reported on teacher education in American Universities. In 1964, he returned to Berlin for eighteen months as an educational advisor under the auspices of the Ford Foundation.

Conant spent his final years as a resident of New York City, Summering in Hanover, New Hampshire. He took ill in Hanover during the spring of 1977 and remained there until his death on February 11, 1978. He was survived by his wife who died in 1985 and his sons James Richards and Theodore Richards.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Collection overview: Papers of James Bryant Conant, 1862-1987.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Vernon Munroe, Jr., Harvard Class of 1931. One of three members of a special committee of the Student Council who wrote a report “The Tutorial System in Harvard College” (published as a supplement to the Harvard Alumni Bulletin, October 9, 1931).

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College 1930-31, p. 96.

MUNROE RESIGNS AS SECRETARY TO PRESIDENT CONANT

The Harvard Crimson, May 7, 1934

Announcement was made at University Hall yesterday of the resignation of Vernon Munroe, Jr. ’31, as secretary to President Conant.

Munroe has held the position since September 1, 1933 when he was appointed by the Corporation to a new post as assistant to the President of the University.

Graduating from Harvard in 1931 he spent the next year at the Law School, leaving there to assume his post as aide to the President. He plans to continue next year with his work in the Law School.

At college Munroe was President of the Student Council, Captain of the University track team, Chairman of the Dunster House Committee, and Third Marshal of his class. As President of the Student Council he was active in preparing a special undergraduate report on the Tutorial System at Harvard.

Although no one yet has been chosen to succeed Munroe, it is believed that the appointment of his successor will be made in the near future.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Princeton University President (1933-57) Harold W. Dodds was appointed by President Conant as head of a commission to consider the establishment of a new school of public administration (today’s John F. Kennedy School of Government).

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College 1934-35, p. 23.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Harold Hitchings Burbank. Chairman of the department of economics 1927-38 and 1942-46 and Chairman of the Board of Tutorials in the Division 1916-46.

From the active list, Harold Hitchings Burbank, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy, died on February 6, 1951, in his sixty-fourth year. He began his career in the field of Economics at Dartmouth where he taught for one year, 191o-11. He came to the University in 1911 as an Assistant in Economics, becoming an Instructor in 1912. In 1914 he was appointed a Tutor in that Department, and from 1916 to 1946 he served as Chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government and Economics. He was Assistant Professor of Economics from 1919 to 1923, Associate Professor from 1923 to 1926, and Professor of Economics from 1926 to 1932. From 1932 until his death he held the David A. Wells Professorship of Political Economy. He was also Chairman of the Department of Economics from 1927 to 1938, and again from 1942 to 1949; he acted as Chairman of the Division of History, Government and Economics from 1942 to 1946. Few Harvard teachers ever worked with as many students individually or gave so lavishly of their time and energy.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1950-51, p. 29.

Cf. Burbank’s earlier report, transcribed and archived at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror: Report on the Tutorial System in History, Government and Economics. Burbank, 1922.

_________________________

Background information on the Division of History, Government, and Economics written by the Chairman of Economics Department, 1934

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

H. H. BURBANK

41 HOLYOKE HOUSE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

May 21, 1934

Dear Mr. Munroe,

The organization of the Division of History, Government, and Economics is complicated. I am listing below some comments on the questions raised by President Dodd. [sic, almost certainly should be “Dodds”] I can give you complete details should you require them.

The Division has developed through the separation from History of the Departments of Economics and Government. The Division is composed of the members of these three departments.
The Division unit was maintained before 1914 primarily for the administration of graduate degrees. Emphasis was placed upon the formulation and administration of the degree requirements rather than on the development and coordination of the curriculum. I believe that some attention was given also to candidates for Honors for the Bachelors‘
As I recall it, there was a small independent budget to provide for secretarial assistance to the Chairman of the Division and to provide for the printing of the Division pamphlet and the schedule of graduate degree examinations.
The administration of graduate degrees has continued since 1914, but latterly, the programs of the three departments have become characterized by their differences rather than by their unity of conception and action.
1. The independent Division budget for the purposes summarized above has been continued. It is prepared and administered by the Chairman of the Division.
In 1914 on the recommendation of the Division, Comprehensive Examinations and a system of Tutorial Instruction were initiated. To a small degree the curriculum within the Division was coordinated. Correlation among the subjects taught in the several departments was required. To meet the new objectives, an Examining Committee, appointed by the President, was created, and the general development and supervision of the Tutorial Instruction was placed in the hands of a new Division officer — the Chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government, and Economics.
1. All tutors, whether in History, Government, or Economics, were, in theory, recommended by the Division. The appointment was, and is, in the Division rather than in a particular department.
2. Until about 1925, a Division Committee on Appointments — the Chairman of the Board of Tutors, the Chairman of the Division, and the Chairmen of the three Departments — passed upon all recommendations for appointments in the Division as tutors. Since 1925, this Committee has not been active. All appointments as tutor therefore are now on the basis of Departmental recommendation. The Chairman of the Board of Tutors is usually consulted.
3. With the appointment of Divisional Examiners and Tutors, a budget was called for, which included the expenditures for Tutorial Instruction, for the Examiners, and for Administration.
4. Until 1931, this budget, prepared by the Chairman of the Board of Tutors was altogether distinct from Departmental budgets, although it was always prepared in consultation with the Division Chairman.
5. During the last five years there has developed a tendency toward complete Departmental control of Tutorial Instruction. With the development of Departmental control and responsibility, the Division budget has become less important, until for the forthcoming year it will practically disappear except for the maintenance of a small sum for administration and examining.
It may be stated that from 1914 to 1928, or 1929, there was thorough Division control in the development of Tutorial Instruction. After the functions and methods of instruction had been established on a satisfactory plane, Division control was slowly withdrawn and instruction decentralized. The Division still operates unqualifiedly as a unit in the administration of examinations.
With the rapid increase in the membership in the Division since 1914, the group became ineffective as an administrative unit. For some years, the affairs of the Division have been administered by a Committee of Seven— the Chairman of the Division, the Chairmen of the three Departments, and delegates from each Department — which meets when necessary. Although the principal work of the Committee is confined to the administration of graduate degrees, the Committee frequently concerns itself with Tutorial Instruction and with questions of the curriculum which have common interest. The Division meets as a group for the recommendation of degrees — A.B., A.M., and Ph.D.
Until 1930, instruction in Sociology was offered by the Department of Economics. Also, some subjects ordinarily regarded as belonging to the subject of Sociology were offered by the Department of Social Ethics which was affiliated with the Department of Philosophy. Independent instruction in Sociology has been established and the Department of Sociology stands as a Division without direct affiliation with other Departments.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
H. H. Burbank

Mr. Vernon Munroe, Jr.
VS

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 9, Folder “History, Government & Economics, 1933-1934.”

Image Source: Portrait of Professor Harold H. Burbank in the Harvard Classbook 1934. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Tags Burbank

Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Course Outline, Reading Assignments, Semester Exams. Principles of economics. Smithies, 1951-52

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-07-17

The self-confidence of the businessmen appointed to Harvard’s economics department visiting committee at mid-20th-century to weigh-in on all matters related to the scope and method of economics as a science and policy art is breath-taking, and I don’t mean that in a good way. For an earlier post I transcribed the November 1950 report submitted by the visiting committee and the January 1952 response from Harvard President James B. Conant. Reading Keller and Keller’s Making Harvard Modern: The Rise of America’s University (2001), I learned that Clarence B. Randall [Chairman of the Economics Visiting Committee] alleged that the economics chairman, Arthur Smithies, ripped off the first page of the syllabus for the principles of economics course to hide the list of main sources of readings for the course, knowing that some of the items would displease Randall.

This was enough to get me to look at the syllabus with assigned readings and the final examinations for Economics 1 “Principles of Economics” for the academic year 1951-52 now transcribed for this post. The first page of the syllabus appears to simply be tables of primary sources for the readings assigned in the fall and spring terms that permit abbreviated reference in the course syllabus. But since he was given the complete list of readings and an outline of the course, I find it more likely that Randall merely saw a tempest in a teapot. Others can examine the artifacts themselves and come to their own conclusions.

If I were in the jury, I would vote to acquit Smithies of the charge of willfully destroying or hiding evidence known to be relevant. Any idiot could figure out Karl Marx made a guest appearance in the Harvard course readings from the course outline and its reading assignments. Smithies provided sufficient evidence as to course content to Randall. Actually I think Smithies should have been awarded damages for having his honor impugned, or even a Purple Heart. Suffering fools has always been a part of the price of departmental service.

__________________________

Cf. An earlier version of the Syllabus for “Principles of Economics”

1949-50. Economics 1 outline and exams.

__________________________

Smithies’ letter of Oct 31, 1951 to Randall

October 31, 1951

Mr. Clarence B. Randall
38 South Dearborn Street
Chicago 3, Illinois

Dear Mr. Randall:

I was very glad to get your letter and I do wish we had more opportunities to sit down to discuss the affairs of the Department in a more leisurely manner than is usually possible.

We have given a great deal of thought during the fall to the questions about the Department that you have raised with the President. I am afraid it might confuse things if I attempted to discuss those questions by letter so I shall forebear. I would like to say, however, that whether or not I agree with your conclusions I have always found your criticisms of the Department very helpful.

Dave Bailey called and asked us to keep Sunday evening, January thirteenth, free for a meeting with the committee. As you know, I do not think these single evening meetings serve any very useful purpose. They do not enable the Committee to talk at any length with members of the Department or to make any adequate appraisal of the Department’s program. Several members of the Committee have told me that oven the full day we devoted to the purpose last year was too short. Several members of the Department have also indicated to me that they feel that the Sunday evening meeting is to [sic] perfunctory. Therefore, I very much hope we can arrange another program of the kind we had last year.

Things seem to be going quite satisfactorily here. The enrollment has not shrunk to anything like the extent that was anticipated last spring.

This year we have extended tutorial to sophomores in Group III and above so that we have now practically restored the tutorial system that was eliminated during the war.

I am sending you a copy of the outline of Economics 1 which may interest you. I still regard it as by no means perfect but am more satisfied with it than with what we have had before. We are continuing to have occasional lectures in Economics 1 and during the course of the year I hope that most of the senior members of the staff will give at least one lecture.

Our contract with the Business School for Smith and Butters to teach Burbank’s courses is working out quite as well as I expected. I want to make this a permanent arrangement, but I would not be surprised at some time to see some resistance from the Business School. If we need it, I hope we can rely on your Committee’s support to continue this arrangement.

The defense program has made fewer inroads on the Department than we expected. It is absorbing a good deal of Mason’s sabbatical leave; Dunlop is spending a day or two a week with the Wage Stabilization Board; and I go to Washington for a couple of days a week as a consultant to Charles E. Wilson.

If there is any chance of seeing you during the fall, I would very much appreciate the opportunity. I am regularly in Washington on Thursdays — if you can every bring yourself to visit that unholy city.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Smithies

Enclosure

__________________________

Randall alleges sleight-of-hand by Smithies regarding the Economics 1 reading list.

“Besides their ideological concerns, the Overseers worried about the department’s ability (and desire) to teach undergraduates. [Chairman of the Economics Committee, Clarence B.] Randall fretted that research-obsessed professors were away too much; senior professors avoided teaching lowerclassmen. And he agreed with [President James B.] Conant that the field ‘has reached a point of ethereal content which is as lifeless to me as much…modern poetry. It just doesn’t seem to matter.’ Conant concede that the department ‘has not faced up to the problem of making a real effort ot improve the instruction in the introductory courses in Economics.’ Feeling the pressure, chairman [Professor Arthur] Smithies proposed an extensive plan to strengthen undergraduate teaching. Randall appreciated Conan’s response to his criticisms. He left the visiting committee in the fall of 1952, but not without a final disappointment. He heard that when he asked the chairman for a copy of the Economics A [sic, Principles of Economics last listed as “Economics A” in 1947-48. Beginning 1948-49 it was given the number “Economics 1″ ] reading list, Smithies tore off the first page because he thought that Randall would disapprove of many of the authors (as in all likelihood he would have). ‘I bear no animosity about that,’ Randall told Conant, ‘but it does make me a little heartsick. I am always shocked when I find amongst either professors or preachers ethical practices below the standard prevailing in business.”

Source: Morton Keller and Phyllis Keller, Making Harvard Modern: The Rise of America’s University (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 84-85.

__________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 1. Principles of Economics

Full course. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 12. The major part of the course is conducted in sections. However, throughout the year there will be occasional lectures on Wed. at 12. Mon., Wed., and Fri., will be the normal hour for section meetings but sections will be scheduled at other hours. Professor Smithies and other Members of the Department.

Economics 1 may be taken by properly qualified Freshmen with the consent of the instructor.

Economics 1 is designed to introduce students to the methods of economic analysis that bear on the issues that confront this country and the world. The course will thus serve the needs both of those students who plan no further work in economics and those who desire to obtain the groundwork for more advanced courses in the field.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction, 1951-52 pp. 75-76.

__________________________

Economics 1
Syllabus and Readings
1951-52

[first page begins]

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Fall Term

Sources:

	Bowman and Bach,	Economic Analysis and Public Policy, Second Edition (1949)
**	Clark, J.M.,	Common and Disparate Elements in National Growth and Decline
	Daugherty and Daugherty	Principles of Political Economy, vol. II
		The Midyear Economic Report of the President, July 1951
	Editors of Fortune,	U.S.A. — The Permanent Revolution
*	Gayer, Harriss, and Spencer,	Basic Economics, A Book of Readings
	Hart,	Defense Without Inflation
	Marx,	The Communist Manifesto
	Mill, J. S.,	Principles of Political Economy
*	Morgan, T.,	Introduction to Economics
	Office of Defense Mobilization,	Meeting Defense Goals
	Ruggles, R.,	National Income and Income Analysis
	Schumpeter, J. A.,	The Theory of Economic Development
	Slichter, S.,	The American Economy
**	Spengler, J. J.,	Theories of Socio-Economic Growth
	[“Baumol	Economic Analysis” inserted here]

* To be purchased.
** To be handed out in section meeting.

[end of first page]

ECONOMICS 1
Fall Term

PART I. The American Economy—Its Growth, Complexity, Institutions and Problems

The Growth of the U.S. Economy and Its Present Complexity
1. Change in productivity and income; the increase in population, capital accumulation, and the supply of natural resources.
2. The functions of the economy.
3. The complex division of labor and specialization within the U.S. economy for performing these functions.
4. The role of the price system and market mechanism — the circular flow of economic activity.

Readings:

Slichter, Ch. 1, The American Economy

Gayer, et al., Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 59

Bowman and Bach, Ch. 3, The Economic System — A Summary View; Chapter 4, Private Enterprise, Profits, the Price System

Prerequisites for a Growing Economy
1. Climate and natural resources, attitudes of the population, capital and technology, institutional conditions and systems, etc.
2. Comparisons among different economies

Readings:

Clark, Common and Disparate Elements in National Growth and Decline

Daugherty and Daugherty, Ch. 34, Modern Economic Society

Institutions of an Advanced Industrial Economy
1. Large scale enterprise — the organization of business
2. The organization of labor and agriculture
3. The role of the monetary system and its organization
4. The role of the government

Readings:

Morgan, [Introduction to Economics]

Ch. 4, The Scale and Location of Production

Ch. 5, The Organization of Business

Ch. 6, The Rise of Labor Unions; Social Legislation of the 1930’s

Ch. 7, The Nature of Money

Ch. 8, The Supply of Money

Ch. 9, The Demand for Money

[“Ch. 28” inserted here]

Ch.10, The Control of Money

Ch. 3, Economic Decisions under Laissez-Faire, a Mixed Economy, and Socialism

Editors of Fortune, Ch. 4, The Transformation of American Capitalism

Gayer, et al., Nos. 51, 54, 65 [“, 12” inserted here]

Some Views on Economic Growth
1. The classical economists
2. Schumpeter
3. Marx
4. Other socio-economic views

Readings:

Mill, Vol. II, Bk. IV, Ch. 6, Of the Stationary State

Schumpeter, Ch. 2, The Fundamental Phenomenon of Economic Development

Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Spengler, Theories of Socio-Economic Growth

The Problems of a Growing and Complex Economy
1. Business fluctuations and economic stability
2. Competition and monopoly
3. The distribution of income
4. International problems
5. Economic Power

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 1, Economic Problems and Economic Progress, pp. 3-7

Slichter, Ch. 6, How Good is the American Economy

PART II. Fluctuations in National Income — The Problem of Economic Stability

The Measurement of National Income
1. Components of national income and their statistical measurement.
2. Correcting national income figures for price changes over time — the real national income.

Readings:

Morgan, [Introduction to Economics]

Ch. 25, The National Income

Ch. 26, Fluctuations in the Real National Income: The Problem of Index Numbers

[“Ch. 27 Production & Employment” inserted here]

The Sources of the Expenditures Determining National Income
1. Consumption expenditures.
2. Investment expenditures.
3. Government expenditures.

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 31, The Sources of Expenditure

Fluctuations in National Income
1. The determination of the level of national income.
2. The effect of changes in spending—the multiplier and acceleration effects.
3. Business cycle experience of the past.
4. Counter-cyclical policies
5. The problem of the national debt

Readings:

Morgan, Ch. 32, Fluctuations in Production and employment

Ruggles, Ch. 12, Economic Policy and the Level of Activity

Morgan, Ch. 36, Part C, The Burden of Public Debt, pp. 685-696

Gayer, et al., Nos. 81, 85

PART III. Economic Mobilization

1. The pattern of mobilization.
2. Methods of meeting the defense goals.
3. The problem of checking inflation in the mobilization period.

* * * * * * * * * *

[first page begins]

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Spring Term

Sources:

	Allen and Brownlee,	The Economics of Public Finance
	Blakiston Company,	Readings in the Social Control of Industry
	Buchanan and Lutz,	Rebuilding the World Economy
	Dean, J.,	Managerial Economics
	Ellsworth, P. T.	The International Economy
		Federal Budget in Brief, latest available
*	Gayer, Harriss, and Spencer,	Basic Economics, A Book of Readings
	Galbraith, J. K.,	American Capitalism
*	Morgan, T.,	Introduction to Economics
	Peterson, S.,	Economics
	Schumpeter, J. A.,	Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
**	Slichter, S.,	Profits in a Laboristic Society

* To be purchased.
** To be handed out in section meeting.

[end of first page]

ECONOMICS 1
Spring Term

PART IV. Economic Behavior of the Individual

1. The problem of choice — the manner in which the individual will use his services and property to earn income and the way he will allocate his income among consumer goods.
2. The factors influencing his decisions — marginal utility, prices and types of products and services, “conspicuous consumption,” technology, advertising, habit, etc.

Readings:

Peterson, ch. 19, pp. 478-488

Gayer, et al., Nos. 15, 18

PART V. Business Behavior in a Dynamic Economy

Profit-making as the main objective of business enterprises.

The relevance of the time period, liquidity and safety, potential competition, the anti-trust laws, etc., for profit maximizing.

The influence of market structure on the range of decisions by the firm.

Pure competition — agriculture;
Oligopoly or monopolistic competition — industry;
Monopoly — a limiting case.

1. Conditions of product demand — income levels, availability of substitutes, the price and nature of the product, advertising, etc.
2. Sales promotion plane and product improvement strategy — research.
3. Investment decisions — choosing the best plant size and operating it in the most efficient manner.
4. Pricing policies.
5. Labor relations.

The interactions of such decisions among business firms in a dynamic economy.
The effectiveness of business behavior in satisfying consumer demand, allocating resources, and stimulating growth.

Readings:

Dean, Ch. 1, Sections 1, 2, 4, 5

Morgan, Chs. 12, 11, 15, 16

Dean, Ch. 7

Schumpeter, Ch. 8

Gayer, et al., Nos. 20, 21, 26

Public Programs of Promotion and Control of Business.
1. The historical development of government regulation.
2. The anti-trust approach.
3. Public utility regulation.
4. Government sponsored restraints of competition.
5. Evaluation of government regulation.

Readings:

Gayer, et al., No. 35

Morgan, Ch. 17

Readings in the Social Control of Industry, Ch. 1

Gayer, et al., Nos. 34, 38

PART VI. The Division of the National Income among the Major Groups

1. The facts on distribution — past and present.
2. The manner in which demand and supply factors affect the income of the means of production.
3. The study of these elements in the determination of wages, rents, interest, and profits.
4. Interactions among prices, profits, wages and property incomes in a dynamic, industrial economy.
5. The influence of the government on the distributive shares.

Readings:

Morgan, Chs. 23, 18-22

Gayer, et al., Nos. 42, 41

Slichter, Profits in a Laboristic Society

Galbraith, Chs. 9-11, 14

Gayer, et al., Nos. 44, 50, 88 (Henry George)

PART VII. The International Economy

1. The development of the world economy.
2. The breakdown of the world economy.
3. Reconstructing the world-economy-post-war problems and policies.

Readings:

Buchanan and Lutz, Ch. 1

Morgan, Ch. 38

Ellsworth, The International Economy, Ch. 5, 111-120 or

International Economics, Ch. 2

Gayer, et al., Nos., 100-102, 104, 105

PART VIII. Government Finance and Fiscal Problems

Revenues and Expenditures of the Government
1. The historical change in the role of the government.
2. The structure of the Federal Budget.
3. Financing expenditures from sources of taxation — types of taxes, who pays them, and their effects on the economy.
4. The use of government borrowing to finance expenditures. Should we have an annual balanced budget? What is the burden of the National Debt.
5. The role of the government as a credit agency.

Readings:

Allen and Brownlee, Ch. 1

Morgan, Ch. 24

Federal Budget in Brief.

Gayer, et al., Nos. 89, 90, 92, 95

PART IX. The Prospects and Fundamental Problems of the American Economy

1. The problems of economic growth, economic stability, competition and monopoly, the distribution of income, and international economic relations.
2. How can these problems best be met within the framework of democratic capitalism?

Readings:

To be assigned later.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 5, Folder “Economics, 1951-1952 (1 of 2)”.

__________________________

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Mid-Year Examination, January 1952]

(Three hours)

Answer FIVE of the following SEVEN questions. Divide your time equally among each of the FIVE questions.

“Although Schumpeter was influenced to a great extent by Marx’s ideas, his views of capitalistic development differed in many basic respects from those of Marx.”
Develop the major points of similarity and difference of their theories of the process of capitalistic development.
Define Gross National Product and National Income. Discuss some of the conceptual and statistical problems in measuring these economic aggregates including the difficulty of comparing Gross National Product at different times. Comment upon the usefulness of these concepts as measures of economic growth.
Economic growth in the United States has been accompanied by bigness in business, labor, finance, and government. Should this concentration movement be regarded as inevitable in the process of capitalistic development? In your opinion has this trend towards bigness interfered with economic growth or accelerated it?
(a) What powers does the Federal Reserve System have to combat inflationary and deflationary movements in the level of economic activity? Explain the manner in which the application of each measure is designed to influence the economy.
(b) How has Treasury financing policy during the last decade interfered with the usefulness of these powers as a means of economic control?
Discuss the behavior and interactions of consumption and investment expenditures as Gross National Product fluctuates over the course of the business cycle.
“The Mobilization People seem to have two main goals – to maintain stability, i.e., prevent prices from rising, and to increase production. They are both laudable objectives by themselves. But those Washington bureaucrats don’t seem to realize they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They try to maintain stability by high taxes plus price and resource controls. Yet these are the very measures which strangle the businessman and take away his incentive to increase production. I say, forget the controls. American production in a free economy will achieve both goals.”
Discuss the issues raised in this statement and, in so doing, suggest the kind of economic policies that you think will best meet our mobilization needs as presently conceived by the federal government.
What in your opinion are the main factors which account for the different rates of growth in real income per capita at different periods of history and in various areas of the world.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28). Vol. 90 Final Exams [in] Social Sciences, January 1952.

__________________________

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Year-end Examination, May 1952]

PART I
(One hour)
Answer (a) and (b)

(a) Assuming perfect knowledge and the desire to maintain profits, explain briefly the manner in which the price and output of a commodity are determined (1), under purely competitive conditions and (2) under conditions of pure monopoly.
(b) How relevant and useful are these theories in adequately explaining business behavior:

(1) under industry conditions in which competitors are few and products differentiated,
(2) when short-run profit maximization may impair the long-run profit position, and
(3) in accounting for the phenomenon of innovation and company policy toward expansion.

PART II
(Two hours)
Answer any FOUR questions. Each will be counted equally.

“The failure of traditional economic analysis to develop a theory of profits which links them to economic growth has in some ways resulted in an unrealistic anti-monopoly program.” Discuss.
In what ways are wages related to the marginal productivity of labor? How does collective bargaining influence wages and employment?
“Equality is a good thing, but so are rising living standards and greater opportunity.”
To what extent do you think attempts to redistribute income are compatible with policies promoting economic growth? In your answer be careful to distinguish types of redistributive measures and their various effects.
This year every presidential candidate is faced with the need for advancing a tax and expenditure program. As a citizen what economic issues would you want a candidate to cover and what criteria would you employ in evaluating his program?
Answer (a) or (b).

(a) “We shall never have a sound system of international trade until we return to the Gold Standard.” Discuss critically the reasoning underlying this statement, particularly with regard to its implications as to the compatibility of domestic stability and international equilibrium.

(b) “Events in the past fifty years have seen the rise of the United States to a position of dominance in international trade. Yet it may be questioned whether we are willing to accept the responsibilities which our role in the world economy entails.”
Evaluate the statement in the light of the development of United States foreign economic policy in recent years.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final examinations 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28). Vol. 93 Final Exams [in] Social Sciences, June 1952.

Images Sources: Smithies from From Harvard Class Album 1952;
Portrait of Trustee of the University of Chicago, Clarence B. Randall, from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03000-082, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags RandallCB, Smithies

Faculty Regulations Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Observations on the organization of academic life at Harvard. Ashley, 1897

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-06-05

The economic historian William J. Ashley taught at Harvard from 1892 to 1901. His observations regarding the tension between professors and junior staff’s desire to work for the advancement of science and scholarship and the core educational mission of universities have not lost their relevance 125 years after he shared his Harvard experience.

But there are many wonderful obiter dicta you will want to savor.

________________________

C.V. from Harvard’s records

William James Ashley, B.A. Oxford 1881; M.A. Oxford 1885; M.Com. Birmingham (Eng.) 1902; Ph.D. Berlin 1910; Fellow Lincoln Coll. Oxford 1885; Prof. of Political Economy and Constitutional History, Toronto 1888-1892; Prof. of Economic History 1892-1901; Prof. of Commerce, Birmingham; Dean (Faculty of Commerce) Birmingham 1901-1902; Cor. Memb. Mass. Hist. Soc; Cor. Memb. Am. Acad.

Harvard University. Quinquennial catalogue of the officers and graduates 1636-1930, p. 42.
________________________

Prof. William J. Ashley on academic administration and procedures at Harvard (1897)

[…] The peculiarity in the position of Harvard is that while the professorial ideal has definitely triumphed among the teaching body, the tutorial ideal is still cherished by the ‘constituency.’ Most of the professors care first of all for the advancement of science and scholarship; they prefer lectures to large audiences to the catechetical instruction of multiplied ‘sections,’ and they would leave students free to attend lectures or neglect them, at their own peril; they would pick out the abler men, and initiate them into the processes of investigation in small ‘research courses’ or ‘seminaries;’ and, to be perfectly frank, they are not greatly interested in the ordinary undergraduate. On the other hand the university constituency — represented, as I am told, by the Overseers — insists that the ordinary undergraduate shall be ‘looked after;’ that he shall not be allowed to ‘waste his time;’ that he shall be ‘pulled up’ by frequent examinations, and forced to do a certain minimum of work, whether he wants to or not. The result of this pressure has been the establishment of an elaborate machinery of periodical examination, the carrying on of a vaster bookkeeping for the registration of attendance and of grades than was ever before seen at any university, and the appointment of a legion of junior ‘instructors’ and assistants, to whom is assigned the drudgery of reading examination — books and conducting ‘conferences.’

So far as the professors are concerned, the arrangement is as favourable as can reasonably be expected. Of course they are all bound to lecture, and to lecture several times a week; they exercise a general supervision over the labours of their assistants; they guide the studies of advanced students; they conduct the examinations for honours and for higher degrees; they carry on a ceaseless correspondence; and each of them sits upon a couple of committees. But they are not absolutely compelled to undertake much drudging work in the way of instruction, and if they are careful of their time they can manage to find leisure for their own researches. As soon as a ‘course’ gets large, a benevolent Corporation will provide an assistant. The day is past when they were obliged, in the phrase of Lowell, ‘to double the parts of professor and tutor.’

But the soil of America is not as propitious as one could wish for the plant of academic leisure. It is a bustling atmosphere; and a professor needs some strength of mind to resist the temptation to be everlastingly doing something obvious. The sacred reserves of time and energy need to be jealously guarded, and there is more than one direction from which they are threatened. University administration occupies what would seem an unduly large number of men and an unduly large amount of time; it is worth while considering whether more executive authority should not be given to the deans. Then there is the never — ending stream of legislation, or rather of legislative discussion. I must confess that when I have listened, week after week, to Faculty debates, the phrase of Mark Pattison about Oxford has some times rung in my ears: ‘the tone as of a lively municipal borough.’ It would be unjust to apply it; for, after all, the measures under debate have been of far-reaching importance. Yet if any means could be devised to hasten the progress of business, it would be a welcome saving of time. Still another danger is the pecuniary temptation — hardly resistible by weak human nature — to repeat college lectures to the women students of Radcliffe. That some amount of repetition will do no harm to teachers of certain temperaments and in certain subjects may well be allowed, but that it is sometimes likely to exhaust the nervous energy which might better be devoted to other things can hardly be denied. The present Radcliffe system, to be sure, is but a makeshift, and an unsatisfactory one.

The ‘instructors’ and assistants, on their part, have little to grumble at, if they, in their turn, are wise in the use of their time. It is with them, usually, but a few years of drudgery, on the way to higher positions in Harvard or elsewhere; and it is well that a man should bear the yoke in his youth. Let him remember that his promotion will depend largely upon his showing the ability to do independent work; let him take care not to be so absorbed in the duties of his temporary position as to fail to produce some little bit of scholarly or scientific achievement for himself. I have occasionally thought that the university accepts the labours of men in the lower grades of the service with a rather step-motherly disregard for their futures.

Come now to the ‘students,’ or whose sake, certainly, Harvard College was founded, whatever may have been the case with English colleges, and whose presence casts upon those responsible for academic policy duties which they cannot escape, if they would. Grant that education and education as Jowett understood it, the training of character as well as mere instruction — is the main business of a university, what is to be said of the situation of affairs? That we do as much here for the average man as the Oxford tutorial system accomplishes, it would be idle to affirm. The introduction of the tutorial system, however, is out of the question: it needs the small college for its basis; it requires that the tutor should enjoy a prestige which we cannot give him; and it is still further shut out by ‘elective’ studies. Yet in its way the Harvard practice suffers from the same defects as the Oxford; it does too much for the men. Take the matter of examinations, for instance. Surely it would be better to relax the continuous pressure — which after all is not in any worthy sense effective — and to reinforce it instead at special points. It was the conviction, we are told, of Professor Freeman that ‘if examinations were necessary evils, they should be few, searching, and complete, not many and piecemeal.’ At present, there are so many ‘tests,’ of one sort or another, that no one examination sufficiently impresses the undergraduate mind. The kind of work done by a student who is so persistently held up by hour-examinations and conferences that he must be an abnormal fool to ‘fail’ at the end, cannot be regarded as really educational in any high sense of the word. By a great many men, the help showered upon them is regarded merely as the means of discovering just how little they can do, and still scrape through. To sweep away all examinations except the final annual one; to leave the student more to himself; to set a higher standard for passing, and ruthlessly reject those who do not reach it, would undoubtedly, in the long run, encourage a more manly spirit on the part of undergraduates, and a deeper respect for the university. This I say with the fuller confidence because, when I left Oxford, now (1900) some twelve years ago, I could see nothing but the evils of the examination system as it there affects students of promise. I am convinced that it would be possible and salutary in Harvard to add greatly to the awfulness of examination; and that much could be done in this direction without approaching within measurable distance of any results that need be feared.

From a natural distrust of examinations and a desire to encourage independent thought, it has of late become the practice to prescribe two or more theses during the progress of a ‘course.’ The result is that many a man has half a dozen or more theses to write during the year, for two or three different teachers. This undoubtedly ‘gets some work out of the men.’ But the too frequent consequence, with students who take their work seriously, especially with graduates, is that they have no time for anything but to get up their lectures and prepare their theses. Any parallel reading by the side of their lectures they find impracticable. But one of the best things a student can do is just to read intelligently. Certainly the graduate students, if not the undergraduates, would sometimes be the better for being left more to themselves.

These are, however, relatively minor matters. A good deal could be said about that cornerstone of Harvard academic policy, the ‘elective’ system. I must confess that I have hitherto failed to see the advantage of the completely elective plan (for any but exceptional students) over the plan of ‘groups,’ or ‘triposes,’ or ‘schools,’ with some degree of internal elasticity to suit particular tastes. That the elective system is an improvement on the old compulsory curriculum is likely enough; but I do not know that any great American university has ever yet fairly tried the group arrangement. Of all the educational agencies at Oxford, Oxford itself is the most potent.

That sweet city, with her dreaming spires;
She needs not June for beauty’s heightening.

Harvard, indeed, is truly ‘fair’ at Commencement, and in the evening lights the Yard has always a sober dignity. But Harvard in the daytime sadly needs May or October for beauty’s heightening. The disadvantages of youth and climate may not be altogether surmountable; yet Cambridge surroundings could doubtless be made more comely and restful with comparatively little trouble. There must be a certain atrophy of the æsthetic sense when luxuriously furnished dormitories have no difficulty in securing tenants though they face rubbish dumps, when rowing-men can practise with equanimity beneath a coal-dealer’s mammoth advertisement, and when the crash and jangle of street-cars are permitted to destroy what little remains of the quiet of the Yard. What is to be desired for every student — most of all for those from homes of little cultivation — is that he should live in the presence of grace and beauty and stateliness. The lesson of good taste cannot be learnt from lectures, and is imbibed unconsciously. Here we must turn to our masters, the Corporation, and to the worshipful benefactors to come. Is all the thought taken that might be taken, all the pressure used that might be exerted, to increase the amenity of the neighbourhood? And, further, is it utopian to imagine that some benefactor will yet arise who will enable Harvard to imitate the noble example of Yale, and erect dormitories that shall delight the eye? Is it too much to hope that the university may soon be enriched with at least one more building such as Memorial Hall? For many a Harvard student his daily meals in Memorial Hall, in that ample space, beneath the glowing colours of the windows and surrounded by the pictures of the Harvard worthies of the past, constitute the most educative part of his university career, though he may not know it. Only half the students can now be brought within this silent influence. A second dining-hall, of like dignity, is perhaps the most urgent educational need of Harvard, and the need most easily supplied.[*]

[*I leave this sentence, for obvious reasons, in spite of the recent erection of Randall Hall. The desirability of a large infusion of other than immediately utilitarian elements in the policy of the Corporation is emphasised, I think, by the increasingly evident tendency towards social segregation in the student body. The English reader who desires to know more of the atmosphere of the greater American universities may be referred to Mr. Bliss Perry’s article on ‘The Life of a College Professor’ in Scribner’s Magazine for October 1897; while the American reader who is interested in Oxford may with advantage consult Mr. F. C. S. Schiller on ‘Philosophy at Oxford’ in the Educational Review for October 1899. ]

Source: W. J. Ashley, “Jowett and the University Ideal” in Surveys, Historic and Economics 1900, pp. 445-463. Originally published in Atlantic Monthly, July 1897.

Tags Ashley

Harvard M.I.T. Math Pedagogy Princeton Teaching Wisconsin

Harvard. Draft memo on “Basic Mathematics for Economics”. Rothschild, ca. 1970

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-05-20

“These bewildering cook-books [Allen, Lancaster, Samuelson, Henderson & Quandt] are as helpful to those without mathematical training as Escoffier is to weekend barbecue chefs.”

The 1969 M.I.T. economics Ph.D. Michael Rothschild served briefly as assistant professor of economics at Harvard, a professional milestone that went somehow unmentioned in his official Princeton biography included below. He co-taught the core graduate microeconomic theory course with Zvi Griliches in the spring term of 1971 which is probably why a draft copy of his memo proposing “a course which truly covers ‘Basic Mathematics for Economists'” is found in Griliches’ papers at the Harvard Archives.

Tip: Here is a link to an interview with Michael Rothschild posted in YouTube (Dec. 4, 2012). A wonderful conversation revealing his academic humility and wit as well as an above-average capacity for self-reflection.

_________________________________

Courses Referred to in Rothschild’s Memo

Economics 199. Basic Mathematics for Economists

Half course (fall term). M., W., F., at 10. Professor G. Hanoch (Hebrew University).

Covers some of the basic mathematical and statistical tools used in economic analysis, including maximization and minimization of functions with and without constraint. Applications to economic theory such as in utility maximization, cost minimization, and shadow prices will be given. Probability and random variables will be treated especially as these topics apply to economic analysis.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction, Harvard and Radcliffe 1969-1970. Published in Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. LXVI, No. 12 (15 August 1969), p. 142.

* * * * * * * *

Economics 201a. Advanced Economic Theory

Half course (fall term; repeated spring term). Tu., Th., (S.), at 12. Professor D. Jorgenson (fall term); Professor W. Leontief (spring term).

This course will be concerned with production theory, consumption theory, and the theories of firms and markets.
Prerequisite: Economics 199 or equivalent.

Source: Ibid., p. 143.

* * * * * * * *

Economics 221a. Quantitative Methods, I

Half course (fall term; repeated spring term). Tu., Th., S., at 11. Assistant Professor A. Blackburn (fall term); Assistant Professor M. Rothschild (spring term).

Probability theory, statistical inference, and elementary matrix algebra.

Prerequisite: Economics 199 or equivalent

Source: Ibid., p. 146.

_________________________________

DRAFT
[Summer or Fall 1970?]

M. Rothschild

Economics 201a, as Professor Jorgenson now teaches it¹, presumes much specialized mathematical knowledge. (See attachment 1) There is no single course which covers all these topics, (chiefly the implicit function theorem, constrained maximization and Euler’s theorem), in either the economics or mathematics departments at Harvard. We are in effect demanding that our students arrive knowing these things or that they learn them on their own. The former is unlikely, the latter more so. Imagine trying to learn the mathematics necessary to follow the standard derivation of the Slutsky equation by studying the standard sources such as Allen, Mathematical Analysis for Economists, Lancaster’s Mathematical Economics or the appendices to Samuelson’s Foundations or Henderson and Quandt. These bewildering cook-books are as helpful to those without mathematical training as Escoffier is to weekend barbecue chefs. Those with some knowledge of mathematics will not find the standard sources much more helpful for they are written in a spirit alien to that of modern mathematics; they give almost no motivation or intuition for their results.

There are other bits of mathematics necessary for a thorough understanding of basic economic theory. For instance, the stability theory of difference and differential equations, the theory of positive matrices and rudiments of duality and convexity theory are required for the stability analysis of simple macro models, input output economics, and linear programming respectively. These are hardly new fangled and abstruse parts of economic theory. Indeed they are topics which should be part of every economist’s competence.

There are courses at Harvard where one can learn these things; the difficulty is that there are so many. Advanced courses in mathematical economics treat of positive matrices, duality and much more. Few students take these courses and almost no first year students do. I have no doubt that somewhere in the mathematics or applied math department, there is a course where one may learn all one would want to know and more of difference and differential equations. But all economists really need to know can be taught in three weeks or less.²

There is an obvious solution to these problems, namely for the department to offer a course which truly covers “Basic Mathematics for Economists.”³ A proposed course outline is attached. The course begins with linear algebra because most of the specialized topics needed for mathematical economics are applications of the principles of linear algebra. I know of no one semester course at Harvard which teaches linear algebra in a manner useful to economists. Another advantage to including linear algebra in this course is that it would make it possible to drop the topic from Economics 221a which is presently supposed to teach linear algebra, probability theory, and statistics in a single semester.⁴ I doubt this can be done. If linear algebra were excluded from the syllabus of 221a, there would be less reason for offering the course in the economics department. We could reasonably expect that our students learn statistics and probability theory from the statistics department (in Statistics 122, 123 or 190).

* * * * * *

¹…and, I hasten to say, as it should be taught

²A word must be said here about Mathematics 21. This excellent full year course in linear algebra and the calculus of several variables contains all the insights, and almost none of the material, which economists should know. With a slight rearrangement of topics, principally the addition of the implicit function theorem, constrained maximization, and the spectral theory of matrices this would be a great course for economists. As it is now it is a good, but rather time consuming, way to develop mathematical maturity which should make it easy to learn the mathematical facts economists need to know.

³The present title of Economics 199 which is a remedial calculus course taken only by those students with almost no mathematical training.

⁴I became aware of the need for such a course while teaching 221a. After spending three very rushed weeks developing some of the basic notions of linear algebra I had to drop the subject just when it would have been easy to go on and explain the mathematics behind basic economic theory. The desire of the students that I do so is indicated by the fact that most of them were enticed to sit through a second (optional) hour of lecture on a Saturday by the promise that I would unravel the mysteries of the determinental second order conditions for maximization of a function of several variables.

* * * * * *

Proposed course outline:

Linear Algebra, vector spaces, linear independence, bases, linear mappings, matrices, linear equations, determinants.
Cursory review of the calculus of several variable from the vector space point of view, the implicit function theorem, Taylor’s theorem.
Quadratic forms and maximization with and without constraints; diagonalization, orthogonality and metric concepts, projections.
The Theory of Positive matrices; matrix power series.
Linear Difference Equations, stability.
Linear Differential Equations, stability.
Convex sets and Duality. (If time permits.)

_________________________________

Michael Rothschild

Mike Rothschild first came to Princeton in 1972 as a lecturer in economics and quickly rose to the rank of professor three years later. Mike is an economist with broad interests in social science. His 1963 B.A. from Reed College was in anthropology, his 1965 M.A. from Yale University was in international relations, and his 1969 Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was in economics.

In the early 1970s, Mike published a string of ground- breaking papers studying decision making under uncertainty and showing the effects of imperfect and asymmetric information on economic outcomes. With Joseph Stiglitz, Mike proposed now- standard definitions of what it means for one random variable to be “riskier” than another random variable. He studied consumer behavior when the same good is offered at different prices and when the consumer does not know the distribution of prices. He studied the pricing behavior of fi when they are uncertain about demand and showed that a fi may end up setting the wrong price even when it optimally experiments to learn about the demand for its product. Arguably, Mike’s most important early work was a 1976 paper with Stiglitz on insurance markets in which insurance companies did not know the heterogeneous risk situations of their customers. Mike and Stiglitz showed that under certain circumstances a market equilibrium exists in which companies offer a menu of policies with different premiums and deductibles that separate customers into appropriate risk groups. This research is one of the landmarks in the field of information economics.

Mike left Princeton in 1976 for the University of Wisconsin and moved to the University of California–San Diego (UCSD) seven years later. His research over this period included papers on taxation, investment, jury-decision processes, and several important papers in finance. Mike’s research contributions led to recognition and awards: he became a fellow of the Econometric Society in 1974, received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1978, became a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1994, and in 2005 was chosen as a distinguished fellow of the American Economic Association.

In 1985, Mike decided to branch out from teaching and research, and he spent the next 17 years in university administration. Shortly after arriving at UCSD he became that university’s first dean of social sciences. Under his watch, the division grew dramatically in the number of students, faculty, departments, and programs. He presided over the launching of cognitive science, ethnic studies, and human development. During his deanship, the UCSD social sciences soared in the national rankings, reaching 10th nationally in the last National Research Council tally for 1996.

Mike was lured back to Princeton in 1995 to become the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. During his seven-year tenure as dean, Mike started the one-year Master in Public Policy program for mid-career professionals; the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy; the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics; and the Center for Health and Wellbeing. Under his leadership, the Wilson School added graduate policy workshops to the curriculum, expanded course offerings, added multi-year appointments of practitioners to the faculty, and enhanced professional development. Mike shared his dean duties with his trusted and loyal dog, Rosie, who became an important part of the school’s community and accompanied Mike throughout campus.

Finally, Mike likes to wear a hardhat. At UCSD he oversaw the planning and construction of the Social Sciences Building, and at Princeton he built Wallace Hall and renovated Robertson Hall. The Princeton community may remember Mike most for turning Scudder Plaza from the home of a formal reflecting pool where guards kept people out of the fountain into a community wading pool that welcomes and attracts students, families, and children (many under the age of three) each summer evening.

Source: Princeton University Honors Faculty Members Receiving Emeritus Status (May 2009), pp. 18-20.

Image Source: Screenshot from the interview (Posted Dec. 4, 2012 in YouTube).

Tags Hanoch, Jorgenson, Rothschild

Economics Programs Economists Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Promotion for Harold H. Burbank, Job Offer for Allyn Young 1919

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-03-20

This provides some back-story to the rise of Harold Hitchings Burbank in the Harvard economics department. Coincidentally, some light is cast on the salary negotiations involved in the hire of Allyn Young, as well as the hopes the department of economics held in the prospect of Young joining the economics department.

Chairman Bullock’s characterization of Burbank “He does everything willingly, but we are already in danger of driving the willing horse to death” is not exactly the language a chairman today would use today to justify a promotion for an assistant professorship…I hope.

___________________________

Harvard University
Department of Economics

F.W. Taussig
T.N. Carver
W.Z. Ripley
C.J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W.M. Cole
O.M.W. Sprague
E.E. Day
B.M. Anderson, Jr.
J.S. Davis
H.H. Burbank
E.E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
12 o’clock. January 28, 1919.

Dear Mr. Lovell:

I have failed thus far to get in touch with Dr. Burbank, but will leave word at his house, and he will doubtless come to see you tomorrow.

I wish to express the hope that you will not propose any arrangement to him by which he will have to do any more work or make any more labor-consuming adjustment in connection with his work this year. He does everything willingly, but we are already in danger of driving the willing horse to death. Your suggestion that recent graduates now studying in the Law School be put in to do section work in Economics A. involves, even tho these new men are placed in charge of sections which began work in September, an amount of labor, responsibility, and worry on Burbank’s part which I feel strongly It would be unfair to ask of him.

I have not myself been one of the real sufferers from the war, so far as University work is concerned. Such extra work as I have had to do for the men in Washington has been comparatively limited in amount, and some of my ordinary work has been decreased so that I have not suffered greatly. But the younger men who have stood by us have had a bad time, and I feel so keenly that it is unjust not to give them relief as soon as we can do it that I hate to think of Burbank’s being asked to make any further readjustments in Economics A.

You will recall, if you will review the last two years, that I have not found difficulties in the way of doing the things which it was necessary to ask the Department to do, and have been ready to disorganize, or readjust and adapt, to any necessary extent. I have further found the ways of doing this; and only last fall, in spite of the fact that I felt it was hardly right for Day to be taken from us, I went to a deal of trouble to fix up an arrangement under which he might be released. If I saw any arrangement now, I would surely make it, as I have done in the past. If Burbank can think of any arrangement that I have not been able to think of, I shall be glad to have it put into effect; but I wish to represent to you that it will not only be bad for the course, but very unfair for Burbank to ask him to take young and inexperienced instructors whose heart is in the Law School work anyway, and fit them into section work in Economics A at this time. Moreover, this arrangement involves delay of at least ten days or a fortnight, and our men need relief at the earliest moment. There are certainly no suitable men in the Law School now; and if any register next week, it will take time to find them out, to make arrangement, and to have them get up their work so that they are fit to take charge of a section. should think that under this plan it would be more rather than less than a fortnight before our men would get any relief. If you could know from actual contact with conditions what I have been compelled to know about the work of our young men during the war, I believe you would feel as strongly as I do that what they need now is immediate relief and not a plan by which they will have to spend the next month breaking in green, and possibly inefficient, substitutes. By the time that Burbank gets Economics A running smoothly again, if, indeed, that can be done at all, the term will be most over and the acute need of relief will be almost at an end.

Sincerely yours,
[Signed] Charles J. Bullock

President A. Lawrence Lowell

___________________________

Harvard University
Department of Economics

F.W. Taussig
T.N. Carver
C.J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W.M. Cole
O.M.W. Sprague
E.E. Day
J.S. Davis
H.H. Burbank
E.E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
March 8, 1919.

My dear Mr. Lovell:

Dr Burbank informs me that he has received from Dartmouth College the offer of a full professorship, and this makes it necessary for the Corporation to consider whether it desires to retain him at Harvard. You will recall that two years ago the Department of Economics recommended that Burbank be advanced to an assistant professorship. This was at the time when he received from Chicago University the offer of an assistant professorship with full charge of their instruction in Public Finance. A year ago I brought the matter to your attention, but you desired to postpone action until Burbank’s book had been published. Last June I asked whether you would be willing to waive the question of publication of Burbank’s book, which was nearly, but not quite, completed. in order that he might accept employment from a committee of the American Economic Association, which would both be remunerative and give him an unusual opportunity to investigate a subject in which he is greatly interested, namely, the practical operation of the Federal income and excess profits taxes. You sent me word through Mr. Pierce that you would waive the requirement, and that you would be glad to have Mr. Burbank accept this employment.

Mr. Burbank made a distinct success of his work for the Economic Association, and such success as the Committee achieved was largely due to him. This year he has been conducting Economics A, and has demonstrated his ability to handle that course in a satisfactory manner. It seems to me that he is an invaluable man for the Department, and I hope that the Corporation will be able nor to advance him to an assistant professorship.

You also asked me this morning to write you concerning Allyn A. Young, whom we have had under consideration for a number of years.

In the winter of 1916-17 the full professors of the Department of Economics, after carefully looking over the field, recommended to you that Mr. Young be called to a full professorship at Harvard University.

You authorized me to write to Young and inquire whether he could be secured, and if so, at what salary; and I was able to report to you that Young would come to Harvard if he were offered a full professorship at a salary of $4500. At this juncture the United States entered the war, and the matter was necessarily dropped.

Last December Professors Gay and Haskins called my attention to the fact that Young was likely to receive an offer from Columbia University, and I held a hurried conference with them, and they later conferred with you. Action was postponed, inasmuch as Mr. Young was going to the Peace Conference as exert on economic resources; and it appeared probable that, if we could offer him a professorship at $5000, we could secure him for Harvard, even tho another offer developed elsewhere.

I hope that the Corporation will feel able to extend a call to Professor Young at this time. Since I talked with you this morning, I have met Professors Carver and Ripley, and they both concur in the recommendation which I make. Professor Gay gave you his opinion in December; and since that time I have heard from Taussig, who still is of the opinion that we ought to call Young.

I have no further knowledge as to the amount of salary that it would be necessary to offer. I assume that we should have to offer at least $4500, which was the figure that would have been necessary in 1916; and in view of Young’s increased experience and enhanced reputation, I should think that a salary of $5000 would be justified.

It is, I believe, important for the Department to secure Young at this time. We had in 1917 a Department of Economics which was recognized as one of the strongest in the country; but we needed Young at that time, and shall need him still more now in order to develop our work during the next decade. With him, I believe we should have a department that would be recognized as very clearly the strongest department in the country.

There is one further consideration to be taken into account in connection with extending a call to Young. If our economic research enterprise proves permanent, Young would be absolutely the best man in the country to coöperate with Professor Persons in carrying through the work we have undertaken. With Young and Persons in the economic research undertaking, we should have almost a monopoly of high class statistical brains. Young’s appointment was recommended by the Department in the winter of 1916-17, before the Committee on Economic Research was established, and without any reference to the development of that Committee’s work. The Department recommended him because they thought he was the one man whom the Department needed. The point I am now making is that Young is the one man whom our economic research undertaking needs, so that it seems upon every account desirable to add him to our staff next fall. Under the arrangement that I have in mind, if our economic research enterprise proves permanent, Professor Persons could give two-thirds of his time to the Committee on Economic Research and one-third to teaching, and Professor Young could give two-thirds of his time to teaching and one-third to the Committee on Economic Research. By this arrangement the Department of Economics would gain two teachers of the very highest reputation at an expense amounting only to the salary of one full professor, while the Committee on Economic Research would secure the services of the two minds in the country which are best adapted for the immediate work it has in hand.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Charles J. Bullock

President A. Lawrence Lowell

___________________________

Carbon Copy of Letter from President Lowell to Professor Bullock

March 8, 1919

Dear Mr Bullock:

I understand that Mr Burbank is feeling uneasy about his promotion, and has been made valuable offers from elsewhere. Mr Pierce, at my request, wrote you last May that the completion of his book was not essential to his promotion to an assistant professorship. He is as near as possible the soul of the body of tutors; and I think it is important that we should make it clear that good work as a tutor will receive as much recognition as an equally good conduct of lecture courses. Would it not be well, therefore, if Mr Burbank were appointed an assistant professor now? There is a Corporation meeting on Monday, and I should be very glad if you could communicate with me before it takes place, if you come home in time.

Very truly yours,
[stamp] A. Lawrence Lowell

Professor Charles J. Bullock
6 Channing Street
Cambridge, Mass.

Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers 1917-1919. Box 124. Folder 1689.

Tags Bullock, Burbank, Young

On graduate training in economics. Ruggles’ Yale conference, 1955.

TEACHING COLLEGE ECONOMICS By Richard Ruggles

Course Announcement

Harvard Crimson Article on the New Junior Seminars May 16, 1962

Tutorial Assignments for Ec 98a Fall 1964

Tutorial Assignments for Ec 98b Spring 1965

Biographical Timeline

Section Work in Economics

Life and Career of John Lee Tildsley

from Who’s Who in America, 1934

John Lee Tildsley, educator

Tildsley’s 1898 doctoral dissertation on the Chartist movement (in German)

New York Times, September 2, 1937

New York Times, November 22, 1948

Tildsley became a target of Upton Sinclair’s critical pen for his campaign to regulate teachers’ opinions expressed in school

HISS TILDSLEY FOR PRAISE OF GERMANS School Superintendent Aroused Criticism by Talk in Ascension Parish House. LIKES TEUTON DISCIPLINE When He Said Their Military Success Was a Credit to Them the Trouble Began.

From the New York Times, November 5, 1918:

ECONOMICS AND THE TEACHER OF ECONOMICS IN THE NEW YORK CITY HIGH SCHOOLS

Professional Education: Towards a Way of Thought

by Charles P. Kindleberger

Who’s Who

Background information on the Division of History, Government, and Economics written by the Chairman of Economics Department, 1934

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cf. An earlier version of the Syllabus for “Principles of Economics”

Smithies’ letter of Oct 31, 1951 to Randall

Randall alleges sleight-of-hand by Smithies regarding the Economics 1 reading list.

Course Announcement

Economics 1 Syllabus and Readings 1951-52

ECONOMICS 1 1951-52 Fall Term

ECONOMICS 1 Fall Term

PART I. The American Economy—Its Growth, Complexity, Institutions and Problems

PART II. Fluctuations in National Income — The Problem of Economic Stability

PART III. Economic Mobilization

ECONOMICS 1 1951-52 Spring Term

ECONOMICS 1 Spring Term

PART IV. Economic Behavior of the Individual

PART V. Business Behavior in a Dynamic Economy

PART VI. The Division of the National Income among the Major Groups

PART VII. The International Economy

PART VIII. Government Finance and Fiscal Problems

PART IX. The Prospects and Fundamental Problems of the American Economy

1951-52 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 1 [Mid-Year Examination, January 1952]

1951-52 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 1 [Year-end Examination, May 1952]

C.V. from Harvard’s records

Prof. William J. Ashley on academic administration and procedures at Harvard (1897)

Courses Referred to in Rothschild’s Memo

Economics 199. Basic Mathematics for Economists

Economics 201a. Advanced Economic Theory

Economics 221a. Quantitative Methods, I

DRAFT [Summer or Fall 1970?]

Proposed course outline:

Michael Rothschild

Harvard University Department of Economics

Harvard University Department of Economics

Carbon Copy of Letter from President Lowell to Professor Bullock

On graduate training in economics.
Ruggles’ Yale conference, 1955.

TEACHING COLLEGE ECONOMICS
By Richard Ruggles

Harvard Crimson Article on the New Junior Seminars
May 16, 1962

Life and Career
of John Lee Tildsley

HISS TILDSLEY FOR PRAISE OF GERMANS
School Superintendent Aroused Criticism by Talk in Ascension Parish House.
LIKES TEUTON DISCIPLINE
When He Said Their Military Success Was a Credit to Them the Trouble Began.

Professional Education:
Towards a Way of Thought

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Economics 1
Syllabus and Readings
1951-52

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Fall Term

ECONOMICS 1
Fall Term

ECONOMICS 1
1951-52
Spring Term

ECONOMICS 1
Spring Term

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Mid-Year Examination, January 1952]

1951-52
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 1
[Year-end Examination, May 1952]

DRAFT
[Summer or Fall 1970?]

Harvard University
Department of Economics

Harvard University
Department of Economics