Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching

Harvard. Haberler and Chamberlin fight over last-minute course changes, 1942-43

Exogenous shocks are really useful for finding out how the economy works. They also help dear colleagues reveal themselves when their private interests conflict with those of other colleagues in particular or with departmental needs in general. The U.S. entry into the Second World War forced several adjustments in the graduate and undergraduate instructional staffing at the Harvard economics department.

This post provides some light on the time Gottfried Haberler was asked to teach the first of the two term graduate economic theory sequence for the academic year 1942-43. The course was a direct descendent of Frank Taussig’s Economics 11 (the expansion of course offerings over the decades required moving into 3 digits for some course numbers and a zero was dropped into the middle of “Economics 11” to obtain “Economics 101”). At the last minute Chairman Edward Chamberlin decided that he wanted “his” course back for both semesters but Gottfried Haberler was clearly not one to go quietly. And so we witness the performance of an academic drama before colleagues, of Professor X and Professor Y claiming conflicting rights to a particular course.

The record presented here is incomplete. I have been unable to find Haberler’s written plea on his own behalf. Reading the material one might think that Chamberlin got his way and Haberler was left to find another course to satisfy his annual teaching obligation. However, a look into the annual report of the President of Harvard College for 1942-43 finds that as far as the staffing of Economics 101 in 1942-43 goes, ex ante equals ex post. The course was ultimately divided that year between Messrs. Haberler and Chamberlin.

___________________________

Economics 101: syllabi (with links to most readings) and examinations for fall and spring terms 1941-42 taught by Edward Chamberlin.

___________________________

Who ended up teaching what 1942-43

Edward Chamberlin

Economics 1a. First term, undergraduate course “Economic Theory”.

Economics 102b. Second term, graduate course “Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Gottfried Haberler. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

Gottfried Haberler

Economics 18b. Second term, undergraduate course on the Economic Aspects of War,

Co-taught Economics 45a with Alvin Hansen. First term, undergraduate course  “Business Cycles”.

Economics 144. Graduate School of Public Administration Seminar “International Economic Relations”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Edward Chamberlin. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

___________________________

Ex Ante Course Announcement

Economics 101. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructors) Fri., at 12. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler.

Source: Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1942-43. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX, No. 53 (September 23, 1942), p. 55.

___________________________

Ex Post Course Enrollment and Staffing

[Economics] 101. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler. — Economic Theory.

Total 24: 16 Graduates, 4 School of Public Administration, 1 Graduate Business School, 3 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1942-1943, p. 47.

___________________________

Presumably the statement prepared by Edward Chamberlin (referring to himself in the third person)

October 9, 1942

Course Economics 101 was announced in the catalogue for 1942-3 to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. This arrangement was never considered as final but was subject to adjustment at the beginning of the college year in view of the general uncertainty as to the status of such of the graduate instruction until enrolments in various courses were known. (In particular, it seemed likely that either 102b or 163 or both might be bracketed, thus freeing either one half or one full course of Mr. Chamberlin’s time). It was, however, agreed between Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin that, in case the course were given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin the second. Several times prior to the opening of college Mr. Haberler asked Mr. Chamberlin about the status of the course and was told that unfortunately nothing final could be decided until enrolments were known; it was agreed, however, that Mr. Haberler would take the first meeting, or meetings, of the course until a decision was reached. The matter was mentioned on Friday morning, October 2, at a casual meeting between classes at which time, since no final decision had been taken, Mr. Chamberlin said that it was still possible that the arrangement might stand. On Saturday, October 3, a final decision to take back the course was communicated to Mr. Haberler after considering a number of factors, among which were the following:

  1. The enrolment in Economics 102b was only two, plus five auditors. This course had always been given in the second semester, thereby opening it to the first year students who had had the first semester of 101. The bracketing of 163 made it possible to revert to this disposition of 102b, (or to bracketing it later on if this seemed necessary). The chief obstacle to Mr. Chamberlin’s giving the first half and therefore all of 101 was thereby removed.
  2. The class list of 101, received Friday afternoon, revealed that of 16 [or 18?] student then enrolled in the course all but two were foreigners. Many of these would have serious problems of adaptation to academic work in a new language and in a new country, and it seemed for the reason especially desirable to unify the introductory course in theory under one direction during the current year.
  3. During the past, two years the course had, for better or worse, been split both vertically and horizontally, not by action of the department but on the initiative of Mr. Chamberlin. This was done in part to open greater possibilities for discussion through smaller sections, and in part to share the course with others who wanted very much to teach theory. At no time during that period had Mr. Chamberlin given less than a full year of the course, and its outline and organization had always been his. It was his sincere belief that now that the course was again of manageable size the department would wish it to be given as it had directed earlier, and that he was fully competent to make the decision. At that time the work of the year had not really begun.

However, Mr. Haberler objected so strongly to the change that in order to settle the matter amicably, Mr. Chamberlin proposed on Sunday afternoon, and Mr. Haberler agreed, that the matter be left to a committee composed of Professor Crum as Chairman and other members to be chosen by Professor Crum. As this Committee could not possibly be assembled and give a decision before the Monday meeting of the course it was agreed that Mr. Haberler would take that meeting and that the Committee shouId render a decision before the Wednesday meeting. The decision was in fact rendered Tuesday afternoon and was unanimous that Mr. ChamberIin should give the course, When apprized of this decision, Mr. Haberler said he would like time to consider whether or not he was willing to accept it. From this point on Mr. Chamberlin became a passive duopolist, leaving all initiative to Mr. Haberler, who proposed that he take the Wednesday meeting of the course, finishing matters which he had begun on Monday, give a cut on Friday (there was a holiday the following Monday), and decide sone time before the Department meeting whether or not he would like to bring the matter before the Department. Meanwhile, the Committee had decided that certain questions which it had discussed apart from the immediate issue should be brought before the Department at its meeting October 13th. Mr. Haberler’s final decision on Thursday was that if the Department is going into the whole theory question anyway, they should also decide on the present status of Economics 101.

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin announces his attention to return statement with statement

October 10, 1942

Dear Leonard [Crum]:

It has occurred to me that, since Haberler has given you in writing a statement of the facts as he sees them, I might, even at this late date do the same. My own statement will add some details and perhaps present a different emphasis at one or two points It may be used at your discretion in whatever way you think best, (including, of course, the possibility of no use at all beyond your own reading). I am sending a copy to Haberler.

Sincerely,

E. H. Chamberlin

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin makes his written statement available to the department

October 17, 1942

To Members of the Department of Economics:

In view of the fact that Professor Haberler’s statement with respect to Economics 101 had some circulation prior to last Tuesday’s meeting and was also read in the meeting, whereas my own statement has to this moment been seen only by Professor Crum and one other member of the Department, I should like now to make both equally available to any who may wish to consult them. Accordingly, they will both be found in the blue folder in Mrs. Arnold’s office. Also in the blue folder are: (1) The minutes of the last three meetings, and 2) The report of the Chairman to the Dean of the Faculty covering the work or the Department for the past year.

Chairman [Chamberlin]

___________________________

Special Committee sides with Chamberlin

CONFIDENTIAL

(for use of Department
of Economics officers
only)

Report of a Special Committee
on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

13 October, 1942

On Monday, October 5, the Chairman of the Department brought to my notice a personal disagreement between himself and Mr. Haberler concerning the assignment for teaching Economics 101, and asked that I serve as Chairman of a Special Committee to “arbitrate” in the case, and report before the meeting of Economics 101 on Wednesday the 7th. I was instructed to associate with myself such members of the Department as I saw fit in making up the Committee. I asked Mr. Burbank, formerly Chairmen of the Department, to be a member, and also four other members of the Department who have at present no active part in the teaching of economic theory and whose views on the matter at issue were unknown to me. One of these individuals was unable to serve because of his inability to meet with the Committee at any time available for meeting within the interval during which action had to be taken. The Committee, therefore, was made up as follows: Crum, Chairman, Black, Burbank, Dunlop, and Usher.

The Committee met and considered to the best of its ability all aspects of the case, and herewith reports certain recommendations to the Department for such action as it wishes to take. The Chairman of the Committee reported on Tuesday afternoon the 6th to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler the findings of the Committee in outline form because the Chairman thought that the two individuals concerned might have agreed to abide by the finding of the “arbitration” and might be willing to put the findings into effect immediately. The Chairman of the Committee did, however, report to both participants in the controversy that he did not regard the Committee as being clothed with any conclusive authority and that unless the participants in the controversy both accepted the findings of the Committee those findings would have to go to the Department as recommendations and would be subject to such action as the Department saw fit to take.

Statement of the issues.

Course Economics 101 is announced in the spring issue of the current Courses of Instruction pamphlet as to be given jointly Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler, and I am informed that they had during the summer agreed among themselves that, in case the course was given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the course during the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin during the second. Late in the week in which instruction of the present half year began Mr. Chamberlin indicated to Mr. Haberler that he thought the entire course should be given by Mr. Chamberlin. Mr. Haberler objected to any such change and insisted that he continue to give the course during the first half year. The issue, accordingly, was whether the conduct of the course should go forward on the basis of joint responsibility of Mr. Haberler in the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin in the second half year, or should be restored to the basis prevailing for several years in which Chamberlin gave the full course.

History of the case.

After the retirement of Professor Taussig, Course 101 (formerly called Course 11) was given for several years by Mr. Schumpeter by an arrangement which was understood to be provisional and subject to later change. At the end of this interim, after extended consideration of the needs and purposes of the Department with respect to the teaching of the several courses in economic theory, the Department took specific action directing Mr. Chamberlin to teach Course 101. At the same time arrangements were agreed upon by which several other specialists in economic theory in the staff of the Department participated in the instruction in economic theory. Presently the enrolmont in Course 101 became so large that its conduct as a single course by the discussion method became difficult; and, without specific vote of the Department, the course was divided into two sections, with one conducted by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Taylor in 1940-41 and by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Leontief in 1941-42, the other by Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin in both years.

With the decline in enrolment which has occurred, no occasion for such splitting of the course persists, and it has long been forseen that Economics 101 would be conducted as a single section during the present year. In recognition of this, an arrangement was made, without specific action by Department vote, to announce Economics 101 for the present year as to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. At the time this arrangement was made the expectation was that Mr. Chamberlin would be giving during the first half year Economics 1a and Economics 102b and that he should not be called upon to carry the additional instruction involved in teaching Economics 101 during the first term.

The initial enrolment in Economics 102b was so small that the course has been withdrawn from the first term offering, and although it is announced for the second term doubt remains whether the enrolment will be sufficient even then to warrant giving it. In recent months, various changes in personnel of the Department and the necessity of distributing the teaching and other load in all branches of the Department work as fairly and efficiently as possible have resulted in various changes in the assignments of particular officers to particular duties. In these circumstances it became possible for Mr. Chamberlin to resume during the first term instruction in Economics 101 without making his course load excessive.

In connection with the controversy, the Chairman of the Committee had a conversation with Mr. Chamberlin in which the latter presented his own views concerning the history of the case and the points at issue. Mr. Haberler submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee setting forth his ideas on the matter. Those items were brought to the attention of the Committee by its Chairman. Following the meeting of the Committee, Mr. Chamberlin also submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee. Either or both of the written statements will be laid before the Department on request.

Meeting of the Committee.

The Committee met on Tuesday, October 6. The Chairman gave the Committee a history of the case and a summary of the information available bearing upon the point at issue. The Chairman also informed the Committee that he did not understand that the Committee had any conclusive powers and would be obliged to report its findings in the form of recommendations to the Department.

The Chairmen specifically urged the Committee, therefore, in proceeding toward its findings to consider the wisdom of bringing in findings which, in its opinion, would probably be supported by the Department. The Chairman reminded the Committee that adequate treatment of the particular matter at issue might well involve (a) recommendations by the Committee concerning certain related matters affecting other courses; and (b) recommendations by the committee concerning certain longer run matters relating to the general question of our offering in economic theory. The Chairman discussed with the Committee certain basic principles bearing upon the case, and received the concurrence of all the members of the Committee in these principles. They are outlined below.

The Committee then proceeded to discuss the matter at issue and various related matters. Discussion by the members of the Committee was free and active and the Chairman made a special effort to call forth the views of each member of the Committee. After this discussion the Committee agreed upon a set of recommendations to be made to the Department, and to be reported to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler in the hope they would accept the findings. The agreement of the Committee was unanimous. Those recommendations are presented below.

Basic principles.

In approaching a set of findings with respect to the issues raised the Committee had in mind a series of basic principles in which members of the Committee concurred. Those are as follows:

(a) Because of its compressed personnel in wartime and because of the extraordinary wartime adjustments needed in its work: the Department has a peculiarly difficult task of assigning functions to its various officers with a view to getting the essential work of the Department done with such distribution of the burden as will be primarily efficient from the point of view of the Department and secondarily fair from the point of view of the individuals.

(b) Even in peacetime the needs of the Department and the objective of securing maximum efficiency in the performance of Department work transcend the interests and preferences of individual officers. Although in peacetime many concessions can be made with a view to accommodating the preferences and interests of individual officers and with a view to protecting the rights or supposed rights of individual officers, the Department would in general not recognize that such individual interests can overrule the general interest of the Department. In wartime this condition is even more emphatically true, and in such time the individual preferences and interests may be obliged to give way to the general interest of the Department more frequently and more extensively than in normal times. Throughout the duration of the war many if not all of the officers of this Department will be doing work which they prefer not to do and will be denied the opportunity to do work which they would like to do. Without such sacrifices the essential work of the University cannot be effectively handled in wartime.

(c) The Department and the University cannot afford to allow the general interest to be sacrificed because of informal commitments or quasi agreements made among individual officers when such agreements fail to take adequate account of the general interest of the Department, even though those who made the agreements acted in good faith. That agreements thus made may from time to time have to be set aside in the interest of the Department, and that such setting aside may involve some sacrifice by one or more individuals involved must be accepted as one of the costs of giving primary importance to the general interest of the Department. Ordinarily it is to be expected that individuals will refrain from making arrangements for which they have no power under the law of the Department; but ever if such arrangements are entered into under a grant of power, the individuals concerned must recognize that the Department itself has a clear right to final determination at one of its meetings.

(d) To the best knowledge of the Committee, the purpose of the Department with respect to the assignment of instruction in Course 101 remains as it was last officially determined by Department vote several years ago, namely, that Course 101 should be given by Mr. Chamberlin.

(e) Under the stress of war the Department may be obliged to sacrifice in part some branches of its work, and the Committee believes that graduate instruction will probably need to be sacrificed before instruction in undergraduate courses, tutorial instruction, and other Department work directed toward the teaching of undergraduates. A policy which exposes graduate instruction to the principal sacrifices is also likely to result in the most frequent disregard of personal preferences and even of supposed rights of individual officers; but presumably the Department would nevertheless feel that such a policy must be adopted and maintained.

Recommendations to the Department.

After considering the facts laid before it in connection with the matters at issue and in the light of its own agreement on basic principles, the Committee agreed unanimously to present the following recommendations to the Department at its meeting on Tuesday, October 13, and to report these recommendations at once to the parties in the controversy:

(a) That during the present year Mr. Chamberlin be assigned to conduct the entire Course 101.

(b) That, in view of chancing conditions which may mean that the Department’s present total offering in economic theory covering the entire range of courses in that field does not most satisfactorily meet the needs of instruction in that field, the Department promptly and earnestly reconsider the total offering with a view to making such changes as may be necessary in the next announcement of courses. The Committee makes no recommendation as to how the reconsideration should be conducted, whether by the appointment of a committee or by general Department discussion or by a combination. It also makes no specific recommendation as to any changes in the present offerings of courses, but merely notices that such a general reconsideration may well cover the possibility that Mr. Haberler might be asked to give work in economic theory.

(c) The Committee recommends that the Department consider asking Mr. Haberler to take charge of an additional half course during the present academic year, with a view to replacing the first half of Course 101 in rounding out his teaching assignment. The Committee specifically recommends that Course 18b be considered as one of the possibilities for additional instruction by Mr. Haberler; and makes this recommendation because on the one hand the Committee feels that the hurried arrangement by which that course was assigned jointly to four officers won Mr. Harris withdrew may have been ill-advised in that use of too numerous instructors in such a course may damage the continuity from the point of view of the student; and on the other hand the Committee believes that Mr. Haberler’s areas of specialization would enable him to handle this particular course very effectively.

(d) The Committee recommends that the Department consider carefully the question whether in determining that the enrolment in a course is so small that the course should be withdraw only those enrolled for credit should be counted, or whether in addition the auditors should be counted (this question was raised before the Committee in connection with Course 102b in which the first term enrolment was two members for credit plus five others. Course 102b has been withdrawn from the first term offering, but will be announced again for the second term, and the question posed above may at that time again be raised).

W. L. Crumm

___________________________

Thus spake the Dean

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Paul Herman Buck, Dean
Henry Chauncey, Assistant to the Dean
Jeffries Wyman, Jr. Assistant Dean

5 University Hall

January 12, 1943

To the Senior Members of the Department of Economics:

After considerable contemplation of the issue which has arisen between Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and which I have undertaken to arbitrate, I find I am in complete accord with the Report of a Special Committee on the assignment for teaching Economics 101, dated October 13, 1942. I commend especially as sound, the basic principles outlined on page 3 of that report and I accept as my official decision the recommendations to the Department given on page 4 of that report.

Frankly, it seems to me most unfortunate that the issue should have descended into personalities. The department should be prepared to face the large problems of policy which I have outlined in a letter to your Chairman which, I trust, will be read at your meeting tonight. Obviously those problems will not be solved intelligently and equitably if they are not approached with a vision directed to the loyalties of one’s subject and university rather than to self. Is it asking too much to relegate the personal aspects of this issue to oblivion?

It seems to me very important so to do. I have taken a great deal of pride in the distinction of the Department of Economics at Harvard and I have spoken in many circles boastfully of having what seems to me one of the very few remaining great departments of economics in the world. Certainly the responsibility of keeping that department great and of enabling it to develop continuing leadership should be the major loyalty to which every other consideration is subordinate. The awareness of this responsibility and the opportunities it presents will preoccupy your time and energies. Let me conclude by saying that I have always had and retain confidence in the intelligence, initiative, devotion. and cooperative spirit of your membership. I write this with all the more assurance because I know so many of you intimately and appreciate from personal friendship the qualities I have mentioned.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Buck

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 25. Folder “Graduate Instruction in Theory. Economics 101. 1942-43.

Categories
Cambridge Columbia Cornell Curriculum Economics Programs Germany Harvard Oxford Teaching

United Kingdom and other countries. Methods of Economic Training. Cunningham Committee Report, 1894

 

The Cunningham Committee report on methods of economic training in the United Kingdom and other European and North American countries from 1894 provides a wonderful overview of the (Western) state of economics education.

Previous posts with information for U.S. economics courses taught in the 1890s can be found in the previous posts:

Chicago, Columbia, Harvard 1893-94

United States. Economics Courses in 23 universities, 1898-99

____________________________

Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries.

Report of the Committee, consisting of Professor W. CUNNINGHAM (Chairman), Professor E. C. K. GONNER (Secretary), Professor F. Y. EDGEWORTH, Professor H. S. FOXWELL, Mr H. HIGGS, Mr. L. L. PRICE, and Professor J. SHIELD NICHOLSON.

APPENDIX

I.— On the Methods of Economic Training adopted in Foreign Countries, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 2 ff.

      1. Austria
      2. Hungary
      3. Germany
      4. Holland
      5. Belgium
      6. Italy
      7. Russia
      8. United States of America

II.— On Economic Studies in France, by H. Higgs, pp. 20 ff.

III.—On the Condition of Economic Studies in the United Kingdom, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 23 ff.

      1. England
      2. Scotland
      3. Ireland

IN furtherance of the above purpose three reports have been drawn up after due inquiry and laid before your Committee.

These reports, which are appended, bring out very clearly some features of difference between the position of such studies in this and in foreign countries, and, with other information before your Committee, seem to them to call for the following observations. Before proceeding to the consideration of certain particular points they would remark that the growth of economic studies, and in particular the development among them of the scientific study of the actual phenomena of life (both in the past and in the present), have important effects, so far as the organisation of the study and its suitability for professional curricula are concerned. It may be hoped, indeed, that when the empirical side is more adequately represented, the importance of the careful study of economics as a preparation for administrative life will be more fully recognised both by Government and the public.

(a) The Organisation of the Study of Economics. — While fully recognising the great energy with which individual teachers in this country have sought to develop the study of this subject, your Committee cannot but regard the condition of economic studies at the universities and colleges as unsatisfactory. As contrasted with Continental countries and also with the United States, the United Kingdom possesses no regular system. In one place economics is taught in one way, and in connection with some one subject, not infrequently by the teacher of that subject ; in another place in another way, and with another subject. Very often it is taught, or at any rate learnt, as little as possible. In most places this lack of organisation is due to the weariness of introducing elaborate schemes for the benefit of problematic students.. At Cambridge the pass examination which has recently been devised only attracts a few. With regard to the higher study of economics, Professor Marshall, among others, has written strongly of the comparatively small inducements offered by economics as compared with other subjects. He adds: “Those who do study it have generally a strong interest in it; from a pecuniary point of view they would generally find a better account in the study of something else.” Some considerations bearing on this point are offered below, but here it may be observed that the attempts to introduce more system into the teaching of economics, and to secure for it as a subject of study fuller public recognition, should, so far as possible, be made together.

In the opinion of your Committee economics should be introduced into the honour courses and examinations of the universities in such a manner as to allow students to engage in its thorough and systematic study without necessarily going outside the range of degree subjects.

(b) The Position of Economics with regard to Professional and other Curricula. — In most Continental countries economics occupies a place more or less prominent in the courses of training and in the examinations through which candidates for the legal profession or the civil service have to pass. In Austria, Hungary, and the three southern States of Germany this connection is very real, and the nature of the study involved very thorough. The same cannot be said with regard to the northern States of the latter empire, where the importance attached to this subject is so slight as to make its inclusion almost nominal. To some extent or in some form it is regarded as a subject obligatory on those preparing for those callings, or, to speak more accurately, for the legal calling and for certain branches of the civil service in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. In Holland and Belgium, while a certain general knowledge only is required for a few posts or branches of the civil service, a very thorough study is incumbent on those qualifying for the higher branch of the legal profession. In both France and Russia it is an integral and necessary portion of the legal curriculum.

The two studies are cognate, and according to the view of your Committee not only would the institution of an examination in economics at some stage of legal degrees and qualifications be advantageous professionally, but the work of those who had enjoyed a legal training would react favourably on the advance of the science. In addition, economics should receive a much more important place in the Civil Service Examinations.

_______________________

APPENDIX I.
On the Methods of Economic Training
adopted in Foreign Countries
.
By E. C. K. Gonner.

The comparative study of the continental and other foreign systems of Economic Education brings out in clear relief certain features of either difference or coincidence which relate respectively to the impulses or circumstances giving this particular study its importance, to the method of study, and, lastly, to its organisation and the degree of success attained in the various countries.

(1) Putting on one side the purely scientific impulse to learn for learning’s sake, which can, after all, affect comparatively few, the inducement to a large or considerable number of students to interest themselves in any particular study must consist in its recognition, either positive or tacit, as a necessary preliminary to some professions or to certain positions. This may, as has been suggested, be either direct and positive, or indirect and tacit; direct and positive, that is, in the case of economics when in either one or more branches they are made part of the examinations admitting to the legal profession and the higher civil service; indirect and tacit when public opinion demands economic knowledge as necessary in those holding prominent positions as citizens or anxious to direct and control their fellows, either by the pen as journalists, or by act or word as statesmen or politicians. The importance of both these motives is, of course, largely increased when they exist in close connection with the purely scientific impulse. By itself this is not sufficient. The exclusion of one study, as economics, from professional or technical curricula, unless counteracted by the existence of a very powerful popular sentiment in its favour, practically removes it from the reach of students who have to make themselves ready to earn their living. Of the two influences, described above, the former, or the actual and positive recognition is given, in some shape or other, in Austria and Hungary, the southern states of the German empire, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, and Holland. In America, and to some extent in Canada, popular sentiment and interest supply the needful impetus by making economics a tacit requisite for those exercising particular callings. In both Germany and Austria there are signs of the growth of economics in popular appreciation. In Austria, indeed, the circumstances are peculiarly fortunate. Economic instruction is recognised as a matter of serious importance, while, on the other hand, economic knowledge is one of the subjects of the State examinations for the legal and administrative service. In addition, its careful and scientific study is pursued by a fair number of advanced students. In this way Austria occupies a central position among the various nations which range themselves with America at one extreme, where there is no positive or direct obligation in favour of economic study, and at the other extreme, the Scandinavian and lesser Latin countries where all recognition that exists is positive, but where this positive recognition is largely nominal.

It has been urged that the ill-success of economic studies in these latter countries is largely an argument against their inclusion in obligatory curricula—a proposition which probably those who make it would hardly apply to the cases of other subjects. But from the evidence furnished by the countries before us this ill-success can be traced to other causes. It is due, firstly, to differences in the methods of study, and, secondly, to the differences in the thing made obligatory. In South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, economics is obligatory on certain classes of students, and the study of economics is making rapid and satisfactory progress, but then in South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the method of study is one which commends itself to advanced students and educational critics, and the knowledge required in the examinations is thorough. In the lesser Latin countries, as Spain and Italy, the knowledge which the candidate is expected to show is elementary in itself, largely confined to elementary theory, and a marked unreality is imparted to the whole study, an unreality recognised alike by examiners, teachers, and students. On the other hand, the advantages which economics may receive from its public and positive recognition are borne witness to by those best acquainted with the condition of the study in Germany, where the usages of the north and south differ. Broadly speaking they consist in the removal of economics from the category of unnecessary to the category of necessary acquirements. Many of those who begin the study from compulsion continue it from choice. In America, indeed, the strength of popular sentiment and the ever present interest of politics together with the action of the universities, where nearly all studies, and not economics alone, are put on a voluntary footing, give it an adequate position; but failing the combination of conditions such as these, its absence, both from all professional curricula and from the earlier stages of education, cannot but be regarded as disastrous and unjust.

(2) The method of economic studies is of a certain importance with regard to the subject last discussed. Though it would be unfair to estimate the work, or to judge of the scope of schools of economic teaching from their extreme tendencies, these afford not unsatisfactory means of distinction. Speaking broadly, they may be placed in two groups—those in which the dominant influence is empirical; those in which it is theoretical or abstract. Very few economists, whether teachers or writers, are wholly empirical or wholly theoretical. Some bias, however, they nearly all have, and it is by that they may be ranked for the present purpose. Nor must it be supposed that the distinctions drawn in one country, with regard to these opposing lines of study, at all correspond with those existing in another. In Germany, for instance, the attitude of Professor Wagner is attacked by the members of the historical school— one branch of the empirical—but judged by the standards of France and England he would rank in the main as an empiricist. The theorists of Germany and Austria do little more than assert that theoretical study has its due place and is a necessary part of the equipment of an economist.

When discussing the assertion that compulsory economics, however enforced, tended to issue in perfunctory attendances and poor results so far as interest was concerned, it was urged that these consequences depended largely on the method and nature of study. This is remarkably llustrated by the fact that the countries where such evils are regretted or anticipated are those where the study of economics is mainly theoretic, or where economics is distinctly and openly subordinated to other subjects. Lessons of this latter kind are never thrown away upon students. But with regard to the former, it is not from the southern states of the German empire, or from Austria, that we hear these complaints. There economic study is obligatory, and the economic study involved is two thirds of it empirical in character. In the Latin countries the state of things is very different. The basis of study is, if I may say so, text-book theory, and the position of economics, so far as progress is concerned, is unsatisfactory in the extreme. This has been particularly dealt with in the paragraphs relating to Italy.

In two of the great nations the mode of study practised is largely empirical. In Germany, despite the contrast between different leaders of thought, the importance of this method is well illustrated by the position which the study of Practical or Applied Economics invariably occupies. In America, the study of economic history and of modern economic fact grows into greater prominence year by year.

(3) Turning to the question of success, the question arises at once as to the tests whereby such may be measured. Of these, many, varying from popularity to eclecticism, have been suggested, but possibly the one most suitable is the ability of a system to produce a high general level amongst a good number of students. Something more is required of a system than that it should bring together large audiences for elementary courses, while as for the production of a few very good students, a few will always press to the front through all difficulties, despite systems good or bad, or in the absence of any system at all. But a system that is to be deemed good must place within the reach of all industrious and apt students the means of a good general economic training, while stimulating him to prosecute original and independent work. Further, it should provide these advantages regularly and not intermittently. The way in which these two needs are met in practice can be stated briefly. General training is provided by a systematic series of courses which should include at least Theory of Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance. The seminar, or classes organised like the seminar, offer opportunities for guiding a student into the ways of original work.

Seminar instruction is given regularly in Germany, Austria, Hungary, in the better equipped universities of America, Switzerland, and to some extent in both Sweden and Holland. In Russia the professors may and sometimes do organise seminars or discussion classes. In Belgium classes are held in connection with some of the courses.

With regard to the systems of providing for a good ground knowledge of the leading branches of Economics, classification is rendered difficult by the different methods adopted in the various countries. Some are more, some less thorough. Among the former we may put without hesitation the countries already singled out for notice—Germany, America, Austria, and Hungary.

From the accounts given in detail below it is clear that in these countries the study of economics is advancing. The training is systematic. A fair proportion of students pass from the more general into the more special or advanced courses. The production of work, not necessarily of the first order, for with that we are not dealing, but of the second, or third, or fourth order, is great and still increases.

AUSTRIA.

The position of Economics in Austria is largely determined by its relation to legal studies, by the place, that is, which its various branches hold in the examinations qualifying for the legal profession and for the juridical and higher administrative services. According to the system till recently in force, but now somewhat modified, candidates intending to enter these had to attend certain courses at the universities, and to pass certain examinations varying according to the positions sought. Those entering the legal profession had to pass the first State examination in addition to the three political rigorosa of the university, success in which latter conferred the degree of Doctor. Other candidates only needed to pass the three State examinations. These latter were as follows:— The first (Rechtshistorische Staatsprüfung) was held at the end of the second year of study, and comprised the following subjects: Roman Law, Canon Law, and German Law in its historical aspect. The second (Judizielle Staatsprüfung) was held towards the end of the eighth semester, in the following subjects: Austrian Law, civil, commercial, and penal; Austrian civil and criminal Procedure. At the end of the four years came the third and final examination (Staatswissenschaftliche Staatsprüfung), which alone is of importance so far as the legal recognition of Economics is concerned. The subjects examined in were Austrian Law, International Law, Economics (including Economics, the Science of Administration, Finance and Statistics). The political rigorosa, while they correspond in outline to the State examinations, have some few points of difference both with regard to method and subjects. They, too, are three in number, and may be described as the Austrian rigorosum, corresponding to the second State examination, the Romanist, corresponding to the first State, and the Staatswissenschaftlich, which closely resembles the third State examination, though not including Statistics or Administration. There is no regulation as to the order in which they are to be passed, but that indicated above is customary. Their greater severity may be judged from both the additional length of preparation prescribed and the manner in which they are conducted. The earliest date at which a candidate may pass his first rigorosum is at the end of the fourth in place of the second year. The second and third may follow at respective intervals of two months. The Staatsprüfung is an examination taken by groups of four students, each group being under examination for two hours; but in the rigorosa each candidate is under examination for two hours, spending half-an-hour with each examiner. Both State and university examina tions are oral, and the latter are said to impose a severe strain on both examiner and candidate. In the latter the examiners are the university professors, while in the State examinations these are variously composed of professors, functionaries of the State, and barristers of good standing.

By the law of April 28, 1893, which came into effect in October, the system sketched above underwent certain alterations. A complete separation will be effected between the university examinations or rigorosa, and those qualifying for the legal profession and State services, the former no longer serving as a possible substitute for the second and third of the latter. In addition, some slight change has been introduced into the curriculum and examinations imposed upon students designing to enter these. They will have to attend courses and to be examined in— (a) The Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), and with special reference to Austrian Law; (b) Economics, theoretical and practical; (c) Public Finance, and especially Austrian Finance. In addition they must attend lectures (without subsequent examination) on Comparative and Austrian Statistics. These alterations will leave the number of students in the more elementary subjects unaffected, and so far from operating in discouragement of economic and political studies, will, it is hoped, lead to their more thorough prosecution, by raising the degree to a more scholarly position.

The marked recognition of Economics by the State, and the large number of students whose prospects are involved in its successful study, naturally affect the teaching organisation provided by the universities and other bodies.

This is fairly uniform throughout Austria, as apart from Hungary, though the extent to which the subject is pursued, and the variety of its forms, depend mainly on the enthusiasm of particular teachers and the greater opportunities offered by particular universities or other institutions. At the universities the ground plan of work may be described as identical, Economics being taught in the faculty of law. There are certain courses which must be delivered, and at which attendance is obligatory for certain classes of students. These are on National Economy, Finance, Statistics, and the Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), which includes instruction in practical economics, public health, army, matters of policy, justice, &c. But in addition to these the teachers, whether professors or privat-docents may, and often do, deliver special courses dealing with more particular subjects. These are not necessarily or usually the same from year to year; and may be described as instruction of an unusually high order, inasmuch as each teacher is accustomed to select for treatment such branch of science in which his own activities and studies lie. The large2 voluntary attendance at such lectures is a testimony to the regard in which economic studies are held among a large body of students.

1Vienna—Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Graz, Innsbruck, Krakau (Polish), Lemburg (Polish).
2At Vienna the attendants at special courses varies from 50 to 100.

Seminar instruction is customary, as in Germany. At Vienna there are two seminars, one for Economics, one for Statistics and Political Science (Staatswissenschaft), while in addition there is an Institute of Political Science, attached to all of which are libraries and places for the members to carry on their work in close contact with their professor or his deputy. The members consist in part of young doctors of the university who have recently graduated, in part of those preparing for the examinations of the university, and include, as a rule, several foreigners who have come to Vienna to pursue their studies. The arrangements at the other universities are similar, though in some they lack the completeness displayed at Vienna.

Students who, having passed their examinations with credit, or other wise performed their work to the satisfaction of their teachers, wish to carry on their studies in other countries are eligible for Reisestipendia (travelling scholarships). These are rewarded to encourage study in foreign universities, or to enable their holders to carry out investigations which necessitate a journey. Unfortunately they are but few in number, and as they are open to students of all faculties, few economists can hope to obtain them. Among the more recent holders in Vienna are Professors Böhm-Bawerk, Robert Meyer, Von Phillipovich, and Dr. Stephen Bauer, the two latter of whom published reports on matters studied abroad.

In this way a method of economic instruction has been developed in the Austrian universities which not only provides a large number with a carefully systematised series of courses, but offers to those disposed to more thorough or more special study ample opportunity. The more eager and energetic pass through the courses compulsory for the law degree, in themselves a fitting preliminary to more detailed work, to attendance at the special courses and membership of the seminar; from these they may, if fortunate, advance into the position of travelling or research scholars of their university. Though most of the students at the Economic Lectures are jurists, the attendance frequently includes members qualifying in other faculties, or even more general ‘hearers.’ At Krakau, students of the philosophical faculty form some 20 to 25 per cent of the total. All these students are entirely free so far as their choice of Economic courses is concerned. It is not possible to give the exact numbers of the students to be described respectively as elementary and advanced. The particulars, however, furnished by the various universities permit a rough general estimate. Not fewer than one thousand students undergo the more general courses, thus attaining to a fair systematic acquaintance with the main branches of economic study, while out of that number more than two hundred take special courses and enter the various seminars. This account rather under than over estimates the extent to which economic studies extend. As to the character of the advanced work there is no doubt. As has been pointed out, it is of a high order. But some question has been raised as to the value of the knowledge likely to be attained by the more general student. The variety of subjects required in the examinations either of the university (political rigorosa) or of the State, and the number of courses obligatory on the students, do not allow of an early specialisation.1 But a glance at the nature of the examination, and at the syllabus of the various courses, forbids the inference that the instruction given is of a purely rudimentary nature.

1This, as Professor von Milewski contends, interferes with the scientific character of the various studies required for the degree. As each has to take up several subjects, and to pass examinations in these, he cannot give very special attention to Economics or any other branch of social science in which he may happen to be interested.

Much, it is true, depends upon the personal enthusiasm and force of the teacher, for, despite the obligation of attendance, a dull and unininteresting lecture will rarely obtain the audiences registered to him, many students preferring to buy copies of the course hectographed from the notes of their predecessors in the lecture room, and only troubling themselves to appear at the beginning and end of the semester.

In the University of Krakau, Economics are obligatory, both in study and examination, for the students of agriculture who attend special lectures, apart, that is, from the law students. Instruction in Economics (Political Economy, Finance, and Statistics) is given also at all the Technical High Schools (Technischen Hochschulen) in Austria,1 while attendance at the courses (though without examination) is obligatory at the schools of agriculture, where similar conditions prevail. At the Commercial Academies (Handelsakademien of Vienna and Prague) a course of lectures is given with particular reference to the Economic branches which throw most light on commercial facts and features, and on the relations existing between the various classes engaged in industry and trade. To obtain the diploma of these institutions the lectures are followed by an examination. Courses are provided for the consular service at the Oriental Akademie in Vienna, and for the service of the administration of the army.2 There is also a Fortbildungschule for officials of the railway, where political economy is taught and examined in. Members of these courses are considered specially fitted for the attainment of the higher posts in their service.

1Of these there are six:-Vienna, Brünn, Graz, Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Lemburg (Polish). After examination diplomas are granted, which are necessary for those becoming teachers in agricultural schools, and are, it is said, a strong recommendation in the eyes of landlords when engaging their officials, agents, &c.
2An Intendanz-Class for officers willing to serve as Intendanten for the provision of the army.

A knowledge of Economics, duly and doubly certified by registered lecture courses and by examination, is a necessary preliminary to certain careers. Attendance at the university lectures and the attainment of the juridical degree are the qualification for the higher branches of the legal profession (advocate, &c.), and like attendance and degree, or, in the place of the latter, the diploma of public service, are required for all branches of the legal profession and for the whole civil service. Entrance into the consular and diplomatic services may also be obtained through the courses of the Oriental Academy. Further, as has been pointed out above, a certain acquaintance, or supposed acquaintance, with economic studies is considered necessary in some other vocations.

At the present time very considerable importance is attached to economic studies in Austria. Their scientific character is a general matter of care, and an extension of the sphere in which they are obligatory, or at least advisable on the part of those who seek success in their particular calling or profession, is earnestly advocated by some. In the first direction the reforms in the juridical studies at the universities will operate. As Dr. Mataja writes:— ‘Economics will have greater and not less weight.’ On the other hand, and in the other direction, different suggestions have been made. Some advocate the extension of compulsory study to engineers who will become officials and directors in factories, to the employés of the fiscal service, to those attending the more elementary technical schools. Others would like to see schools of political and social science (including Economics) founded in the great industrial centres. Whether these suggestions be carried out or not, they serve to illustrate the feeling which exists, at least on the part of some, with regard to the value of Economics both as a special and as a branch of general study.

HUNGARY.

Economics holds a position somewhat similar to that in Austria. It is obligatory on all students in the faculty of law and political science at the two universities,1 and in the Rechtsakademien (legal faculties, as at Kassa), who must take courses in Economics and Finance before the end of their second year, when they have to pass an examination, among the subjects of which these are included. After the second year their studies bifurcate, according to the degree which they seek (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Cameralium). In order to obtain the former, they must pass an examination in financial law. But if they wish to take the latter degree (Dr. Cameralium), they must pass two rigorosa, among the subjects of which are Economics (theoretical and practical), Finance, Finance Law, and Statistics. The knowledge required in this case is exceedingly thorough, and the degree is of high value in the public service. There are also state examinations which serve as qualifications, though to a lesser extent, for the legal and administrative services. Though easier, they correspond closely with the above. In the universities the system of economic study in its general features resembles that in vogue in Austria, the chief courses being those on Economics and Finance; but both at Budapest and Klausenburg, as, for instance, at Strassburg to take a parallel, these studies belong not to a sole legal faculty, but to a legal and political faculty (Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät). In addition to successful examinations the candidates have to present a thesis. The possession of the degree of Dr. Cameralium implies a very sound economic training, and it was till lately the chief means of entering the higher civil service both of the kingdom and of the states. Considerable attention is paid to Economics, the seminars being well frequented, and the interest and activity of students great. This is particularly true of Budapest, where the lectures are varied and delivered by a numerous and able staff.

1Budapest, Klausenburg (Kalorsvar).

GERMANY.

The differences in the history and regulations of the various states composing the German empire have led, not unnaturally, to considerable differences in the positions which economic studies occupy. On the one hand, they are affected by the diversity of usage existing as to their connection with the course of study required for the legal profession and the civil service. On the other hand, the particular faculty in which they are included has been determined by reasons possessing little but historical validity.

  1. Prussia.—At the Prussian universities Economics belongs to the faculty of philosophy, and, speaking generally, to that section of this faculty known as the Sciences of the State. A student takes his degree in Economics entirely apart from law, the position of which as a separate faculty unfortunately precludes a student who presents a thesis in one of these two subjects from selecting the other as one of the two collateral subjects which he is bound by regulation to offer himself for examination in. Further, it must be noticed that the degree of doctor in this country, and, indeed, in Germany generally, is not a qualification, as was till recently the case in Austria and still is in certain of the Latin countries. Some assistance it may be in a judicial career, but even then the degree of Doctor Juris has naturally much more value than that of Doctor of Philosophy in the State Sciences.

Nor does Economics occupy an important place in the State examinations which qualify for the legal and administrative services. To enter these a candidate must pass examinations, the first of which is common to both services (referendar Examen). This consists of two parts, the first written and dealing with law, the second oral, which includes, among other matters, the elements of Economics. So subordinate is this subject that, in the opinion of many critics, it hardly counts in the decision as to the eligibility of candidates. The course of examination then bifurcates, some taking that for Justiz-Assessor, others for that of Regierungs Assessor, for neither of which is Economics required. At the latter of these (Reg. Assessor) some knowledge of Economics in its applied branches is said to be highly desirable, but inasmuch as the examination takes place some five years after the conclusion of the university course, the demands it makes are chiefly met by knowledge supplied from books. With regard to the constitution of the examining boards it should be noticed that, even at the referendar Examen, it is not in accordance with common practice to include professors of Economics.

  1. Saxony. —The system recently adopted in Saxony is, in so far as the subordination of Economics is concerned, nearly identical with that of Prussia. In one point it is more favourable to the interests of this subject, the professoriate being invariably represented on the board of examiners.
  2. Reichsland.—In the Reichsland Economics is of no more importance than it is in Prussia.
  3. Saxe Weimar.—In Saxe Weimar, too, it is of but nominal importance in the juridical examinations. There, too, the board of examiners is constituted irrespective of economic requirements, and, as has been caustically said, it is rare to find the examiners academically qualified in the subjects in which they are supposed to examine. The position, in the main, is very similar to that prevailing in Prussia.
  4. Bavaria.— In the chief southern and south-western states Economics holds a more important position in the legal and civil service curricula. Thus, in Bavaria, all students of law, administration, and forest (Landwirth) have to pass an examination in which it forms one of the subjects. The time of the examination is at the conclusion of the four years devoted to legal or other studies respectively, and the presence of the Professor of National Economy among the professorial examiners necessitates due attendance at lectures and thorough study. The second examination for the civil service is technical in character, and only requires economic knowledge in its connection with practical developments and issues.
  5. rtemburg.—In Würtemburg, though Economics forms no part of the strictly legal examinations, in the other State examinations for administrative students it is of very great importance. For these there are two examinations, the first of which, more general in character than the other, takes place at Tübingen, and involves a very considerable acquaintance with Economics.
  6. Baden.—Every legal student, as well as every candidate seeking entrance into the higher employments in the State departments of revenue and administration, must, in his time, attend lectures on, and pass examinations in, the economic and financial sciences.

The varying positions which Economics holds in the examinations qualifying for State and legal employment in the different German states affect a large number of university students who have to pass these examinations, but do not of necessity take a degree. To them the connection of Economics with one faculty or the other in the university cannot be a matter of much importance, but with others the case is different. Students reading for the degree are, as has been already said, restricted now on one side, now on another, as to their choice of collateral subjects for examination. Sometimes they can offer Economics in connection with law, sometimes they cannot. In addition, the influence which kindred studies taught in one faculty may bring to bear on the methods of instruction may, in some instances, prove of not inconsiderable importance even in the case of the students studying for the doctorate. Professor Brentano, however, whose personal experience extends from Leipzig to Strassburg, from Vienna to Breslau and Munich, contends that the varieties of combination matter less than might seem probable. The facultative position of Economics varies considerably. In Prussia and Saxony they find place among the many heterogeneous subjects grouped together in the faculty of philosophy, though in certain places, as at Berlin, they fall into a distinct subdivision. At Berlin they belong to the Staats- Cameral-und Gewerbewissenschaften. At Strassburg (Reichsland) they combine with law to form a Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät. At Tübingen (Würtemburg) a Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät exists independent of the law, a practice identical with that current at Munich (Bavaria). At some universities, as for instance at Jena, economic lectures are largely attended by the students of Landwirthschaft.

A comparison of the studies preliminary to the doctorate in Germany with those in Austria reveals two chief points of difference. At German universities there is little prescription of the course of study, or, indeed, of the methods to be adopted by the student, who within certain wide limits has a perfectly free choice of subjects. But this comparative freedom from restraint is closely connected with the great importance attached to the thesis, a custom which, its critics urge, leads to premature specialisation. In both countries candidates for the civil and legal services are much more closely restricted to definite courses.

In their practical working the systems of the different universities bear a close resemblance, at any rate in their earlier stages. There are three main courses, delivered annually, on pure Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance, all of which, even the first, involve a careful study of economic fact as distinct from hypothesised theory. The extent to which the method adopted in the first course is empirical depends, of course, on the position of the teacher as an adherent of one or other of the opposing schools of economic thought; but, speaking generally, even the least empirical among them would be deemed empirical by those accustomed to English methods. But, in addition to these three annual courses, lectures are delivered on special subjects. At Freiburg (in Baden), in the summer semester of 1891, these were:

    • History of National Economy and Socialism.
    • Agrarian and Industrial Policy, including the Labour Question.
    • History of Statistics.

The list of special lectures at Berlin, to take the most completely equipped of the universities, shows more clearly the wide range of subjects dealt with under the term Economics. In the summer term, 1892, besides the ordinary annual courses, there were courses of lectures on the following subjects:

    • Theory of Statistics.
    • History of Statistics.
    • Statistics of the German Empire.
    • The Economic and Social History of Germany from the end of the Middle Ages to the Peace of Westphalia.
    • History and Modes of Industrial Undertakings.
    • Money and Banking.
    • Early Commercial and Colonial Policy (till 1800).
    • Industrial and Commercial Policy.
    • The Social Question.
    • Forms of Public Credit.

In addition to lectures, necessarily more or less formal, opportunities are afforded for systematic instruction in classes and in the seminar. The latter institution varies considerably, according to the character of the students frequenting particular universities, for its efficiency, and accord ing to the position of the professor undertaking it, for the direction of its studies. Each teacher collects around himself a group of students who follow his method, adopt his attitude, and frequently devote themselves to those branches of economic research which have occupied his attention. Thus, at Strassburg, Professor Knapp’s seminar deals chiefly with agrarian questions; at Berlin, Professor Wagner’s influence is seen in the predominance of finance and financial topics among the subjects discussed. At Munich, to pass to the question of organisation and method, the two professors join in holding a seminar in which “there are about twenty-four young men taking part. Each of them has to undertake some work: the younger ones get a book to read, and have to report on it; the more advanced have to treat a subject after reading several books on the subject; the most advanced have to make a work themselves, the professors aiding them in furnishing material and giving assistance.’ At some universities there are two seminars, at others one. It is a matter for regret that, with all these opportunities, a comparatively small number of students are ranked as advanced. The explanations offered are many, but probably a very adverse effect on the study is produced by the paucity of the positions to which a thorough economic study can serve as an introduction. Teaching posts are few, and the requirements in the State examinations for the legal and administrative services are, if not as in many cases nominal, strictly limited to an elementary knowledge.

In some of the technical schools, and in all the schools of commerce, instruction in some branch of economics forms part of the regular course, and, in these latter, an examination is held. In the former, however, the subjects thus taught are distinctly subordinated to the technical sciences which occupy the chief attention of the students, while in the schools of commerce only those branches receive adequate treatment which bear or appear likely to bear upon commerce in its practical aspects.

HOLLAND.

The connection between the universities and the legal profession is close in Holland, none but doctors of jurisprudence being qualified to practise as advocates. This is a circumstance which has a material effect upon the study of economics, inasmuch as this, in its more elementary branches, forms one of the obligatory subjects of the first examination for the degree. Thus, so far as this one profession is concerned, a certain knowledge of economics is necessitated.

In the higher administrative service no such knowledge is obligatory, but it is considered that officials who possess the degree of doctor of political science have better chances of promotion. For this degree a thorough study of economics is required. In certain other government services demand is made for acquaintance with certain branches of the subject. In the examinations for the consular service the ‘general principles of economics’ and the ‘elements of statistics,’ chiefly with regard to trade and shipping, form subjects of examination. A similar knowledge is required for the diplomatic service. In none of these cases, it should be noted, is attendance at specified courses compulsory. The subject forms part of the examination.

The requirements indicated above explain to some extent the position which economics occupies in the four Dutch universities. It is a necessary subject for two degrees—the doctorate in laws and the doctorate in political science. But the nature of the knowledge required differs greatly. In the former it is elementary, not going beyond the first principles of the theory, while in the latter case the examination necessitates a really careful and detailed study. In addition to the general course of lectures taken by all, candidates for this latter distinction usually attend two other courses, one in capita selecta (taxation, finance, socialism, &c.), and another in statistics. These courses, unlike those at German universities, extend throughout the academic year, i.e. from September to July. For advanced students discussion classes are held, where the students, after a previous study of a chosen subject, meet to discuss it among themselves and with the professor. Before proceeding to the degree of doctor a candidate has to write, and afterwards to defend, a dissertation on some branch of the general science which he has taken up. Thus, in the case of political science, the thesis may be on some economic question. Outside the universities the chief study of economics takes place in the intermediate schools, where, during the fourth and fifth years of the five years’ curriculum, it is taught for two hours weekly by a doctor of political science, or by another teacher duly qualified by a special examination. At the Polytechnic at Delft there is a chair of economics, but neither is attendance at the course obligatory, nor does it form one of the subjects of examination.

BELGIUM.

By the law of 1890, which provides the regulation for higher instruction, political economy is made obligatory for the attainment of the degree of doctor of laws, a distinction proving a professional qualification, and for the grade of engineer, the course for the former involving some forty-five lectures, that for the latter some fifteen. In both cases the subject is taken in the earlier years of study. Students training for these professions would appear to form the great bulk of those attending economic lectures at the universities. In neither case can the course be said to furnish more than elementary instruction.

The universities have made provision outside these State requirements for more advanced students. The candidates for the degree of doctor of political science have to show a more thorough acquaintance with economic subjects. At the University of Ghent the course which is provided for them is considerably longer; still more stringent regulations prevail at the University of Louvain, for the degree of  ‘docteur en sciences politiques et sociales.’ The important regulations are as follows :—

ART. 5.

Pour être admis à l’épreuve du doctorat il faut:

    1. Avoir acquis depuis une année au moins le grade de docteur en droit.
    2. Avoir pris une inscription générale aux cours du doctorat en sciences politiques et sociales et avoir suivi les cours sur lesquels porte l’épreuve.
    3. Présenter, sous l’approbation du président de l’École, un travail imprimé sur un sujet rentrant dans le cadre du doctorat.

ART. 7.

L’épreuve comprend un examen oral d’une heure et demie. Cet examen porte:—

    1. Sur six branches portées comme principales au programme de l’École.
    2. Sur deux branches au moins choisies parmi celles qui sont portées comme branches libres au programme de l’École ou—avec l’autorisation du président de l’École—parmi celles qui sont portées au programme de l’université.
    3. Sur le travail présenté par le récipiendaire.

The list of lectures for the two years’ curriculum, 1892-3, 1893-4, is as follows :-

For the first year—Histoire parlementaire de la Belgique depuis 1830, la législation ouvrière comparée ; le droit public comparé; de la neutralité de la Belgique et de la Suisse; du régime légal des sociétés commerciales en droit comparé.

For the second year—Histoire diplomatique de l’Europe depuis le Congrès de Vienne; l’Evolution économique au XIXe siècle; les institutions de la France et de l’Allemagne; lé régime colonial et la législation du Congo; les associations en droit comparé.

Seminar or class instruction is given at the universities, though the particular form it takes varies with the other organisation provided, and the character of the students. At the University of Ghent a class supplementary to the lectures is formed, where discussion takes place; at Louvain Professor Brants directs a ‘cours pratique,’1 the members of which (some dozen in number) write treatises, discuss economic movements, and make excursions to centres presenting features of economic interest.

1Conférence d’Économie Sociale. Rapport sur ses travaux, 1891-92. Louvain.

ITALY.

Outside the universities there are in Italy but few institutions which give much instruction in economics. Though courses are delivered at the superior schools of commerce, as, for instance, at Genoa, Venice, and Bari, and the Polytechnic School of Milan, which compare in their nature with those existing at similar places in Austria and Germany, the main aim of such schools, and the limited extent to which they are frequented, prevent them from obtaining any control over the development of economic teaching in the country. It is, then, to the universities that we must look for information as to the methods chiefly employed. At them economics is studied as a subsidiary subject to law, being taken by students in their second year. There are three courses at which attendance, or, to speak more accurately, inscription is obligatory on legal students. In the case of the three obligatory courses the attendance is fairly regular, owing, it is said, to the combined effect of the latitude allowed in the teaching of the subject and the position of the professor as examiner. Without passing the economic examinations students cannot attain to legal degrees. The courses are those in Economic Theory and Administration, Finance, and Statistics. According to the condition of the university these are taught by the same or different teachers, in most cases by the professors who are appointed and paid by the State. In addition to these courses others are given at the option of the teachers, either professors or docents. The attendance at these is not good, though in many cases a large number of students enter themselves as a mark of courtesy towards the lecturer. It costs them nothing, as they pay a compound fee, and it benefits him considerably if a docent, as he receives from the State a payment proportionate to the number of students registered for his courses. In addition to the examination, a candidate for the legal degrees presents a thesis which may, and not infrequently does, deal with some economic subject.1 The study of economics is, moreover, obligatory on students seeking the higher official careers. Many complaints are made as to the position occupied by economic studies in Italy. Their connection with law creates no doubt a certain and a large audience in the lecture room; but, as one Italian professor points out, students do not remain there long enough to acquire anything like a sufficient knowledge of the subject. They come from the schools wholly unprepared, and they leave the university without having undergone a training thorough enough to counterbalance the loose economic notions gathered from their more diligent study of the newspapers. The study of economic facts does not seem to have had sufficient place in the universities of Italy. Attempts are now being made to remedy this defect by the formation of discussion societies among the students of economics, and the encouragement of research into statistical and similar questions.

1Professor Tullio Martello calculates that at the University of Bologna some 15 per cent of those graduating in law present a thesis dealing with economics.

At the minor technical schools lectures are delivered on elementary economics, finance, and statistics.

RUSSIA.

The conditions under which Economics is taught in Russia bear a superficial resemblance to those prevalent in the Latin countries, where it is annexed to the study of law, and pursued very much as a subject of secondary importance. Here, too, it forms part of the regular training through which a jurist must pass in his four years’ curriculum. There are three economic courses which he must attend, and in the subject-matter of which he must display sufficient knowledge in the May State examinations. These are on Economic Theory, Statistics, &c., and Finance. In addition to formal lectures, the professors in charge of the subject may, and sometimes do, organise classes, discussion societies, or seminars, though attendance at these is not obligatory.

The provision for further and more detailed study is considerable. A student who has finished his law studies with a diploma of the first degree can remain in the university, if he wishes, for more special research in one or other subject (Roman law, political economy, private law, financial law, &c.), under the supervision of the special professor or professors. Such a student is examined, and, if successful, obtains the title of magistrandus of the subject in question. Then he must present a dissertation and defend it, after which he obtains the degree of magister. After a second dissertation and disputation he attains the higher degree of doctor of his special subject.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The conditions under which the study of Economics is carried on in the United States of America are widely different from those which prevail in the countries of continental Europe. On the one hand, there is no inducement held out to students by its inclusion among the subjects of state or professional examinations. On the other, there is evidence in the importance which such subjects have assumed at the universities and colleges of a strong public sentiment in favour of their careful study far exceeding that in existence either in these countries or in the United Kingdom. In one respect the regulations of the colleges have had an important effect, independent of the action which they have taken in respect of the strong public demand. Owing to the freedom of the students in most of these institutions from prescribed and compulsory courses of study in most stages of their career, Economics has escaped being relegated, as, for instance, in England, to the position of a subject outside the usual curriculum, and optional only in some one or, perhaps, two stages. Where such prescription does exist it is not deemed a subject necessarily unfit to form part of a compulsory general course. Its inclusion, to some extent, would probably be demanded by the strong public opinion which has grown up during the past twenty years.

The causes of the popularity of Economics are stated with fair unanimity by various writers, though their respective importance is very differently estimated. In the first place, the very novelty of economic studies is itself in favour of their ardent prosecution. Till comparatively recently, it has been said till between 1870 and 1880, they were disregarded because unknown. Now they are seized, studied, and followed because they offer, or seem to offer, an explanation of the vast and complex economic condition which is in process of rapid evolution in this country at once so great and so new. So, too, in England some half century back or more the theories of the economists of that time were received by large numbers as an intellectual gospel. But in the next place the circumstances attending this ‘novelty’ of study have considerable consequences. That the study of Economics is a novel study is important, but it is of equal importance that it is novel at the present time and under present conditions. The American economists have not to shake off the half-uttered, half-silent opprobrium attached to their subject through the action of the more numerous though less conspicuous of their predecessors in their rigid adherence to incomplete or ill-founded theories. They are fortunate in entering upon their teaching at a time when the need of inductive inquiry and training is more fully recognised. This gives a more systematic aspect to the economic instruction demanded from them than was the case in England. In the third place, the campaign in favour of civil service and tariff reform has drawn a great deal of attention to those departments which deal with finance and the more prominent aspects of political life. Lastly, it is urged that the political eagerness which so largely affects the younger generation of Americans combines with the foregoing to crowd the economic lecture rooms with anxious and willing students. Economics is needed by politicians, and ‘we are all politicians,’ writes one professor; it is needed by journalists both because they are keen for political knowledge themselves and because they write for politicians.

The same causes which stimulate economic students have often led to its connection with political science, with history, and in some instances with general sociology.

Returns from several of the universities show the large number of students who attend economic lectures, and the comparatively large number who pass into advanced courses. The universities differ so much among themselves that no common standard of teaching exists. In some the elementary courses are very elementary, in others more thorough than might be concluded from the name. Thus at Harvard these include a study of Mill’s ‘Principles of Political Economy,’ lectures on general theory, or on what is termed descriptive economics, including a survey of financial legislation, while in addition a course is provided on the Economic History of England and America since the Seven Years’ War. In some cases a great part of the junior work consists in the use of text-books, and proceeds rather by class instruction and interrogation than by lecture. Turning to the consideration of the courses organised for the more advanced students, it is highly satisfactory to note the very considerable proportion which these form of the total number engaged in economic study. According to the information collected from various quarters, at Harvard they amount to some 38 per cent; at Columbia College to 41 per cent; at Cornell to 26 per cent. At some others they do not present so favourable an appearance, though at Michigan I am informed that the twenty returned as ‘advanced’ consists entirely of very advanced students, all the others being included under the heading of elementary. No doubt students described as advanced at one institution may not be so regarded at others, for, as has been already suggested, these vary very greatly as regards both their courses and the attainments of their students. With regard to the former, those provided at some of the better known and more highly developed and equipped universities afford a description of the nature of the training offered in the United States. At Harvard the advanced courses for the year 1892–93 are as follows:—

Full courses

    • Economy Theory—Examination of Selections from leading writers.
    • The Principles of Sociology—Development of the Modern State and its Social Functions.
    • The Social and Economic Condition of Working Men in the United States and in other Countries.
    • The Economic History of Europe and America, to 1763.

Half-courses

    • History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.
    • Railway Transportation.
    • The Theory and Methods of Taxation.
    • History of Economic Theory down to Adam Smith.
    • History of Financial Legislation in the United States.

At Columbia College the courses are as follows:—

    • Elements of Political Economy.
    • Historical and Practical Economics.
    • History of Economic Theories.
    • Science of Finance.
    • Science of Statistics.
    • Railway Problems.
    • Financial History of the United States.
    • Tariff and Industrial History of the United States.
    • Communism and Socialism.
    • Taxation and Distribution.
    • Sociology.

At Cornell the lectures which succeed the purely elementary ones are not quite so full, but consist of courses on—

    • Economic Reforms.
    • Finance.
    • Economic Legislation.
    • Statistics.
    • Economic History.
    • Financial History of the United States.

There are few universities which do not offer some courses beyond these on elementary theory and history. As a rule, finance and some other branch of applied economics are added. Where graduate schools have been established, as, for instance, at Harvard and at Michigan, the study proceeds very much on the lines indicated above, so far as the former is concerned. At Michigan, the advanced courses are distinguished into intermediate and graduate. Intermediate courses treat of the following:—The Transportation Problem. Principles of the Science of Finance. Theory of Statistics. History and Principles of Currency and Banking. History of the Tariff in the United States. History and Theory of Land Tenure and Agrarian Movements. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. History and Theory of Socialism and Communism. History of Political Economy. Graduate courses:–Critical Analysis of Economic Thought. Critical Examination of the Labour Problem and the Monopoly Problem.

Most universities have, in addition, established seminars, where study proceeds on the lines with which continental students are familiar. Individual members, in most instances graduates, and all advanced students, undertake particular subjects on which they prepare reports or treatises to be read and discussed at the weekly meeting. During their researches they are more or less under the direction of the professor or teacher who undertakes the courses in connection with the department of economics under which their subject falls. At Yale there are two seminaries and one discussion society; at Columbia College there is one for students who have studied only one year, two (in Economics and Finance) for those who are more advanced. The value of the work produced differs, of course, with the character of the university. At Harvard and the other more highly developed universities it is naturally very high.

In certain other countries the attention given to the subject of Economics demands for different reasons less detailed notice. In some instances the resemblance to countries already described renders further description superfluous; in others the geographical limitations of the country, or the comparative absence of opportunities for such special branches of the higher education, necessitate a much slighter notice than that given to the foregoing countries.

In Spain the connection between economic and legal studies is very similar to that existing in Italy. Students of the first and second year attend courses in Economics and Finance, Statistics being apparently nowhere insisted upon. At some of the universities an attempt is made to supplement these elementary courses by conferences and by visits, both to industrial undertakings, as factories, mines, &c., and to financial establishments, as banks; while the introduction of sociological institutes or seminars is looked for at others, as, for instance, at Oviedo.

In Sweden ‘there are two professors of political economy, one at the University of Upsala, one at the University of Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Law, and teaching in addition to Political Economy some purely juridical subjects. There are also two professors in Politics and Statistics, one at Upsala, one at Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Arts, and teaching at their discretion, Public Law, either Swedish or foreign, and Statistics.’ ‘The two professors of Political Economy in the Faculty of Law have to prepare and examine all the students who go in for the State examinations for entrance to the different branches of the civil service. But as Political Economy possesses very little importance in any of the three forms of these examinations, as compared with Jurisprudence, little stress is laid on its study in this faculty. Of the two other professors, one (at Upsala) lectures chiefly on Politics, the other on Statistics, both these studies being optional for the two arts degrees. The theory of Political Economy is not taught. Seminar instruction is arranged to supplement that given in the lecture courses.

In Norway, at the University of Christiania, the system is nearly identical with that of Sweden. There, too, it is found that, owing to the complete subordination of Economics to Law, the knowledge required is elementary in character.

The same impulses which direct the attention of young Americans to the study of Economics are felt in Canada. At the University of Toronto the importance attached to such studies is adequately shown by the large attendances present at the several courses. These courses are carefully arranged and graduated so as to furnish the student with a sound knowledge of the various branches of the subject, and to fit him to undertake, as he is expected to do in his latter years, research into some branch of economic fact.

In Switzerland, the position held by economic studies is, on the whole, at least as favourable as that in the southern countries of Germany. A knowledge of Economics is obligatory on those entering the legal profession, while, owing to the arrangements made, the duty of examining the candidates may, and in practice, I believe, does fall largely on the university professors. Moreover, in the university curricula, the place of economics, so far as Berne is concerned, is very fortunate. True, the subject is optional, as indeed are all subjects for the doctorate, but it may be taken for either the legal or the philosophical doctorate (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Phil.). At the Zürich Polytechnicon it is taught, being obligatory in some form or other for the diplomas of forestry and agriculture. In addition there is a fair voluntary attendance at these lectures. The system of instruction presents no features requiring particular notice. The chief courses are on National Economy and Finance, with the frequent addition of Practical Economics. These are supplemented by special courses at the option of the teacher, and by the seminar.

 

APPENDIX II.

On Economic Studies in France.
By Henry Higgs.

Economic teaching in France, so far as it consists of lectures regularly delivered at the same place by the same person, is to be looked for in—

(i.) The Collège de France, Paris;

(ii.) The Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, Paris;

(iii.) The Université de France, consisting of the aggregate of local ‘universities,’ or faculties officially recognised, in Paris and the provinces;

(iv.) The free or unofficial faculties and schools in Paris and the provinces, including all the Catholic ‘universities’ (which cannot come to terms with the State on the question of the faculty of theology), the École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, and others.

A certain amount of economic instruction is also imparted in the Écoles supérieures du Commerce, generally endowed by the municipalities of commercial towns. Elementary notions of Economics are officially prescribed as part of the programme of elementary schools.

(i.) It is at the Collège de France that one expects to find leading teachers of Economics in France. The traditions of its chair (which was founded in 1830), and the authority vested in its occupants, added to the attractions of a scientific post in Paris, have been a sufficient inducement for the most eminent economists to offer themselves for appointment here. The stimulus of contact with growing, vigorous, and inquiring minds is not, however, afforded to the professors, and they have to fight against a tendency to fall into prosy sermons and easy repetitions of old theory. No fees are charged to the students, nor is any record kept of their names unless they wish to obtain certificates. The lectures are delivered twice a week (two on Economics by M. Leroy-Beaulieu, and two on Statistics by M. Levasseur), in the afternoons. The auditors are for the most part a casual collection of shifting persons, of whom many are foreigners passing through Paris, who attend once or twice out of curiosity to see the lecturer. There is no discussion either during or after the lectures. The professors are paid a fixed stipend by the State. They appear to regard their lectures in the main as vehicles for the dissemination of generally received economic theory. So far, however, as they employ their leisure in prosecuting original research, their stipends may be regarded as an endowment for the advancement of Economics. Their personal examples are stimulating. It would be difficult to mention two more active economists in Europe. But in their lectures they are perhaps too dogmatic to supply students with the zest of grappling with ‘unsettled questions,’ or with the incentive to enlarge, however little, the bounds of knowledge by pointing out to their hearers the frontiers of ignorance which are often in sight.

(ii.) The oldest chair of Political Economy is in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, and was first filled, in 1819, by J. B. Say. The instruction now given here is of a more popular character, consisting of lectures addressed to the working classes at a late hour of the evening. M. Levasseur delivers a five-year cycle of about fifty lectures a year on Economics, and M. de Foville a four-year cycle on Industry and Statistics. There are on the average from 300 to 400 auditors. They pay no fees. The professors are appointed and paid by the Government.

(iii.) By a law passed in 1877 Economics was for the first time officially incorporated into the organisation of higher education in France, by being made an obligatory subject in the second year’s studies of the faculties of law. Economics in France has, it is said, laboured under the disadvantage of offering no opening for a career. On the other hand, the youth of the country flock to the schools of law, for to lawyers all careers are open— politics, journalism, literature, education, legal practice, and many official appointments. The professor of law is overworked, and the professor of Economics underworked. The faculty of law, therefore, generally expects of its professor of Economics that he shall be able to help in legal instruction and examinations; and there has been a tendency to select a lawyer rather than an economist for these chairs. This reproach, however, is rapidly being removed, and the new professors of Economics are in many cases vigorous and promising in their proper spheres. Economics has recently been transferred from the second to the first year’s programme. The law students are said to show a better intelligence of law now that they also study Economics. It can hardly yet be stated what effect this organisation will produce on Economics itself.

In addition to this obligatory study, Economics may be taken as one of the eight optional courses at a later period of preparation in the law faculties. For this purpose there is generally a special course of lectures on Finance, in which financial legislation is a prominent topic; but the option in favour of Economics is not much exercised.

The professors and lecturers in Economics and (in italics) in Finance in the official faculties of law are as follows:—

Paris. MM. Beauregard, Alglave and Ducrocq; Fernand Faure (Statistics); Planiol (Industrial Legislation); Maroussem (Monographs).
Aix: M. Perreau.
Bordeaux: MM. St. Marc, de Boech.
Caen: MM. Willey, Lebret.
Dijon: MM. Mongin, Lucas.
Grenoble: MM. Rambaud, Wahl.
Lille: MM. Deschamps, Artus.
Lyons: MM. Rougier, Berthélémy.
Montpellier: MM. Gide, Glaise.
Nancy: M. Garnier.
Poitiers: MM. Bussonnet, Petit.
Rennes: MM. Turgeon, Charveau.
Toulouse: M. Arnault.

There are also at Montpellier lectures on industrial legislation by M. Laborde.

(iv.) The position of the Catholic ‘universities’ has already been referred to. While following the lead of the State in associating economics with law, they have the advantage of recruiting among their students a large number of those who desire to enter the Church with a training in economic science as an aid to the study of social problems. The respective professors are MM. Jannet (Paris), Baugas (Angers), Béchaud (Lille), Rambaud (Lyons), and Peyron (Marseilles).

The École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, directed by M. Boutmy, is perhaps the most hopeful academic institution in France for the promotion of economic study. Lectures are given by MM. Cheysson (Economics); Stourm, Dubois de Lestang, Plaffin, Courtin (Finance); Levasseur (Statistics); Dunoyer (History of Economics since Adam Smith); Arnauné Foreign Trade and Customs Laws); Lévy (Banking); P. Leroy-Beaulieu (Colonial Systems); Paulet (Industrial Legislation); and Guieysse (Industrial Problems). In addition to these lectures, which are well attended by paying students, there are discussions and classes for original work on the seminar plan. Travelling scholarships are also given, and excellent work is done, to which the general scheme of instruction largely contributes. The primary function of the school is the thorough intellectual equipment of young officials for the State. Foreign languages, travel, and comparative study of laws and social institutions are encouraged, together with an intelligent interest in history and politics. The personal assistance rendered to individual students by the professors, the seminar, and the scholarships, the comprehensive breadth of view, and the rigid impar. tiality of this school are, as yet, unique in France.

Other economic lectures in Paris which require mention are those of M. Colson, at the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (where the Government non-military engineers and road surveyors are trained), of M. Cheysson at the École Nationale des Mines (also under Government), of M. F. Passy at the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (endowed by the municipality), of M. Émile Chevallier, &c. Lectures (by M. Guérin) are organised by the Société dEconomie Sociale, founded by Le Play. M. Demolins, the leader of a secession from this school, also delivers a course of lectures. There is, on the whole, too much diffusion of separate economic lectures in Paris.

An impressive plea has lately been published by M. Chailley-Bert for the recognition of distinct economic faculties, and for such endowments as will spare professors from the need of spending their time and brains upon accessory sources of income.

APPENDIX III.

On the Condition of Economic Studies
in the United Kingdom.
By E.C.K. Gonner.

Though the full extent of the disadvantages under which economic study in this country suffers can only be realised from a fairly detailed account of its position in the various universities and with relation to certain professions, it will not be out of place to preface this report with a few words as to their nature.

(a) In the first place it is a matter of serious concern that economics is not regarded as a necessary part of any professional curriculum. This particular hardship, however, might be faced with comparative equanimity were there existent in this country, as for instance in the United States of America, a strong body of popular feeling in support of its study and its efficient teaching. But, despite frequent assertions to the contrary, I believe, and in this I shall have the concurrence of many colleagues engaged in teaching, that there is no such body of feeling. Its absence has been variously accounted for. To a great extent it is no doubt part of the legacy of distrust and misunderstanding due to the false view of Economics placed before a former generation, and it will probably be a long time before the popular conception of an economist as a compound of text-book theory and ignorance of fact can be entirely dispelled.

(b) Owing largely to the early prominence of the abstract school of economic thought in England the position which the subject holds in the University curricula is far from satisfactory. It is treated as a subject narrow in scope and subordinate—necessarily and naturally subordinate— to other subjects. But this is by no means the position which it should hold, and now that the importance of the studies of economic fact and administration is more clearly seen, the impossibility of effective teaching within the prescribed lines has become glaringly apparent. At present indeed English economic teaching is without a regular system. It is usually supposed that prescribed University courses should offer a means of systematic training in the various subjects, the pass courses of ordinary training, the honours courses of advanced and thorough training. So far as Economics is concerned, this is precisely what the Universities do not provide. With one possible exception they offer at the present time little more than isolated opportunities of showing economic knowledge in examinations primarily devoted to other subjects.

In the United Kingdom the encouragement of the study of Economics rests entirely with educational bodies. So far as professional examinations and curricula are concerned it meets with almost universal neglect. This is wholly so with regard to the examinations qualifying for the practice of law, either as barrister or solicitor, and partly so in the case of the Civil Service Examinations. For these latter Economics may be taken up, as may almost any other subject included in the Sciences and Arts. It is not recognised, that is to say, as more cognate to the administrative callings for which these examinations qualify, than is Chemistry, for instance; indeed, in comparison with many of these other subjects it is at a discount owing to the smaller maximum of marks assigned to it. In other words, it is excluded from the legal curriculum; in the Civil Service Examinations it is an optional but not an important subject. Elementary Political Economy is one of the optional subjects in the examination for chartered accountants, and is obligatory on candidates for the voluntary examination recently instituted by the Institute of Bankers.

At the Universities it receives an insufficient recognition in the degree courses, but as its position varies a great deal a brief summary of the usages of the various Universities with regard to it may be given. Degrees are granted in England by the five Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London, and Victoria; in Scotland by the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrews; in Ireland by Trinity College and the Royal University of Ireland.

ENGLAND.

At Oxford it is an optional subject which may be taken up as one of the three selected subjects for the pass B.A. degree. As studied for this examination it is mainly elementary and largely theoretical, many of the questions relating to certain prescribed portions of the works of Adam Smith and Walker. To pass this examination, for which the yearly number of candidates presents an average of two hundred, demands common sense and a fair general acquaintance with leading Economic topics. A paper on Economics is included among those set in the Honour School of Modern History.

At Cambridge the position occupied by Economics in the University curricula is far more satisfactory. In some shape or other it forms part of three degree examinations. All candidates for the ordinary pass B.A., after passing the general examination, have to take up a special subject for their concluding study. Of these, sixteen in all, there are seven arts special subjects, one of which is Economics. The special examination in Economics (Political Economy) consists of two parts, which may be taken at separate times:—

Part I.—Three papers.

    • Two in General Economic Theory.
    • One in Economic History.

Part II.—Three papers.

    • Two in Taxation and Economic Functions of Government, with History of Trade and Finance, 1760–1860.
    • One in General Theory of Law and Government.

In the Moral Science Tripos (Honour B.A.) there are six obligatory papers, two being assigned to Political Economy (i.e. Theory), while in addition advanced Political Economy ranks as one of the optional subjects, two of which must be passed in by a candidate desirous of being classed. Lastly, in the Historical Tripos (Honour B.A.), one paper is in Economic History, the paper on general History of England also being supposed to require some Economic knowledge. Further, candidates who desire it may take Political Economy and theory of Government with International Law as an alternative to the study of a second special subject. Of these three examinations the one which seems most satisfactory, so far as Economics is concerned, is the special for the pass B.A., which embraces at once the four important branches of administrative, theoretical, historical, and financial Economics, and it is to be regretted that it has not yet been possible to organise an Honour examination on corresponding lines, but wider and more advanced. Were such in existence it would furnish English students with similar encouragement to systematic study and similar opportunities to those provided in the better developed Continental schools.

In the University of Durham, in addition to the obligatory subjects, two optional subjects have to be chosen by candidates for the degree. These are selected out of a number of subjects, of which Economics is one. The knowledge required is not of an advanced nature.

In the University of London Economics holds no position but the somewhat unfortunate one of an optional subject for candidates proceeding from the B.A. to the M.A. degree in Moral Science, a position which at once restricts the number of students likely to study it, and prevents its study from extending beyond the knowledge of general theory. It is not a subject, either optional or obligatory, at any other examination.

In the Victoria University Economics, comprising Political Economy and Economic History, forms one of the twelve optional subjects, of which two have to be selected for the final year of study by candidates for the pass B.A. degree, the two other subjects being more or less restricted. Economic Theory or History may also be taken in conjunction with Modern History as one subject by candidates who wish, for instance, to take Modern History but not Ancient History. As, however, nearly all the other subjects are, with some difference of standard or period, subjects at the Intermediate or Second-year Examination, in some instances compulsory, and again in certain cases subjects at the final examination, the study of Economics, involving as it does the entry of the student upon a wholly new subject during his final year, is naturally discouraged. Further, Economic Theory (Political Economy), like any other arts or science subject, may, by permission, be substituted for one of the two selected general subjects, Ethics or Modern History, at the intermediate stage of the Law degree (LL.B.). A course of lectures in Political Economy has to be attended by candidates for the Honours degree in History. It is not a subject in the examination.

SCOTLAND.

By the regulations of the Commission applicable to all Scotch Universities Economics holds a two-fold position.

(a) With regard to the ordinary M.A. examination, it is one of the three optional subjects which have to be selected out of the usual arts and science subjects. In all, seven subjects must be taken, but of these four are more or less prescribed. The course which must be attended consists of at least 100 lectures.

(b) It is further a compulsory subject for the first examination for the Agricultural B.Sc. In this case the knowledge required is much slighter, and naturally much more closely related to rural economy.

IRELAND.

At Trinity College Economics is part of one of the seven groups in which the Honour degree may be taken, the other subjects in this group being History and Law. All candidates for the law degree must be graduates in Arts, but not necessarily graduates in honours, or if in honours, in this particular group. It is also included among the options for the pass degree.

In the Royal University of Ireland Economics (Political Economy) is an alternative with Ethics in one of the three groups, one of which must be passed by candidates for the ordinary pass B.A. In the examinations for the Honour degree (B.A.) it, with Civil and Constitutional History and General Jurisprudence, constitutes one of the six groups open to the student. It holds a very similar position in the examination for the M.A. degree.

—————————

The foregoing account shows clearly how little opportunity is given for the systematic study of Economics as a preliminary to degree examination, and especially in the case of honours. It is certainly very unfortunate that an able student anxious to graduate in honours is almost precluded from devoting a large amount of attention to the study of Economics.

In face of this tacit discouragement, so far as examinations are concerned, the provision for teaching made in many places by colleges and universities is almost a matter for surprise. At both Cambridge and Oxford it is satisfactory in all but one respect. It is varied, copious and comprehensive, but—and this is a matter of regret—it is not systematic. At each of these universities there is a professor engaged in active teaching, while other lecture courses are provided by college lecturers. At the universities and colleges in the rest of England the provision for teaching is of necessity less complete. At those best equipped, instruction in Economics depends on the energy and vigour of a single teacher, supplemented, perhaps, by an occasional course of lectures by some other Economist, while at the rest, if taught at all, it is attached to the duties of a teacher principally engaged in, and probably principally interested in, teaching some other subject, for, as a general rule, the teaching of Economics in conjunction with some other subject has meant little more than that the teacher of some other subject has had to give a course of lectures on General Economics. At two of the three colleges of the Victoria University Economics has separate teachers, at Liverpool one holding the rank of professor, at Manchester one holding that of a lecturer. At Leeds, on the other hand, there is no teacher of Economics. At the other university colleges in England the two London colleges possess each a professor, though the professor at King’s College delivers Economic lectures only during the six winter months. At the University College, Nottingham, Economic lectures are delivered by a professor at the same time engaged in teaching history and literature. The other colleges (Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield, and Newcastle) at present make no provision for teaching a subject which they find so discounted as a subject for examination.

In Wales two of the University Colleges (Aberystwith and Cardiff) have made some sort of provision for Economic teaching by the appoint. ment of lecturers in History and Political Economy, while at Bangor Economics is tacked on to the duties of the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Scotland there is a fully instituted chair of Political Economy at the University of Edinburgh, and measures are in progress for the endowment of a Professorship at Glasgow, where the Economic work has recently been performed by a lecturer acting as assistant to the Professor of Moral Philosophy. At St. Andrews a yearly course of lectures is delivered by the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Ireland, at Trinity College, Dublin, there is a Professorship of Economics. At the Queen’s Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway this teaching is combined with that of Jurisprudence, and limited to a very short portion of the year. Owing to the great differences existing between the courses delivered at the various institutions, and the entirely diverse character of the respective audiences, it is impossible to give any satisfactory statistics of attendance. From most quarters come complaints. Indeed, with the two possible exceptions of Oxford and Cambridge, it is difficult to imagine a more complete indifference to the scientific study of Economics than that displayed at the present time.

In addition to lectures, more informal instruction is often imparted to more advanced students, but the formation of a seminar in Economics has been undertaken but seldom, if at all. That this is due not to lack of will on the part of the teachers in those colleges where Economic teaching is entrusted to a separate teacher, but mainly to the singular deficiency in advanced or even moderately advanced students, is shown by the readiness with which individual instruction, often involving much sacrifice of time, is given to such students when they do present themselves. Such an institution can be successfully introduced only when Economic studies are so recognised as to be able to attract the abler students in a university or college.

Attempts to develop popular Economic instruction by means of evening classes, and separate courses of lectures, have been made by the University Colleges and other institutions, and by the Societies for the Extension of University Teaching; and at some of the former particular attention has been paid to the Economic teaching, noticeably at Owens College, Manchester, and University College, Liverpool. The class of students attracted to these lectures may be spoken of very favourably. From the reports and information supplied by the Societies, it would seem that though the attendance at Economic courses, when given, is good, the demand for them is not very great. The interest shown in the subject in some one or other of its branches is said to be reviving—certainly to be greater than it was some few years ago. There has been a decided increase in the demand for lectures on Economics, and subjects partially economic, during the last two years.

Economic studies in England require at the present time organisation and encouragement. As to the ability of English Economists and the quality of their contributions there can be no doubt; but, when compared with continental countries, England is sadly lacking in the number of Economic students. Where they have many, she has few. As has been said, this is largely due to the unfortunate positions to which Economics has been relegated in many Universities, and its neglect so far as professional callings are concerned. On the other hand, the revival of interest in Economic matters, so abundantly manifested, makes it more than ever desirable to provide means and opportunities for sound scientific training.

Source: Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries. Report of the Cunningham Committee, Report of the Sixty-Fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Oxford in August 1894, pp. 365-391.

Also: at the Biodiversity Heritage Library Website; and at Harvard College Library, Gift of the Overseers Committee to visit the Department of Economics.

Image Source: William Cunningham page at the Trinity College Chapel website.

 

Categories
Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Senior year political economy. Levi Hedge, 1825-30.

Political Economy was in the Harvard undergraduate program at least since 1825 when Levi Hedge included Jean Baptiste Say’s Treatise of Political Economy  (a textbook that cost approximately $67 in 2021 prices) as part of the senior year course in the offerings of the department of moral philosophy, civil polity and political economy. 

___________________________

DEPARTMENT OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, CIVIL POLITY, AND POLITICAL ECONOMY.

This is at present exclusively under the superintendence of Levi Hedge, LL. D., Alford Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity.

Instruction in this branch is conducted through studies and recitations in Stewart’s Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind; Paley’s Moral Philosophy; Brown’s Philosophy of the Human Mind, abridged by Dr. Hedge; Say’s Political Economy; and Rawle on the Constitution of the United States.

These studies commence with the Junior year, in Stewart’s Elements; the first volume of which the Class finish about the middle of October. After this they enter upon Paley’s Moral Philosophy, which they finish usually by the end of the first term. After the end of the first term, the Juniors do not recite in these branches during that year.

Recitations are made in divisions, each consisting of one half the Class. About two thirds of each division are taken up for examination at each recitation.

Besides the above, the Juniors have a Forensic exercise, under the instruction of the Professor in this branch, every other week, on Friday; the Junior and Senior classes alternating weekly with each other in this exercise.

Recitations in this branch are heard six days in the week; one division immediately after prayers, and the other division immediately after the study bell (about 8 o’clock); an hour being occupied with each division.

The Forensic every other Friday occupies two hours.

ln the Senior year instruction in this branch is recommenced, with Brown’s Treatise on the Mind. Both volumes of this work are finished by the sixth or seventh week of the second term. The Class then enter upon Say’s Political Economy, which is finished by about the eighth week in the third term. Rawle on the Constitution then succeeds in the course, and with it instruction in this branch ceases.

Rawle is one of those studies, which are denominated “optional”; it being within the option of each individual to study this work, or Smellie’s Natural History with the instructor in that branch. In all the books used as studies in this department, about twelve pages constitute the average length of a lesson.

Besides the preceding, two lectures are delivered every week during the second term (on Mondays and Wednesdays, at 10 o’clock) one hour each, on Civil Polity and on Locke’s Essay on the Understanding.

The members of this Class also each deliver a Forensic every other week, alternating, as above stated, with the Juniors, weekly in this exercise.

Recitations are heard in this branch in the first term for two hours in the afternoon, five days in one week, and four days in the next week, and so alternately through the term; the afternoon of every alternate Friday being reserved for the Forensic.

In the second and third terms, this Class recite to the Professor one hour every day; the whole together, or six hours per week.

As it respects the time occupied by each student and the Professor, it is as follows:—

In the Junior year a Forensic being delivered every other week, and forty weeks (viz. 15 in the first term, 12 in the second, and 13 in the third) constituting the business portion of the whole year, it follows that in this exercise both the student and Professor are occupied (2 x 20) during the year 40 hours.
Each division being heard for one hour every day in the week for the first term, the time employed by each student is (6 x 15) 90 hours.
The time occupied in the Junior year in this branch by the student is…. 130 hours.
The Professor being occupied with each division one hour, that is, two hours with both, there is an occupation of (12 x 15) 180 hours.
To which add the time occupied by him in Forensics 40 hours.
The time occupied by the Professor of this branch with the Juniors is… 220 hours.
The Seniors, in respect of time occupied in the Forensic exercise, coincide with the Juniors; there being employed in it, both for the student and for the Professor, 40 hours.
In respect of time occupied by this Class in recitations in this branch, it is equal in the first term, as above stated, for the student, to (5 x 7½) for half the time of the term (15 weeks), or to 37½ hours.
And (4 x 7½) for the other half, or to 30 hours.
Constituting an occupation for the student, for the whole term, of 67½ hours.
And double that time for the Professor, he hearing each day both divisions, 135 hours.
In the second and third terms, this Class occupy the Professor six hours per week. In both terms there are 25 weeks; so that the time occupied by both student and Professor in these terms, in recitations, is (6 x 25) 150 hours.
Besides which the lectures on Civil Polity and the writings of Locke, delivered in the second term to this Class, occupy two hours per week
(2 x 12)
24 hours.
So that the time occupied by the student in the Senior year in recitations, lectures, and all exercises in this branch is, as above stated,
In Forensics 40 hours.
In Recitations, the 1st term 67 ½ hours.
In Recitations, 2d and 3d terms 150 hours
And in Lectures 24 hours.
The time occupied by the student 281½ hours
And by the Professor,
In Forensics with the Seniors, 40 hours.
In Recitations, 1st term 135 hours.
In Recitations, 2d and 3d terms 150 hours.
In Lectures with 2d and 3d terms 24 hours.
The time occupied by the Professor 349 hours.
And the general result of the time occupied in all the exercises in this branch in the whole college course is,
For the student in the Junior year 130 hours.
For the student in the Senior year 281 ½ hours.
Result of occupation of time, in recitations, lectures, and like exercises in this branch for each student 411 ½ hours
And for the Professor with the Juniors 220 hours.
And for the Professor with the Seniors 349 hours.
Result of occupation, as above, for the Professor 569 hours.

 

Source: Fourth Annual Report of the President of Harvard University to the Overseers on the State of the Institution,1828-9. Appendix, p. ii-v.

________________________

Book prices

Hedge’s Logick ($0.70), Paley’s Philosophy ($2,00), Brown’s Philosophy (Hedge’s ed., $3.60), Stewart’s Philosophy ($2,40), Say’s Political Economy ($2.40).

Harvard University. First Annual Report of the President of Harvard University to the Overseers on the State of the University, 1825-6 .p. 51.

________________________

Text Links

Dugald Stewart. Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind. Vol. One (New York, 1818); Vol. Two (New York, 1818).

William Paley. The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. 10th American Edition, Boston: 1821.

Thomas Brown. Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind.  Abridged by Levi Hedge. Vol. One (Cambridge: 1827); Vol. Two (Cambridge: 1827).

Jean-Baptiste Say. A Treatise on Political Economy (trans. C. R. Prinsep). Third American Edition. Philadelphia: 1827.

William Rawle. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia: 1825.

________________________

One student’s recollection

Dr. Levi Hedge gave a series of profitable talks on International Law, in the second half hour of his recitations in Political Economy. Probably in the senior year (1828-29) as reported in the recollection by Samuel F. Smith (Harvard, A.B., 1829).

Source: The Harvard graduates’ magazine. vol. 2 (1893-94), December, 1893, p. 167.

________________________

Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography
Hedge, Levi

HEDGE, Levi, educator, b. in Hardwick, Mass., 19 April, 1766; d. in Cambridge, Mass., 3 Jan., 1844. He was graduated at Harvard in 1792, appointed a tutor in 1795, and in 1810 became professor of logic and metaphysics. In 1827 he exchanged that post for the Alford professorship of natural religion, moral philosophy, and civil polity, but was compelled by an attack of paralysis to resign in 1830. He published a “System of Logic” (Boston, 1818), which went through many editions, and was translated into German. He also prepared an abridgment of Brown’s “Mental Philosophy” (1827). — His son, Frederic Henry, educator, b. in Cambridge, Mass., 12 Dec., 1805; d. there, 21 Aug., 1890, was sent to school in Germany at the age of twelve, and remained five years. On his return he entered the junior class at Harvard, and was graduated in 1825. He then studied theology at the Cambridge divinity-school, was ordained in 1829, and settled over the Unitarian church in West Cambridge. In 1835 he took charge of a church in Bangor, Me.; in 1850, after spending a year in Europe, became pastor of the Westminster church in Providence, R. I., and in 1856 of the church in Brookline, Mass. In 1857 he was made professor of ecclesiastical history in the divinity-school at Harvard, still retaining his pastoral charge, but resigned the pastorship in 1872 in order to assume the professorship of the German language in the college. He was noted as a public lecturer as well as a pulpit orator. In 1853-‘4 he lectured on mediæval history before the Lowell institute. He became editor of the “Christian Examiner” in 1858. Besides essays on the different schools of philosophy, notably magazine articles on St. Augustine, Leibnitz, Schopenhauer, and Coleridge, and other contributions to periodicals in prose and poetry, he published “The Prose Writers of Germany,” containing extracts and biographical sketches (Philadelphia, 1848); “A Christian Liturgy for the Use of the Church” (Boston, 1856); “Reason in Religion” (Boston, 1865); and “The Primeval World of Hebrew Tradition” (1870). He also wrote hymns for the Unitarian church, and assisted in the compilation of a hymn-book (1853), and published numerous translations from the German poets.

Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Appletons%27_Cyclopædia_of_American_Biography/Hedge,_Levi

________________________

Exit, Levi Hedge

“From circumstances connected with the state of his [Levi Hedge] health, his services during the last six months have been dispensed with. The department during that period was conducted satisfactorily by George S. Hillard, one of the Proctors of the University.”

Source: Sixth Annual Report of the President of Harvard University to the Overseers on the State of the Institution,1830-31. Appendix, p. ii.

Image Source:  Levi Hedge, LL.D. Elements of Logick. Boston, 1827.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland,  “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

Categories
Harvard Teaching

Harvard. Graduate econometrics, first semester. Houthakker and Vanek, 1962

The transcription of the following partial (?) course syllabus was shared with Economics in the Rear-view Mirror by Vincent Carret, a doctoral candidate at Université Lumiere Lyon 2, Faculté des Sciences Économiques et de Gestion (FSEG). 

Perhaps there are others who would like to contribute to this project with the contribution of a transcription? If so, leave a comment below for me to get in touch with you.

_____________________

Course Announcement
1962-63

Economics 224a. Econometric Methods, I

Half course (fall term). W., F., 2-3:30. Professor [Hendrik] Houthakker and Assistant Professor [Jaroslav] Vanek.

An introduction to the use of multivariate statistical analyses in the study of economic behavior, with special emphasis on budgetary and other individual decision unit data.

Prerequisite: Economics 221[Quantitative Methods, II] or equivalent.

Source: Harvard University.  Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1962-1963, p. 105.

_____________________

Econometric Methods I
Economics 224a

Professors Houthakker and Vanek

Reading List #1                                                               Fall 1962

I. General References

Klein L., Introduction to Econometrics, (elementary)

Klein, L., A Textbook of Econometrics (advanced)

II. Household Consumption

Allen, R. G. D. and Bowley, A. L., Family Expenditures; a Study of its Variation, 1935

Prais, S. J. and Houthakker, H. S., The Analysis of Family Budgets, 1955

Houthakker, H. S., “An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns….,” Econometrica, October 1957

Friedman, M., A Theory of the Consumption Function, 1957

Kuh, E. and Meyer, J., “How Extraneous are Extraneous Estimates?” Review of Economics and Statistics, November 1957

Kuh, E. and Meyer, J., “Correlation and Regression Estimates When the Data are Ratios,” Econometrica, April 1959

Kuh, E., “The Validity of Cross-Sectionally Estimating Behavior Equations in True Series Applications,” Econometrica, April 1959

Friend, I. and Jones, R., Study of Consumer Expenditures, Income and Saving, 1960

Volume 1

Houthakker, H., and Haldi, J. (p. 175)
Peters, W. S. (p. 247)

Volume 2

Modigliani, F. and Ando, As. (p. 49)
Watts, H. W. and Tobin, J., (p. 1)
Bodkin, R., (p. 175)
Miner, J., (p. 400)

Rosett, R., “Working Wives” Studies in Household Economic Behavior (by T. Dernburg and others — Yale U. P. 1958

Aitcheson, J. and Prais, S. J., “The Treatment of Grouped Observations” Review International Statistic Institute, 1954

IV.  (sic) Investment

Meyer, J. and Kuh, E., The Investment Decision, 1957

Eisner, R., Determinants of Capital Expenditure, 1956

V. Cost Functions

Johnston, J., Statistical Cost Analysis

VI. Survey Methods

Survey Research Center (University of Michigan) 1960 Survey of Consumer Finances

Tobin, J., “On the Predictive Value of Consumer Intentions & Attitudes,” Rev. Econ. & Stat. February 1959

National Bureau of Economic Research, Quality and Economic Significance of Anticipations Data

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics, 1962-1963 (2 of 2)”.

Image Sources:

Hendrik Samuel Houthakker from website Find-A-Grave.

Jaroslav Vanek (1961 Fellow) from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation website.

Categories
Brown Columbia Curriculum Harvard Pedagogy Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Argument for more political economy in a liberal education. President Eliot, 1884

Harvard course offerings in political economy were increased significantly in the 1883-84 academic year. This expansion was consistent with President Charles W. Eliot’s vision of a Harvard education fit for the twentieth century as seen in the following paragraphs from his 1884 commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University.

The state of instruction in political economy at Harvard ca. 1870 was mentioned in his book Harvard Memories, pp. 70-71.

_________________________

Excerpt from “What is a Liberal Education?”

Commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University
22. February 1884 by Charles W. Eliot

[…] Closely allied to the study of history is the study of the new science called political economy, or public economics. I say the new science, because Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” was not published until 1776; Malthus’s “Essay on the Principle of Population” appeared only in 1798; and Ricardo’s “Political Economy and Taxation,” in 1817. The subject is related to history, inasmuch as it gleans its most important facts by the study of the institutions and industrial and social conditions of the past; it is the science of wealth in so far as it deals with the methods by which private or national wealth is accumulated, protected, enjoyed, and distributed; and it is connected with ethics in that it deals with social theories and the moral effects of economic conditions. In some of its aspects it were better called the science of the health of nations; for its results show how nations might happily grow and live in conformity with physical and moral laws. It is by far the most complex and difficult of the sciences of which modern education has to take account, and therefore should not be introduced too early into the course of study for the degree of Bachelor of Arts; but when it is introduced, enough of it should be offered to the student to enable him to get more than a smattering.

When we consider how formidable are the industrial, social, and political problems with which the next generations must grapple, — when we observe how inequalities of condition increase, notwithstanding the general acceptance of theories of equality; how population irresistibly tends to huge agglomerations, in spite of demonstrations that such agglomerations are physically and morally unhealthy; how the universal thirst for the enjoyments of life grows hotter and hotter, and is not assuaged; how the relations of government to society become constantly more and more complicated, while the governing capacity of men does not seem to increase proportionally; and how free institutions commit to masses of men the determination of public policy in regard to economic problems of immense difficulty, such as the problems concerning tariffs, banking, currency, the domestic carrying trade, foreign commerce, and the incidence of taxes, — we can hardly fail to appreciate the importance of offering to large numbers of American students ample facilities for learning all that is known of economic science.

How does the ordinary provision made in our colleges for the study of political economy meet this need of students and of the community? That I may not understate this provision, I will describe the provisions made at Columbia College, an institution which is said to be the richest of our colleges, and at Brown University, one of the most substantial of the New England colleges. At Columbia, Juniors must attend two exercises a week in political economy for half the year, and Seniors may elect that subject for two hours a week throughout the year. At Brown, Juniors may elect political economy two hours a week for half the year, and Seniors have a like privilege. The provision of instruction in Greek at Brown is five and a half times as much as the provision in political economy, and seven elevenths of the Greek is required of all students, besides the Greek which was required at school; but none of the political economy is required. Columbia College makes a further provision of instruction in history, law, and political science for students who are able to devote either one or two years to these subjects after taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts, or who are willing to procure one year’s instruction in these subjects by accepting the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy instead of the degree of Bachelor of Arts — a very high price to pay for this one year’s privilege. If this is the state of things in two leading Eastern colleges with regard to instruction in political economy, what should we find to be the average provision in American colleges? We should find it poor in quality and insignificant in amount. In view of this comparative neglect of a subject all-important to our own generation and to those which are to follow, one is tempted to join in the impatient cry, Are our young men being educated for the work of the twentieth century or of the seventeenth? There can be no pretense that political economy is an easy subject, or that it affords no mental discipline. Indeed, it requires such exactness of statement, such accurate weighing of premises, and such closeness of reasoning, that many young men of twenty, who have been disciplined by the study of Greek, Latin, and mathematics for six or eight years, find that it tasks their utmost powers. Neither can it be justly called a material or utilitarian subject; for it is full of grave moral problems, and deals with many questions of public honor and duty.

Source: Charles W. Eliot, “What is a Liberal Education”, Commencement address read 22 February 1884 at Johns Hopkins University, reprinted in his Educational Reform, Essays and Addresses. New York: Century (1901), pp. 106-109.

Image Source: Harvard University Archives. Hollis Image Collection. President Charles W. Eliot.

 

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Political Economy à la Francis Bowen, 1870

From time to time one digs up a nugget in the secondary literature that deserves its own post. Harvard President Charles W. Eliot (from 1869 to 1909), an advocate of putting more political economy into the curriculum, trash talks the quality of economics instruction when he took office.

Here two textbooks that had been inflicted upon Harvard College students in the pre-Dunbar days.

Francis Bowen (1856). The Principles of Political Economy Applied to the Condition, the Resources, and the Institutions of the American People. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1856.

Francis Bowen (1870). American Political Economy, including Strictures on the Management of the Currency and the Finances since 1861. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

________________________

Harvard’s retired president,
Charles W. Eliot, looking back at economics instruction à la Bowen

In respect to the teaching of political economy, or economics, I can perhaps give you some notion of the great change which has taken place since 1869 by describing the work done by Professor Francis Bowen, the only Harvard professor who then dealt at all with the subject of political economy. He gave only about a quarter of his time to that subject, because he had so many other subjects to deal with. His idea of teaching political economy was to write an elementary book on the subject, and to require the senior class — it was a required subject of the senior year — to read that book. He gave no lectures; he sometimes commented upon those pages of the book which had been assigned as the lesson of the day, to be repeated in the recitation room by those students who had studied the lesson. It is a long way from that condition of things to the present organization of the Department of Economics.

Source:  Charles William Eliot (1923), Harvard Memories. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 70-71.

Image Source: Harvard University. Hollis Images. Portrait (1891) of Francis Bowen by Edwin Tryon Billings.

 

Categories
M.I.T. Regulations Teaching Undergraduate

M.I.T. Dean’s request for writing requirements for elective subjects in economics department, 1953

 

The following exchange between the M.I.T. Dean of Humanities and Social Studies (John E. Burchard) and the representative of the chairperson of the Economics Department (Charles A. Myers covering for Ralph E. Freeman) gives us a short list of undergraduate courses that would have regularly had non-economics B.S. students attending to satisfy their distributional requirements in 1953. Dean Burchard’s informational request seems to be a fishing expedition with the hope of landing any evidence that some instructor in some course was helping to improve M.I.T. undergraduate writing skills. It is also interesting to see that sociology, psychology, and political science were all subjects  administered by the economics department.

____________________________

Dean Reminding Economics Department about Information Request

May 6, 1953

Memorandum to Professor [Charles Andrew] Myers:

I asked Ralph [Evans Freeman] a while ago to get me some information but have not heard from him and imagine it got left and wonder if you could undertake this survey for me in the near future and give me an answer.

The problem is that those of us who were worried about the English style of our students at M.I.T. are pretty certain that we will never get a good overall performance on the mere basis of instruction in the first two years where writing is required and read and criticized. The burden of continuously upholding the standard obviously is going to rest with the professional departments and I have no doubt there are great inconsistencies in this throughout the Institute, and I also have no doubt most of them are pretty remiss in this obligation.

Before starting any campaign on this question, however, it is obvious that I need to know whether the house of my own School is in point of fact in order, or if not how far it is out of order.

I accordingly asked Professor [Howard Russell] Bartlett and Professor [Ralph] Freeman to get me an indication of the amount of writing required in the various subjects which might be elected by students in the School. In the History Department this was obviously limited to non-professional subjects and for the moment I am more interested in the general electives in the Department of Economics than I am in what policing you do of your own majors. It would be more helpful to know about both.

What Professor Bartlett did was write me a general answer which told me how many papers were required each semester, the approximate length, and how many written examinations. I wonder if it would be possible for you to dig out the same information for the various appropriate subjects in the Department of Economics and report to me fairly soon. I would like to be thinking about this problem during the summer.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

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

Economics Department’s First Response to Dean’s Request for Information

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

May 11, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

This is in answer to your memorandum of May 6th. I guess this is something Ralph was unable to compete before he left and I thought I should get done promptly since I will be leaving tomorrow for the annual research meeting of the Committee on Labor Market Research of the Social Science Research Council in Minneapolis. George Shultz is one of the invited guests.

Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to list what the various people in charge of the various undergraduate subjects reported:

14.01 [Economic Principles I] ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 3 or 4 written hour examinations, mostly of the essay type
14.02 [Economic Principles II] ([Edgar Carey] Brown) — 4 written hour examinations, no term papers
14.03 [Prices and Production] ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 2 to 3 hour examinations; no term papers
14.09 [Economic Problems Seminar] ([Paul Anthony] Samuelson) — no written exams, but 2 written papers, one long and one short, plus oral presentation of the content of the paper prior to the submission of the written paper
14.51 [International Relations] ([Norman Judson] Padelford) — 8 written quizzes of 35 to 40 minutes in length; no term paper, except that sometimes there are written projects.
14.61 [Industrial Relations] (Doug [Douglass Vincent] Brown and [John Royston] Coleman) — 3 hour examinations and 3 written case reports
14.63 [Labor Relations] ([George Pratt] Shultz) — 3 written hour examinations and one term paper
14.64 [Labor Economics and Public Policy] ([George Benedict] Baldwin) — 3 hour examinations and one written term paper
14.70 [Introductory Psychology] ([George Armitage] Miller) — 2 or 3 written hour examinations, partly objective in character; no term paper
14.72 [Union-Management Relations] ([Joseph Norbert] Scanlon) — 2 hour examinations and a special paper on a particular case
14.73 [Organization and Communications in Groups] ([Alex] Bavelas and [Herbert Allen] Shepard) — 2 objective-type examinations and one written essay-type examination
14.75 [Experimental Psychology] ([Joseph Carl Robnett] Licklider) — no examinations, but a written paper on the experiment, suitable for publication — this latter test is never quite met but students are expected to write with that end in view
14.77 [Psychology of Communication] ([George Armitage] Miller) — 3 objective-type examinations
14.91 and 14.92 [The American Political System;
Comparative Political and Economic Systems]
([Jesse Harris] Proctor and [Roy] Olton) — 3 written hour exams, no term paper in the first term — 3 written hour exams plus a written term paper in the second term
15.30 [Personnel Administration] ([Paul] Pigors) — 4 written cases, one term paper and one hour examination

 

I think this pretty well covers the principal courses which are taken by undergraduate students in other departments. I think my own experience in teaching such undergraduate courses as 14.61 and 14.63 is similar to that of most of the staff, in that I have called attention to students of misspelled words, poor grammar, and generally poor organization and expression of written answers and papers. I really doubt if we can do much more or should do much more. It would be quite a task to go over each written examination with each student in detail, or even to do this after they have submitted a term paper. From time to time I have done this with some theses but not as a general rule, since the student is warned in advance that his grade will depend not only on content, but on expression.

I hope this gives you the information you need.

Sincerely
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

m:g

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

Follow-up Request by Dean

May 12, 1953

Memorandum to Professor Myers

Dear Charlie:

Your memorandum of yesterday answers my question about the writing in part.

I guess I agree, though I wish I didn’t have to, that people in the department cannot be expected to act as writing critics for students who are still defective in their English. Though I wish more people required papers and fewer examinations, this is obviously a matter of individual teachers’ methods.

The remaining question which I think is not answered is I believe a critical one, namely, does poor writing really result in a lower grade, and if it does is that single comment written on to the paper when it is returned with the grade to the student?

I hate to trouble you further but wonder if you would be able to explore this with the same group of people.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

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

Economics Department’s Response to Follow-up Request by the Dean

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

June 1, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

These are some further thoughts on your memo of May 12th, asking me to check again on whether poor writing really results in a lower grade in our courses and whether comments are written on the papers when they are returned with grades to the students.

Nearly everyone with whom I have talked here agrees that poor writing does result in a lower grade, if by “poor writing” is meant poor organization, hasty sentence construction, and confusing or fuzzy thinking as expressed in written words. Poor spelling apparently does not count so much, although Bob Bishop and I specifically do encircle misspelled words on written exams and papers. Comments on poor organization, etc., are specifically written on papers and exams when returned to students, and I know that many of us have stressed to students before writing exams and papers that their grades will depend in part on the way in which their material is organized and presented.

One further experience might be of interest in connection with your comment that you wish more people would require papers and fewer examinations. During the past term Jim Baldwin gave term papers in 14.64 and found that the pressure of senior theses on the students was so great that they did a very poor job on the papers. His grades reflect this, but he is bothered about the apparent conflict between the senior thesis and the term paper requirement in senior Humanities and Social Studies courses. Maybe we ought to place more emphasis on good writing in the senior thesis in the Department and in other Departments.

Sincerely,
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

CAM:dg

Source: M.I.T., Institute Archives and Special Collections, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Office of the Dean, Records, 1934-1964. Box 3, Folder “103, Economics Department, General, March 1951-1956”.
For [first and middle names of instructors] and [course titles]: Course Catalogue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1952-53.

Image Source: (Left) John Burchard ; (Right) Charles A. Myers. MIT Museum Legacy Website (People Collection).

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Principles Suggested Reading Syllabus Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Principles of Economics. Reading assignments, Exams, 1928

 

Partial course outlines from Harvard’s principles of economics course from 1927-28 and 1928-29 were found filed with the economics course outlines for 1938-39 in the Harvard Archives. The principal instructors for the courses in both years were Harold Hitchings Burbank and Edward Hastings Chamberlin, so combining the first semester outline from 1928-29 with the second semester outline from 1927-28 as transcribed below gives us a synthetic syllabus for the 1927-29 years. This post also includes enrollment figures for the two academic years as well as the corresponding semester final exams for the course. Links to the assigned textbooks have been added to complete the package.

____________________________

Course Announcement and Description

ECONOMICS
GENERAL STATEMENT

Course A is introductory to the other courses. It is intended to give a general survey of the subject for those who take but one course in Economics, and also to prepare for the further study of the subject in advanced courses. It may not be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor. Students concentrating in Economics should elect Course A in their Sophomore year, except in unusual cases. History 1 or Government 1, or both of these courses, will usually be taken to advantage before Economics A…

INTRODUCTORY COURSES
Primarily for Undergraduates

A. Principles of Economics

Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Professor [Harold Hitchings] Burbank, Dr. [Edward Hastings] Chamberlin, Dr. [Charles Holt] Taylor, and Messrs. [John Bever] Crane, [Melvin Gardner] de Chazeau, [Edgar Jerome] Johnson, [Delmar] Leighton, [Talcott] Parsons, [Carl Johann] Ratzlaff, [James Harold] Shoemaker, [Samuel Sommerville] Stratton, [John Phillip] Wernette, [Harry Dexter] White and [Earle Micajah] Winslow; with lectures on selected subjects by Professor [Frank William] Taussig and other Members of the Department.

Course A gives a general introduction to economic study, and a general view of Economics for those who have not further time to give to the subject. It undertakes an analysis of the present organization of industry, the mechanism of exchange, the determination of value, and the distribution of wealth.

The course is conducted entirely by oral discussion in sections. Taussig’s Principles of Economics is used as the basis of discussion.

Course A may not be taken by Freshmen without the consent of the instructor.

SourceOfficial Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXV, No. 29 (May 26, 1928). Division of History, Government, and Economics 1928-29, pp. 63-64.

____________________________

Enrollment in Economics A, 1928-29

[Economics] A. Professor Burbank and Dr. Chamberlin, Dr. Taylor and Messrs. Leighton, Stratton, Winslow, O.H. Taylor, E.J. Johnson, de Chazeau, Parsons, Wernette, H.D. White, and Ratzlaff, Crane and Shoemaker. — Principles of Economics.

Total 477: 55 Seniors, 127 Juniors, 242 Sophomores, 26 Freshmen, 27 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1928-29, p. 71.

 

____________________________

EXHIBIT D
First Half

OUTLINE OF STUDY FOR ECONOMICS A
1928-29

Hubert D. Henderson. Supply and Demand. (New York: 1922).

D. H. Robertson. The Control of Industry (London: 1923).

Frank W. Taussig. Principles of Economics, Vol. I, 3rd edition, (New York: 1921).

Sept. 27
Sept. 29
Lecture.
Lecture.
Oct. 1 – 6 Taussig, Principles 1. Wealth and Labor.
2. Labor in Production.
3. Division of Labor and Development of Modern Industry.
Oct. 8 – 13


Robertson
4. Large Scale Production.
5. Capital.
6. Corporate Organization of Industry.
1 – 3. Control of Industry.
Oct. 15 – 20 Taussig

8. Exchange, Value, Price.
9. Value and Utility.
10. Market Value. Demand and Supply.
Oct. 22 – 27

17. Coinage.
18. Quantity.
19. Secs. 2, 3, 4: History of Prices.
Oct. 29 – Nov. 3

20. Bimetallism.
22. Changes in Prices.
23. Government Paper Money
Nov. 5 – 10
24. Banking and Medium of Exchange.
25. Banking Operations.
Nov. 12 – 17

27. Banking System of United States
28. Crises.
29. Panics.
Nov. 19 – 24

Hour Exam
30. Prices.
31. Reform.
Nov. 26 – Dec. 1


Henderson
Review 8, 9, 10.
12. Constant Cost.
13. Diminishing Returns.
Demand and Supply (Nov. 26 to Dec. 15).
Dec. 3 – 8 Taussig
14. Varying Cost.
15. Monopoly.
Dec. 10 – 15
Henderson:
16. Joint Cost and Joint Demand.
Ch. 5. Demand and Supply.
Dec. 17 – 22 Taussig 32. The Foreign Exchanges
RECESS Dec. 23 to Jan. 2
Reading Period Jan. 2 to 16  [No additional reading requirements]
Jan. 2 – 7 Taussig
33. International Payments.
34. International Trade.
Jan. 9 – 14
36. Protection.
37. Free Trade.
MIDYEARS:

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 2; Folder “Economics, 1938-1939 [sic].”

____________________________

1928-29
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS A
[Mid-Year Examination, 1929]

  1. Many business men are hoping for a period of rising prices; some financial writers are prophesying that it is inevitable. Assuming no change in our existing monetary and banking laws, what causes might lead to an increase in prices? How would such rising prices tend to affect the holders of various types of securities?
  2. “Some people argue that price is determined by cost of production; and yet they admit that producers with too high costs have to drop out. Thus it is clear that in reality a producer’s cost is determined by the price he can get, consequently price cannot be determined by cost of production.” Comment on this statement.
  3. What influence has the existence of joint cost upon the development of large scale production?
  4. It has been stated that with the Federal Reserve System in operation there will never be a recurrence in the United States of such (a) crises and (b) panics as occurred in 1893 and 1907. Do you agree?
  5. What attitude toward the tariff would you expect to be taken by a banker who has made large loans abroad, by a manufacturer of woolen cloth, by a professor of economics, by a Louisiana politician?
  6. Explain briefly:
    1. The principles of subsidiary coinage.
    2. The relation between markets and the division of labor.
    3. The distinction between consumers’ goods and producers’ goods.
    4. The significance of the following: “The plentifulness of money is in itself a matter of indifference.”

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-Year examinations, 1852-1943. Box 11, Bound volume: Examination Papers: Mid-Years 1929, Papers Printed for Mid-Year Examinations [in] History, New Testament, Government, Economics….Military Science, Naval Science. January-February, 1929.

____________________________

Enrollment in Economics A, 1927-28

[Economics] A. Professor Burbank and Dr. Chamberlin and Messrs. K.W. Bigelow, [Theodore John] Kreps, Stratton, Winslow, O.H. Taylor, E.J. Johnson, de Chazeau, Parsons, Wernette, H.D. White, and D.V. Brown, with lectures on selected subjects by Professor Taussig and other Members of the Department. — Principles of Economics.

Total 532: 61 Seniors, 165 Juniors, 258 Sophomores, 20 Freshmen, 28 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1927-28, p. 74.

____________________________

OUTLINE OF ASSIGNMENTS FOR ECONOMICS A
1927-28, 2nd. Half year.

Thomas Nixon Carver. The Distribution of Wealth (New York: 1921).

Hubert D. Henderson. Supply and Demand. (New York: 1922).

D. H. Robertson. The Control of Industry (London: 1923).

Frank W. Taussig. Principles of Economics, 3rd edition, (New York: 1921). Volume I, Volume II.

Feb. 6

Feb. 11

Review
Value
Diminishing Returns
Carver:

Distribution of Wealth
Ch. I. Value
Ch. II. Diminishing Returns
Feb. 13

Feb. 18

Rent Carver:
Taussig:
V. Rent
Ch. 44. Rent (esp. Capitalization)
Ch. 43. Urban Site Rent
Feb. 20

Feb. 25

Interest Carver:
Taussig:
Ch. VI. Interest
Ch. 40. Interest
Feb. 27

Mar. 3

Wages Carver:
Taussig:
Ch. IV. Wages
Ch. 47. Social Stratification
Mar. 5

Mar. 10

Profits, Population Carver:
Taussig:
Ch. VII. Profits
Ch. 53. Population
Ch. 54. Population, continued
Mar. 12

Mar. 17

Inequality Taussig:


Ch. 7. Productiveness
Ch. 45. Monopoly
Ch. 51. Great Fortunes
Ch. 55. Inequality
Mar. 19

Mar. 24

Land, Risk, Labor, etc. Henderson:



Ch. VI. Land
Ch. VII. Risk Bearing Enterprise
Ch. VIII. Capital
Ch. IX. Labor
Ch. X. Real Costs of Production
Mar. 26

Mar. 31

Labor Taussig:

Ch. 56. Wages system
Ch. 57. Labor Unions
Ch. 58. Labor Legislation
Apr. 2

Apr. 7

Labor

Ch. 59. Industrial Peace
Ch. 60. Workmen’s Insurance
Ch. 61. Coöperation
RECESS April 8-14
Apr. 16

Apr. 21

Railways
Ch. 62. Railways
Ch. 63. Railway Problems, continued.
Apr. 23

Apr. 28

Public Ownership & Combinations
Ch. 64. Public Ownership & Control
Ch. 65 Combinations & Trusts
Apr. 30

May 5

Industry and Capitalism Robertson:


Review
Ch. V. Capitalism of Industry
Ch. VI. Finance and Industry
Ch. VII. Survey of CapitalismCh. X. Workers’ Control
May 7
READING PERIOD BEGINS
May 12
Socialism Taussig:
Ch. 66. Socialism
Ch. 67. Socialism, continued.
May 14

May 19

Social Reform Robertson:

Ch. IX. Collectivism
Ch. X. Workers Control
Ch. XI. Joint Control
May 21

May 26

Taxation

Taussig:

Ch. 68. Principles Underlying Taxation
Ch. 69 Income and Inheritance Taxes
REVIEW
EXAMINATIONS

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 2; Folder “Economics, 1938-1939 [sic].”

____________________________

1927-28
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS A
[Final End-year Examination]

Allow one hour and one-half for the first question.

  1. Explain how the distribution of wealth is affected by the following:
    1. Large and rapid changes in the supply of money.
    2. Labor saving inventions.
    3. A rise in the standard of living of the wage earning classes.
    4. The opening for settlement of new areas of good agricultural land.
    5. The government regulation of public utilities.
  2. Discuss the accuracy of the following statements:
    “Three generations from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves.”
    “The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer.”
    “To abolish wage slavery we must abolish the wages system; only through socialism can the wages system be forced to disappear.”
    “The one way a union can help its members is by limitation of the supply of hands.”
  3. What does each of the following propose: collectivism, single tax, producers’ coöperation, syndicalism?
  4. Explain briefly the case for and against minimum wage laws, unemployment insurance, progressive taxation of incomes, the restriction of immigration.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination papers, Finals (HUC 7000.28). Bound Volume 70 (1928). Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, Church History,…Economics,…Military Science, Naval Science, June 1928.

Image Source: Harold Hitchings Burbank from Harvard Class Album 1934.

Categories
Bibliography Teaching Undergraduate Wisconsin

AEA Publications. Bibliography from article “Economics as a School Study”. Clow, 1899

 

This post provides (i) information on the life and career of Harvard’s tenth Ph.D. in economics, Frederick Redman Clow and (ii) the useful bibliography to his AEA publication, “Economics as a School Subject”. 

______________________

Frederick Redman Clow
(From his Oshkosh obituary)

Born Nov. 29, 1864 in Lysle, Minnesota.

High school in Austin, Minnesota.

Classical A.B. from Carleton college in 1889

1889-1890. Editor of the Weekly Independent at Northfield, Minnesota.

A.B. from Harvard university in 1891.

1892-93. Editor of Clow’s Political Circular and the Literary Northwest.

A.M. from Harvard in 1892.

Ph.D. from Harvard in 1899.

Instructor of economics at Harvard 1893-1895.

Oshkosh Normal 1895 through 1930.

Married Minnie Baldwin at Northfield Minnesota in 1895.

Daughters: Lucia Baldwin Clow (b. 1896) and Bertha Cochrane Clow (b. 1902). Son Nathan Clow (b. ca. 1904)

Summer 1904. Taught economics at the University of Chicago.

Summer 1912. Taught sociology at the university of Michigan.

1927 Quiver (Oshkosh Normal Yearbook) dedicated to Frederick Clow.

Died July 6, 1930. Following nine months’ illness.

Memberships.

National Society for the Study of Educational Sociology
American Economics Association
Philosophical Club
Pi Gamma Mu (National social science honor society)
Phi Beta Kappa (national honorary scholastic fraternity)
Phi Beta Sigma (educational fraternity)

Books:

Introduction to the Study of Commerce (Silver, Burdett and company, 1901).

A Syllabus for an Elementary Course in Economics3rd ed. (Castle-Pierce Printing Company, 1908).

Principles of Educational Sociology (Macmillan, 1920)

Book manuscripts completed before death (unpublished?) according to his obituary:

The School and Its Institutional Background

Personology: The Great Synthesis.

 

SourceThe Daily Northwestern (Oshkosh, Wisconsin) July 7, 1930 pp. 1,4.

______________________

From Annual President’s Report of Harvard College

1890-1891

Appointed Proctor, June 23, 1891.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1890-1891. Page 206

 

1892-1893.

Appointed Instructor in Political Economy, June 27, 1893.

Appointed Proctor, June 27, 1893.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1892-1893. Pages 228-9.

 

1893-1894.

Listed among teachers for Economics 1. Professors Taussig and Ashley, Asst. Professor Cummings and Mr. Clow.

Appointed Instructor in Political Economy, May 28, 1894.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1893-1894. Page 61; Ibid., 1893-1894. Page 232.

 

1894-95.

Listed among teachers for Economics 1. Professor Ashley, Asst. Professor Cummings, Dr. Cummings, and Mr. Clow.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1894-1895. Page 62.

 

1898-1899.

Awarded Ph.D., Political Science.  (Political Economy) in 1899

Frederick Redman Clow.

Public Finance.—A.B. (Carleton Coll., Minn.) 1889, A.B. 1891, A.M. (Carleton Coll., Minn.) 1892, A.M. 1892.—Res.Gr. Stud., 1891-92 and 1893-95.

Teacher of history and Economics, State Normal School, Oshkosh, Wis.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1898-1899. Page 144.

______________________

Bibliography from Clow’s “Economics as a School Study” (1899)

PREFACE.

The following sources have contributed most of the information given in this paper or used in its preparation:

  1. The books and articles named in the bibliography, especially the Report of the Committee of Ten, and the writings of Professors J. Laurence Laughlin, Richard T. Ely, Edmund J. James, and Simon N. Patten. Much use has been made of an article by Dr. Frank H. Dixon, now of Dartmouth College.
  2. My own experience as a teacher of economics — for two years as instructor in charge of two sections of the beginning class in economics in a university, and for three years in a normal school.
  3. Data in manuscript. In the spring of 1897 I sent out a circular letter of inquiry to over two hundred educational institutions, and to a few university professors. The institutions included medium-sized colleges, public normal schools, and high schools in the larger cities, all so selected as to represent the various sections of the country. To the scores of people who so kindly responded to my inquiries, I am deeply indebted. Dr. Dixon generously allowed me to use a similar mass of material collected by him from schools which prepare students for the University of Michigan, and granted permission to use the data to controvert his own conclusions.

I have tried to include in the bibliography all books and articles relating to economics as a school study, or to methods of teaching economics, and also all text-books now offered by publishers. With a few exceptions, the bibliography is restricted to works published in the United States.

My chief aim has been to promote the further investigation of the place of economics in the school curriculum and of the methods to be employed in teaching it. Therefore much space has been given to the statement of the views of others, even when they conflict with each other and with my own. As far as possible these views are presented in the original words, although the result has been to introduce an excessive number of quotations.

F. R. CLOW.

State Normal School, Oshkosh, Wis.,
May, 1898.

[…]

APPENDIX B.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.

(The date after a title is the author’s date. All books are 12mo. unless otherwise indicated. Prices marked with an asterisk (*) are net; from others discounts will be given to schools or for introduction.)

BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON TEACHING ECONOMICS.

American Economic Association. Economic Studies, Vol. III, No. I, supplement, 50¢. Discussions: The relation of the teaching of economic history to the teaching of political economy, pp. 88-101; methods of teaching economics, pp. 105-111.

Ashley, W. J., of Harvard. On the Study of Economic History, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, VII: 115-136. States the position of the Historical School of Economists.

Barnard’s American Journal of Education, X: 105-115, from the British Almanac for 1860. Describes the work in economics in the school founded by William Ellis at Birbeck, England.

Bullock, C. J. Political Economy in the Secondary School, in Education, XI: 539-47. Excellent discussion of methods.

Clow, F. R. Elementary Economics in Schools and Colleges, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, XII: 73-75. Statistics of schools, teachers, and text-books.

Committee of Ten. Report of the Committee on Secondary School Studies, including the report of the Conference on History, Civil Government and Political Economy, pp. 29, 181-3. Government printing office, Washington, for the United States Bureau of Education. Also by the American Book Co., 25¢. See Appendix A.

Commons, J. R. Political Economy and Sociology in the High School, in The Inland Educator, December, 1895. Favors observational study.

Cossa, Luigi. Introduction to the Study of Political Economy. Macmillan. 1893. pp. 587. $2.60. Treats well the value of economic knowledge and the relation of economics to other studies.

Dixon, F. H., of Dartmouth College. The Teaching of Economics in the Secondary Schools, in the third Year-Book of the National Herbartian Society, pp. 128-137; also in the School Review for January, 1898. Favors substituting economic history for economics in the secondary schools.

Ely, Richard T., of University of Wisconsin. On Methods of Teaching Political Economy, pp. 61-72, in Methods of Teaching and Studying History, edited by G. Stanley Hall. 2d ed., 1885. Heath: Boston. Contains useful practical hints.

________ Political Economy in the High School, in School Education, March, 1895. Treats educational value and methods.

Fulcomer, Daniel. Instruction in Sociology in Institutions of Learning, in report of Commissioner of Education, 1894-5, Vol. II, pp. 1211-1221. A collection of opinions and statistics.

James, Edmund J., of Chicago University. The Education of Business Men: a View of the Organization and Courses of Study in the Commercial High Schools of Europe. The University of Chicago Press, 1898. 8vo. pp. xxi, 232. 50¢. Also in Report of Commissioner of Education, 1895-6, Vol. I, pp. 721-831. A detailed account.

________ Place of the Political and Social Sciences in Modern Education, in Annals, Vol. X, No. 3; also Publications, No. 216. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia. 1897. pp. 30. 25¢. A strong article; urges greater prominence for the social sciences, including economics, in all grades of our educational system.

Jostad, B. M. How and What May We Teach of Political Economy in Grades below the High School? Wisconsin Journal of Education, XXIX, 12-14. Suggests several topics.

Keynes, J. N., of Cambridge, England. The Scope and Method of Political Economy. Macmillan. 1890. pp. xiv, 359. $2.25. Though not treating directly of methods of teaching, it gives the best discussion of the nature of economic science that exists in English.

Dunbar, C. F., of Harvard. The Academic Study of Political Economy, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, V: 397-416. Its place in colleges and universities.

Laughlin, J. L., of Chicago University. Teaching of Economics, in Atlantic Monthly, LXXVII: 682-688. Urges teaching of economics in secondary schools. Trenchant criticism of methods.

________ The Study of Political Economy. American Book Co. 1885. 16mo. pp. 153. $1.00. Designed for students and teachers. The best book of the kind. Contains brief bibliography, including French and German works.

Macvane, S. M., of Harvard. The Economists and the Public, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, IX: 132-150. Favors making the study concrete and working from actual facts.

Newcomb, Simon. The Problem of Economic Education, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, VII: 375-399. Discusses the low popular estimate of economic science and shows the value of studying economic theory.

Patten, Simon N., of University of Pennsylvania. Economics in Elementary Schools, in Publications, No. 136. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia. 1894. 8vo. pp. 29. 25¢. A philosophical discussion of the ethical value of economic study. Substantially the same ideas are given in a paper by Professor Patten in Addresses and Proceedings of the National Educational Association for 1892, pp. 415-421.

________ The Educational Value of Political Economy, in Publications of the American Economic Association. 8vo. pp. 36. 75¢. Confined to mental discipline; profound and original.

Sherwood, Sidney, of Johns Hopkins University. The Philosophical Basis of Economics, in Annals, Vol. X, No. 2; also Publications, No. 209. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia. 1897. 8vo. pp. 35. 35¢. Claims for economics the position of master-science in the group which includes ethics, aesthetics, politics, and sociology.

Taussig, F. W., of Harvard University. The Problem of Secondary Education as regards Training for Citizenship, in Educational Review, XVII: 431-439. Favors teaching economics and explains the poor results so far obtained.

Taylor, W. G. L., of the University of Nebraska. Write Your Own Political Economy, in The Northwestern Monthly, Lincoln, Neb. September, 1898. Each student is to develop economic theory in a series of essays.

Thurston, H. W. The Teaching of Economics in Secondary Schools, in School Review, IV: 604-616. Favors the laboratory method.

Thwing, C. F., President of Western Reserve University. The Teaching of Political Economy in Secondary Schools, in Addresses and Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 1895, pp. 370-374. Shows how the subject can be made intelligible to the young.

 

TEXT-BOOKS.

Andrews, E. B. Institutes of Economics. 1889. Silver, Burdett & Co., Boston, pp. xii, 227. $1.30. New arrangement. Contains references to works in foreign languages. Excessively condensed.

Bowen, F. American Political Economy. 1870. Scribner. 8vo. pp. ix, 495. Formerly a popular text-book for colleges. Protectionist.

Bullock, C. J., of Cornell University. Introduction to the Study of Economics. Silver, Burdett & Co. 1897. pp.511. $1.28. Contains much descriptive matter, bibliography, and references. An excellent all-around text-book.

Cannan, E. Elementary Political Economy. Macmillan. 16mo. 25¢.

Champlin, J. T. Lessons in Political Economy. 1868. American Book Co. pp. 219. 90¢. Gives much attention to the financial question of thirty years ago.

Davenport, H. J. Outlines of Elementary Economics. Macmillan. 1897. pp. xiv, 280. 80¢. Contains excellent pedagogical helps. No descriptive matter is given, and the work is strictly theoretical. New arrangement. The same author has written Outlines of Economic Theory. 1896. $2.00.*

Devine, E. T. Economics. Macmillan. 1898. pp.404. $1.00. Designed as an introduction to the study of social problems.

Ely, R. T., of the University of Wisconsin. Outlines of Economics. 1893. Flood & Vincent, Meadville, Pa., Chautauqua edition, pp. xi, 347, $1.00. Hunt & Eaton, now Eaton & Main, Boston, college edition, 1893, pp. xii, 432, $1.25. Extensively used. Contains questions and references to other authorities. The college edition contains a list of topics for special work and a bibliography.

Fawcett, Mrs. Political Economy for Beginners. Macmillan. 2nd edition, 1872. 18mo. pp. xii, 216. 90¢. An English work for secondary schools. With questions and problems.

Gregory, J. M. New Political Economy. 1882. American Book Co. pp. 394. $1.20. By an experienced teacher. Numerous suggestive diagrams and tables.

Jevons, W. S. Political Economy (Primer). American Book Co. 35¢.

Laughlin, J L. The Elements of Political Economy. 1887. American Book Co. pp. xxiv, 363. $1.20. Contains pedagogical questions at end of each chapter, charts and other descriptive matter, and the same bibliography as the Study of Political Economy. Part II treats of practical questions of the day.

Laveleye, Emil de. The Elements of Political Economy. 1888. Putnams. pp. xxxvii, 288. $1.50. By the eminent French economist. With introduction and supplementary chapter by Professor Taussig.

Macvane, S. M., of Harvard University. The Working Principles of Political Economy. Maynard, Merrill & Co. 1889. pp. x, 392 $1.00. Intended for high schools, “with a constant eye on actual affairs.”

Mason and Lalor. The Primer of Political Economy. 1875. McClurg, Chicago, pp. 67. 60¢. Definitions and propositions to be memorized.

Newcomb, Simon. Principles of Political Economy. Harper. 1885. pp. xvi, 548. $2.50. Purely theoretical; contains pedagogical questions. Some portions are unsurpassed for clearness.

Perry, A. L., of Williams College. Principles of Political Economy. Scribner. 1898. pp. 600. $2.00. New arrangement. Nearly thirty years ago the same author wrote Elements of Political Economy and Introduction to Political Economy, which are still in use as text-books.

Seligman, E. R. A., of Columbia. Elements of Political Economy; with Special Reference to American Conditions. In preparation. Longmans, Green & Co.

Steele, G. M. Rudimentary Economics. 1891. Leach, Shewell & Sanborn, now Sibley & Ducker. pp. xvi, 213. 80¢. Based on Carey. Suitable for high schools. Simple enough to use as a reader.

Symes, J. E., of England. Political Economy. Longmans, Green, & Co. pp. 204. 90¢.* With problems for solution and hints for supplementary reading.

Thompson, R. E. Political Economy. 1895. Ginn. pp. 108. 55¢. Intended for secondary schools. Protectionist.

Thurston, H. W. A Beginner’s Book in Economics and Industrial History. In preparation. Scott, Foresman & Co. Part I, a laboratory study of existing economic structure. Part II, economic history of England and the United States. Part III, theory. Based on the author’s experience in a high school. Discusses methods of teaching and contains much pedagogical matter; also bibliography.

Walker, F. A. Political Economy. Holt. Briefer course, 1884, pp. 415, $1.20.* Advanced course, 3rd ed., 1887, pp. 537, $2.00.* First Lessons in Political Economy. pp. x, 323. $1.00. Contain the author’s peculiar view of distribution. Were the most popular text-books in existence for a decade.

 

Source: Frederick Redman Clow, A.M. Economics as a School Study. Economic Studies, Vol. IV, No. 3 (June, 1899), pp. 242-246

Image Source: Faculty portrait of Frederick R. Clow in Quiver, Yearbook of Oshkosh Normal School 1906, p. 16.